ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 1996 TAG: 9602140023
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
SURELY ANY observer of our federal government, which angers us at home and embarrasses us abroad, would agree that if we could remove politics from the national scene, even this bunch of fools and knaves would serve us much better.
Since elected officials in Washington spend 100 percent of their time raising funds and running for re-election, limiting them to one term would end these activities and allow them to vote their consciences. Several issues like Social Security desperately need to be addressed, but no politician can mention them without committing political suicide. If politicians knew they could never serve again, the issue of political suicide would disappear, and special interests would lose their power. The corrurpting effect of long service in Washington would also end.
Obviously, term limits have some disadvantages, such as losing the experience of sterling characters like Sens. Kennedy and D'Amato. But the advantages dwarf the disdadvantages.
Let's make every candidate pledge to work for term limits to get our vote, even if it requires a constitutional amendment.
FRED M. WERTH
RURAL RETREAT
More students need college aid
IN RESPONSE to your Jan. 20 news article, "For-profit schools seeking subsidies":
I believe this article completely misrepresented the issues. TAG [Tuition Assistance Grants] eligibility for students attending National Business College isn't about more profits for National Business College President Frank Longaker. It's about making a college education more affordable for a great number of Virginia students.
Furthermore, the effort to expand TAG isn't about Del. Richard Cranwell doing Longaker a favor, but about Cranwell doing his job. That's making sure state financial aid is distributed fairly, and helps the greatest number of students possible.
SAMANTHA R. MOORE
MARTINSVILLE
Show tolerance for all views
I READ the Jan. 25 article, ``Ad manager: Threats killed `diversity' billboard,'' with disgust. A deep sickness is in a society that cannot tolerate a message of hope from its own people. Apparently, the meaning of ``Diversity Enriches'' was lost on the 50 or more citizens who called to complain - and even threatened vandalism to the billboard owner's property if it wasn't removed. They appeared to be more concerned with the reminder of the presence of the ``Gay and Straight Citizens of Southwest Virginia'' who purchased the space. The billboard was up for five days, until people became aware of it and began exercising their prejudice.
This isn't the first time. I remember the series of ``Celebrate Diversity'' billboards here in Roanoke that were removed very quickly after one was spray-painted with the crude phrase ``kill fags.'' I don't agree with many messages portrayed by billboards, but I recognize everyone's right to free expression to be more important than my personal opinion. Although I'm not a Christian, I don't demand that billboards quoting Scriptures be taken down. Although I'm pro-choice, I don't threaten to sabotage the signs of my pro-life opponents. If we are to progress as humans, we must learn to have respect for all people. I don't say we should forfeit or change our faiths, just raise our level of tolerance to welcome and love those who are different.
Even though I'm only 18 years old and many of my ideas are still being born, I try my hardest to judge on the basis of character only. Even if you find everything I stand for immoral and completely infuriating, I respect you. I just ask for the same treatment to be returned to me and all people. A pipe dream perhaps, but one to fight for.
JUDITH JAMISON
ROANOKE
Colleges shouldn't play the courts' role
CATHRYN Goree's Feb. 2 commentary, ``A case for campus hearings,'' is of consuming interest. As one who has had three daughters complete post-secondary education at three different institutions, I'd like to comment on her commentary.
Goree, who is dean of students at Virginia Tech, in a completely objective and unbiased way pontificated how well-served rape victims are in pursuing justice through the institution's investigation and confidential-hearing process.
For the dean to lend her stature to the imperious assertion that it's more likely for the victim to win her case on campus than in criminal court stretches credulity. What happens when the commanding interests of the institution are divergent from that of an otherwise insignificant anonymous student involved in a confidential investigation?
The dean opines: ``It is an appropriate issue for campus judicial systems to handle.'' Pardon me, but we fund and support courts for felony miscreants to be judged by those who have no interest in the accused's reputation, the victim or the institution they attend. The educational institution has a role, but it hasn't the authority to punish felons in a way considered appropriate by the law of the commonwealth.
BOB ANDERSON
BLACKSBURG
LENGTH: Medium: 98 linesby CNB