The best way to make students start showing up for kickoff is to start winning games. Duke did that yesterday, but unfortunately no one was there. If the tailgating policy weren't in effect, more students would have been at the game and perhaps gotten excited about Duke football after our win.
Tailgate is the one event left at Duke where we all come together as a community, no matter what allegiances we hold. It doesn't matter if you're in a fraternity or to which cultural group you belong. Perhaps if the administration hadn't taken such force to end tailgates, more people would have seen our 26 point win over VMI; then maybe people would head to Wallace Wade after tailgate, instead of a fraternity section, as they currently do.
Russ Ferguson
Trinity '08
Choice does not nullify the law
In Tuesday's column, "Ask and ye shall receive," (Sept. 13, 2005) Elliot Wolf seeks to highlight inconsistencies between the legacy of former Duke President Terry Sanford's principles of student self-governance and the recent tailgating restrictions imposed by the University in conjunction with student leaders. What he fails to analyze, however, is the difficulty in applying President Sanford's principles to the current dilemma of legal ramifications, health liabilities and collective consequences faced by students and the University.
The bottom line has to be this: Students can't expect to successfully advocate for immunity from the law for the purposes of endangering themselves by consuming alcohol. Yes, it is well-known that drinking is a conspicuous part of undergraduate culture, whether it takes place at a tailgate, in Krzyzewskiville or at an off-campus party, but the status quo or popular trend can never eclipse this fact of the matter.
That said, I believe President Sanford's vision of student self-governance focused not on student immunity from laws but on self-regulation and collective accountability within the boundaries that are expected of us as citizens. Wolf contends that, "If students want to support the football team, they should do it in the method and at the time of their own choosing." He is wrong. They, as members of the undergraduate community, should consider the consequences to themselves and their peers, use their best judgment and accept the results. In the power structure here at Duke, self-governance is not an inherent right.
This is all not to say that the rules dictated by the Duke administration shouldn't be questioned, or even that the laws regulating alcohol should not be challenged; that is everyone's right. Would you rather have your "student leaders" advocating for lawlessness than looking out for students' well- being? Fine, next time vote for the candidate who promises just that, instead of the one who puts up the most flyers with their face and a catchy slogan. Or better yet, start leading yourself. Don't like Duke Student Government or Interfraternity Council? Fine, advocate to scrap them. We just can't continue to pretend that we as students can act without consequences.
Christopher Chin
Trinity '06
Red Bull a safe beverage
This is in response to the article titled "Students grab Red Bull by the horns" (Sept. 15, 2005). Regarding the cases in Sweden and Ireland when people consumed Red Bull before premature deaths, we have looked into these reports and through a thorough investigation it has been concluded that there is no established link between these cases and Red Bull.
We are confident in the safety of our product. Red Bull has been on the market for 18 years and is now sold in more than 130 countries. Last year more than 1.9 billion cans were safely consumed.
Patrice Radden
Director, Corporate Communications
Red Bull North America
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.