Maroon’s Red Sox allegiance

My name is Bryan Joiner, and I am a former editor in chief of the Chicago Maroon. I am also a former sports editor for more quarters than I can remember. Some people may still recognize my name. That’s not important. How dare the once Boston Red Sox-slanted Maroon publish a column telling people not to hate the New York Yankees? The Red Sox have always been the darlings of the literati, and this is a departure from that precedent. When I was editor, we had no fewer than three Red Sox fans on staff at any time. Seriously. It was great.OK, I was at ALCS game seven in New York, sitting in Section 39, the right field bleachers, the most “dangerous” section in the park. I wanted to throw up for 7 1/3 innings, and then I had a huge headache. I watched Aaron Boone hit the home run. I knew it was gone immediately. I smiled. As I walked out of the stadium, Yankees fans pretty much ignored me or told me how New York was the greatest city in the world.Then I log on to the Maroon website and read how I shouldn’t hate the Yankees. Sure, it’s irrational. Sure, they’re just another team (and they lost!). Sure, it’s basketball season. But I don’t care. I’m irrational, they’re all around me here in Manhattan, and the only player I like is LeBron James, and he isn’t even a Celtic. Right now, my friends are arguing about the Force. Yes, the Force, from Star Wars. I think my time is much better spent.

Bryan Joiner

Editor Emeritus

The Chicago Maroon

The University’s Master Plan

I would like to respectfully disagree with Abby Sieff’s article in Tuesday’s Maroon (“Master Plan to Change University’s Image,” 11/4/03), specifically, the points concerning the Shoreland. The University’s Master Plan (which, incidentally, sounds like a rip off of a Bond villain scheme) is immaterial to this letter. The misinformation about the Shoreland is not. It would never be condoned, but especially now, with the future of one of the University’s most beloved dorms in question, a University newspaper should not be publishing misleading information, even if it is in the Viewpoints section. So, “Let’s face it,” the Shoreland has problems. Could these problems have any basis in the University’s “delayed maintenance” plan for the Shoreland? Is that why our “roofs” leak? Faulty sprinklers and radiators? Is that perhaps because the sprinkler system is brand new? And could that have anything to do with the fact that the radiators are generally older than the people that they are keeping warm? And, “now that work is being done to the façade, it at least bothers people…and at most, seeps finely ground brick through the walls.” I have never heard of anyone in the Shoreland having dust “seep” into and/or coat “an entire room.” On a side note, I am sure that many of the scientific departments on campus would be extremely interested in learning how dust managed to pass through solid walls. I am the vice president of a house in Shoreland, and have not heard any complaints about dust from any residents in my house or any other house. Nor have I seen any such dust. Also, Seiff misses a very obvious point. The work being done to the façade is not a part of the upkeep of the Shoreland, but a city-ordained procedure for all buildings over 80 feet tall. Perhaps she has failed to notice the same work being done all over campus? Plus, the “noisy” work, which never starts until 8 or 9 in the morning, is hardly worse than the average ambient noise in a dorm. If you can sleep on a Friday night with people screaming in the halls, then you can deal with tapping at 9 a.m. on a Wednesday morning.

In conclusion, while Seiff has written a somewhat interesting, if overly ominous article, she ought to get her facts about the Shoreland straight. It undermines her credibility in the rest of the article to a great degree.

Sarah Birgé

Second-year in the College