Letters to the Editor

TAs with poor English detriment to learning

Laura Hennessey seems quite convinced that diversity and the experience of foreign cultures should be welcomed, even desired, in any class. Perhaps she has been overlooking certain examples of diversity, which exist right here among her fellow students, in her pursuit of international diversity.

As an economics major, my field concentrates on technical rules and theories. I do not have a problem with this thing called diversity; in fact, I even welcome it. However, there is a certain point after which it tends to become a detriment.

Last semester, I had two upper-level economics courses with a foreign instructor and teaching assistant and found them to be problems. The subject material for these classes required a lot of effort to comprehend, even when conveyed by an instructor with a perfect understanding of English.

The instructor for one course taught theories in class, but confused students found she was unable to explain them any differently than her prepared notes allowed. In the other class, our instructor would leave town the class before his exams, leaving his TA to conduct a review session to prepare for the impending test. This TA had such a poor understanding of English, he could not comprehend a great majority of the questions asked of him.

We live in an international society, and diversity definitely needs to be appreciated. However, you can have too much of a good thing. When an instructor or TA does not have the ability to understand questions or clearly communicate the subject material to students, this becomes a detriment to the educational experience.

Terence M. McMenamin
senior-economics

This is in response to Jeffrey Hayes’ letter to the editor in which he is "troubled by the circumstances affecting Penn State’s decision not to implement health care benefits for same-sex domestic partners." I am specifically replying to the comment he made, "For example, it is unclear to me how benefits for same-sex partners can infringe upon the the sanctity of marriage when unmarried, heterosexual couples are entitled to benefits at Penn State." I’m not sure where Hayes got his information. I am in a heterosexual domestic relationship but cannot access such benefits for my fiancee. As far as I was aware, when I filled out the benefits forms, I could name a spouse or children only, not a domestic partner. Why should same-sex partners be able to access benefits and not heterosexual partners? I think President Spanier made the right decision!

Amy Templeton
staff assistant, Eberly College of Science

The gospel according to Jeffrey Hayes appears to be that we live in a community that teaches us to fear and condemn gay and lesbian individuals. They are portrayed as innocent victims of societal prejudice. The truth is that their lifestyles are the chief causes of concern of those who are in disagreement with the problematic concept of behavior as a civil right.

It has been widely ballyhooed by homosexual advocates that the American Psychiatric Association no longer includes homosexuality on their disorder list. They also no longer include the "sexual orientations" of pedophilia, sadism and masochism as disorders.

How does the state get away with promoting an "amoral belief system" to the total exclusion of considerations of taxpayers who, for reasons of conscience, cannot abide by same. What about their rights?

We live in a world of intimidation, demagoguery and spin doctors, where irrationalism ensures that education is replaced with indoctrination. Religion is no problem; it’s simply reinvented. Evidently our representatives serve solely at the pleasure of homosexual advocates.

In situations, such as this, involving serious moral issues in which people strive to form a right conscience, the role of government is clear -- strict neutrality. The moment the government (public school or university in this instance) presumes to "give advice" in this delicate area, it opens the door to influencing the free decision of its citizens. And from influence it is only a short step to coercion, a result that is being legally challenged from coast to coast.

Gary Morella
research assistant

I want to thank Susie Xu for her story on the violent arrest of Melanie Stibick in February 1998. The story was fair, but I would like to add some important details to explain my concern with the case.

First, at no point did the officer explain why he had stopped Stibick (he stopped her for a traffic violation). Nor did he tell her (and this is supported by witnesses) that he was arresting her when he was trying to grab her and pull her out of her car. Stibick was understandably terrified, especially given that he was driving an unmarked police car. She merely sought to defend herself from what seemed to her a brutal attack, and from what witnesses have said was "excessive" use of force by the two police officers involved at this point.

After the incident Stibick was hospitalized for four days due to her injuries and to the emotional trauma of the event. We are currently seeking release of medical records from the hospital to support Stibick’s complaint.

Indeed, she has had to transfer to another college because she cannot bear to live here any more. Perhaps the officers were using appropriate force, and perhaps Stibick and the witnesses are wrong. At the very least, however, I call on State College Police Chief King to caution his officers to handle suspects with more care in order to avoid future such incidents. Certainly police officers have a right to use whatever force is necessary -- and no more -- to subdue a person when arresting them. But surely civilians have a right to considerate treatment. For example, an explanation as to why they have been pulled over, and as to why they are being arrested.

I hope no one else in this town has had a similar experience. But if anyone has, I would be interested in hearing from him or her.

Tony North
Amnesty International, Penn State