Letters to the Editor

I write in response to the October 17 front page Pioneer Log story written by Michael Folland. The story contained some inaccurate information, particularly regarding the alleged mechanical problem with the steering, and it did not mention that the roads were wet and that the accident happened on the Terwilliger curves, a very dangerous part of Interstate 5.

Furthermore, the writer did not attempt to get the complete story, as he did not interview anyone from Campus Safety, Facilities Services, the crew team coaches, the Athletic Department, or myself. I hope this editorial will prove helpful in addressing the very important issues regarding van transportation and safety and in providing more complete information for Log readers.

First of all, we are all grateful that no one was injured and that students returned safely to campus. That is most important.

Inspection of the vehicle maintenance records shows that on August 15, 1997, the vehicle involved in this accident (P-9) received new brakes, replacement of the right front tire, balancing of all tires, and a front end alignment. No problems with the front end or steering components were noted at that time. As part of the continuing van pool maintenance and safety program, P-9 passed its safety check conducted by the van pool maintenance technician on September 19.

When vans are used, the driver has the opportunity to identify any problems related to use by writing the comment on a card which is presented to Campus Safety. The concern is then transmitted to Facilities Services for resolution. It is the policy of Facilities Services that no vehicle exhibiting an unsafe condition will be used until the unsafe condition is corrected.

Inspection of P-9 vehicle driver comment cards shows no uncorrected unsafe condition.

After the accident, the van pool maintenance technician inspected the vehicle. Accident damage was apparent, though there appeared to be no obvious problem with the front end or steering. The next morning, P-9 was towed to Russ Chevrolet for inspection and damage assessment. On October 8, a report was received from Russ Chevrolet stating that no problem was found with the front end or steering components. Damage incurred to the vehicle during the accident consisted of body dents, front end misalignment, and

tire shredding. Pre-existing tire condition was satisfactory. Estimated cost for repair of the vehicle is $2000.

On Thursday, October 9, I convened a meeting with the following staff members to discuss several issues prompted by this accident:

Steve Wallo, Athletic Director
Bill Curtin, Director of Campus Safety
Richard Bettega, Assistant Vice President, Facility Services
Claire Petersen, Operations Manager, Facility Services
Bob Tomlin, Occupational Health and Safety Officer
Michael Surface, Transportation/Parking Coordinator
Tedd Alberts, Facility Services/Van Pool
Scott Hamilton, Director, Center for Service and Work

We did not focus directly on the crew team (as this type of accident could have happened with any College-sponsored activity). Rather, we talked about a number of issues related to van use. Among these issues are the following:

1. Steps in place to insure ongoing van maintenance.
2. Procedures for student clearance, training, and certification.
3. Extent of van use by student groups, varsity athletics, academic programs, club sports, college outdoors, residence halls)
4. Role of coaches/advisors related to driving of vans.
5. Accident protocols for administrative response.
6. Procurement of new vans/replacement of fleet/timelines
7. Cost of van use and implications for users.
This group will meet again in two weeks to continue this conversation.

Among the ideas we discussed are the following (please note that no formal decision has been reached on any specific changes at this time):

• Reduce the number of authorized van drivers from over 400 to a much smaller and more manageable group.

• Authorize drivers only after mandatory "behind the wheel" training, in addition to current clearance through Campus Safety and video training through Occupational Health and Safety.

• Review van training programs in place at other institutions which share similar transportation challenges.

• Create a pool of trained and certified student drivers independent of those student drivers affiliated with specific clubs or organizations.

• Establish clear principles and practices for notification of Dean of Students and other College staff members when accidents occur. Some of these ideas are free of additional costs; some may be quite expensive if implemented. Further, we are considering the "net effect" of policy and procedural changes related to potential higher costs to end users with several ideas suggested.

We have also instituted a program to depreciate vehicles to provide adequate funds for replacement on a cyclical basis. Three new vans have been purchased Fall, 1997 and are now operational; three additional vans will be purchased this fiscal year. Older vans will be retired. Additionally, this month, we have transferred coordination of van pool to Facilities Services and combined maintenance with scheduling.

We take seriously the many issues raised by this recent accident, and we are concerned uppermost with the safety and welfare of our students, staff, and faculty as they travel to and from College sponsored activities.

We welcome your ideas and suggestions as we address these issues. Please contact me directly at x7115 or email me at mford, or contact any other staff member noted above.

Michael Ford
Dean of Students

This semester, the issue of soap in the residence halls has risen again. In an attempt to address this pressing issue, we at ASLC have taken it upon ourselves to resolve this issue in a timely manner, in view of the previous lack of action.

It is our view that it is not the responsibility of ASLC to provide soap for the halls. However, to facilitate the need for immediate action and due to the lack of response in past years, ASLC has decided to fund the purchase of soap fro the Residence Halls for the immediate future, if no other means are available.

There are four reasons that ASLC recognizes a need to address the issue of soap in the Residence Halls:

1. In all four Hall Councils, the issue of soap has received unilateral support from the residents. Often, the issue was raised on a grassroots level, and then brought before the Councils. There has also been generous work on this issue by the Student Advocacy Group.

2. We consider the lack of community soap dispensers in the Residence Halls to be a sanitary issue. We are concerned for the health and safety of the Lewis & Clark community members.

3. Some residence halls or floors currently have handheld soap dispensers. These are provided by the RAs, through either student fees, Hall Council funds, or Residence Life’s programming budget. In ASLC’s opinion, these are not the appropriate sources of funding to provide soap. These funds are intended for activities and programs to further community spirit and are NOT meant to provide an essential item of hygiene.

4. The position of the school in the past has been that the residents should provide their own soap. But students who visit the halls do not carry soap with them. In our opinion, the majority of students do not provide their own soap, making this rationale a failure.

We are confident the school will create a plan to provide for the long term needs of the students. Our concern is for the immediate need for soap in the halls this semester. In accomplishing our goal of allowing the students to practice adequate hygiene, we have researched the most cost-effective options, as well as the quickest options available, through the information provided to us.

ASLC believes that soap needs to be placed in the residence halls now. It is not a matter of in years to come, or even months to come. However, to enable the school to research and investigate alternate options, we will not implement the purchase of soap immediately. This is in the hope that a more appropriate source of funding through traditional means can be located in a timely manner. This also allows time to pursue the bureaucratic system of the school.

We are compromising our goals by increasing our time table. This is in the hope that the school will shoulder the burden in a timely, immediate manner. We will not compromise any more.

Speaking on behalf of the student body, as their elected representative, I wish to extend our thanks and appreciation to the staff of LC for the support and effort they have given for this issue. We are certain they have and continue to do their best at providing a speedy solution to this issue. They have also extended every courtesy in keeping us involved and informed now that the ball is in their field. It is our concern that the bureaucracy of the school, by nature of their rational decision-making process, prevents an immediate solution by definition. Yet we are confident that the administration and staff will do all that is necessary to address this pressing issue in such a way that both our long and short terms goals are met in the quickest and most expedient manner.

Jason Smith

ASLC Hall Council Liaison

The anticipated concert was to include fifty minutes of African music and five minutes detailing God’s amazing work in the band’s life. Due to a communication problem that is still very perplexing to us, the band chose another musical program. Christian Fellowship and the Chaplain’s Office would like to apologize to anyone who felt misled about this event. While we affirm the gospel message these men shared, we are sorry that the music advertised in the Bon, Trailroom and on our posters was not presented.

For those who enjoyed the concert, thank you for being open to a unique experience. We hope that everyone who came was able to appreciate the music and see these African musicians’ enthusiasm for God.

Mark Duntley, chaplain,
Erik Mork, Bridget Mitchell, Dan Meliza, Alicia Gilbert,

members of Christian Fellowship

I felt last week’s Pioneer Log article “LC Language Waiver Spawns Controversy” was slanted and did not speak fairly for students who have a learning disability. I completely disagree with using the word “disability” for students who simply learn differently and who struggle in a classroom setting that focuses on certain styles of learning. I think this word reaps negative connotations that spur controversies like this one regarding the language waiver. Also, for those of you who think that students are using this as a cop-out please ask yourselves, who in the world would like to label themselves with such a term intentionally? The reason that this term has to be used is so that students can legally receive the type of learning that is suitable and equally legitimate for themselves, for the same tuition price as students who are not labeled because they fit the style of learning that is more generally accepted.

While the article accurately expressed my positive attitude on the issue it failed to mention my struggle. I feel responsible for expressing the other side of my story because the article focused on me (although I was not aware that it was going to). Instructor of Spanish Cecilia Benenati was quoted as saying, “If [a student] doesn’t study very much and doesn’t pay attention, maybe it will pass as a disability.” With an overseas trip depending on my grade in my French III class I guarantee that I studied very, very hard and I paid attention in class. But because these efforts were not evident on tests I was probably perceived to be the type of student that Benenati described. (Please note that even though I had to withdraw from the Nancy program I created my own overseas trip to France that following summer. I lived with a French family for three months and spoke French every day, not perfectly but decently. I am capable of learning a foreign language. However I am not as capable of learning it in certain types of classroom settings and obviously I am not alone in this.)

I also have a response to the quote from Robert Sternberg, professor of psychology and education at Yale. Sternberg said that the foreign language waiver was “extra credit for doing poorly” (grrrrrr). I argue that this waiver may be a ticket for students to receive the quality and type of education that is suitable for themselves and that they rightfully deserve. I do not see this waiver as lessening Lewis and Clark’s educational standards in any way. Perhaps it enhances standards by (hypothetically) saying, “We support true education by providing a way for each Lewis and Clark student to reach levels of academic success on an individual basis in the honorable spirit of a liberal arts education.”

After my confidence waned into a transparent mist and my image of myself as a completely inadequate student developed into a nightmare, I reached a breaking point. My other classes had also slipped because of the immense amount of time that I was dedicating to French. I reached an all time low emotionally and academically. This was when I was tested for a learning difference and, not surprisingly, I was diagnosed with one.

I would like people to realize how positive the effects of this testing can be. The results isolated some specific areas where I learn differently and now that the areas have been pinpointed I have found ways to work around them and with them. Now, with a few adjustments, I am performing more successfully in classroom settings that might not otherwise meet my educational needs. I deserve this education and I deserve to have my needs met just like everyone else, even if that means that I need to go about it by using different methods. I think that anyone who has a problem with this is blind to the true nature of education and of learning. We are meant to learn in different ways and we are meant to express what we have learned in different ways and that is one of the most deeply and simply beautiful characteristics of education.

Sara Ford, student