Daily Kent Stater

Outcry should have been directed at ‘Real World’

Dear Editor:

Although the editorial board does a tremendous job analyzing and interpreting the news, its members were particularly perceptive in their response to the university bringing two cast members of MTV’s “Real World” to campus. By bringing Karamo and Sarah to campus, the All Campus Programming Board has lowered its standards for speakers.

While the editorial board attacked the programming due to its lack of purpose and residual value, I would like to approach the situation from a different perspective. About a month prior to the presidential election, the Forum page was bombarded with people outraged at the decision to bring Michael Moore to campus.

Parents were calling for refunds on their child’s tuition, and students were claiming the university was bringing a traitor to campus. Furthermore, many were claiming the university was paying too much to hear Moore.

Contrary to popular belief, Moore has made a mark on the film world and the political scene. Whatever one’s political viewpoints may be, it must be realized that Moore did bring with him an informed message.

The same cannot be said for Karamo and Sarah. The “Real World” cast members brought with them little more than stories about being intoxicated and having sex with multiple partners. Their messages of alcohol moderation and female empowerment hold exactly the same amount of worth as any other two people.

But, following their speeches, there was no social uproar to be heard. Not a single protester pulled their child from Kent State’s halls after learning that a gay man was paid to speak. Where was the fervor?

This quagmire is quite perplexing. While Kent State’s student population will throw its hands up because a liberal filmmaker was brought, the same individuals are hush when the university pays two un-informed, pseudo-celebrities to speak.

The responses are discouraging. Many are willing to oppose the speaking engagement of a mostly respected activist, but few are offended by the university spending money to hear rather average people speak.

Tyler Allchin

Freshman political science major

Casinos would help Cleveland, not hurt it

Dear Editor:

I read an article regarding your opinion that laws should not be passed to allow casinos in Cleveland, and I disagree. One of the reasons you cite is casinos will increase the crime rate, but in the years since Detroit brought casinos to its city, its crime rate has decreased by 5 percent, suggesting this is not necessarily true. Your other argument was the casinos would take away from the culture of Cleveland. I think we need to be honest and admit that Cleveland is not the most cultured city, but adding casinos will not take away Little Italy. It was also argued that the “mom and pop diners” in the city would be put out of business, but this could not be farther from the truth. In reality, these diners would still be strongly supported by people, and their business would only be increased by the extra tourists a casino would draw.

Cleveland is currently the poorest large city in the United States, has the highest rate of unemployment and a terrible education system. In five years, casinos in Mississippi have created 30,000 jobs and $16.6 billion in revenue to state and local governments, and similar results could be expected in Cleveland. Your argument is that other attempts made to create funding to improve education have failed before and that we cannot trust the government to do the right things with the money. I can’t say I trust the government either, but 30,000 jobs and billions of dollars in revenue is a hard thing to pass up for a city that is in the poor position that Cleveland is in.

On top of all of this, casinos would provide a close place for people of Ohio to go for entertainment. How many times do you hear people say there’s nothing to do in Ohio? I enjoy playing Texas Hold’em and would like a place to go play.

Joe DiSalvo

Senior business management major