1988-03-24

              Page 10

The Record

March 24,1988

Opinions

For The Record

Must needed renovations wait?

Qu[ck—could BcnctHall use a little work? One need not have lived in the venerable structure to know that its status as the least expensive living arrangements on campus is justified. While it seems that Roman Paur, OSB, vice president for student affairs, is ready to move on a renovation project for the dorm, it appears that it's not his turn.

Since the memos began flying sometime late last year, a project that began underscored by urgency has ground to a halt by collective administrative foot-dragging. While Bcnct Hall has been both eligible for renovation and the subject of diverse plans for years, no necessary repairs have been made in the name of energy efficiency, aesthetics or life safety. The situation has reached a point where some administrators feel that extensive work on the historic building is critical.

James Tingcnhal, OSB, SJU director of events and conferences, sees Bcnct Hall as more than a student dormitory. Currently the building is used during the summer months to house camps, a service which provides the university

with about $24,000 each year. If a renovation which included the addition of air conditioning was made, the fee SJU charges for a single room would likely triple, from $5-$7/night to about $17/night. Not that the campers would benefit from the cooler environment; air conditioning would attract conferences which have avoided SJU because of the lack of climate control. Air conditioning is only one of many recommended changes advanced concerning Benet Hall, and each one would serve to make the building more livable, allowing SJU to justify increasing room fees for a building which is already a source of revenue.

Others, unfortunately influential others, believe that needs in the academic realm are more acute. It doesn't seem to matter that solvency for the main academic building consideration— classroom space—is several years away.

The method for opening up more room for classes is

Renovations

continued on page 13

There's a new nation-wide disease

There is a philosophical epidemic of sorts in this country which is spreading at an alarming rate, wreaking havoc on today's American youth. While some might say the disease is hereditary, others more wisely attribute its expansion to the consumption of contaminated ideas. The illness is best referred to as Conservatism. And, strangely enough, evidence of this sickness is not necessarily found in those who have been infected, but rather in those who have not. The tangible symptom? Nausea.

Newsweek magazine recently reported statistics illuminating the extent of the epidemic. In a nationwide survey, a Newsweek poll revealed that nearly one half of all college students consider themselves politically and morally conservative — up from just over 30 percent in 1969.

What is the most frightening aspect of this epidemic? Conservatism's glaring contradictions.

The epidemic flared recently when those suffering from Conservatism garnered around the nation to protest the 15th Anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's

Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion-on-demand. Hundreds marched in Washington and thousands more throughout the country to express "moral outrage" about the Court's decision which, the protestors insist, fails to recognize the "moral value of the unborn."

"Above all else," many of them maintain, "we Americans must always uphold the sanctity of human life."

Their slogan is undeniably a noble one; their principle sound. But, to many of us who were watching, their demonstrations were nauseating. So very many of those who joined in the demonstrations emitted a sickening odor of contradiction, an arresting aroma of inconsistency.

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with an ethical ideology which upholds the sanctity of human life. In fact, the most moral of all moralities arc generally those whose foundations are built on that very principle. But moral

Conservatism

continued on page 13

The Record

The Record is the official sludent newspaper of St. John's
Editor Benedict Hacg

University. The opinions expressed herein arc those of the
Associate Editor Damain Sandy

authors and are not necessarily those of the supporting
Managing Editor John T. Enestvedt

staff, University or Abbey. No part of this publication may
News Editor Mike Holschcr

be reproduced in any form without written permission of
Assistant News Marty O'Brien

the editor. The Record docs not necessarily promote the
Features Editor Bill Linsenmcycr

products or services it advertises, and reserves the right to
Arts/Entertainment Aaron Bjerke

refuse advertisement space.
Sports Editor Greg Goihl


Photo Editor Lance Swanke

The next issue of The Record will be published Thursday,
Copy Editors Ann Marie Strukel

April 21. The deadline for that issue is Monday, April 18,
Matthew J. Thurnau

at 5 p.m.
William Pclfrey


Layout Editor Tom Deis                         ;

Submit correspondence and articles to: The Record, Box
Business Manager Cathy Frye                         j

1285, St. John's University, Collcgcvillc, MN 56321 or
Ad Managers Mike Hoffman

submissions may be left in the box outside The Record
William Lynch

office, Old Gym 031.


Grow a cause

Between The Lines

By Nicholas Koster

There are a couple of groups of pusillanimous vandals who deserve to be raked over the coals. One victimized a friend of mine a few weeks ago. He is a biology major and was conducting an immunization experiment with rabbits—was, that is, until one or more bubbleheads broke into the laboratory one night and liberated his five subjects. This not only nearly ruined the experiment but also left my friend with the cheery task of cleaning up the doo-doo that rabbits do when left to scamper about unattended for 12 hours. The perpetrators were of course anonymous, though they did leave a note proclaiming their solidarity with all the oppressed rodents of the world, or something to that effect.

Warm, compassionate, caring sentiments to be sure, but in this case completely unnecessary and even counterproductive. In the first place, the most painful experiences undergone by these particular rabbits were injections with sheep red blood cells, and I think most of us over the age of five no longer consider the act of giving a shot to be sadistic. Furthermore, the rabbits did not have to be killed to consummate the experiment; in fact, they eventually end up being sold to families as pets. Since immunized rabbits are more attractive to buyers, the only thing our bunny lovers would have accomplished had they succeeded in irreversibly disrupting the experiment would have been to decrease the chances of Flopsy, Mopsy and Co. finding permanent homes.

But even if my friend had been performing some vile torture on them, the question begs itself: who cares? I don't want to sound callous, but an unpleasant demise is pretty much inevitable for rabbits the world over. If they're not being eaten by another of God's creatures, they're getting squished by a truck or blown away and turned into hasenpfeffer. And if I were a rabbit that had to live in captivity, I'd sooner be under the aegis of an experimental biologist that some mischievous little brat: a greater probability of painful death, perhaps, but at least a scientist would be systematic about it, and I wouldn't have to worry about a budding Mcngcle using me to satisfy his curiosity about the BB gun or dad's blow torch. In any event, regardless of how they meet their last end, the horny little bastards always leave scads of copies of themselves for posterity. Consequently I think we can safely place the problem of rabbit rights near the bottom of our priority list. Wouldn't it be more sensible to direct our energies toward the myriad forms of mass destruction of humans before tackling the trials and tribulations of bunnydom? (For similar sentiments, see Damain Sandy's Feb. 11 editorial.)

Group #2 has been in the news much of late—yes, the Hennepin Lake protestors. I won't comment on the wisdom of sending U.S. troops to Honduras (except to say that the Soviets' annual contribution of S1.5 billion in primarily military aid to the Sandinistas bothers me a lot more) or on the legitimacy of civil disobedience (except to say that it is a valid expression of dissent in many cases if performed responsibly). My point is simply that, for the most visible protestors at least, these two issues were irrelevant, used only as a convenient excuse to vent some adolescent angst, in a spectacular and self-serving display for the television cameras, and not get caught. Any 16-year-old suburban pseudo-punk poseur who used his supposed newfound awareness of world politics as justification to chuck a brick through my window would find the brick speedily returning in the general direction of his head.

"Peace" protestors indeed. These twerps give a bad name to punk, post-punk, hardcore, etc. fans and legitimate peace advocates alike. Vent your frustrations on your parents—maybe they care. Better yet, if you really want to

Rabbits

continued on page 13