Letters to the editor

Scientology forum one-sided, uninformative

Despite the Student Activities Board’s obviously noble intent behind its “Faithbusters” series, its sponsored presentation by the Church of Scientology on March 6 had no place on a college campus.

It is not my intention to say that students should not be informed about Scientology at all, but it was irresponsible for a university organization to invite such a controversial organization to campus without offering students an alternate viewpoint on what many consider to be a dangerous cult. My personal feelings regarding Scientology aside, it only stands to reason that within a university atmosphere, meaningful dialogue is always preferred over single-sided diatribes.

Whenever an organization is accused of acts such as causing the deaths of its members and extorting money from those seeking the organization’s help, as the Church of Scientology has been frequently on Web sites such as www.xenu.net, allowing its members to offer a presentation without the presence of official objection is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst.

Furthermore, the presentation on March 6 did little or nothing to shed any light on the nature of Scientology that can’t be gathered from its Web site. Apart from some dubious theories regarding the appropriateness of controlling others as one might a car or any other object, the presentation made by Scientology members offered students no real insight into what Scientologists actually believe theologically. It was the kind of presentation geared toward the use of non-controversial, 30-second sound bites, hardly befitting for a college environment.

When pressed to delve deeper into the core beliefs of their faith by students during the too-short question-and-answer session, the speakers offered nothing more than a marked uncertainty about the financial matters of their organization and either an unwillingness or an inability to prove that Scientology is actually a religion as opposed to a company offering “self-help” methods.

In the future, I hope that university-sponsored presentations like this will be replaced with meaningful and informative forums that truly offer some value to a college-educated person.

Chad Reese

Philosophy junior

NIT far from a ‘fitting exit’ for seniors

In a March 7 column in the Kernel, J.D. Williams stated that a fitting end to UK senior basketball players Ramel Bradley and Joe Crawford’s college careers would be a bid to the National Invitation Tournament, one that the Wildcats would have a legitimate shot at winning. Williams is correct that the Cats would be an NIT favorite. However, I’m shocked that someone considered a “sports columnist” would ever suggest such a thing.

The NIT is a tournament of mediocre and underachieving teams doing two things: making more money for the NCAA and playing for a meaningless championship. Bradley and Crawford have shown too much pride and perseverance throughout this tumultuous season to be rewarded with a lowly bid to the NIT. The NCAA Tournament committee has acknowledged that. Ramel and Joe have stamped their names on UK basketball history, whether their run ends in Anaheim or San Antonio.

Eric Spencer

Accounting and finance junior