Emmert should give back his raise
I am writing about the $100,000 loan Chancellor Emmert will receive each year for the next five years as part of his compensation package. As we know the Student Senate, Faculty Senate, Louisiana Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Higher Education all denounced this pay increase as too much and questioned the sources of the funding.
I am dismayed at the money coming from the LSU Foundation and Tiger Athletic Foundation. The LSU Foundation promotes it will use its funds to support students through scholarships, among other things. It further states it will support our faculty and staff through professorships, endowed chairs, travel, etc. Instead, the Foundation chose to use these funds to give our chancellor $100,000 a year for the next five years. This money could be used to give 100 scholarships of $1,000, for instance. Instead, the need for an interest-free loan to Chancellor Emmert to make him “loyal” to LSU so he will not leave superseded the needs of all our faculty and staff. Even the president of the LSU Foundation admits “no donors have stepped up to voluntarily fund Emmert’s pay package. It’ll come from our general budget,” as quoted in The Advocate.
Equally shocking is the $50,000 a year coming from Tiger Athletic Foundation. TAF advertises the money it raises will be used to “benefit every athlete and every team at LSU through scholarship and awards, as well as through the construction and maintenance of athletic facilities.” I would like TAF therefore to explain how paying the chancellor $50,000 a year supports this mission statement. Is it that the chancellor will support you in your endeavor to control more seats in Tiger Stadium and assess a huge surcharge to garner millions? The answer is obvious.
If the chancellor has any dignity, he will end the firestorm surrounding his pay controversy and give back the money to the foundations for their stated purpose. Then, maybe we in the LSU community honestly can say Chancellor Emmert has a love for LSU and NOT MONEY!
So, which is it, Chancellor?
Donald Hodge
Law Student
Americans should support war in Iraq
Lately as I read the paper, listen to the radio and watch the news, I am saddened to see so much opposition to the upcoming war with Iraq. Contrary to liberal opinion, this war is going to be fought to make the United States and the world a safer place. After World War II, the United States declared it would fight to rid the world of oppressive regimes and uphold democracy and the American way of life. Saddam Hussein is an evil and cruel dictator who tortures and uses his people to gain power and money for his own benefit. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently sat before the United Nations Security Council and unveiled more evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them. This is not a war to claim oil rights. This is a war to protect the American people from further attacks like those that took place Sept. 11. The United States will do what it has always done and destroy Saddam and his regime and replace them with some form of democratic government. In addition to implementing democracy, the United States also will fund and lead the reconstruction effort. The Iraqi people have no idea how much better off they will be once Saddam Hussein is no longer their leader.
This is a time when our nation needs to forget its political beliefs and stand united against a just cause. Our men and women who will go into battle need nothing more than our support here at home. I have yet to hear one intelligent, well-thought-out, liberal reason for why we should not go to war. I am challenging all those who oppose this war to sit back and really analyze this situation. War is necessary and good will prevail.
Robert Nunmaker
Senior — Marketing
Belief in evolution denies God’s existence
Creationism (as explained in the Bible) and evolutionism never can be combined in any way. The Bible clearly explains death is the direct result of man’s sin (Rom. 6:23). The Bible also says Christ came into the world to save sinners from death. His method for doing so was to offer himself as a pure and sinless sacrifice in our place. Jesus allowed himself to be tortured and killed in a horrible way to make payment for our sins and satisfy God’s justice.
Obviously, if the theory of evolution is correct, death has been occurring for millions of years, long before the first man ever walked the planet. This would mean death is not the result of man’s sin. If death is not the result of our sin, Christ’s death means nothing, because we will die regardless of our sin, and the entire message of the Bible is void. Basically, creationism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive; belief in one means a rejection of the other.
If evolution is true, then we are here purely by chance and are only accountable to ourselves. If creationism is true, then God exists, and we are accountable to Him. To be accountable to a God who has demanded death as a payment for our sins is a fearful thing, unless you have trusted in Christ’s sacrifice as payment for your sins.
For some, belief in evolution (and thus denial of God) is an easier pill to swallow than to approach a holy God on His terms.
Robby Bourgeois
Sophomore — Mechanical Engineering
Success based on God, not science
This letter responds to Mr. Colter Gates’ letter yesterday. Mr. Gates failed to take his own advice. He suggested Mr. Dee, to whom he was responding, should “assess the accuracy of the facts” used to construct his argument. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Gates forgot his suggestion by making a very inaccurate assertion in saying “evolution is no longer debated; it is fact, moreso than gravity.”
Evolution is a theory that has come to be taught, disturbingly, as a fact. It does attempt to explain much about our world and universe, but it is, after all, only a theory. Secondly, the statement that evolution is more of a fact than gravity simply makes no sense. A fact is a fact. One fact is not better than another fact.
I think Mr. Gates makes a sizeable mistake in attributing America’s success to science, at the exclusion of God. Science, I believe, has played a large role in the development of our society, but it can’t hope to contend with the role God has played. We should realize Western culture is largely, if not entirely, rooted in Christianity. For example, the sanctity of human life. What keeps us all from killing each other for any reason? The maintenance of civilization hinges upon the fact that we don’t kill each other wantonly because we believe, whether we know it or not, human lives are precious. Science didn’t give us that. Understanding the Christian base in our culture gives way to understanding how and why many systems in our society work well and remain, such as government and business.
Lastly, I think life would get pretty dreary if I sincerely didn’t believe in God. The notion that there is nothing beyond this life, this limited existence in which we are stuck, makes me despair. I think I read once that the worst moment for the atheist is when he’s really thankful and has no one to thank.
Andy Wild
Junior — Graphic Design
Student has flawed view of evolution
This is to address the letter written by Mr. S. Evan Dee. I’d like to suggest that you take a science class above Biol 1001. I suggest something like Biol 3040. You are greatly mistaken in your understanding of evolution and the world in general. Open your mind, take in the evidence, and think for yourself based on your college education. And please, please, DO NOT teach high school. You will pollute the minds of our youth.
Kathryn Cummins
Senior — Biological Sciences
LSU honored Wally Pontiff well
I attended the baseball game Friday night and would like to highly commend the students and the LSU community for the large numbers that came out. I overheard several conversations of people saying they were leaving after only a few innings, and the only reason they came out on such a cold night was in honor of Wally [Pontiff].
Being fortunate to have known him, I’m sure he would have greatly appreciated the support he received in his honor Friday night. So, thank you everyone for honoring the man who wished to be remembered as a nice guy, and unquestionably lived up to it.
Michael Roy
Sophomore — Electrical Engineering