Letters to the Editor

Column misinterprets athletes’ privileges

This letter is in response to the column by Chris Antonacci titled "The Advantage of Being a PSU Athlete." Some of the advantages referred to in the column are non-existent, and the few benefits athletes do receive are necessary and well-deserved.

As a student-athlete, I know the benefits that are received. Athletes do not receive free sweats. The clothes that we wear to work out in are loaned to us by Nike. We do not own them and must return them at the end of every year. These clothes are necessary because athletes do not have the time in their already-strained schedules to do laundry every night.

The rigorous schedule of a student-athlete is also what makes the numerous support services so vital to student-athletes. The Academic Support Center for Student-Athletes helps student-athletes balance their academics with the enormous amount of time they must invest in their respective sports. While the support center is for student-athletes, all of the services are available to every student in different departments throughout the university.

The few benefits athletes receive do not infringe upon other students. Penn State’s NCAA Athletic Certification Self-Study Report states, "No general funds are used to support Intercollegiate Athletics. Intercollegiate Athletics has its own operating budget that totally supports salaries, wages and other expenses that are necessary to manage 29 men and women team sports." None of your tuition goes toward any part of the athletic program. Students don’t even have to pay admission to most athletic events. The money the athletic department spends on athletes is the same money they make off of athletes through ticket revenues.

Andrew Butville
junior-mechanical engineering

Chris Antonacci had a few inaccuracies in his column about advantages athletes receive. Let me begin by describing the day of a student-athlete. These athletes get accepted to Penn State with a 1.99 GPA (that rounded up to a 2.00) and are all given private luxury suites. Their day begins as they roll out of bed at around noon and throw on their sweats, which they get to keep forever. Because of priority scheduling, they all have afternoon classes. Then they mosey on to practice at around 4 p.m. and sit around and joke with teammates for a few hours. Afterward, they go to a smorgasbord of a training meal offered to them every day for free.

Much to the dismay of Antonacci, I am about to make a startling revelation. The fact of the matter is that none of the above is true.

A case in point is the allegation that all Penn State athletes gain admission solely because of their athletic abilities. This is simply a lie. On the same page as the column, there was an article about a wrestler who graduated high school with a 4.37 GPA (on a 4.0 scale). This wrestler currently has a 3.75 in chemical engineering and is just one of the many bright student-athletes at Penn State.

Antonacci stated "most of (the student-athletes) are getting financial assistance." Once again, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. For the wrestling team, 9.9 scholarships are distributed among a handful of the 40 members.

Antonacci also implies that student-athletes are given "Change of Assignments" upon request in order to gain immediate access to University Park. Once again, Antonacci is wrong. There are two current members of the wrestling team who spent their freshman year at another campus. The idea that student-athletes get wonderful living accommodations is also not true. Personally, I lived in East Halls for the first semester of my freshman year, followed by sharing a small double in Hamilton Hall for the second semester.

The training meals that Antonacci suggests only exist for football, men and women’s basketball, and they must pay for these meals. Wrestlers eat either at the commons (on their points) or eat at home.

But what do I know? I am just an athlete.

Kevin Vile
senior-industrial engineering

I am writing in response to the article "States gaining more power over abortions." I feel that the article did not really represent the pro-choice side of this issue. One aspect that the article did not touch on is the way in which the new laws are taking away a woman’s right to choose.

This is the heart of the pro-choice movement. Every day, women are fighting just to keep control of their bodies and not have that control passed on to others. We do not want to be told what we can and cannot do with our bodies. These laws take away our choice, and put it in the hands of judges, our parents and lawmakers in our state. Slowly we are losing the right to decide what to do with our bodies and what decisions to make about them. For me, this is what being pro-choice is all about, and this is what should have been represented in the article.

Lara Sabsowitz
co-director Penn State Pro-Choice

The Board of Opinion editorial Tuesday states "The sooner they (the senate) end their senseless trial, the sooner they can return to the necessary business of the nation." Maybe it’s just me, but I think the impeachment of the president is the most necessary business of the nation. He is our highest elected official, and he has committed perjury, and he is being tried for it.

Perjury is a serious crime against the court system that rarely goes unpunished, and the truth of the matter is that President Clinton lied under oath. Perjurers risk fines and possibly imprisonment when caught -- a man that was elected by the American people should be no exception. In fact, he should be held to a higher standard, which is why he should be removed from office.

I keep hearing that perjury is not a high crime or misdemeanor because it concerns the president’s private actions. Under this theory, a president’s obstruction of justice and perjury must involve concealment of official actions.

However, virtually everyone agrees that serious crimes such as murder and rape would be impeachable even though they do not involve official duties. Clinton committed a crime and was caught, why should we just accept that and give him a slap on the wrist?

The fact that the American public doesn’t care to see the president punished for a crime shows the state of this country’s moralistic decline.

Christopher Pacella
sophomore-civil engineering