Letters
Issue date: 10/11/05 Section: Opinions
Cults must be covered
Guensie Grecy's article, "Web site aims to warn others about cults" (Oct. 4) is intriguing.
The very idea of cults being on campus is one that creates interest and concern almost immediately. However, what caught my attention was the quotation of Rabbi Laemmle not viewing the presence of cults on campus as a problem. Grecy could have accomplished more if the article addressed a few points addressed below.
More could have been gained if Grecy defined for the audience what was meant by a cult, as there are some conflicting and often ill-formed definitions available. Or why there actually are cults allowed onto campus, when USC as a private institution, reserves the explicit right to not permit cults onto campus in the first place?
Perhaps Grecy could have educated people to the psychological effects leaving a cult has on those who found the courage and strength to leave? The entirety of the issue of cults on campus must be addressed.
Megan Singer
junior
sociology, psychology
Senate running well
Wednesday's editorial ("No excuse for cancelled Senate meeting," Oct. 5) was uninformed, rash reporting that illustrated a lack of understanding of the purpose of Senate meetings and resulted in an unfair criticism of Senate. Senate meetings are legislative sessions, not information sessions or discussion forums. Since Senate does not legislate the student body, the legislation discussed and passed during meetings often has nothing to do with the issues of the student body.
Rather, the legislation is generally designed to help Senate run more smoothly, so student issues can be appropriately addressed. Consequently, when a meeting is cancelled because of a "light agenda" - a lack of legislation to address - it does not mean that Senate is ignorant of or ignoring student needs, as implied by Wednesday's article, but rather that Senate is running smoothly - quite the opposite of what the editors seemed to think.
Guensie Grecy's article, "Web site aims to warn others about cults" (Oct. 4) is intriguing.
The very idea of cults being on campus is one that creates interest and concern almost immediately. However, what caught my attention was the quotation of Rabbi Laemmle not viewing the presence of cults on campus as a problem. Grecy could have accomplished more if the article addressed a few points addressed below.
More could have been gained if Grecy defined for the audience what was meant by a cult, as there are some conflicting and often ill-formed definitions available. Or why there actually are cults allowed onto campus, when USC as a private institution, reserves the explicit right to not permit cults onto campus in the first place?
Perhaps Grecy could have educated people to the psychological effects leaving a cult has on those who found the courage and strength to leave? The entirety of the issue of cults on campus must be addressed.
Megan Singer
junior
sociology, psychology
Senate running well
Wednesday's editorial ("No excuse for cancelled Senate meeting," Oct. 5) was uninformed, rash reporting that illustrated a lack of understanding of the purpose of Senate meetings and resulted in an unfair criticism of Senate. Senate meetings are legislative sessions, not information sessions or discussion forums. Since Senate does not legislate the student body, the legislation discussed and passed during meetings often has nothing to do with the issues of the student body.
Rather, the legislation is generally designed to help Senate run more smoothly, so student issues can be appropriately addressed. Consequently, when a meeting is cancelled because of a "light agenda" - a lack of legislation to address - it does not mean that Senate is ignorant of or ignoring student needs, as implied by Wednesday's article, but rather that Senate is running smoothly - quite the opposite of what the editors seemed to think.
