If you must drink, then do it in moderation

I am saddened to hear a Penn State student has fallen from a window and may have been intoxicated at the time of the incident.

But having a negative consequence is not fun; losing or seriously altering your life is not fun nor does it help you fit in.

The American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association have established the following guidelines for alcohol consumption:

• No more than one drink per day for women, and two drinks per day for men.
  

• No more than four days of drinking per week.
  

Students who are drinking more than the above guideline should never drink more than three drinks per occasion if they are female, drinking one drink per hour. And men should drink no more than 4 drinks during the course of four hours. Any use above three to four drinks is considered binge use of alcohol and places you at high risk for increasing consequences.

One in three students prefer abstinence from alcohol. Students should consider abstinence if they are on medication, ill, driving or participating in other dangerous tasks, feeling stressed, tired, lonely or angry, the child or sibling of someone who is chemically dependent, recovering from chemical dependency, violating existing laws or personal values, pregnant, considering pregnancy or nursing.

If you have made the choice for alcohol to be a part of your life and your college experience, then please, drink in a way that enhances your college experience and does not detract from it or anyone else's.

If you have friends who are using or engaging in dangerous or risky situations under the influence, intervene . . . it could be the difference between life and death.

Natalie Croll
assistant director
Office of Health Promotion and Education

Man counters claims of E-mail harassment

In regard to the article "Senders of unwanted E-mail lose University account privileges" (Feb. 11), there are some gross inaccuracies that need to be corrected.

Tim Hare's comment that my correspondence to him "was a lot of anti-gay propaganda, a lot of religious political extremist stuff" is a biased opinion coming from a gay activist.

Many academicians, clergy, and politicians would vehemently disagree with him as my letter has received critical acclaim nationally. In regard to the exchange of E-mail between Mr. Hare and myself, Mr. Hare suffers from selective memory as at no time did he formerly contact me to the effect that he did not want to receive further correspondence from me. Mr. Hare's comments that "this was coming from a publicly-supported institution" and that he was "ashamed that dollars, even a penny, would be used for this junk" also applies to people who are equally alarmed that their tax dollars are going to support activities that are anathema to their faith.

The description of my correspondence to Dale Masel as "denouncing homosexuals" is not true, as the distinction is made between homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle.

It is the attitude of Mr. Masel, in particular, that I object to. He believes he has absolute rights to say anything that he wants in a public forum with impunity. What is the difference between sending written feedback by mail or E-mail? There is none if this is still a democracy in which we live and the twin freedoms of speech and religion still exist. To tell someone that he can never respond to anything that you publish is a violation of free speech.

It's not given that a response will be respected by a public forum because of editing/censoring prerogatives and/or the decision to not publish at all. So the argument that the only avenue of response is said forum is a red herring.

The freedom of religion clause in the Constitution guarantees that people of faith will not be discriminated against.

This is what happened at Penn State. There is no difference between the University allowing the desecration of a Roman Catholic icon and locking out my computer accounts to keep me from exercising my right to respond to issues which, in good conscience, I cannot ignore.

In the first instance, rights which don't exist are conveyed to the artist. Her rights stop when they infringe on the rights of Christians guaranteed free practice of their religion. If nativity creches aren't allowed on University property for the celebration of Christmas, how can desecrations of religious icons be allowed?

In the second instance, absolute rights are conveyed to the promoters of the homosexual, alternative lifestyles on this campus by suppressing the right of those who would disagree. Again, these absolute rights don't exist as they conflict with a large segment of the campus community who, on religious grounds guaranteed by the constitution, object to same.

When you stifle dissent, you destroy democracy. You destroy the very fabric for the existence of universities like Penn State that pride themselves on being tolerant of all with, apparently, one exception -- people of faith. When you do this you create an atmosphere where intimidation by a radical minority becomes possible.

The argument that one is using University property and, as such, the University can dictate who speaks and who doesn't, is shallow. Universities that receive federal and/or state funds have a difficult time making this argument because they are subsidized by taxpayers. It's not University President Graham Spanier, the faculty and students who own Penn State -- it's the entire citizenry of the state.

It does not sit well in Harrisburg or Washington, D.C. when funds are being doled out to institutions that have demonstrated an ability to discriminate against a large segment of their constituencies.

Gary L. Morella
Class of 1994