Rowan was wrong
In response to Rolando Garcia’s Sept. 4 article:
The Josh Rowan matter has generated a lot of discussion on the A&M campus. After reading the article on Monday in which Rowan was interviewed, I was disgusted by his blatant attempt to defame other members and contributors of his own organization.
He gave no evidence to back up his accusations, and then he defamed himself by allowing the letter from Tom Fitzhugh to be published in part. Before I move into the crux of this response, I would also like to point out that the alcohol issue is probably one of the lesser matters in this case. Alcohol has been deemed the central theme in this case because 1) that is all that Rowan has admitted to and 2) that was a main theme of Fitzhugh’s email. I believe the other matters – drugs and inappropriate sexual behavior – are probably more relevant.
After many of Rowan’s comments in the article on Monday, specifically his last ditch effort at bringing other MSC members down with him, and from knowledge of past events, it is not inconceivable that those charges are true as well. This leads to the real intent of the response.
Many people have complained that this matter should be made public.
I disagree with this when looking at it from the MSC’s perspective, and here’s why. People make mistakes. People change. The first statement means that people sometimes do stupid things, sometimes repeatedly until they are caught.
No matter the circumstances, these people should be able to face the music with little publicity when possible. In this case, Rowan acted inappropriately on a trip to Italy. No one else besides the MSC and the other students and sponsors involved should have to know while a decision is made.
This leads to the second statement — people change. It would be a shame for someone to make a mistake and then be branded for it forever. When the person changes, he or she could never regain what was lost. In the case of student leaders, the MSC and the University is trying to protect students from just this sort of thing.
Finally, there is the problem of teaching student leaders to be responsible. Surely, by hiding these types of incidents and allowing student leaders to continue serving the student body, A&M is not training effective leaders who possess strong character and integrity. By making these incidents public and forcing student leaders to take more responsibility, the likelihood of producing such leaders increases dramatically. I personally favor this latter approach to the forever.
Ryan Riley
Class of 2001
The tradition is lost
In response to Sommer Bunce’s Sept 5th article.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that there wa such a poor response to the request for ideas on 2002 Bonfire. When the committee’s were established they instituted a wall between those who passionately love the tradition of Bonfire and the MSC politicians.
With the design committee chaired by Josh Rowan and outnumbered by staff members 8 to 6, there are inherent flaws here and this is evident in the response. I have personally met the engineer and think he is a great choice. He wants all the input he can get and is very receptive however all input must go through the University’s head of the physical plant.
If he is working for us and for our tradition why can we not submit ideas directly to him at a forum here on campus? There are many ideas out there that people are willing to submit as well people who want to get involved. It is time to overhaul the Bonfire 2002 student leadership to include those who are passionate about it. When you allow unbiased and even student input the walls can be torn down and Bonfire can once again unify our campus.
Joe Dyson
Class of 2002