Ellington

In response to “Iowa decision a positive step toward rights for all couples,” April 8, by Chris Jordan

I believe people should get to choose who they want to receive the benefits they’ve earned, such as health insurance and inheritance. It is essential to have those you care most about there in the hospital with you. For these and many other reasons, I’m fine with civil unions. But the column by Chris Jordan is full of errors that need to be corrected.

First, this is a republic! You might remember that from saying the pledge of allegiance as a kid in school. The major issue is that a few judges changing the law is not how a republic works. This is not the way to change the system. This is a much bigger issue than gay marriage. The republic is being distorted and changed by a few people. This only leads to an oligarchy, which isn’t good for anybody.

Second, you asked, “How exactly does allowing happy, committed gay couples to enjoy equal rights attack ‘the good of children’ and families?” Many children are put into good, loving and happy homes through Christian adoption agencies.

Already, Catholic Charities of Boston has halted all adoption operations in the state in response to Massachusetts’ change-of-marriage laws, which, in compliance with the state’s anti-discrimination laws, require that only agencies placing children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state,

This great adoption service that brought so much joy to children and has positively changed their lives will no longer exist due to gay marriage. Don’t be so blind as to not look past the immediate consequences. Some couples genuinely want to be married. Unfortunately, many use this as means to persecute and take away freedom of religion.

Third, “It doesn’t mean churches would be forced to recognize gay marriages.” I’d like to know where you get you research from? You should cite or give specific examples as a journalist. You’re not the only one, as it seems to be the trend these days. There is a very real threat against churches’ ability to continue practicing their religions. Pastor Ake Green preached a sermon in his church from the New Testament saying that homosexuality is sinful. Then came a criminal prosecution against Pastor Green for allegedly violating Sweden’s “hate-speech” law prohibiting expression criticizing a minority group, in this case, persons who engage in homosexual behavior.

He was sentenced to prison for a period of 30 days for preaching his religion in his church. Luckily, the Swedish Supreme Court reversed this decision. This is what happens when the definition of marriage is changed.

This also leads to the bigger picture. Look at all the dictators in the past 100 years that used “hate speech” as a blanket excuse to condemn anything they didn’t like. It’s a powerful phrase used by dictators to manipulate their way into power.

I hope people out there will look into the long-term consequences of what’s happening in our republic.

Jen Pollard,

Sophomore, biology

In response to “Health class encourages UW to host tent city,” April 8, by Katie McVicker

As a UW student and a resident of the U-District, I would like to express my outrage at the idea of the UW hosting a tent city. I believe that tent cities don’t help the homeless whatsoever, they merely enable homelessness. They allow people who would otherwise be trying to find a job and a place to live to get accustomed to homelessness, and even become comfortable being homeless.

Some people who live in tent cities remain there for years, living off the goodwill of others and not giving anything back to their community. These are not just empty accusations. I was in the audience at the tent-city forum in Kane Hall and got the opportunity to ask questions and chat with residents of the camp, including a tent-city leader who was a key speaker at the forum. This individual has been homeless since 1996.

He has stated that he is homeless by choice. When asked if he would accept a low-wage job, he replied that he would not and that he is waiting for a job in the field of computer science. When asked if he would accept a room for rent in the U-District for $400, he replied that he would not and that he would prefer to live in the tent city. When asked why he expects the UW to provide him with land, water, electricity and bathroom facilities, he replied that it was because the UW was so wealthy and had so many resources. The other two tent-city residents had nearly identical stories. They were not willing to work minimum-wage jobs, and they wanted to remain living in the tent city.

The reality is that the residents living in the tent city are living there because they want to. It is very possible to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage. I’m doing it, and quite a few of my friends are doing it. The residents of tent city are not willing to do this. So my question to you is, why should we reward their irresponsibility by providing them with a free place to live?

Kuzma Kovzun

Senior, biochemistry/psychology

In response to, “Changing the rules: Interfraternity Council implements updated Risk Management Policy,” April 10, by Michael Truong

The new Interfraternity Council (IFC) alcohol policy gives the appearance of reduced risk of overconsumption, but it does nothing to decrease the real problem, and in some cases, may increase risks.

The fundamental issue with overconsumption is not the alcohol content of the drink, it is the desire to overconsume. I have a hard time believing it has anything to do with booze having an alcohol content greater than 8 percent when I hear people say, “I’m gonna get so f---ed up tonight!” They want to drink, so they do.

The hard alcohol will still be here. Instead of at the bar, it will be upstairs in rooms. Guys can go upstairs and drink all they want. Girls who dislike beer ­— especially the crap served at parties — will seek out guys willing to give them shots and/or mixed drinks, potentially putting them in rooms of unfamiliar guys consuming drinks less regulated than those previously served at party bars. Is this really a safer situation?

For those wise enough not to wander upstairs with sketchy frat boys, they will solve the problem by going to a house where they know the guys and drink before going out (universally referred to as “pre-partying,” but known at our beloved UW as “pre-funking”). While most will stop at a good buzz before going out, this policy increases the odds that partiers will “pre-funk” harder to avoid having to deal with the lame drink offerings the IFC allows, and thus increases the odds of overconsumption.

Some fraternities broke the old rules. “Dry” houses had parties. Premixed drinks were served at bars. Parties were had without filing the appropriate paperwork. That is just how it was … and how it is. These rules will be broken, whether upstairs or down. The addition of more rules just makes life harder for the houses that followed the original rules, but it does nothing to the houses that always broke the rules, the greater source of alcohol problems in the first place.

Unfortunately, this policy is already in place. I am disappointed that the IFC created something so out of touch with reality. This policy will not solve problems of overconsumption. It will merely appease the pressures on the IFC from police and university officials, but then again, maybe that is all it was intended to do.

Either way, you will find me behind a closed door upstairs, drinking something else.

Gregory James Hammond

Senior, Earth and space sciences

Government by the students, for the students?

The student government, the Associated Students of the University of Washington (ASUW), should be a government by the students, for the students and of the students. The ASUW is only able to meet that last condition, and it typically does so with mediocrity and apathy.

While we, the students, have not been keeping watch, our elected advocates have capitulated to the UW administration’s agenda of cementing control over all tuition rates. They have given them a blank check to raise tuition arbitrarily. To President Emmert and Provost Wise, we students are a piggy bank whose broken pieces have been super-glued back together too many times. Instead of fighting tooth-and-nail for low tuition and increased financial aid in this economy, the ASUW has copped out.

How could this happen? Let me illustrate the inner workings of your student government. The Student Senate is a futile exercise. They define themselves by working at a snail’s pace to come up with “student opinion” that has no relevance beyond framing the agenda of the president, board of directors and the lobbyist. Worse yet, they are kept in the dark to relevant information and are led like lambs to the opinions they endorse.

They have no teeth to check the power of the entrenched leaders that are grandfathered into ASUW leadership. Indeed, they are a self-selecting bunch, as almost none are elected and all of them are simply cherry-picked from what the ASUW defines as campus communities. Gerrymandering is rampant, with each group, commuters, Greeks, student organizations, diversity commissions, etc., getting special seats with no regard to whether or not they earned their right to represent students.

The ASUW board of directors is a circus that becomes more ludicrous each year. Elections are a joke; I have either witnessed or been told of flagrant violations of election rules, spending limits and the doctoring of receipts for the past four elections. I am sure the history of this rank-and-file corruption extends farther back. When someone has been “caught,” they get slapped on the wrist and are allowed to keep their illegally won position anyway.

The elections are not even a worthy representation of what students think. The number of people who vote rarely reaches 4,000, which is only 10 percent of our student body. The U.S. presidential election does better than that. Whether or not we elect anyone of particular quality has no bearing on how well the board does its job. The entities of the ASUW — the Experimental College and the bike shop, especially ­— have been running into the ground for years. Ask the employees; many of them would be glad to tell you just how bad it is.

All of these people could care less about students. Being on endless numbers of committees and rubbing shoulders with vice provosts and deans, all of this looks really good on their résumés. Student leaders presume this will give them an edge in politics in the future. The vetting process for any employee or appointee is by a group of peers, all of whom are also involved in the ASUW. Our student government is a fun little club where students can practice parliamentary procedure and play politics, as if it resembles the reality of government and political wrangling at all.

This election, when someone offers you a button or T-shirt that they should not have been allowed to buy, ask them whether or not they were complicit in the proposal to hike our tuition 14 percent and make higher education unattainable for more students. Ask them if they are really working for you, the full-time student who works 40 hours a week and still cannot afford school.

No wonder nobody ever votes in the election — the ASUW is not a legitimate body. After decades of radical student activism that put fear in the hearts of the UW administration, the ASUW has abandoned its watchdog post. Our student leaders can run on an illegitimate mandate from the student body to boost their chances for an unpaid internship for the summer.

If a student asks you to vote for them in this spring election, ask them if they are going to fight for you. Make them work for your vote.

Doug McManaway

Senior, law, societies and justice