**Amnesty policy should be clearer**
p. __To the Editor:__
According to the Beatles, all you need is love, but right now, I think all we need is love and an honest conversation between the College and students regarding the Alcohol Amnesty Policy.
Each side of the debate has its points, but there is a mutual confusion regarding exactly how far the policy goes. What is at stake because of this uncertainty? The very lives of the students on this campus. When those are the stakes, it’s simply too important for any uncertainty.
p. The Alcohol Amnesty Policy was formed after semesters of dedication by students and staff members regarding the health of a student in an emergency even if alcohol was involved. Any hesitation due to discipline matters could possibly be cut out of the equation. We can’t rewrite state laws, but we can be clear as to how much trouble you’ll be in with the school. The general consensus was limited, but in light of recent events, the fine print has emerged.
p. Too many students are again asking, “Can I trust this school?” That question could possibly stand in the way of an emergency phone call. So how far does amnesty go? Are we going to put the lives of students as our primary concern, or how many cases of Natty were in the fridge when someone dialed 911?
p. I feel like these are questions that deserve to be clarified. The students and staff members who worked so hard on this project deserve it. Resident assistants (myself included) who need to inform their residents regarding safety deserve it. The community as a whole deserves it out of common interest. Potentially, the very life of a student could depend on it.
So yes, all we need is love. Love and clairification, please. Dear school, shall we chat?
p. __— Shaun Loria, ’08__
p. **Confederate controversy continues**
p. __To the Editor:__
p. I could not help but be appalled when I read the column “Confederate controversy” in the April 13 issue of The Flat Hat. This column had the audacity to claim that a Confederate History Month would be little different from the five other officially recognized history months, except that the South endorsed slavery, as if slavery was an issue of the past that carried little weight against these so-called positive aspects of Confederate heritage (which were never named). So what if these soldiers and their heritage have admirable attributes? Most racists and prejudice people do have a good side! After all, didn’t Time magazine cite Hitler as the greatest leader in history? Should we give him his own month, too? I’m sure people would love that.
p. It also infuriates me that the column used some statement on the Sons of Confederate Veterans website and one man who is descended from slaves to support its ideas. It’s pretty obvious that no one in their right mind, who wanted to gain support for their organization, would make racist claims on their website. I’m not saying these people are racists, but how can we use a quote from their website to come to a conclusion? An interview would at least be necessary. As for this man whose descendents were slaves, does his opinions mean that there are a whole league of African Americans supporting this Confederate History Month? I don’t think so.
p. What disturbs me most about this column is that anyone could even be in support of racist Confederate soldiers. I, personally, do not want the youth of today considering these soldiers as role models.
p. Creating this history month would be nothing more than an exercise in forgetting, the forgetting of how the Confederate heritage and its mentality alienated and oppressed the African-American race.
p. __— Keirstin Flythe, ’10__
