Letters to the Editor

Sniff article was outlet for expression, not malice
In a Jan. 29 column, “Latest Sniff story goes too far,” Opinion Editor Brandon Ortiz questioned whether The Sniff had crossed the line in satirizing a well-known English professor, who was spoofed as having taken part in the “Girls Gone Wild” video series.
Granted, the article was probably not the most shining gem among The Sniff’s jewels, but its satirical value, its status as a parody discourse and right to free speech are undeniable. Anybody with a minimal understanding of satire can see that the article was not aimed at personally attacking the aforementioned professor.

In addition, Ortiz is somewhat misleading in his affirmation that this is an attack on a non-public figure, and that The Sniff did not live up to its “freedom of expression” responsibility.

In reality, this professor may not be as visible as the chancellor or other school officials, but she is also not anonymous. She is a public figure that is continuously involved in academic and social efforts that put her in the spotlight, often being an outspoken lecturer, sometimes bordering on activist, for multiple causes such as feminism, Victorian literature and even our own honors program. In addition, she was further thrust into the spotlight when she received the Chancellor’s Award for Distinguished Research and Creative Activity, which implies that her involvement on and off campus are notable and widely recognized. She is also a published author, and a recognized scholar in her field.

She is a valid target for parody, spoof or satire.

As a reader of both the Skiff and The Sniff, I was not surprised at Ortiz’ shock, and the affirmation of one of the journalism department’s faculty members that this article could constitute “malice.” These reactions only illustrate further that our university-sanctioned media outlets are often permeated by a marked avoidance of all topics that are vaguely controversial. Perhaps this is the reason The Sniff has become so popular in the psyche of the student body. The Sniff is an outlet for opinions that our “student run” and “faculty advised” publications refuse or choose not to address, such as political correctness, or the blatant double standards that exist in our campus. Maybe it is because of this that The Sniff has managed to establish a solid readership, an online presence and a printed circulation with no known financial, human or material resources.

Just because this time The Sniff’s commentary happened to fall on a well-liked and charismatic professor doesn’t make its point any less valid or valuable to intellectual campus discussion — something the Skiff seldom stirs.
— Raquel Torres, senior
e-business major.

TCU needs to amend Greek system to help add diversity
I would like to applaud the Skiff for its coverage of Roger Wilkins’ speech on campus, Jan. 29. The article, by Lara Hendrickson, included a balance of Wilkins’ accomplishments and campus reaction to his statement on affirmative action, Martin Luther King Jr. and segregation.

Omitted, however, was Wilkins’ proposals of improving diversity in our community. Wilkins interaction with the students encouraged his hope that our university would continue its mission to educate students to be ethical and responsible citizens in this global community. Our university is dedicated to educating its students about the diversity present on campus and to celebrate cultural differences.

Wilkins asserted that from the time of his undergraduate work to the present, he has seen the presence of fraternities and sororities on campuses as inhibiting the awareness of diversity.

Students come to college to educate themselves about the surrounding world, yet they join groups with people who look like them, come from the same socio-economic status and family heritage.

This is neither promoting the education of other cultures, nor establishing communication between students of different backgrounds. This information that was negligently omitted is crucial to the betterment of our campus.

If TCU is going to accomplish its mission statement, we must find a way of diversifying the Greek system that is established — or rid this campus of these segregating organizations altogether.
— Robyn M. Fickes, senior
religion major

Iraq has failed to provide proof, it is time to act
I was opposed to the possible war against Iraq because the weapons inspectors did not present any proof. But the latest discovery of empty chemical war heads and reasons given by President Bush when he delivered the State of the Union address is compelling me to support him. Also Iraq is not cooperating with the U.N. weapons inspectors. This only proves that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. The United States and the United Nations have placed the burden of proof on Iraq, and by not cooperating, Iraq only proves that it does possess weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq has the obligation to comply with U.N. resolution 1441 and seems to be violating the resolution by threatening to execute Iraqi scientists and their families if they interview with U.N. inspectors. This reveals the true intentions of Saddam Hussein: to be a dictator till he dies, continue with his weapons program, and, if needed, test those weapons on innocent Kurdish citizens. On March 16, 1988, Iraqi warplanes bombed the town of Halabja, killing as many as 5,000 Kurds. International scientists later determined that the attack involved multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas and sarin.

If President Bush is successful in removing Saddam Hussein from his regime, Iraq would stabilize as a nation. If Saddam Hussein went to be deposed, human rights and freedom in Iraq will be cherished. With no fear of a dictator who will sign a death warrant as a penalty for giving any advice that is against his principals and values, Iraq would be a much better nation.
— Nihir B. Patel, senior computer information science major