Misguided attacks

I’m writing in response to the Oct. 5 letter to the editor about GW’s “misguided efforts” of trying to control what most college-goers consider an integral part of the college experience – underage drinking (“Misguided efforts,” p. 4).

In response to the writers’ query about who on campus can honestly say they are not a binge drinker, I can proudly say me. I understand my view is unpopular among my fellow students, who are binge drinkers just like college students all over America, but why attack GW for trying to help its students obey the law?

That’s right, for those of you who forgot, being a college student does not exempt you from the laws created by the government in our best interest. Regardless of how futile it is, the University has a responsibility to try to keep students clean. Now, I understand anyone reading this is confident in their ability to control their drinking and it’s not that big of a deal, on par say, with going a few miles per hour more than the speed limit. Drinking is fun and relatively safe.

Then there are the few freak cases when someone speeds around a curve and hits an innocent cat/dog/child/grandmother crossing the street because he or she was going too fast for the stopping distance available. Just like those few and rare cases when people die or have their stomachs pumped from binge drinking.

My point is that laws are made to protect people. Why do something illegal that doesn’t have any benefits besides making one more willing to behave like an idiot? Don’t attack GW for doing all it can to help students follow the laws. I realize my words are falling on deaf ears, so go ahead, drink yourselves into a stupor every weekend. I’ll bet my college tuition I remember more of my four years than you do.

-Katherine Wootton
freshman

Overreacting

It always amazes me when students protest against beautification projects on our campus. There was an outcry over the hippo two years ago and then over the erecting of gates on the mid-campus quad last year. These additions were made in an effort to improve the aesthetics of campus, as well as to create a sense of pride among students.

The GW Hatchet’s editorial about the placing of $10,000 kiosks in the Oct. 5 issue was certainly an overreaction (“$10,000 kiosks,” p. 4). Any measure taken to improve the beauty of our campus should be embraced. The cost should not be such an issue. The improvement of our campus cannot be halted because some students are financially challenged. I’m sure most students would prefer kiosks to the suggested alternative of 40,000 packs of Juicy Fruit gum.

-Joshua Miller
junior