Gear fund-raising toward educational upgrading

University officials told The Appalachian last week that construction on the new $1.8 million chancellor's residence is all-but on schedule. As the project enters the final stages, it appears the facility will indeed be completed in time for a tentatively scheduled October open house.

Students, faculty, staff, alumni, financial contributors and guests will no doubt fill the 9,300 square foot facility to acquire a first-hand look at the state-of-the-art structure which will double as a residence for the chancellor and a Mecca for university-sanctioned social events.

While those in attendance will shuffle through the halls in awe of what will undoubtedly be an impressive facility, we must point out the troubling black cloud that will hover above the residence for some time.

We feel the university's fund-raising priorities will leave the residence forever tainted.

How will prospective students and their parents perceive a university that spends almost $2 million on a fancy house that allows its chancellor to play host at university-sponsored dinner parties while several campus residence halls sit in a state of utter disrepair?

The answer to that question leaves us to call on those charged with the planning and carrying out of future university fund-raising campaigns to shift the impetus toward projects advantageous to Appalachian State students.

While we agree a new residence for the chancellor was needed, we feel the $1.8 million price tag is simply too hefty.

To think financial contributors would not donate monies to the university specifically earmarked for residence hall renovations, updated science laboratory equipment or state-of-the art computer technology needed in some departments is, in our opinion, a shameful statement about the society in which we live.

University officials are quick to respond to such sentiments with carefully worded rhetoric which explains those upgrades are dependent on state funds and student-fee hikes, which are controlled by the North Carolina General Assembly and UNC-System Board of Governors, respectively.

With state lawmakers calling for massive budget cuts at all 16 state-supported institutions, such public relations spin regarding private fund raising can no longer be tolerated by students.

As the state makes moves to cope with a huge budget deficit, Appalachian State University officials can no longer afford to court private monies for extravagant projects such as new state-of-the art arenas and chancellor's residences.

The only fund-raising during the state's budget crisis conducted by Appalachian State University should be geared toward upgrading the education of its students.

Does reality T.V. have you fooled?

Chris Boyce

The always-changing world of television broadcasting in the United States has found a new ratings thoroughbred. "Reality TV" is its name.

Gone is the day of the family sitcom. Television drama may soon follow.

Say hello to "Survivor," "The Mole," MTV's "Real World" and "Road Rules," and Fox's contribution to Reality TV: "real" crap.

And although "Real World" has been around for many seasons, Reality TV is just now coming into television's limelight.

Ratings are sky-high, with CBS's"Survivor" consistently beating out NBC's "Friends" on Thursday nights. Everybody loves television's new, realistic attempt at gluing viewers to their seats night in and night out.

But just how real is television's Reality TV? Is what we see on "Survivor" or Fox's "Boot Camp" a realistic portrayal of American culture and society?

How many of us can relate to tribalmen and tribalwomen who eat rats and insects, and every episode vote a fellow tribalperson off the island?

And then there's "Boot Camp." I'm sure everyone's found themselves in that similar position -- trapped in a military boot camp with cameras everywhere in a fight for a monetary prize.

These shows are no more real than anything on the WB any night of the week. Sure, they're entertaining, but it's the shows' fantasy aspect that make them so.

But the people on the shows are real, some might argue. They are everyday people like you and me and that's how viewers relate to them.

This is true, but there is still an underlying catch to Reality TV, and that is the fact that everyone changes when the camera starts rolling.

No matter how average and normal a person might be, when the cameras turn on, they become a TV star.

People change when they know that millions of viewers are tuning in and watching their every move. They become less themselves and more what society and American culture wants them to be.

Reality TV stars want to be accepted by their huge broadcast following and their behavior and even appearance on camera are means to achieving this.

Are they keeping it real? The answer is no.

Participants in Reality TV shows can't help but think that this could be their big break. And why shouldn't they, after seeing first "Survivor" Richard Hatch just about everywhere, endorsing everything?

Several members of the "Real World" casts have gone on to bigger, better things, namely other MTV programs.

Many Reality TV stars have made appearances on talk shows as well.

Of course none will probably make it big, but there's always the chance.

Reality TV boils down to television producers searching for a fresh new avenue to attract viewers. The situations are entertaining but they're spoiled by money and the cutthroat battle for ratings.

Oh, and they are spoiled by sleaze. Fox's "Temptation Island" is a testament to that.

Pairing devoted couples (obviously not very devoted if they agree to travel to a place called "Temptation Island") on an island with both male and female temptresses is anything but real.

It is pure television crap and that is what Fox does best.

MTV's "Real World" isn't much better. The episodes are consistently focused on who abused the most substances or who hates another cast member the most.

People act like idiots 24 hours a day and it is broadcast to millions of unfortunate Reality fanatics.

Reality TV has tried to fool us into thinking it's a change or that it is different and more realistic programming than ordinary television.

Don't be tricked. Reality-based television programs are misleading by name. They are merely another genre down the line aimed at producing ratings and making money.

Unfortunately, ratings come at the viewer's expense. Chris Boyce is a Varsity Sports Writer. He can be reached at: theapp@appstate.edu.

Preaching on the mall: good or bad?

Elizabeth Frye

Before the weather got so cold last semester, I used to sit out on Sanford Mall and study (okay, daydream) between classes.

One day during the fall I was in the middle of reading a really long chapter in my Introduction to Mass Communication textbook, and was for once actually able to focus on the material, when my concentration was broken by a loud voice ringing across the mall.

A bit annoyed, I looked up to see who was causing the distraction. I saw a young man pacing on the mall near Welborn Cafeteria, flipping through his Bible and preaching to the passing students.

Since I had completely lost any and all attention I needed for reading, I started listening to what the man was saying. He spoke of turning away from sin, accepting Jesus as the savior of mankind, and rejecting the devil. Most of the people passing him paid little to no attention, while a few stopped to hear him out for a few minutes.

Occasionally someone would walk by the man and would make an antagonizing comment like "I love Satan."

Other people around me, out of range of the man's hearing, said they wished he would be quiet because he was keeping them from reading or sleeping.

I have mixed feelings about this man evangelizing on Appalachian State University's campus. He has the right to preach, and I admire his faith.

I do not know of too many people who feel so strongly about their beliefs that they are willing to stand out in one of the busiest parts of campus and shout out scripture to anyone who will listen, in spite of rudeness from other people with which they are faced.

In this man's mind he is doing the right thing, and is practicing what is taught in his religion: being a missionary to the public.

He ignores opposition and preaches for hours. I imagine standing up and talking loudly for long periods of time must be quite exhausting, yet he does not seem to tire. In a sense, his preaching is quite thoughtful because he is trying to save souls and therefore is looking out for the Appalachian community.

On the other hand, is the young man's preaching appropriate?

I personally dislike when people try to shove religion down my throat, and I think many people feel the same way.

I have a set of religious beliefs, but I completely respect other religions and feel that Christianity is not the only "true" religion.

I know religion is a very touchy topic so I apologize for stepping on any toes by what I am saying, but I also think that God represents himself in different ways to different groups of people in a form they can best understand.

Thus various religions exist and are all equally valid in my opinion.

The Sanford Mall preacher is probably quite offensive to some people who have different or no religious faith. Christianity is the only way to go according to the young man, and I am sure an atheist would beg to differ. Those who come out onto the mall to enjoy the weather, in whatever form, may not want to be forced to hear what the man is saying. He disturbs the peace of the mall because his loud voice is not just background noise.

Once again I come to no set conclusion in an opinion piece.

I have noticed the young man back on the mall since the weather has gotten warmer again.

I have seen students approach him to learn more, so I am glad he is able to help some people.

However, he is also an unwanted distraction to many.

I respect what he is trying to do and think any rudeness from those passing by is completely unnecessary, but sometimes I wish I had the option of not listening to him when both he and I are on Sanford Mall.