Daily ad policy irresponsible
As you may be aware, alcohol misuse is a problem that many individuals at the University are working to combat. In order to be successful, it is vital that all elements of the campus community work together to help create an environment where the misuse of alcohol is not tolerated, supported or encouraged.
Departments and organizations such as Boynton Health Service, New Student Programs, Housing and Residential Life, the School of Public Health, the University Police Department and the greek community have joined together to combat alcohol misuse in order to be a part of the solution. Unfortunately, rather than choosing to be a part of the solution, the Daily has chosen to be a part of the problem.
Last spring, the Daily and its board of directors had an opportunity to alter the paper’s policy on alcohol advertising so that ads that clearly encourage irresponsible drinking would not appear in our campus paper. They chose not to change the policy on a variety of grounds, including fear of lost revenue and a belief that as long as the ads were not violating the law there was no problem.
The fact that at least one ad encouraged readers to attend a “bladder bust” where beer would be 20 cents until someone had to go to the bathroom or that another ad encouraged students to adjust their study schedules around particular drink specials did not seem to bother them.
I accepted their decision, but I will continue to work with others on campus to change the Daily’s policy. While the Daily might have a valid reason for accepting irresponsible ads from local alcohol establishments, it does not have a valid reason for printing the following in an attempt to fill empty space in the Oct. 8, 1999 issue, “Drink 8-16 glasses of malt liquor a day.” The ad goes on to say that this recommendation is a “public service announcement” brought to you by The Minnesota Daily.
This ad is clearly irresponsible and we should expect more from a paper that often touts itself as among the nation’s best. I know that the editorial content and the advertising content are the purview of different individuals, but the Daily is a package comprised of news and advertisements. These components should complement each other rather than detract from each other. Poorly written news stories could reduce the number of readers who will see ads placed in the Daily. Ads that are in bad taste could reduce the number of people who read the Daily’s news stories.
A basic principle of ethics is to “do no harm.” This principle should be used to guide the decisions made on the editorial side, as well as on the business side. I hope that in the future those who make decisions about the ads that appear in the Daily (both those that generate revenue and those intended to fill space) will exercise better judgement.

Amelious Whyte,coordinator,chemical health programs,Boynton Health Service

Lame architecture deadens creativity
Boring. Simple. Plain. Ugly. All of these words have been used to describe the architecture building here on campus. And with the new addition being started this spring, it may become even more boring, more plain, more ugly.
In Dan Maruska’s Friday column he states that the addition “should honor the original.” In a way, it does. The addition is just as ugly and plain as the original building. And it isn’t going to help that most everything will be moved to the condemned Nicholson Hall this coming spring.
There have been many rumors saying that the architecture building was designed for students to be more creative. Being in this awful building, an architecture student would want to design something better. No one wants their designs to come out looking like this one. That is why the building is how it is. However, as an architecture student, I believe that one should design in an environment that appeals to them. In a more non-“box” building, one could be more creative, imaginative and could simply design better.
All the construction on campus is making the University a “more beautiful place.” So why isn’t the same being done for the architecture building’s new addition? Or for the architecture department in general? Maruska is right in saying that its demolition will happen within 20 or 30 years.

Cheri Glessing,sophomore,pre-architecture

Architecture column contradictory
Dan Maruska’s Friday column on the addition to the architecture building, “Revisions should honor the original,” was as contradictory as it was one-dimensional. Maruska’s main argument seems to be that the architecture building exemplifies a style that, regardless of its “current desirability,” is worthy of preservation. He also blindly argues that the proposed addition “has no relationship with the existing building.”
Just because the addition is not a slave to the current building’s form does not mean that a relationship will not exist. Rather, the addition addresses the square, grid and order of the building by branching off in the opposite direction; a slightly askew, cross-like form that reaches out in contrast to closing in. In fact, whether or not the current building is superior to the “hideous appendage” addition, these contrasts will be in plain sight and open for future study and contemplation.
This brings up another puzzling aspect of Maruska’s argument. He states that, “Sometimes innovative architecture can’t be immediately appreciated. Sometimes conservative architecture can’t be immediately appreciated.” However, what he ends up arguing is that we should allow this building a chance to be appreciated, but we certainly can’t give that one the same opportunity!
Whether or not you agree with the changes being made, the proposed design will not “destroy what must be preserved,” but rather provide for a dialog between changing architectural ideas. What could be more worthy of preservation?

Chris Whitehouse,senior,architecture