Statue defaced at library

Does anybody know what kind of mal-intent is going on at our campus? It is interesting to me that nobody has really written anything about this criminal act on our UA campus. The statue located directly in front of the entrance to the main library has been defaced. It’s also interesting enough to know that the defaced statue is of a Native American.

In the wake of tragic national news happening in Sedona, one could only connect the dots that this criminal act was racially motivated. The Native American statue which has a feather on the head has apparently been cut away from the statue itself. The feather, a symbol for native religion and spirituality, has been targeted in accordance to the Sedona mishap. Only this mal-intended action is based on ignorance. Native people were not involved in the Sedona mishap; only a self-proclaimed spiritual guru who exploits native religion. It is perplexing knowing that this subject hasn’t been getting notoriety as it should, and from a native perspective to put things in perspective for non-Indians. This sad occurrence happening on our campus, which is supposed to be academic and scholarly, is conviction in just how much non-Indians don’t understand or really care to educate themselves about native peoples.

Stephen Curley

Anthropology junior

First Amendment editorial ignores important facts

I am writing in response to your editorial published Oct. 27 (“”Students fighting First Amendment infringement for greater good””). A couple things stand out — first, that the author quotes Chapman, the editor in chief of James Madison University’s The Breeze, as saying, “”It seems like people in the Office Of Judicial Affairs don’t understand the First Amendment.”” Well, what is frustrating is the editor in chief of a school publication doesn’t understand the correct applications of the First Amendment. Dan Abrams, chief legal analyst for NBC, states “” The First Amendment allows you to speak freely without government interference, but that doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want …  without repercussions from anyone.”” As a part of that university, both Chapman and reporter Katie Hibson should understand that the institution has guidelines and rules about speech, and by being employed by the university you are subject to punishment if you break those guidelines.

The second thing that annoyed me was that the author also reasoned that the Resident Assistant who stopped Hibson and Chapman had no reason to stop them from entering school property because they cannot stop everybody who belongs in the hall from entering. The author writes “”RAs don’t have the time to scope out every single intruder.”” That is a correct statement, RAs don’t have the time to stop every single intruder, but does that mean that an RA should allow non-residents inside just because they cannot stop all of them? I will give an analogy; if my RA knows that smoking crack is a big problem in my hall, but he also knows he cannot stop everybody from doing it, should he even bother to report an incident? Of course he should report it. It is a rule, and he shouldn’t simply not enforce it because some people get away with breaking it. If the rule is not to let reporters into a dorm to keep an environment conducive to academic success, then it should be enforced.

The author could have made a compelling argument for the story, but instead, wrote an editorial based on misconceptions and fallacies.

Pre-business sophomore