The Tech - Online EditionMIT's oldest and largest
newspaper & the first
newspaper published
on the web
Boston Weather: 45.0°F | Overcast

Letters to the Editor

"One wrong does not justify another." There's a quote I can agree with. On the topic of abortion, I assume Frances Pinedo used it to say that an unwanted pregnancy does not justify abortion. I was glad to have read her letter ["Pro-Life Argument Is About Downfall of Society," April 24], because it prompted me to respond with my own interpretation of the quote. "One wrong," an unwanted pregnancy, "does not justify another," the fetus using the woman's body without her consent.

The status of the fetus as a person, and therefore an entity with rights, is still questionable -- would you say an acorn is an oak tree? However, for the sake of argument, I will refer to the fetus as a person who thus has the right to life. Such a right, I argue, does not guarantee it a right to either be given the use of or be allowed the continued use of another person's body -- even if that body is needed for life itself. In other words, the fetus does not have the right to use its mother's body unless she grants it that right -- something she may do, but certainly does not have to do.

I therefore feel that if a woman has become unwillingly pregnant, she is morally entitled to have the fetus removed from her body. If, however, she becomes pregnant voluntarily, then she has granted the fetus the right to use her body, and should feel responsible and morally obligated to carry her pregnancy to term.

So what should the government do? It should educate the public on the moral and philosophical issues surrounding abortion, so that when it comes to sex and pregnancy, people make intelligent decisions based on their individual situations.

Alvaro Mendez '92

Students Must Pay for Increase in Administrators

The remarks of MIT's vice president for financial operations, James J. Culliton, in your story ["Endowment Can't Cover Rising Costs," Feb. 28], obscure the principal reason for MIT's tuition increases. According to the Planning Office's MIT Factbook, MIT employed 962 faculty and 622 administrators in 1969. By 1989, the number of administrators had doubled to 1217, despite the fact that the faculty head count was practically unchanged at 988.

Why do we need so many more administrators? Leafing through a few months of The Tech shows MIT administrators selecting a Chinese restaurant as a monopolistic supplier, deciding what movies may be shown on campus, writing pamphlets on various politically correct topics, and engaging in other activities that do little to advance the education of students (except perhaps students of bureaucracy).

Algorithm: 1) Hire lots of administrators. 2) Pay them so much collectively that MIT runs out of money even after being stingy with faculty and TA salaries. 3) Raise tuition, which causes people to complain. 4) Recognize a need for additional administrators whose job is to explain to people why MIT needs so much money, why MIT needs to collude with other universities to fix prices, and why MIT needs to fund graduate students with bizarre accounting practices. 5) Go to Step 1. Repeat until students are bankrupt.

If MIT laid off the 600 additional administrators it has hired since 1969, and if each one costs $50,000 per year (salary, benefits, overhead, etc.), MIT would save $30 million annually, or enough to cut each undergraduate's tuition by $6,000.

Philip Greenspun '82

All Students Welcome To Rally

The verdict in the Rodney King case merely solidifies and condones with the hand of judicial repute, the disparity, inequity, and injustice that are a consistent motif in minority life and a constant infringement upon human rights in the United States. As students of African-American descent, we are appalled; as citizens guaranteed to trial by "a jury of peers," we are appalled; but most importantly as people, we are appalled.

It is our sincerest hope that everyone reading this will act upon the realization that "a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Be it in Tiananmen Square, in South Africa, or in any of a number of other places spanning the globe, college students have consistently set the pace on issues of human rights and basic justice.

We sincerely hope that today at 11:55 a.m., joins the world in condemning the King decision. We invite concerned students of all races, stations, and states of being to stand together in a 15-minute silent protest/march starting at the Great Sail in front of Walker Memorial and ending at Lobdell, in a statement of protest, solidarity, and rationality.

Dale L. LeFebvre '92

Chocolate City Senior Co-Chair

and Black Caucus Chair