When I decided to leave my home state of Kentucky to attend the University, I thought I had wisely invested my out-of-state tuition money and, more importantly, my future in a community of students and faculty who uphold a unique honor code and a communion of trust between each individual.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "Experience has shown that, even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Only the Honor Committee could claim to hold Mr. Jefferson in such high regard and yet fail so completely to heed this warning. The Committee began discussions Oct.
In the midst of a rash of violent attacks against students - some of which occurred right across the street from University property - why does the University stick to its policy that denies students, faculty and staff the right to protect themselves using the only sensible tool for fending off a rapist or mugger?
Austin Raynor's Sept. 28 column, "Behind the veil," about the French ban on Islamic veils was well-intentioned but misguided. It seems obvious that any "peaceful religious expression" would allow the participant to end the "expression" without harm to themselves.
John Wooden, Basketball Hall of Famer as a player and coach, once said, "Sports do not build character - they reveal it." I believe this is a wise assessment; however, I can say that for the first time, I was not proud of the character revealed by several of my peers this past weekend at the men's soccer game against Wake Forest. I was a little more than surprised as I perused a letter to the editor entitled "Soccer HOO-ligans" (Sept.
Ginny Robinson, in "Majority rules" (Sept. 20), successfully turned a rather common-sense Supreme Court case into a horror story complete with the extermination of Christianity and the arrival of the newest contracted independent organization on Grounds: "Hoo's in the Mob." The case in question, Hastings v.