By

To the Editor:I read with interest Michael Richter’s opinion piece (“Macalester’s Institute for Global Fundraising,” Oct. 24). I feel it would be helpful to share the facts concerning the allegations Richter puts forth in his opinion column.

First, he asserts that the Step Forward campaign is all about the Institute for Global Citizenship and internationalism in his statement, “The IGC building was designed to be a driving force behind the capital campaign.” The fund raising goal for the IGC Building is five percent of the campaign goal ($7.5 million of a $150 million goal). It is preposterous to think that a component that is less than five percent of the total is a rationale upon which to build a case for a fund raising campaign. I can assure you that if one wanted to build the case for a campaign around one objective it would need to represent the majority of the goal for the campaign.

The more unfortunate opinion Mr. Richter states is that if this campaign does not benefit him personally (“geared towards my education”) then he suggests the campaign is not worthwhile. The Step Forward campaign is about expanding need-based financial aid through 100 new scholarships, adding ten new endowed chairs, expanding student-faculty research funds, a renovated and improved Janet Wallace, improved athletic and wellness facilities in the Leonard Center, new concentrations in Community and Global Health, Human Rights and Humanitarianism, and Urban Studies, increased study away funds, funds for civic engagement, and yes a new building and concentration in Global Citizenship. If Mr. Richter does not take advantage of any these improvements to campus then he is correct that this campaign has not directly benefited his education at Macalester. But I would assert that practically every other Macalester student can identify with at least one of these objectives as being part of his or her Macalester experience.

Tommy Bonner
Vice President for Advancement

To the Editor:

I would like to make a few comments on Matt Won’s articles in the section “All Around the Liberal Arts” and the dialogues on the bigotry at the Macalester-hosted water polo tournament. The recent conversations about the racist and homophobic remarks used by Monmouth water polo player(s) have been very fruitful. I am wholeheartedly appreciative of all the constructive documentation and criticism that was created as a response to aforementioned actions, most notably, “An open letter to the Monmouth College community” (Oct. 24).

I also agree, as I believe Matt Won has insinuated, that as students representing this very institution, we should be more self-critical. On so many occasions I have called people (most often myself) and things “retarded.” Come to think of it, it was probably my first retort when a Gustavus Adolphus soccer fanatic called me a “faggot” in the bathroom of the stadium last Friday. It’s simply unjust to use a word that describes a perfectly innocent group of people in such a derogatory sense, and we should probably all stop saying it as long as we’re against saying “nigger” and “faggot.”

Going back to Matt’s articles, can the no-smoking signs torn down at Oberlin be equated with a penis drawn on the Students Against Rape and Sexual Assault sign? I say “No.” To a greater or lesser degree, the Monmouth polo player, the anonymous penis artist and myself all need to be a little bit wiser in our words and actions. Certain words and symbols have greater gravity than others, which is why I sympathize with the disgruntled smokers and would never put myself in the same category as someone who vomits slurs left and right. There is, however, always room for improvement.

Adam Rule ’09