Searches for faculty parallel competitiveness

In my eight years at Miami University I have never written a letter to the student paper, figuring it was a student venue. A recent quote by President David Hodge, however, needs context and represents a teachable moment. In an article on Jan. 13, President Hodge is quoted as saying: "When we hire administrators, we have to go out and search on a national market, and when you do that … to compete and get the best administrators, we have to pay a competitive wage ..." This is factually accurate, but applies equally to faculty searches, which are national or international searches generating dozens and sometimes hundreds of qualified applicants. To draw the implicit contrast that faculty are not hired in national searches and therefore can't or don't compete at that level is inaccurate. Faculty aren't hired based on ads in the Hamilton Journal-News.

Steven Tuck Professor Department of Classics tucksl@muohio.edu

Cartoon ignores reality, loses hyperbolic meaning

I write in reaction to the editorial cartoon about President David Hodge (Jan. 13, 2009). The use of hyperbole in the critical oversight of leaders is a long-standing and valuable tradition in American editorial cartoons. However, responsible newspapers typically ensure that their cartoons are printed within an implicit or overtly presented context so that the collective readership has a shared understanding of the critique and its target's alleged misdeeds. One could argue that Elizabeth Kusko's critique of Hodge's response to the wind storm's electrical outage is given within an implicit context. All of us in the Miami University community experienced it and were aware of the demonstration and Hodge's response. But the other accusations carry no similar shared understanding.

My reading of the cartoon is that Hodge fails in his fundraising responsibilities, ignores the budget cuts' impact on his own office, manipulates graduate program decisions from behind the scenes and is an egomaniac out of touch with the student body. Again, I understand the hyperbolic nature of cartoons, but good editorial cartoons exaggerate, rather than invent, reality.

What is the basis in reality for these critiques? In the very same issue, The Student reports that Hodge declined his contractual bonus this year in recognition of the budget cuts. The fundraising campaign is on target, having secured $350 million at the end of 2008. I have followed the graduate program review process for well over a year and there can be no doubt that both Provost Jeffrey Herbst and Dean Bruce Cochrane were fully committed to it, as opposed to acting as pawns for the president. The Student has not reported any evidence to support the cartoon's accusations.

At the very least, The Student owes it to readers and Hodge to accompany such an inflammatory and unsubstantiated cartoon with an editorial statement about the merit of its claims.

Jeanne Hey Director International Studies Program heyja@muohio.edu

Death penalty supporters ignore value of life

I was thoroughly disheartened to read the editorial in The Miami Student pertaining to the expansion of the death penalty ("Kentucky should broaden scope of death penalty," Jan. 13. Not only was the article an abomination journalistically-both in terms of research and the sheer lack of literacy-it echoes the ignorant emotional response of those who do not value life but instead the death penalty. Citing a warped sense of emotional reparation, as if taking another's life really will make you feel better about your own loss.

To believe ourselves to be a better and more evolved society than the people before us, especially given we are a first world nation, the death penalty must be abolished. I do not understand how we can call criminals who kill "depraved" when we further support their actions of murder by behaving in just a barbaric manner as they do-through the taking of life. As Ghandi once said, "An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind," and to think that taking the life of another really serves as closure for another family merely caters to their most primal emotional responses of the reptilian portion of one's brain and is absolutely irrational. A utilitarian response to life, the taking of life as the "ultimate punishment" is archaic and unfounded. Frankly no one knows what happens when we die, so how can death be a punishment when many of these people probably did not want to live anyway.

And for one to make a fiscal argument, again the editorial board falls horrifically short, not realizing the actual time many inmates spend on death row, and the special treatment they do receive in terms of appeals and the actual cost and time they waste by clogging up the system. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the average time on death row after arrest was 28 years. For fun, let's pretend these criminals are on average, 35 years old. So we will say these criminals are being executed at the age of, say, 63 years old. Also let's say the average life of a convicted felon is 70 years old-hey, serving time can be tough.

So instead of these criminals serving life, having to face their crimes and possibly reform, they are given seven years less to live as a result of the death penalty. And this doesn't include the costs of appeals or the paperwork that does tie up the judicial system. Did you know that if someone on death row has health problems, and could potentially die, that the prison system legally must keep them alive until their execution date, even if it's the next day? This again puts a huge health cost on the system. But instead if they were sentenced to life without parole or appeals, they would cost much less, not tie up the system and we wouldn't be executing people wrongly convicted of crimes. But what do I know-I just wrote this in 10 minutes with 5 minutes of research, I'm sure The Student spent weeks on their editorial board article, which of course reflects the opinion of those on the board, not just an individual.

Michael Grepp Greppmd@muohio.edu

Students should be more respectful of community

Dear Miami University students: First, let me say welcome back to our little town of Oxford. We love having you in our town and we love that you come here to get your education. Let me however say, there are times when I do not look forward to your return. I'd like to make a request of all students as you settle back into the semester.

I'd like to ask that you can please consider a few important things. 1) My yard is not a trash can for your beer cans/bottles/bottle caps or any other garbage you toss as you wander down the street. 2) My yard is also not your personal smokers paradise. Please take your smoking somewhere else and please, if your going to smoke in my yard, at least take your butts with you. 3) My backyard is not your personal bathroom because you can't make it home from the bar without going. 4) Walking down the street screaming at the top of your lungs at two in the morning is rude. Would you like it if I started smashing trashcan lids outside your residence at 7 a.m.? 5) My yard is not a shortcut to get to your class or cars quicker. 6) My driveway is not a parking lot. Nor should you block my driveway because you car will almost fit in that illegal parking spot you've decided to create. I have no problem calling the police and having your car ticketed. Did you know that if you have three unpaid tickets they can tow you? Just thought I'd point that out.

With that out of the way, welcome back Miami students. I'm not trying to complain, I'm just asking that you be respectful of the people who live here all year.

Forrest Ewen Ewenfc2@muohio.edu