The J-TAC (Stephenville, Tex.), Vol. 171, No. 6, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 2, 2006 Page: 3 of 12
twelve pages : b&w ; page 23 x 14 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Opinion
March 2, 2006 The J-TAC
Page 3
RATINGS
uLYMP/CS
Letter from the Editor
Dear Readers,
Howdy Texans and
TexAnns!
Every day I grow
more and more appre-
ciative of the wonderful
faculty of Tarleton State
University. Though I'm
sure rxiany students have profes-
sors they absolutely despise, I
cari generally say that every one
of them is great. ;
This is illustrated particu-
larly well on this week's Opinion
Page. Just take a look below
and you'll see two letters from
Tarleton professors (one from a
recurring submitter, for which
I am grateful) as well as a guest
column from communications
professor Dr. Howard.
Sometimes while on the staff
of The J-TAC it's hard to remem-
ber that we're not just catering to
the student audience. After all,
we're all students. In fact, The
J-TAC is for everyone connected
to Tarleton — students, faculty,
staff, alumni, retirees and friends
of the university.
So in the style of Bud Light's
"Real Men of Genius," I'd like
to say; 'Today we salute you,
Tarleton faculty members." (Cue
the annoying, high-pitched back-
Letters to the Editor
Writer, The J-TAC should have done better \ 2:1 study rule is effective, but college cost
job with KTRL Battle of the Bands review \ blame should be placed on legislature
Dear Editor,
I'm going to defer to the great philo-
sophical mindfs on this campus and let
them discuss the pressing issues of free
speech and religious intolerance. I would
like to instead comment on something a
little more mundane, your recent review of
KTRL's Battle of the Bands at Bostock's last
Saturday night.
Quite frankly, the review sucked on
a number of levels. First and foremost,
the author did not even bother to stay for
the whole event but left after only three
bands had played. I don't know if it was
past the author's bedtime or what, but he
should not have wasted our time review-
ing an event that he barely even attended.
Moreover, the paper should not have let
him review the performance if he couldn't
find time in his busy journalist schedule to
stay to hear all the bands, Would you let an
individual review a book he hadn't read or
a movie he hadn't seen?
Second, go easy on the bands — unless
you can do better. Chuck Norris is not my
cup of tea either. That is because I'm an old
man. But the band, and its raucous and
angry music, does relate to an important
segment o^young people today — those
kids who are not excited about growing up
to be accountants, car salesmen, members
of the George Bush fan club or cannon fod-
der in Iraq. Rock-and-roll, at its elemental
level, has always been about teen alien-
ation from the status quo and, in its unique
way, Chuck Norris carries on this tradition
very well. Moreover, even though the band
members probably don't explicitly realize
it, their show, with its blow-up dolls and so
forth, was a form of rough "performance
art" and, I think, quite effective as such.
Give 'em a break, Mr. Reviewer.
Stephenville, believe or not, has a very
dynamic local music scene that does not
center on rehashed Pat Green songs. Bands
such as Hurt Street, the Steve Dave Band,
Monument, Affliction, Chuck Norris, Sur-
realism and others have large and devoted
followings, And for an outstanding reason
— they are actually very good bands and
speak to the concerns of many young
people. KTRL's Battle of the Bands was an
excellent showcase for this music and a
chance for these musicians to perform in
public. Mr. Reviewer did an extreme dis-
service to our town with his self-centered,
irresponsible and snide pan of the show.
These bands and their audience would
have been much better served if he had
stayed home and listened to his George
Strait albums.
Chris Guthrie
Professor, History
Dear Editor,
I applaud your Feb. 23 edition
with its many useful tips on "surviv-
ing college," as you put it, yet at the
same time I am dismayed to learn that
survival is what you and your staff
think is the goal c>f students these
days. Even more dismaying is the
probability that you are right. It was
not always so.
When I started college as a 26-
year-old freshman at Utah State
University, back in 1967, attending
college was a great adventure. I loved
every minute of it, even the excruciat-
ing experience of failing calculus and
physics in the same semester, because
it signaled to me that opportunities
abounded in the humanities and social
sciences, where I soon found my intel-
lectual home. Survival, however, was
never on my mind. It was continuing
the adventure in learning that I had
embarked upon, which kept me going
forward. And it was there, in Logan,
Utah, that my chemistry teacher
advised us all to spend at least two
hours in study for every hour spent
in class. I barely made it through that
class with a D, but I took his advice to
heart, and I still do, forty years later,
as a professor. Being a full time stu-
dent is a full time job, and those who
treat it as less, though they may get by
and even collect A's "without cracking
a book," will be the losers in the long
run.
I do realize the pressures on stu-
dents these days are intense, far great-
.er than they were 40 years ago, when
our governments, both state and na-
tional, didn't only talk about the value
.of education, they put our tax dollars
where their mouth was. Times have
changed. The state is abdicating its
responsibility to educate the leaders of
tomorrow, expecting greater achieve-
ment from them while providing less
support. But it is no good putting the
blame on faculty who urge students to
devote two hours out of class for every
hour spent in. This really is the for-
mula for success in college, No, what
we need are editorials that place the
blame where it belongs, at the feet of
the legislature. Only when the cost of
college is manageable for students will
college once again become a full-time
job, which it has to be if the promise
of higher education is to be fulfilled.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Curtoys
Professor, Political Science
Freedom of speech should be protected, even if offensive
By DR. CHARLES HOWARD
Associate Professor, Communications
Guest Columnist
The Holocaust didn't happen.
Jesus was gay.
Muhammad was a child molester.
All of these statements are offensive to someone,
they show disrespect of someone's religion and culture
and they are protected under the law and spirit of free
speech.
In the 1949 case, Terminiello v. Chicago, the Supreme
Court ruled that to suppress anyone's speech because of
threats of violence from someone else was unconstitu-
tional and would establish a "heckler's veto."
In recent monttis we have seen the exact issue on a
global scale. Cartoons, published in a Danish newspa-
per, that attacked Islamic extremism and took satirical
jabs at the prophet Muhammad have resulted in the
rioting, violence and blood shed in parts of the Middle
East. The tumult has rippled through our nation as com-
mentators have debated the balance between cultural
sensitivity and freedom of speech.
. Unfortunately some commentators have not yet
learned the lesson the Supreme Court tried to teach
us 57 years ago. The fact that someone is upset, even
violently upset, does not mean they are right or that
their position is true or that others should be censored.
In a wired world, cultures are going to clash, and some
people are going to say insensitive things. People have
the right to be upset, and people have the right to speak,
even speak insensitively.
Some "traditional" cultures still practice mutilating
the sexual organs of young girls at age 11 or 12.1 think
the practice is barbaric, primitive and a violation of
human rights. If I say so am I being "culturally insen-
sitive?" I certainly would hope that no one would be
deterred from speaking out against this atrocity because
of fear that someone would burn down a KFC. I hope
no one would be wooly-headed enough to say, "Oh,
we shouldn't condemn them, after all we are all God's
children." I would hope no one would say, "Oh, its OK
of them to mutilate little girls, that's just part of their cul-
ture." I hope no one would be so morally bankrupt that
they would say, "Oh, we shouldn't say anything about
that after all, America treated the Indians badly." I hope
no American newspaper would be hesitant to report on
this because of the fear of Wing seen as "intolerant,"
Unfortunately I suspect they would.
Freedom of speech certainly means different things,
but in America it means something very important. In
many cases, the Supreme Court has protected the speech
of racists, anti-Semites, sexists, fascists and communists.
No campus hate speech code has been upheld by any
court. The Supreme Court declared hate speech regu-
lations unconstitutional in the case of RAV v. St. Paul
(1992)
America cannot force its view of free speech on other
nations. But we cannot allow other cultures to under-
* mine our commitment to freedom of speech. We can-
not censor the truth in the name of cultural sensitivity
anymore than we can in the name of national security,
People have the right to criticize insensitivity and try to
counter bad speech with more speech. But we cannot
allow discussion to be restricted or censored because of
the fear of violence.
Freedom, even the freedom to be offensive, is the
cornerstone of our society. While we cannot change
another culture we can protect our cultural values of
freedom, rationality and diversity by speaking out in
favor of freedom of speech, even the speech we disagree
with, and against irrational and intolerant attempts to
suppress it. As Justice Douglas said in Terminiello, "The
light to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas
and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions
that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes."
ground singer.) You
spend your time and
energy educating the
mass of TSU students
through BSed papers,
sleeping in class,
crummy test grades and
poor excuses. And still
you have time to take an interest
in what the people of Tarleton ,
read in this paper by submitting
letters to the editor and guest
columns.
With that said, I'd like to re-
mind everyone that The J-TAC's
annual Best of Tajrleton awards
are coming pretty quickly One
of the categories is Best Profes- "
sor, and we will be looking for
nominations from the Tarleton
community. Last year, the award
was won by Dr. Larry Margolis .
(and based on information from
people I've talked to, it was won
with good reason).
One last thing, I'd just like to
mention that I'm also eternally
grateful for the Tarleton staff
who keep the wheels of this
institute rolling smoothly.
BLEED PURPLE!
-Johnathon Parker
Editor-in-Chief
The
J-TAC
Ed^or-in-Chief
"johnathb n Pa rker
Managing Editor
Stefanie johnson'
NewsEdito^,
Akhil kadidal
Sports Editor
Erik Walsh
Photographers 8l
Staff Writers
Amy Burk
!Rachel Cassou
Mike Cedeno
Jill Jones.
Kara Kelton
D'Leesa Keys
Francisco Reyes
. Advertising Manager
Ashley Leonhart
*
Advertising Representative
Chelsea Story
Student Publications
Director
jim Looby
The J-TAC is published on
Thursdays during the fall and spring
semesters with the exception :of
University holidays and examina-
tion periods, . „ ' •
Office: Barry B, Thompson Student
Center, Room 20
Telephone: (254) 968-9056
Fax: (254) 968-9709
E-mail; jtac@tarleton.edu
Mailing Address:
The J-TAC
Office of Student Publications
Box T-044Q ■
Stephenville, TX 76402
Editorial Policy
The deadline for submission of
opinion/editorial works is noon of
the Monday before publication.
Letters to the editor should be typed
and signed. Letters can either be
hand-delivered, mailed, or sent via
email to; " *
jtac_opinion@tarleton.edu.
Please include a phone number,
student ID number, classification
and major. Anonymously signed'
letters or letters signed under a
pseudonym or "pen name" will not
be published.
Letters should be limited to 250
words. The J-TAC reserves the right
to edit letters for content, length
and grammar. The J-TAC also re-
serves the right to refuse to print
any letter deemed to be in "bad
taste".
v
Opinions expressed in The J-TAC
are not necessarily those of Tarleton
State University or The Texas A&M
System.
Content of this publication is
copyrighted material of The
J-TAC. Written permission must
be granted for reproduction of
any portion of The J~TAC.
Visit us online at;
http://zowwAarleton.eduA j-tac
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
The J-TAC (Stephenville, Tex.), Vol. 171, No. 6, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 2, 2006, newspaper, March 2, 2006; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth142124/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Tarleton State University.