Letters To The Editor

Student input ignored in side-door committee

I’m surprised the Office of Student Affairs, perpetually fond of useless bureaucracy, is creating yet another student-staff committee to evaluate exemptions to the absurd policy of alarming every dorm’s secondary doors. Mark my words: The administration doesn’t care what we think.

As one of three students on the original side-door committee, which met in March, I can tell you that if the new committee is anything like the previous, it’s a big joke. Administrators’ goal is not to listen to students, but to placate dissent by pretending to do so. The last committee consisted of four staff members and only three students. Because the university swore me to secrecy, I can’t tell you how anyone voted, but you can probably guess given that staff outnumbered students – not that it matters since the committee only made recommendations to Vice President for Student Affairs William Banis and Chief of University Police Bruce Lewis, who ultimately decided what they wanted. While the administrators made promises to add lighting and security cameras in certain areas, I can’t give any specifics, again because of confidentiality. For all we know, the university has no intention of keeping its promises.

If the new side-door committee is going to be as much a sham as the first one, then Associated Student Government, the Residential Hall Association and Residential College Board should refuse to participate. Before signing on, they should demand concessions from the administration: The number of students on the committee should at least equal the number of staff, the meeting should be open to campus media, and minutes should be made public. Otherwise, administrators have no incentive to listen to students or keep any of their promises.

– david spett

Medill junior

Former Daily public editor

Former Residential College Board

vice president of academics

Cru. surveys intended to help with coping

I am writing in response to the April 26 commentary by Dan Fletcher (“Evangelical faith survey tasteless and too soon,” The Firing Squad), regarding Cru. as a whole and specifically about a spiritual survey Cru. used the day of the Virginia Tech tragedy.

Fletcher expressed his opinion that a survey used in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy was “tasteless.” Our intent in conducting that particular survey was not to disrespect the memory of those who were lost at Virginia Tech. In addition, none of the questions on the survey was written for the purpose of insinuating that Christians are incapable of doing wrong as Fletcher assumed in his commentary.

Rather, our aim was to facilitate spiritual conversation around the campus during a time when bigger questions were likely to be on the minds of the student body. We enjoy serving as a spiritual resource for our campus, and the survey was written with that purpose in mind.

We firmly believe that the message of Christ is true and life-changing. We gladly bear this message to the entire student body. We hope that, in the future, the NU community will come to understand that our desire to serve God and our neighbor, not a holier-than-thou attitude, is what motivates us to evangelize.

We hope to be kept humble by the very message that we proclaim: All people are separated from God by sin, for which we all need forgiveness, which we can accept through Christ, not because we are holy or morally upright, but because He is good!

– Brad hutter

Weinberg junior

member of Cru. leadership team

emcee of weekly meetings