Letters and Emails

Couch burning goes from prank to serious situation

THIS WEEK IS the six-month anniversary of a couch burning fiasco in which I was involved, and it has yet to be resolved. Who would have thought that the ramifications from a seemingly harmless prank would be felt for so long? After my upcoming fourth court date, this issue will hopefully be history. In addition to my almost monthly visits to the good old Santa Clara Hall of Justice, tack on soup kitchen "volunteer" work, some small trash disposal, written apologies and, of course, a meeting with the district attorney, not to mention the phone conferences with a lawyer, the threats of a felony, and of course my personal favorite, a free ride in a police car and a few hours in the local jail.

All of this because a friend of mine and I decided that the best way to play a prank on our friends would be by trying to light their couch, that was about to be trown away, on fire. I emphasize, the word trying, because neither of us has enough Boy Scout training to light a decent fire and no actual damage was done. Imagine what the consequences would be if the couch were destroyed. I would prefer not to think about it, but from what I've been told there would have been some time in county jail, and a bail upwards of $100,000.

Despite what I've had to go through, there are some other serious consequences for this type of vandalism. Two weeks ago a trash fire outside a Santa Clara University student's house left a car half-melted and debris strewn about the whole street. That same night, a block away, another trash fire in the front yard was so out of control, smoke was visible across campus. For this, a couple of visiting students spent the weekend in county jail with no option of getting out. Last year a couch was burned out in front of a house and it spread to a nearby electrical box, knocking out the power on the block and causing about $10,000 in damage.

The Santa Clara Police Department obviously considers this a serious problem, issuing fines of $500 for couches left on porches. From what I have experienced, their concern is a legitimate one. Although I scoffed at it earlier this year, I now understand their point of view. If no couches were left out, there would be nothing to burn and I would not have gone to jail. If I had known what the potential consequences were for my actions, I would have thought twice for sure. So I offer my experience and advice to everyone: Don't burn couches! It is a lot harder than you would think, and the effects will be felt for a long time to come.

Jeffrey Cymerys,

mechanical engineering, '02

Gravity congratulates police

WE, THE PEOPLE of Gravity, would like to thank the wonderful police officers of the City of Santa Clara. Great job this past weekend. Your service to our community was exceptional. Had Andy Griffith been around, he would have been very proud of your friendliness, kindness and snse of community. Yea on the no harassment of us for once. We think the prospective students were impressed too!

Pablo Torres,andnbspandnbspandnbspandnbsp Jamie Evans,andnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspChelsea Duffaut,

English, '02andnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspphilosophy, '04andnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspandnbspart, '03

Open forum was one-sided

I AM CONFUSED. By "open forum," does the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics mean a logical, rational discussion of an issue where both sides are equally represented? I ask simply because I attended the "Forum on the Ethics of Accepting Gifts" on April 17, and witnessed otherwise. Partly due to the strength of arguments on one side (Mckinsey Miller and company) and partly due to the complete lack of competence on the other side, the forum turned into a blatantly one-sided discussion as opposed to a means by which the feelings of the general student body could be discerned.

First of all, the student panel was shamelessly stacked to one side. On the left were two wonderfully brilliant undergraduate students who succinctly and effectively argued their points, with sincere passion and ardor. On the right were two inept, completely overmatched gentlemen who failed to come to a single coherent thought in 10 minutes. It seems that, if the facilitators were truly interested in ensuring a non-biased, informational forum, they would have put a little more effort forth in deciding who would represent each side.

I was further appalled at how students from the audience were selected to speak. When the moderator finally woke up and realized that the discussion was becoming blatantly one-sided, he noticeably began looking for more conservative-looking people, only to call on two gentlemen wearing dress shirts and ties who merely echoed the passionate arguments of previous speakers. When I was finally recognized, the moderator rudely interrupted me and ended the forum before I was even allowed to finish making my point. His actions were embarrassingly slanted.

I realize that fora like this one are an integral aspect of our education. In fact, I would much rather see issues lke the screening process of accepting gifts debated in a forum as opposed to being made subject to a list of policies spawned by a few individuals. But in order to maintain objectivity and rationality as the driving forces of these fora, there needs to be some semblance of impartiality on the part of those facilitating. The fora need to be without time constraint and facilitated in some sort of objective manner. Only then can we truly claim that they are an effective way of ascertaining the true feelings of the entire student body, not just the opinion of a few active students. And when we are able to make that claim, then we are one step closer to promoting a University less driven by bureaucracy and elite committees and more by the life-blood of the University, the students.

Evan Pivonka,

classics and political science, '04