In Our Words... 
The Appalachian Backs Bolick and Powell 

In a 6-5 vote (with two abstaining staff members), The Appalachian has decided to endorse the Bolick-Powell campaign. After four hours and much heated discussion, this decision was made based on platform scrutiny. 

Ryan Bolick and Preston Powell’s platform is hinged on the elimination of the plus-minus grading system, replacing it with a plus-neutral system and a strong plan for more multicultural student recruitment. The “Project Nightlife” program would involve a free and safe ride home for ASU students from local bars and clubs. 

The ideas that Bolick and Powell present are strong, feasible and have been thought out and planned for three years. 

Bolick and Powell also want to reform SGA into including more of the student body, giving clubs and organizations a chance to have a vote in the senate. By doing this, not only does it include more students, but also these students will have a chance to report back to their respective clubs and organizations, making more students aware of what is going on in SGA. 

This campaign is not a one-sided affair, however, and left us as a staff unable to reach an overwhelming majority. During our lengthy debate, some staff members voiced their strong support for the Cathcart-Goad campaign. Cathcart and Goad have placed SGA first and foremost since becoming members of SGA. They have stated their intent to continue this commitment next year, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Some of the Cathcart-Goad goals include initiating the diversity roundtable and improving the accessibility of SGA to students. 

It was also believed by some staff members that Cathcart and Goad were generally more personable and approachable to students.  

While The Appalachian is officially endorsing the Bolick-Powell campaign, the staff would like to challenge the student body to take an active role in ensuring that the victorious ticket actually pursues its campaign platform. 

The only way to ensure that student government is acting in the best interest of the Appalachian student body as a whole is for every student to become concerned with the actions of SGA. No matter which ticket is victorious, any of the goals proposed by either campaign could be achieved.  The responsibility to enforce the pursuit of these ideas is in the hands of the students. 

It is the duty of every student to voice their concerns to their respective senators or to the president or vice president directly. 
 

Don't forget your lunch box, bulletproof vest 
Josh Hickman 

Sixty-nine kids have died in school shootings over the past three years in the United States. I learned this staggering figure a couple of weeks ago while doing a little channel surfing. While everybody is aware of the tragedies of Columbine and a few other incidents, I had no idea the number of deaths was that high. That doesn’t include the number of kids shot, just the ones unlucky enough to be wounded fatally. 

This program was brought to me as a segment of “America’s Most Wanted” on Fox. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. The program was actually giving instructions by an expert to students on what to do if a shooter comes into their school. Not that I think that it is a bad thing, but just the fact that this is necessary now is incomprehensible to me. The program had a dramatic re-enactment of a person with a shotgun coming down the hallways of a school and panic-stricken teenagers in his path. 

The program looked like a training film for the SWAT team, complete with escape procedures and even fighting techniques. It showed methods for breaking windows and jumping off the second floor, removing ceiling tiles and crawling up there for hiding purposes and running in zigzag patterns to escape bullets. The program then gave instructions on how to fashion weapons and traps out of convenient items. Dousing your attacker with a fire extinguisher seemed to be one of the favorite methods of the expert. But the kicker came when the re-enactment showed two teenage girls running for their lives into the bathroom. Under the expert’s advice, it showed the girls putting water and liquid soap on the floor near the door. The method was to hope that when the gun-wielding terrorist came after you he would slip, where you could then disable his weapon from him or jump over him and run. I am all for positive thinking, but I don’t think I want to fight somebody that has a shotgun with some liquid soap. Frankly, it looked like something from the “Home Alone” movie series (I just saw the commercials, I swear). 

Why stop at just putting water on the floor and using fire extinguishers? Why not dig holes filled with sharp sticks and have paint cans fall from the ceiling? Or maybe we should just add antiterrorism classes into the curriculum. Instead of going to regular, boring summer camp, kids could go train with the Navy Seals and learn 43 ways to kill a person with a number two pencil. This makes a lot more sense than trying to put better safety measures into place at our schools. Why should we be responsible for creating a safe learning atmosphere for kids? It is really their problem since they are the ones getting shot at. It makes a lot more sense to just give them military training so they can take care of themselves. They are never going to grow into responsible adults if we keep doing everything for them. Of course, they are never going to grow into adults at all if we keep allowing these things to happen. 

I can’t believe that this kind of mentality has become our reality. Whatever happened to the good old days of just being bullied for your lunch money and getting picked on for being different and generally just hating your whole adolescence? Teenage years are hard enough without having to worry if you need to duck and cover just because some nut isn’t getting enough love and attention at home. 

We have to find real solutions for these problems and if that means metal detectors in the school and security officers, then so be it. 

I think that if I were still in high school, then I wouldn’t mind having to sacrifice the invasion of privacy of passing through a metal detector. Especially if that meant that I wouldn’t have to worry about having to learn the skills of a Green Beret just to make it to English class. 
 

Letters to the Editor 
Critics of 'Case of Creation' should come 
SGA candidate's belief's are in question 
Writer for The Paper did not check KA facts 
 

Critics of 'Case of Creation' should come 

To the Editor: 

In the March 23 edition of The Mountain Times, Professor Howard Neufeld of the ASU Biology Department wrote a lengthy letter to the editor debunking this weekend’s appearance of Dr. Duane Gish at Mt. Vernon Baptist Church. 

Dr. Gish is speaking on a “Case for Creation.” I will be in attendance because my curiosity and search for the truth has been aroused. I’m sorry that Professor Neufeld declined an invitation to debate and make his case for evolution. 

I’m reminded of the neighborhood kid when I was growing up. He would bring the football for our Saturday games: if his team was losing, he’d simply take the football and go home. Professor Neufeld, if you can intelligently and persuasively make your case, then what are you afraid of? 

David Desautels 
Boone 
ddesautels@skybest.com 
 
 

SGA candidate's belief's are in question 

To the Editor: 

As we learn more and more about the people running for the offices of SGA president and vice president, we are bound to uncover stones that may be better left untouched.  

However, I am very glad one particular stone was uncovered for me because it has greatly influenced my decision on which ticket to support.  

Phil Cathcart has served the Student Government Association for three years now and seems to be a good representative for the students here. Until a few weeks ago, I would agree with anyone who said he would make a great representative of ASU’s student body.  

I felt this way until I was informed that he displays a Confederate flag on the front of his automobile.  

I realize that this is a very complex issue and I respect Cathcart’s statement that his personal beliefs should be held separate from business. However, I believe that the continuance of this particular expression of his beliefs is offensive and embarrassing to many students. An icon that is known to stand for hate, oppression and the suppression of people should not be upheld by someone who is supposed to be representing an entire student body.  

I find myself questioning Cathcart’s commitment to diversity and racial tolerance when he is so adamant about defending this emblem which continues to be used by hate groups and racist groups.  

I still believe that Cathcart seems to be a dedicated, hard-working person who could offer a great deal to ASU, but I for one, do not want to be represented by someone who upholds the Confederate flag. 

Aisha Little 
ASU Box 05393 
Sophomore 
President of BSA 
  

Writer for The Paper did not check KA facts 

To the Editor: 

This article is written in response to Eva Hyatt’s previous two [opinion] articles in The Paper concerning the Kappa Alpha fraternity. 

After reading Hyatt’s article, I was upset because of the false information it contained. It is one thing to report the actual events; it is another, however, to report what she would like to believe happened. 

It seems to me that Hyatt’s main goal is to get Kappa Alpha Order kicked off of the ASU campus. The fight to get the fraternity removed is due to the “alleged rape” of a 14-year-old at the house occupied by members of Kappa Alpha, not the “party house” as Hyatt reported in her article on Feb. 4. 

The important word in that sentence was “alleged.” 

The young girl has dropped the charges, and therefore no one will be charged. This makes you wonder what really happened that night, doesn’t it? 

What Hyatt is unaware of is that brothers of KA did call security officers. Due to miscommunication, however, they did not show [up to work]. Police officers were also called by Kappa Alpha, and they did not bust the party nor recommend that the party be closed. Sorry, Hyatt, you are wrong again! 

The other statement that Hyatt made in her most recent article was that nothing happens to sorority sisters and girlfriends of fraternity brothers because they look out for each other at parties. This claim is absurd. She seems to think that if someone new attends one of Kappa Alpha’s parties they are immediately treated like a piece of meat and raped. 

She is correct on one point: most of the Greeks are standing behind Kappa Alpha. Why would we want to lose one of the best fraternities on campus? It also concerns me that Hyatt is an employee of our university. It makes you wonder if she teaches her students facts or what she wants them to believe. 

The punishment that Kappa Alpha has been given is extremely harsh especially for something that “allegedly” happened. 

Because the security officers were not present, anyone could come to the party, Greek or not. The members of KA did their best to maintain a level of security without the security guards. Who is to say it was not one of the men who belong to the club Men for Consensual Sex who could have committed the alleged crime? 

As I was walking to class one day, I saw a piece of paper taped to the Appalcart Station that read “KAstrate Rapists.” These flyers were put up by Men for Consensual Sex, and it infuriated me. Just because the “alleged rape” may have occurred at a KA party, it does not necessarily mean that it was a Kappa Alpha member. I think in the legal field, they call the signs like this “slander and defamation of character.” So a word to the wise— get your facts straight (instead of filling in the blanks) before you falsely accuse someone of something that “might” or might not have happened. 

Hedy Cummings 
ASU Box 11816 
 
 

Return To Top