 | Letters
Airband poorly represents Calvin
I’m writing this note as someone who is more than a little confused about Calvin College. My fiancणe is a student at Calvin and I sometimes get the opportunity to look into student life on campus, but I get mixed messages.ـFor example, last weekend we went to Airband. It was a great opportunity for Calvin students to laugh at themselves and have a good time. While it was easy to see that satire and sarcasm were the main events of the videos, I wondered if the creators of those videos knew about, or even had, boundaries for themselves. Specifically, I was wondering about the vulgarity and the violence within the videos. What standards are there in those categories? Is this Calvin’s idea of being in the world, but not of it? Those few moments took so much away from an otherwise wonderful evening. I would encourage those that plan on doing something for next year to consider this topic in their planning.
P.S. The '70s group should have won.
John Van Dop, GVSU student
War issue well argued
Re: "Fighting for freedom," Feb. 7
I would like to thank Becca Morrison for her insightful and well-written article that showed a side of the story that is often overlooked by those who see the issues involved in a possible war with Iraq as black and white. Clearly, war is not desirable, and fortunately there have been developments in the past week that may have decreased the possibility of a conflict. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that there are some things, good or bad, that are unavoidable.
I would also like to register my disappointment in those who attended the Charles Krauthammer lecture and behaved in a rude, disrespectful fashion. Comments such as “Stop banging the war drums” were completely unnecessary and inappropriate at an event like the January Series. The lecture was not a war rally or protest, and certainly was not intended to be a free-for-all forum in which anyone could blurt out whatever they wished. For those who engaged in this shameful behavior, you have failed to further your cause and instead have made yourselves look like ignorant fools. You have also tainted the efforts of other individuals who submit well-reasoned and fact-oriented cases against a possible war. When presented with a notable, highly-regarded and knowledgeable speaker in the future, I suggest that you invent more effective and intelligent ways to make your views known while still maintaining the dignity and respect of the occasion. If you expect people to take you seriously and join your cause, perhaps you should learn some manners and begin acting like adults.
Maria R. Post
Space program defended
Re: “Why the U.S. space program’s time is up” Feb. 7
There is a risk in every venture that man takes. Where would we be if Spain had not sent Columbus across the ocean because maybe someone would die? It was a risk that was taken of a few human lives for the good the rest of the population. Space exploration is no different. It is dangerous and there will be casualties, but is it worth it? I think so, and I, along with most of the United States, strongly support the space program.
The space shuttle is a cheap and effective way to get a person into space. There have been two complete failures out of 107 flights. That is a greater than 98 percent successful mission record. There are many everyday inventions that come directly from NASA. A few examples are microwaves, solar panels and Velcro. There are also many studies carried out in zero gravity that may help treat osteoporosis or other diseases. Stephen Doty, a veteran astronaut who has studied bone density loss, said, “We just don’t have a good model here on Earth.”
Satellites are also a huge benefit that comes from the space program. They serve for many purposes from spying to communications. Satellite phones and GPS (Global Positioning System) has made many forms of travel on earth much easier and safer. TV networks use satellite uplinks for live reports daily. In this information age satellites are necessary and help more countries than just the United States. None of this would have been possible without the research and development from NASA.
Dan Kuiper
Do you honestly think that the space program is useless? The space program is helping us understand something we know almost nothing about. Saying we shouldn’t study space is like saying we shouldn’t go to college. “What good is college doing me right now? It’s hard and costs lots of money.” Remember the big picture.
You made claims that the space program is not doing anything useful for us on earth. If you had visited www.nasa.gov you would have seen the heading “Improving Life Here” on their home page. This section talks about the ways NASA is helping earth directly like trying to stop dune migration, reducing pollution, and launching weather satellites, all these things benefit earth.
The next time you talk on your cell phone or watch TV, think about the satellites that NASA put in to space so that you could do that. They put the GPS satellites up in space so that planes don’t crash into mountains. Those satellites eventually need to be replaced because the orbits of those satellites deteriorate, so you still need NASA.
In forty-five years, only seventeen people have died during missions. That’s a good track record. Astronauts know the risks they are taking, just like firemen and police officers. That is why we consider being an astronaut noble. Seventeen deaths isn’t enough to condemn a program that is trying to grow food for starving nations in space, reduce pollution and learn more about God’s universe.
Emily E. Sharp '05
Beth Heinen’s article on the U.S. space program was poorly done on so many levels; I don’t know where to start. Exploration of the unknown is one of our primary tasks as a human race. A task, I might add, given to us by God. Of course we should protest any inefficiency in government spending and seek to hold national agencies accountable, but to call for a complete abandonment of the space program is ludicrous!
Her righteous indignation over the loss of human lives also sounds hollow if one does a simple numbers comparison. The space program has cost twenty-four lives over seventeen years, lives that were very valuable and should be mourned accordingly. But how many lives have our national commitment to automobile transportation cost? Shouldn’t those deaths merit the same call to a return to the world of horse and buggy?
Perhaps the editor should compare her uninformed opinion on the usefulness of the space program with that of the equally uninformed naysayers who advised against Columbus’s attempt to discover an alternate trading route to Asia. This was a dangerous mission, doubtless causing the loss of a few lives. In the end, this voyage (that failed largely to accomplish its initial task) became famous for yielding the completely unexpected discovery of an entire continent. Let us continue to explore space in the hope of similar results.
Peter Velthuizen ‘06
After reading the article regarding the U.S. space program, I am forced to admit that I agree with the author’s sentiments. Why should we explore and try to harness the vastness of space when there is so much on earth for us to exploit, such as the rain forests and coral reefs? The earth can support humanity forever so why look elsewhere? Also, why put money into scientific advancement when we can sit stagnant with our current technology until the end of time? The whole space program issue reminds me of a time over a century ago when we looked to the skies and wondered if we would ever be able to fly. The air flight programs of the world have claimed many lives, as well as huge sums of money. I think we should have scrapped air travel long ago when its success was uncertain; instead, we should have aimed at much more noble goals such as fighting the dreaded influenza. The same goes for automobiles, which claim countless lives every year. In fact, I believe that we should revert to pre-industrial society all together. Who needs robotics and mechanization when we can simply find unskilled workers to do our dirty work? Wouldn’t the world be a much better place if no one had ever bothered to invest time and money into any exploration and innovation? Reader, please note my sarcasm.
Brad Davis
The U.S. space program has been receiving quite a bit of criticism since the explosion of the Columbia, criticism that is often less than merited. Beth Heinen’s article is no exception.
Beth gives the same reasons that Europeans in the 1400s must have given to explorers. The situations are comparable: the trips were excruciating, motivated by greed. They cost money; took hundreds of lives. Why would such undertakings be worthwhile?
All these voyages led to an exploration of the world, which paved the way for global exchange. This provided a variety of foods, making a better standard of living possible. That is just one benefit of exploration. The cost of exploration was large, but compared to what came afterward, it was worth it.
Heinen’s article reduces NASA to a bunch of people floating around in space fiddling with perfume. NASA does some important stuff. Besides research on things like radiation, magnetic fields, etc., they actually do more “pressing” things like track hurricanes and help cities combat their pollution. NASA is not as useless as its opponents would make it out to be.
Heinen’s article doesn’t allow for the possibility of any good coming out of space exploration. “We need to first explore the world in which we live.” Well, space is the world in which we live. Yes, the costs are great—they are great in any worthwhile undertaking. But we are receiving the benefits already, and they will continue to come with the space program’s growth and expansion.
Rebecca Kallemeyn
The article “Why the U.S. space program’s time is up” is poorly researched and thought out. First it does not distinguish between the shuttle program and the rest of NASA. As the budget data given in the article shows the shuttle program is only one fifth of what NASA does. Even if human space travel is a bad idea that does not mean all of NASA should be dismantled.
Secondly it shows a poor understanding of how science works. When studying complex phenomenon such as forest fires it is often necessary to study a simplified version. It is possible that studying combustion without the complication of gravity will help the researchers understand how combustion works on earth. As far as I know it is very difficult to create a gravity free environment on earth. Also while directly studying things such as energy and medicine are obviously helpful, basic research is often helpful as well. For example particle physics might have seemed esoteric at one time but it made computers monitors possible.
Thirdly it simply is not true that US space exploration hasn’t affected people’s everyday lives. Rocket technology developed by NASA and its predecessors has allowed for satellites which are useful in many ways including communications, surveying, astronomy, and national security. Thousands of spin off technologies include the chemicals used to fire proof fire fighter’s clothes to improved computer imaging that helps detect cancer. NASA does more then spend billions to send people to die in space.
Sam Boldenow
Chimes yields complaints
The mission statement of the Chimes makes commitments “to be a watchdog of the community…to critically evaluate and challenge the greater Calvin community,” and, “to cultivate strong journalists.” The February 7th issues of the Chimes failed to fulfill these goals.
The editorial entitled “For the sake of one student,” seemed to be more of an emotional plea for the reinstatement of Vito Russo rather than an objective review of the entire situation. Editor Bell failed to mention that Vito Russo is his roommate. Mentioning all of the facts to describe the situation might have made for better journalism.
Editor Heinen’s article entitled, “Why the U.S. Space Program’s time is up” made more than its share of errors. It presents an under-supported argument for the termination of the study of space by the United States, failing to live up to the mission statement of the Chimes which demands to “critically evaluate and challenge the greater Calvin community.”
Chimes is one of the nation’s longer-running undergraduate weekly newspapers. In order to preserve that tradition, perhaps it should focus more on quality rather than quantity. We do not need rhetoric-filled letters by the editor. We do not need evaluations of NASA by a non-scientist. Chimes is a representative of Calvin College, yet when articles of this nature fill the newspaper, it fails to demonstrate the critical and evaluative minds present.
Adam DeHoek
Michael Scholten
You have every right to disagree with a decision of administrators and faculty members. But in doing so you should be accurate. As a member of the Academic Standards Committee, I must correct some of your misstatements of fact and some incorrect impressions.
You said “the policies surrounding academic dismissal … [leave] no room to be merciful.” Although there are some numerical criteria used in determining academic standing, no appeal is decided purely by numbers. Students facing dismissal have had many opportunities to talk about their academic situation. The appeal committees invite students to give a written statement and appear in person to explain why they should be stay. The committee members try to do what is best for the student and for the college.
You also state that “the college proposes to extract him permanently and irrevocably.” This reflects a misunderstanding of the policy regarding academic dismissals. As the catalog says, “students dismissed for poor academic performance are eligible to petition for readmission” after one year. Some students who have been dismissed have returned later and completed their degrees.
Having academic standards means that some faculty members and administrators will have to make painful decisions; painful because they may make the wrong decision. On the other hand, if an educational institution has no policies regarding academic dismissal, some students will keep pursuing a degree that they are unlikely to ever receive. There are institutions that allow that for the tuition dollars these students pay. I am happy that Calvin is not such an institution.
George N. Monsma’63
Professor of Economics
Last Thursday was “Pepsi Hoops Happening” night at the dining halls, where masses of students gathered to shoot hoops, win prizes, and fill up garbage bags with paper plates and cups and plastic silverware. When I saw what we had to eat off of I started to get angry. A Knollcrest employee told me they don’t have enough staff to run the dishwashing machines on a night like Pepsi Hoops. That says a lot about where their priorities are. They decided that the earth could take a good hit instead of our fun.
There is a huge problem with this situation and we should think about the way this was set up and how bad it was for the environment when we participated. Our wastefulness on Thursday night was huge, and something that many of us didn’t think about. Did it not occur to anyone that all of our garbage being sent straight to a landfill could have been recycled? If there was no other way to avoid an empty dish-washing room, that could have been a redeeming option for us.
What’s done is done, but I’m asking that the dining hall managers keep the earth in consideration next time they’re planning an event. As students, we also need to take responsibility. If this happens again I’m not going eat there, and I encourage you also to take a stand for the environment, which is not only our home, but a place that God has called us to love, protect and respect.
Laura Collins ‘05
| |
