Text only

 LETTERS to the editor 

  
   IV Leader, May 3, 2007

Vonnegut death does not deter from great writing

    Kurt Vonnegut died a few weeks ago. Why, you might ask, would a scientist write a piece about Vonnegut? "The practice of art isn't to make a living. It's to make your soul grow."
    The first Vonnegut book I read was Slaughterhouse Five, a story about World War II (and, I found out, a lot more). I read it for a high school novel class because my older brother told me it would be full of symbolism, which is great when you are trying to write a paper without much effort.
    “How nice--to feel nothing, and still get full credit for being alive.” What a surprise! The style of prose was unlike any author I had read. And the message--war is hell for everyone, and no one involved walks away unscarred.
    A good writer can open your mind. “The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music...” Next was Slapstick, then Cat’s Cradle, then Player Piano.
    By the time I graduated college I had read all of Vonnegut’s books (and bought them, too!). In grad school, I read them in chronological order. I could see Vonnegut’s style and message develop. “New knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth. The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become.”
    In the 90's, every new Vonnegut book, I bought in hard cover and devoured. I felt like I knew Vonnegut, like I had a mentor. Then he moved on-line, with commentaries, always insightful, often frightening.
    “We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we are hooked on.”
    Now Vonnegut has passed on. “Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt.”
    So it goes. Kurt Vonnegut has become unstuck in time. This summer, take Vonnegut home and give him a read.
    Who knows what could happen?

Mike Phillips
Geology instructor

Speech Zones help, not hinder

     As a member of the committee who developed the “Free Speech Zones” that were so maligned in the last issue of the IV Leader, I feel compelled to respond and to provide some facts and background information not included in those articles.
    No right is absolute. We live in a civil society whereby some of our rights are given up in exchange for the protections and benefits we gain from that society.
    My rights stop where someone else’s rights begin, and that means that I should expect that my rights will be limited when there is a compelling reason to do so.
    It makes sense that in an educational institution where a variety of people with a variety of different points of view co-exist and where those points of view have the potential to invoke hostilities, that we can expect our rights are going to be somewhat more regulated.
    IVCC is an educational institution. It’s goal is to educate. Part of that education takes place outside of the classroom, and, as a longtime activist, I would encourage our students to exercise their right of free speech to engage in dialogues that raise important issues about society, human nature, politics, or whatever else they wish to discuss.
    The college also has an obligation to keep individuals safe, especially from a threat of mob violence, and to have policies in place designed to keep the peace and to insure that those who wish to express themselves have the space and time available to have their message heard and not be unnecessarily shouted down by hecklers (I have seen all of these things happen on other college campuses, and it is dangerous and completely counterproductive).
    This is the purpose of this policy. It is not designed to limit speech, but to protect students on campus and to promote the rights of those who wish to assemble peaceably for the purposes of conveying a message to have the opportunity for that message to be heard.
    I would like to note, however, that there was a key component of our group’s discussion left out of the final draft (I’m told inadvertently) and that is the right for students to receive emergency permits immediately if a sudden event needs to be addressed before the 48 hour request period.
    This oversight needs to be addressed.
    Also, I would be remiss if I did not respond to this comment made by Ms. Carver: “Did the board really believe they could pass this and no one would notice or care?” In fact, the board did not write this policy, faculty and administrators did. And, at least one member of the Board expressed concerns to me about some of the language in the policy, including the absence of an emergency permit.
    This policy has never been a secret. It was released to all faculty and staff for review and it was published in the local papers. Perhaps students should exercise another freedom they have and attend Board meetings so they know what is taking place on campus and can be well informed.
    Or, students could ask their representative on the Board to report to them on issues that might be of concern. In conclusion, your right to free speech still exists.
    Hopefully, students at IVCC will begin to use this right for purposes that will contribute to the learning process and to raise concerns about critical issues facing our society.

Amanda Bigelow
Political Science Instructor

 

back to Opinion