Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
Last month was very difficult for the LGBT community and our allies with national attention being brought to the suicides of young LGBT individuals Earic Mohat, of New York; Seth Walsh, of California; Asher Brown, of Texas; Tyler Clementi, of New Jersey; Justin Aaberg, of Minnesota; Billy Lucas, of Indiana; and Raymond Chase, of Rhode Island.
Kevin Cotter is the best choice for the next state representative from the 99th district. As a CMU student, I recognize how important it is to have someone in the state legislature who will be a tireless advocate for the university and for our great community. Kevin Cotter is a two-time graduate of CMU, once for his bachelor’s degree and again for his master’s. He knows the challenges that the university faces and what needs to be done to tackle them head on.
To the friends and family of Sarina Seger:
In a world where people spend increasing amounts of time indoors on the computer or watching TV, it’s a great relief to find a place in the natural world to relax and breath some fresh air.
Although I feel that CM Life is a respectable university newspaper, I feel that “Ryan’s Rant” is a signal of unprofessionalism that negatively reflects itself upon the entire newspaper staff.
Editor’s note: Central Michigan Life is an independent publication funded through advertising, and the views expressed in this publication do not reflect the views of the university.
CMU is a taxpayer-funded university and, as such, its newspaper should print all political views, not just conservative views.
Merlyn Mowrey noted a number of inaccuracies in “Hardly Presidential” coverage.
Editor’s note: To send a letter to the editor, e-mail voices@cm-life
Editor’s note: The following letters are in reaction to the “Hardly presidential” editorial and the “Chasing the president” column, originally published Monday, Sept. 27. For more coverage and commentary, visit the CM Life Voices Blog at http://www.cm-life.com/category/blogs/voicebox/
I just wanted to give a big kudos to your entire editorial staff for handling the President Ross situation professionally and refusing to “go silently into the night.”
We, the students of this institution, are the people Ross is most accountable to. Without us, there would be no Central Michigan University. Somewhere along the way, he lost sight of that and that is truly unfortunate.
Thank you, though, for reminding Ross of his initial promises and us students of how a committed university president should regard us — his most important audience.
I opened CM Life Monday morning to discover a full page of articles dedicated to President Ross: A reprint of an editorial “Priority Check: CMU President George Ross Must Maintain Dedication,” an article “Chasing the President” and a new editorial “Hardly Presidential.” Whoa, I thought, what’s he done to draw such rebukes from CM Life?
The rebukes stem from a Sept. 13th editorial that complained that Ross accepted a position on a board of directors of a private business and this was an occasion to remind Ross that he “must maintain dedication” to CMU. Certainly, we would all agree that he must do so, but the editorial suggests he isn’t doing that.
Your evidence? He’s met with no students for lunch and he promised to do so. You did acknowledge that he had held two forums with students and the public, but for some reason, in your judgment, that didn’t count. Since he only arrived in March, and you wrote this Sept. 13, it means that he held two open forums in about 12 weeks of residence at CMU excluding summer.
That sounds pretty good to me. To your credit, you also acknowledged that it’s common for university presidents to serve on boards of directors, but that didn’t seem to figure in your suspicions about his “dedication” either.
Then, in Monday’s articles on the same page, you acknowledge that you were mistaken about Ross’ interaction with students (he had met with some and eaten with some) and yet, you write that you still “stand by the editorial and the spirit of the point it was making.” You then complain that Ross or University Communications should have contacted you right away about the errors instead of “scolding” you for them publicly and you further complain that Ross and staff had not followed “protocols” and were “completely inappropriate” in not being more available to you.
The logic of the whole page of articles is that:
1) Although your accusations about Ross were based on inaccurate data, you are standing by them.
2) Ross responded “inappropriately” to the inaccurate accusations that you published and so you are justified in complaining further.
There are some problems here: You did not include your sincere apology for your error, you refused to acknowledge that your error undermined the point you were making (logically inaccurate and professionally inappropriate), the issue of contention -— which you presented inaccurately — lacks the gravity you lend it and your treatment of it is overwrought and manipulative — for example, one editor began his article stating: “It may be too accusative to say ... President Ross yelled in my face.” So did he yell at you, or didn’t he? My guess is that Ross didn’t yell at the editor but this lead line opens the possibility and arouses anger against Ross in the reader.
I don’t know Ross or what kind of president he will be. It’s too soon to tell. For all of our sakes, I hope he’s a good one. A great one.
I also don’t know what prompts this “Hardly Journalistic” antagonism toward him but I do know that I’ve gotten the impression that you’re out to get him and I’ll be wary of what you have to say about him in the future. You’ll have to win me back. I hope to see you at the top of your journalistic game soon — and Ross at the top of his presidential game, too.
Professor of Philosophy and Religion
I am writing in regard to the editorial “Keep Bayanet.” This piece was sorely lacking in many areas, in regard to the “War on Drugs.”
I am a senior at Central Michigan University and an intern for Josh Lillie, Libertarian candidate for Michigan’s 33rd Senate Seat, and the Libertarian Party of West Michigan in general.
If you were walking past Dow at about 10:15 today, you’d notice a few hundred people outside, and a few police and university vehicles. Those of us that were exiting the building assumed it was just a drill, so we took our time.
Editor’s note: To send a letter to the editor, e-mail email@example.com.
A record-breaking 4,100 eager freshmen now populate the many niches of CMU, and while I am certainly ecstatic to witness the enthusiasm of so many fresh faces, I must question: Why now are there such high numbers, and what outcomes — perhaps even obligations --— do these unique circumstances carry for the university?
Editor’s note: To send a letter to the editor, please e-mail
Editor’s note: To send a letter to the editor, please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
For more than a century, Mount Pleasant has been a college town welcoming students and embracing their traditions. Unfortunately, the actions of a minority of Central Michigan University’s student body during the Welcome Back Week activities and recent gatherings resulted in an escalation of dangerous and irresponsible drinking resulting in threats to the safety of students, community residents and others.
Editor’s note: The following is a letter send to the Central Michigan Life Editorial Board. To send a letter, e-mail email@example.com
Our school’s new implementation of the new inconvenient printing quotas are comical-grinning and absurdity being the teeth in this photo.
It was impossible to watch Michigan’s economy and assume the City of Mount Pleasant would miraculously escape without a few bumps and bruises. In fact, because we predicted that 2011 would be our local Waterloo, we have been reducing costs, shoring up our savings, and eliminating positions through attrition over the last five years.