Rock and hip-hop are like apples and oranges

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to a letter to the editor accusing the city and university of not supporting hip-hop culture. This letter effectively labeled us a prejudiced and discriminatory group.

I ask you where the support is for the folk musicians? Where the support is for classic rock ‘n’ roll? Blues and jazz, some of the most artistic and prominent musical achievements of African-American culture are virtually ignored on campus by African Americans and European Americans alike!

The fact is that the city of Kent, once respected as having a “great music scene,” certainly does not have this reputation anymore. Lack of support for these clubs is due to the students’ lack of interest in real art, and their fascination with popular entertainment and getting drunk.

It’s not about prejudice; it’s about opinion. I don’t like hip-hop music, but that doesn’t mean that I discriminate based on the race of the artist. I appreciate it for what it is, but it’s just not my cup of tea. I prefer hearing musical instruments, intricate harmonies, melodies and rhythms, and not the sampled hip-hop beats that you can find on any Beatles’ album. While I’m not arguing the artistic integrity of any music here, I am trying to express that the Battle of the Bands is based on BAND music. Comparing hip-hop to that is like comparing apples and oranges.

Perhaps setting up a venue where hip-hop artists can express themselves is a solution. If the city of Kent had more bars that were music-oriented, they would find less wild house parties, thus making the community and the students happier. They have a place to go, and community has us out of their hair for a few hours while we experience pure musical bliss.

However, pulling the race card was certainly uncalled for, and it is insulting. Being called prejudiced because I don’t like the music you listen to is shameful. Do I claim you’re prejudiced because you don’t appreciate Bob Dylan?

Greg Cieslik

Computer information systems major

Protection for Alaskan refuge shouldn’t expire

Dear Editor:

The debate over oil-drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been centered around many conflicting claims. Both sides offer vastly different accounts of how much oil is recoverable, the environmental impact and exactly how much the U.S. stands to benefit from drilling.

Therefore, instead of counterattacking every argument concerning development in the refuge, I would like to address the concerns regarding how ANWR fits into the larger picture of our physical environment.

Let’s face it — we treat the Earth like crap. All of us pollute the Earth every day. It has become a necessary evil of our society — we all drive cars and throw away trash. In our society, the environment always gets the shaft.

Humans do some good for the environment. Aside from recycling, picking up litter and planting trees, humans have preserved certain special areas by declaring them off-limits to human development.

That was the motive when the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was created on Dec. 6, 1960. The area being considered for development, 1.5 million acres, is larger than the state of Delaware.

Is it fair to revoke a 45-year guarantee of protection? A natural area’s preservation shouldn’t expire after a certain amount of time like a car warranty. Should we allow national parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite to be disturbed, too? No way. ANWR was preserved for a reason — we cannot forget that.

Ryan Wolfe

Junior visual communication design major