Sounding off on new quiet hours
I feel that it is time for Residential Life to account for the bountiful opposition against its changing policy regarding quiet hours. It doesn't appear that this is a change sought by residents, and therefore, it is inappropriate to impose it upon them. If students wish for their neighbors to turn down the volume, then they need to speak with their neighbors and learn how to deal with conflict like the adults that they are.
In The State Press article "Residential Life to Enforce New, Longer 'Quiet Hours' in Spring" on Dec. 5, Cassandra Camille, assistant director of Residential Life, was quoted as having said, "We're basically looking at it to enhance students' academic environment within the halls." Camille seems to be forgetting that the dorms, being our homes, are also our centers of social interaction. Many do not even return from classes until well after 9 p.m., and some groups, such as the Hall Council of Center Complex, don't even meet until after 9 p.m. (Hall Council meets at 10 p.m.).
In addition, students who already feel reluctant to observe quiet hours will outright ignore the new quiet hours, and RAs, who feel that they were not adequately consulted in the creation of the new policy will not enforce them.
Residential Life needs to listen to the students it serves.
-Eleanor Price
FRESHMAN
CERAMIC ART
I feel that changing the quiet hours policy without consulting residents and RAs is not beneficial to fostering community. Residents, rather than ResLife administrators, are the ones affected by the policy and, therefore, should have been allowed input before the change. Moving quiet hours to 9 p.m. will most likely not encourage more studying, as ResLife seems to believe, but instead will cause residents to disregard the policy completely. At 9 p.m., many residents are still leaving or returning for night classes or social events, and so the policy is simply not feasible for them to abide by, which means they will be ignored completely.
An hour that can be agreed upon by residents would be more effective. Perhaps other compromises could have been reached: for example, ResLife could establish early quiet hours communities (floors where the policy would be different) for students who desire an environment more conducive to studying, as many other universities have done; however, there was no discussion between administrators and residents, and no chance for alternate measures to be proposed.
-Sarah Hayden and Hannah Ricketson
FRESHMEN
BIOLOGY
Bush burns public trust
Ms. Kelberlau's informative column on Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative" (Dec. 5) highlights just the latest example of Dubya's disdain for America's citizens and his affinity for the large corporations and industry groups that contribute generously to his campaign coffers. Ms. Kelberlau referred to Bush's speech made back in August following the Biscuit Fire, in which (about the HFI) he said, "We'll make sure that people have their voice, but aren't able to tie it all up," The "tie it all up" comment meant to address the "endless litigation" and "red tape" that made the current national forest policy, in Bush's words, a "misguided" one.
What I find interesting about that statement is that it could pretty much be applied to Bush's philosophy regarding his relationship (as an elected government representative) with us (the citizens whom he is supposed to watch over). He'll make sure we always "have [our] voice," in that we'll always have our constitutional right to publicly and vocally disapprove of his policy-making and mismanagement of our resources. But he'll also make certain that no one pays any serious attention to our concerns because that would, God forbid, give legislators reason to pause and think about passing certain legislation, which would "tie it all up." Yup, Dubya, it would be so much easier to run this darned country if it weren't for all us little people trying to have our say. What nerve!
-Simon Kwan
GRADUATE STUDENT
SCHOOL OF DESIGN