Crimson Neglects Positive Aspects of MIT Fraternities

To the editors:

Your editorial about MIT fraternities, "Mistake after Mistake"(Editorial, Nov. 5) was a travesty. In addition to only showing one side of the story, it contained several pointless insults directed at MIT that lack relevance or journalistic maturity.

Your editorial contributes to the perception that MIT is a hub for binge drinking. A little homework reveals how absurd that perception is. A 1998 study by Henry Wechsler, director of College Alcohol Studies at the Harvard School of Public Health, found binge drinking at MIT to be at about half the national average, at 23 percent. The study also found that about a third of MIT students do not drink, whereas only 19 percent abstain nationwide.

The media has scrutinized MIT in the wake of Scott Krueger's tragic death. The problems that this scrutiny has revealed are not unique to the Institute. I can personally attest to instances of underage binge drinking and public urination at Harvard.

What concerns me much more than the fallacious description of drinking at MIT is the blatant and unnecessary disrespect for an institution with which your university has a long-running mutually beneficial relationship. You claim that MIT has a reputation for "technologically incompetent students." I know of no one who feels that MIT produces anything but the best and brightest.

In your demonizing of MIT fraternities, you omit the positive contributions MIT fraternities make to the community. My house runs charitable events and has never caused any disturbance to the community. This record is representative of MIT fraternities. You mention that Phi Kappa Sigma (PKS) was forced to cancel a party for the Leukemia Society of America after the firecracker incident, but neglect to mention that the MIT community had a rally to support PKS at which we raised over $10,000 to combat leukemia.

Instead of contributing to the media hype that so negatively affects the lives of MIT students (much more than fraternities actually do), you should consider supporting your peers down the river.

Matt Stolbach

Nov. 14, 1999

The writer is a sophomore at MIT and a member of the Chi Phi fraternity.

Council Not Incompetent

To the editors:

It is a shame that in arguing for a reduction in the size of the Undergraduate Council (a goal I fully support) prior to approving a term-bill increase, the editorial staff feels the need to put forth baseless assertions about the council's competence (Editorial, Nov. 18). In particular, I'm interested in what the editorial staff finds to be the council's "mediocre campus-wide events." Are these the Harvard-Yale weekend festivities? The Game tailgate has served food to 1,000 people each of the last three years, and the shuttles to the Harvard-Yale game at Yale transport over 800 people back and forth from The Game. Is the staff calling the first-year formal a mediocre event? For the past four years, this event has averaged an attendance of 1,000 people--more than 60 percent of the first-year class each year.

By mediocre campus-wide event and "endless discussions of Springfest bands," is the editorial staff referring to the council's efforts last year to survey student opinion over what band to bring to campus? This effort led to a collection of responses from 800 students, and the results of this effort speak for themselves--a SpringFest with over 3,000 students in attendance.

If these are not the "mediocre campus-wide events" that the staff is referring to, I would be interested in having them explain exactly what events they are referring to. The truth is, because of the scarcity of funds, these events and the holiday shuttles to Logan Airport have comprised almost the entirety of the council's campus-wide events over the past four years.

Over the past years, the council has steadily become a more professional and trustworthy organization. Over the last six years, the efforts and leadership of council members have elevated the council's ability to make real changes on behalf of the student body. The discovery of the missing $40,000 was a direct result of the council's new professionalism, in particular the conduct of an internal review of the council's books and the institution of better financial controls.

Argue for or against the term-bill increase to your heart's content. Argue that only downsizing the council will allow the council to obtain the representativeness that it needs. Ask a representative to propose that the question of council downsizing be administered by referendum at the same time as that of the term-bill increase. Argue about whether increased funding should go towards student groups or towards large campus-wide events. But don't use baseless assertions about the success of the council's events and the council's competence without supporting your statements in some meaningful way.

Samuel C. Cohen '00

Nov. 18, 1999

The writer is the former vice president of the council and a current council House representative.

Misunderstanding Microsoft

To the editors:

I wonder whether the writer of "In Defense of the Microsoft Monopoly" can see how his arguments apply to the Microsoft situation (Opinion, Nov. 17). First, his claim that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act targets monopolies which rely on market power rather than market merit is amusing. I would like to ask: Does Microsoft truly possess a monopoly because its products are far and away the top in their field, or is it instead because of the chance licensing of the DOS operating system by IBM for the PC, which led to a massive install base for Windows and all its descendants? The writer continually uses Microsoft's favorite word, "innovation," without realizing that Microsoft's gifts lie not in original thinking or research and development but instead assimilation and adaptation of technologies to the Windows medium, to the exclusion of all others.

The writer makes reference to what he believes to be threats to Microsoft's power, including the Java programming language. In fact, Microsoft has worked against the Java initiative by producing their own "version" of Java which, while not fully compliant with the Sun standards, is needed to take full advantage of the Windows functions 85 percent of the world's PC users are targeted for. In addition, the condescending treatment of Microsoft's competitors, often beaten not through superior product but by exclusionary licensing techniques, reveals a lack of knowledge of how the workings of the computer industry functions. The writer assumes that companies survive entirely on the merits of their products, swallowing the Microsoft line completely, while not realizing that it is the tactics Microsoft practices which make it a monopoly, not the vertical integration of their software division.

In a world with single alternatives, choice dies, and choice is the only weapon the consumer has. Once that is gone, we are simply spoon-fed whatever Microsoft chooses to give us. This state already exists to some extent; why else would we accept an operating system that crashes every 10 minutes?

What other industry would we accept such atrocious quality standards from? The American consumer has become complacent with the state of things today, and it is to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's credit that he has been able to summon the courage to fight against Microsoft. Let us hope that the rest of the government's case will be as successful.

Ben S. Munson

Nov. 18, 1999

The writer is a senior at Connecticut College.