Monday August 27, 2001 |

Fraternities incorrectly criticized

This is a response to an article published Friday titled "IFC ad hints at homogeneity" by David Ellis.

I for one fail to feel the weight of your argument and fear that little is true about your assessment regarding "this so called learning institution." My reason is simple: Your logic fails to carry persuasion. Below I have outlined what I believe to be your remarks building to the conclusion that: Exclusionary and elitist people are not intelligent and open-minded. 1. White-guy clones are exclusionary and elitist.

2. [Indirect relation] Exclusionary and elitist people must pay for companionship.

3. Those that must pay for companionship separate themselves from those that are different.

4. People that separate themselves from those that are different are not intelligent and open-minded.

5. Therefore: Exclusionary and elitist people (i.e. white-guy clones) are not intelligent and open-minded.

Upon first inspection, your argument seems of valid form and function, despite the contrived blandishment obfuscating what is indeed important. Let me first begin with the construction of item one, "white-guy clones are exclusionary and elitist." You fail to prove this statement leaving the weight of your argument upon the hinges of assumption and as we all know, assumptions are not fact. Nonetheless, for those readers curious of a retort, I would have to say that there is little reason to believe that any organization on or off campus orients its members such that individualism is lost - for it is individualism that promotes leaders in academia, politics and business.

I would further suggest that engaging in on-campus organizations and fraternities promotes individualism. It is the weak-minded that fails to see past the clothing one wears (referring to the IFC advertisement). We all know that without your first assumption, the rest is plain scandal. For the sake of argument, let us bring such nonsense to light. Assumption two seems very explicit about the paying for companionship, and does fit into the conclusion you cunningly manifest. Let us begin in our deconstruction. The following truncated list of fraternities require payment for membership: Phi Eta Sigma Honorary Society, Phi Sigma Tau Philosophy Honorary, Eta Sigma Phi Fraternity and Phi Alpha Delta Pre-Law Fraternity.

I would suggest that the rather outstanding academic profile of members of these organizations is noteworthy. There are a number of organizations requiring above average "elitist" academic achievements. You suggest that exclusionary and elitist people are not intelligent and open-minded. I beg to differ - as I have pointed out that some organizations that require payment for membership do in fact require some semblance of intelligence if not a remarkable display of it.

The remaining items composing your argument do not entice a response. For I feel your argument has indeed failed to convey any semblance of intelligence and I think you have shown us all that it is you who is not open-minded.

Tracy Brown

philosophy senior

Dale column correct

The commentary, "There's a hundred reasons not to get out of bed," in the Wildcat on August 22 was excellent. Readers might be interested to know that at some colleges like Harvard, you can get the whole lecture at a later time. The Wall Street Journal Part B on August 22 had an article that (said) · you can et the lecture at some later time over your computer. When will this come to Arizona? You are joking the faculty would see this as the first step to college at home. Why come to Tucson, live in a dorm miles from campus, and pay for the process?

MIT has already announced that all their courses will be on the computer in a year or so. A other big schools do this, what does this suggest about the future of many colleges in the USA? I wouldn't want to be training to be a college professor now. By the time you graduate, there will be very few jobs.

Stuart A. Hoenig

Tucson