Selective Law Enforcement

I was walking through campus one day when I heard a “ka-clunk, ka-clunk” sound coming behind me. I moved to the right and a skateboarder passed me. I was thankful that skateboards make so much noise. Halfway across campus, I saw the skateboarder being hassled by campus safety. After all, skateboarding isn’t allowed on campus. It’s dangerous for pedestrians… almost as dangerous as the campus safety vehicles that driving down the sidewalks.

But I let this unbalanced reasoning slide, because it didn’t affect me. But as I reached my building, I began to choke on the cloud of smoke that surrounded the entryways. It was at this point where I snapped.

Now, I understand that the smokers’ right to satiate their craving for tobacco and nicotine trumps my right to breathe clean air on college campus, but not in a no smoking zone. This infuriates me.

Every single non-smoking area, besides the horticulture department, is full of people smoking. And yet there are no consequences. These people are blatantly breaking the law, and yet no one does anything about it.

Well, I’m putting my foot down. I know people in college like to smoke and that they will fight for their right to do so, but there is only a small percentage of open campus space that prohibits smoking. Instead of walking a 20 feet away from the no smoking area, I see people smoke directly under the no smoking signs.

But do the campus officials do anything about this? Do they go after these people like they do skateboarders? Do they apprehend these law-breaking adults like they should? The answer is no.

Go to any open non-smoking area and you will find the ground littered with cigarette butts. So is there a reason for this selective law enforcement? Is the small chance of a skateboarder hitting me more hazardous to my health then the second smoke that covers the campus, even in the few places that prohibits it?

I think that something needs to be done. Selective law enforcement is wrong.

Jesse Paul


Dodger Fan Can’t Criticize Phillies

To quote Tony Lee, “I hate being wrong, especially if there’s proof of my stupidity.”

Calling the Phillies and Rays nicknames such as unintimidating is laughable since his Trolley Dodgers could very well be kings of this category.  But of course, here in Pennsylvania, we’re known to have intimidating fans and funny mascots—something the Trolley Dodgers have neither of.

No wonder the Raider nation left the City of Angels.

Go Phillies.

Erin Blank


The following Letters to the Editor were submitted before the election but were not run because of lack of space.

Yes on 8 Would Trump the Court

I feel that many are missing the point with regard to Proposition 8.

Sixty-one percent of Californians voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000. This year, the court stepped in and overruled the people.

Now the people are coming forward to trump the court. The people want to be the ones making the law, not the judiciary—their job is to interpret the law, not create it. 

The real issue is that Proposition 8 supporters believe that the people of California should be the ones to decide how to define marriage within their state.

Clearly many have a problem with how some Californians may have reached their conclusion. It is a moral issue. A society’s moral code/mores/norms are interwoven with its laws. The two are inevitably intertwined. 

We have enacted laws that proscribe certain relationships because we as a society have decided that they are not relationships that should be sanctioned by the state.

Such laws include prohibitions against bigamy, bestiality, prostitution, having a marital relationship with those who are under age or who are close relatives, and other such laws. 

Consequently, if you are trying to tell proponents of Proposition 8 that they are wrong for wanting to prohibit same sex marriage, then fine, but then all you are really saying is that your moral judgment is right and their moral judgment is wrong.

Jeff Tibbitts


Judges Shouldn’t Make Laws

Proposition 8 is about civil rights, but not in the way framed by its opponents.

While the proposition mentions man, woman and marriage, what it is really about is the rights of the people versus the rights of the judges.

The people spoke with Proposition 22 a few years ago. The wording was exactly the same as the current Proposition 8. The judges struck down the law and declared that they have the power to subvert the people’s votes.

Proposition 8 is an opportunity to put the judges back in their place. The people have the power unless we give it away to a handful of unelected judges. Vote Yes on 8.

Christopher Ganiere

Community Member

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.