AASA Variety Show
In your March 27, 1998, edition of the Campus Times, Angelica Martinez wrote an article entitled “Variety Show Reveals Hidden Talents.” I was surprised to find out that the Black National Anthem had been changed from “Lift Every Voice” to “We Shall Overcome.” Excuse me, why wasn’t the entire race of African Americans notified of this change? It seems that your staff needs a lesson in gathering “correct” facts. Ms. Martinez would have known the “correct” title of this song had she taken a program available at the door upon arrival. I believe she may have thought, “Well, it’s one of them darn songs.”
‘Age of Innocence’
I find it difficult to agree with Miss Czingula’s labeling David Hamilton’s “The Age of Innocence” as child pornography [“Child pornography unacceptable,” March 20]. Not all nude photography is pornographic as Miss Czingula asserts, nor does nude or erotic art automatically become “pornography” when the subject is younger than a certain age.
Pornography by nature destroys humanity and tenderness of human sexuality. Child pornography depicts children in adult sexual behaviors to their extreme detriment. Exploitation and criminal acts are common in recruiting underage subjects.
In contrast, Hamilton’s book depicts adolescents in behaviors simply natural to that age. The quotations the editor finds “corny” are excerpts from generally respected poets such as Anne Frank and Lord Byron. Faces and expressions — not genitalia — are the foci of Hamilton’s photographs. The photos also portray the innocence and precious qualities of its subject that the editor herself claims to endear.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the subjects are from upper-middle to high-income families. Parents approved and were present during the recruitment and the photographic sessions. Also note that Canon Corporation dedicated and endorsed “The Age of Innocence.”
The above facts about Hamilton’s work are simply inconsistent with those of child pornography. Hamilton, by nature as an artist, revels in challenging the mores of our society. The controversy around “The Age of Innocence” is probably what Hamilton intended all along. Although Hamilton’s work may not be pornography, it is not necessarily acceptable or appropriate. That is something the reader must decide.
La Verne Fans
After reading this week’s issue of the Campus Times, I felt the need to respond to the issues brought up in “SDSU coach rips ULV fans after loss” [March 27].
First I am left to wonder where Jack Henn, head coach for the Aztecs, has played this year that has made La Verne comparably rude? Perhaps he was looking for a reason his Division I scholarship team, chosen from over 22,000 students, could lose a Division III school with a student body a little over 1,000. I would recommend that Mr. Henn spend more time watching the game and not the fans if he wants to win.
Second, during my time at La Verne and as an alumnus, I have traveled to games that have been worse than rude and even hostile to visiting players and fans. When compared to what our athletes have to experience when traveling, La Verne games are tame.
Finally, supporters of La Verne athletics who are openly vocal should be allowed, when within the bounds of NCAA regulations (that air horn is annoying), and with consideration for safety of the players and visiting fans. Some in the athletic community refer to this as home court advantage and an excellent way to show support to our players and our school. For a University plagued with student apathy, all reasonable support should be given to encourage involvement in athletics, or any activity that encourages spirit.
Scott Mac Kay (’97)
I would like to take this time to respond to the opinion column written by Angelica Martinez, “‘One Heart One Way’ has real meaning,” printed on March 27, 1998. Although many students have collected a number of unforgettable memories while at ULV, these moments are considered personal stories, which are shared in casual conversation. The opinion section should focus on topics which impact and are of concern to the student body as a whole. There are a number of issues which could be presented in a more educational and professional manner. Ms. Martinez refers to her “power in having a column published,” but would rather waste this opportunity in narrating a story than in providing the students with valuable information. The Campus Times should be utilized to inform. Personal experiences about a road trip to the local mountains and the visiting of Mc Donald’s should not be the focal point of a column.
As a former editor of the Campus Times, I know the privilege of having a space to voice your opinions. I picked up last week’s issue and was disgusted by what I read. It’s really hard to believe that during a week when five people were killed in Arkansas by children, that you could find nothing better to write about than Leonardo DiCaprio, the Oscars and a sorority retreat. I also thought that journalists had to have their facts correct.
Laura, did you check to see how many people, including DiCaprio, have been nominated for Oscars when they were young [“Oscar does not glitter with snub,” March 27]? DiCaprio was nominated for “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.” Anna Paquin won the Oscar four years ago for Best Supporting Actress, she was only 12 years old. The list is long of young actors who were nominated for Oscars. Laura, you should have checked your facts before writing “I bet the Academy did not nominate DiCaprio because he is only 23 years old. The Academy probably feels that he is just too young.”
Angie, I’m in a sorority myself so I know the pride you feel being a member, but to fill column space with how great your retreat was made me physically ill [“‘One Heart, One Way’ has real meaning,” March 27]. If you want to write positive columns, write about your philanthropy. That’s what the Greek system should be about anyways, not parties and retreats.
Editors, I hope that in the future you check your facts and write about something that more than your sorority sisters are going to care about.
I read with interest, then trepidation and finally astonishment, your article introducing La Verne’s new football coach, Mr. Sublett [“Wall Street figure invests in dream,” March 13].
The piece regressed from a chatty overview of his “dream fulfillment” to a vehement political and economic tirade that should be cause for concern to any liberal arts faculty who have spent years patiently promoting restraint, the deeper complexities of people and thought, intelligent compromise, and a healthy contempt for the “certainty” that accompanies most stupidity.
Mr. Sublett describes himself as moody and concedes that he is “straightforward” and comes across as mean. He brags that his players didn’t like him in Washington, even though he coached them to a season of two wins, when the year before they hadn’t won at all.
The entire team chose him to tackle and generally trounce when the head coach gave them the opportunity to “get” someone on the coaching staff whom they particularly disliked. Mr. Sublett sees this as good — not sad, good! My guess is that his period of convalescence was short and in some strange way, reinforcing!
Why is football the greatest sport of all time? Mr. Sublett asserts it is because “You get to hit people!… You get to deliver the blows!” He fantasizes coaching in “front of more people”… “in games that are important… significant.” Call me obtuse, but the obvious omissions of sportsmanship, competition over “rivalry,” mature relationships, etc., are glaring, and it is not clear if this is the fault of the coach or narrow reporting.
Finally, in an intractable and agitated manner, Mr. Sublett makes clear some of his economic and political beliefs.
He claims to be the “most staunch Republican of all time.” For ages I’ve feared there were boys somewhere more Republican that Ollie North and Gordon Liddy. Imagine my surprise to find one right here at La Verne! Was there a contest at which they all held their hands over candle flames?
With heart warming frankness, Mr. Sublett also asserts that he would murder Saddam Hussein tomorrow for $10 million. It is unclear how this clearly illegal and immoral act would be carried out, or who would pay for it, but what bothers me is that while this doesn’t seem excessive to the “coach,” he finds it “ludicrous” that “Clinton is trying to spend it all (Reagan’s surplus) on ridiculous and ludicrous policies.”
It is clear that if not for football, Mr. Sublett could win championships for rapacity!
I would have ignored this mental loopiness if it hadn’t been made clear that Mr. Sublett is teaching in La Verne’s School of Business and Global Studies. If he is teaching this unconscionable assortment of oversimplified generalizations enthused with hyperbole, I suggest he provide some counter-viewpoints in his classes — or, at least, a chocolate digestive biscuit.
Dr. Robert Burns
Professor of Education