The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for the ‘Volume 4, Issue 5’ Category

Can You Tell The Difference Between The Candidates?

Posted by iusbvision on October 22, 2007

Which Current Presidential Candidates Made These Statements?

“I believe the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. I also support reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including closing the gun show loophole and vigorously enforcing gun laws.”

Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) or Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC)

“I believe the best way we can have common ground in this debate that you’re hearing is if we put our emphasis on reducing abortions and increasing the number of adoptions… But I think ultimately that decision that has to be made is one that government shouldn’t make. Ultimately, a woman should make that with her conscience and ultimately with her doctor.”

Former Mayor Rudi Giuliani (R-NYC) or Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

“We went in under false pretense. There were no weapons of mass destruction There are still people who believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, yet 15 of the people were from Saudi Arabia. We need to live up to our principles so there are less injured veterans, but when they come home we better jolly well take care of them, and we’re not doing a very good job right now, because all the money’s going overseas.”

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) or Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

“I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man & a woman. But let’s be honest. That is not what this debate is about. Not at this time. This debate is an attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged. It is a consensus between a majority of Americans who say, ‘Maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the Hospital & share health care benefits; and should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected’.”

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) or Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

“Change the fundamental way we educate our children. There’s two things everyone knows: the smaller the class size, the better the outcome; and the better the teacher, the better the outcome. In those very nations named [Japan, China, and India], a teacher makes as much as an engineer. If we want the best students in the world, we need the best teachers in the world.”

Former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes (R-MD) or Senator Joe Biden (D-DE)

“In our state, we established over 20 drug courts, that gave people an alternative course, rather than just putting them in prison, giving them the opportunity to get what they really needed, which is off the addiction. We’ve got to quit locking up all the people that we’re mad at and lock up the people that we’re really afraid of, the people who are sexual predators and violent offenders. I would go for more drug courts and for a lot less incarceration of drug-addicted people.”

Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) or Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)

“I accept the basic idea of better border security you need to be talking with [Mexico] to get cooperation, border security can’t be on just one side of the border and then I believe we should have more meaningful penalties on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, that may do more than anything else.”

Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) or Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)

“I support the death penalty. I think that it has to be administered not only fairly, with attention to things like DNA evidence, which I think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention. If the wrong guy is put to death, then that’s a double tragedy. Not only has an innocent person been executed but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it, and in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases.”

Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) or Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN)

“I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody. And I’m for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.”

Former Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) or Former Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK)

Posted in Campaign 2008, Volume 4, Issue 5 | 1 Comment »

Dorms, Norms, and the New University Model

Posted by iusbvision on October 22, 2007

These are momentous times at IU South Bend. With the construction of the new student housing complex, the university is positioning itself to attract in- and out-of-state students and to compete against other area universities for a piece of the traditional student money pie.

As it is the case, this new initiative is not impervious to controversy: the newly-released housing website FAQ page announces that the new housing development will not accept applications from married couples and families, and there are talks of a formal dispute to be filed on behalf of the affected parties. With the work across the river well under way, I caught up with Teresa Santos, secretary for the Student Government Association to get her insight on the role the SGA has played in this new venture and the job that lies ahead.

What role did the SGA have  in the planning and development of the new student housing facility?

Over the past academic year or two, the SGA has appointed various individuals to attend meetings and speak with administration about what was being planned for housing. I attended a number of those sessions and a few others were former SGA President’s Mike Renfrow and Marcus Vigil, and Chief-of-Staff Kim Muncie.

We have spoken up to point out things that students have expressed concerns over or had a desire to see. Some of which are access to facilities by off-campus students, security, the kinds of recreational facilities we would like to see, and the cost of living in the dorms.

Our concern that off-campus students have access to the site was met; all students will have access to public areas of the community building, soccer field, and the bicycle and pedestrian trail. The community building will house laundry facilities, an exercise room, a computer room, two study rooms, a large event room with a big screen TV and fireplace, and the housing offices. The trail will have lighting, landscaping, emergency phones, bike racks and some scenic gathering spots with benches including a cantilever that will be directed out over the water. 

Mike Prater, Director of Facilities Management, commented that attention is also being directed towards the required retention pond, and thoughts are being discussed that will allow for a useful development, such as a wooden walkway with native plantings versus just a pond. Students also voiced concern over the cost of residency and the administration did take our views under advisement. I think they are reasonably priced and the estimates for renting them did come down.

The apartments are accessible by key card through a main entrance, and each apartment will be accessible by the same key card, after which each resident can enter their bedroom with their own key. Administration has been very active in getting student opinions about what we wanted in student housing. Last year, Chancellor Reck held a number of campus forums where she could discuss housing and directly solicit students for their opinions. The soccer field was a desire of the students and that was incorporated into the plans for the site.

When are the new tenants expected to start occupying the units?

Housing is on schedule to be completed in June of 2008. They will be made available for fall 2008; however I do not yet know the projected dates of move-in.

What are the criteria for selecting the occupants?

Applications are not yet available, but they will be available no later than January 2, 2008. This is a question for Vice-Chancellor Bill O’Donnell, but I believe the Student Housing Advisory Board will be addressing this.

Are there any plans to repair the existing student houses around the campus?

This question should be directed to Mike Prater, Director of Facilities Management. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the matter and this would best be addressed by Mike Prater or the President of the SGA, Ivan Blount, as he is the spokesperson for the SGA. The SGA, to my knowledge, has not received any complaints on the matter, during my tenure.

What are your thoughts regarding the school’s policy that prevents married couples and families from applying for residency at the new dorms, and what is the SGA’s position on the matter?

The SGA has not addressed this issue. While I am not yet up-to-date on the full policy concerning married couples and families, which keeps them from applying for housing in the dorms, I can tell you that it is not unusual for public or private universities to have such a policy. Generally housing runs in sections for individuals with similar goals and lifestyles; single undergraduate students, graduate students, married students and students with families.

I myself have lived in college dorms as well as married student housing, and from my personal experience, thus my own personal opinion, singles and married/families together in campus dorms wouldn’t have mixed well. This isn’t an apartment complex built with the intention of housing individuals who will live, go to work, and raise their families.

This is a dorm with the focus being on the support of students who are leaving home, perhaps for the first time, and going to away to college. Many colleges and universities have married/family student housing in a separate area of their campuses, it is a different environment that is conducive to their lifestyle. I am not saying whether the policy is right or wrong, good or bad, but it is what it is. Remember, we are just starting out in the beginning stages of student dorms and there is nothing that says married dorm-type housing can’t happen in a later stage.

The housing process will come in stages and we actually do have housing available for married students and families. The University has a number of homes currently utilized by students that surround the campus and they are available for rent by married students, students with families, graduate students, faculty and staff.

Do you believe it is the university’s job to determine which environment is more conducive  to the lifestyle of married couples and families? Knowing of the problems that the student houses are having, don’t you think that it sends the message that the school is willing to cater and give special treatment to traditional students while relegating married students to a lower level?

I believe my first answer is sufficient at this time.

Do you foresee the new dorms playing an important role in attracting a more traditional type of student to IU South Bend?

Yes, I do foresee that happening. We are right on the cusp of an opportunity to truly make an impact and offer something that will make a real difference in our student’s lives. This is an exciting time for our campus and planning for our dorm residents is crucial at this stage. We can make a positive difference or a negative difference in the lives of not only our on-campus students, but also our off-campus students. I for one believe that this will be a positive life-changing and campus-changing event. I think that we will have an opportunity to develop a richer student life experience through our clubs and organizations and through sports. The soccer field will play a major role in attracting more traditional students.

The Search and Screen Committees are narrowing down the candidate field for the new Director of Student Life, and part of his or her responsibilities will be the integration and event planning for on-campus students into student life at IUSB. We are actively searching for a Housing Director and 2 auxiliary staff persons, and there will also be 8 RA’s, who will serve as support staff for the students. Our Director of the Health and Wellness Center Laura Hieronymus, RN, is already looking towards educating students on what they can do to stay healthy and for ways for the campus can handle the inevitable trips students will have to take to see a doctor or to go to the hospital. Mike Prater has said that the campus is going in a new direction.  We have an opportunity to make a change, a real difference in the lives of students.  There is a lot that we can do and still have to do – communication and involvement is the key.

Ed Lima
 

Posted in Ed Lima, Volume 4, Issue 5 | Leave a Comment »

Top Scientists Say: You Are Not the Cause of Global Warming

Posted by iusbvision on October 22, 2007

We have all heard the theory a thousand times: man and his evil industrialization is causing the Earth to warm because CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas and the exhaust from human activity is the primary cause of global warming and that there is a consensus of top scientists that the theory is true. They tell us that this warming will cause catastrophic effects and we have to act now. There is only one problem, many top scientists are convinced that none of this is true and actual measurements (not computer simulated models) of the Earth and solar system by top scientists demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt.

Before we examine the technical data it is important to understand how the greenhouse effect global warming theory works. Greenhouse gases settle in a layer of our atmosphere called the troposphere and it is here that the heat that rises from the surface of the Earth gets trapped in atmosphere keeping us all warm. Think of the troposphere as a giant heat mirror or blanket in the sky that reflects escaping heat back down to the surface.

The computer models that global warming alarmists point to tells us that the troposphere is getting warmer at an ever increasing rate because of human generated CO2 causing the excessive greenhouse effect. However, the actual temperature readings of the atmosphere show no such increase in temperature in the troposphere.

Allow me to introduce Dr. John Christie. Dr. Christie is the scientist who is largely responsible for the methods used in measuring the temperature of the atmosphere. Dr. John Christie was awarded a medal from NASA for exceptional scientific achievement in 1991 and in 1996 received a special award from the American Meteorological Society for fundamentally advancing our ability to measure climate. Dr. Christie is also a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He measures climate temperature using satellites and weather balloons.

Says Dr. Christie, “What we have found consistently, in a great part of the planet that the bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see at the surface and that is a real head-scratcher for us because the theory is pretty straight forward; that if the surface warms the upper atmosphere should warm rapidly. The rise in temperature of that part of the atmosphere is not very dramatic at all and really does not match the theory that the climate models are expressing.”

Dr. Christie continued to say that, “I have often heard it said that there is a consensus among thousands of scientists on the global warming issue that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.”

Dr. Fred Singer stated, “All the climate [computer] models, every one of them, calculates that the warming should be faster  as you go up from the Earths surface and go up into the atmosphere. Maximum warming should take place at an altitude of about 10 KM. The observations do not show an increase with altitude, in fact most observations show a slight decrease in the rate of warming with altitude. So in a sense you can say that the hypothesis of man-made global warming is falsified by the evidence.”

Dr. Singer is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and is also the former director of the National Weather Satellite Service.

The idea that human generated CO2 is the cause of global warming is falsified by the evidence in several other ways. One of the most important facts to understand in regards to CO2 is that it is a minor greenhouse gas and that the amount of CO2 that humanity generates is but a tiny fraction of what the Earth generates naturally.

Dr. Timothy Ball, Professor of Climatology from the University of Winnipeg and director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project tells us that “The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases. A small percentage of them we call greenhouse gases, and of that very small percentage of greenhouse gases 95% of it is water vapor and it is the most important greenhouse gas. If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gases in the atmosphere it makes up 0.54%, it is an incredibly small portion; and then you have to take that portion that supposedly the humans are adding that is the focus of concern and the number gets even smaller.”

According to a BBC documentary on climate change, “More CO2 comes from animals and bacteria which produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year compared to mere 6.6 gigatons from humans. An even larger source is dying vegetation, but the biggest source of CO2 by far is the oceans.”

Professor Carl Wunsch of the Department of Oceanography, M.I.T. is the author of four major text books on oceanography. States Dr. Wunsch, “The ocean is the major reservoir of where CO2 goes. If you heat the surface of the ocean it tends to release CO2 and if you cool the oceans surface it will absorb more CO2.”

The temperature record shows that man made CO2 levels do not correlate with changes in global temperature, but changes in solar activity and global temperatures often do.

Examine the graph [above] carefully. It shows that most of the warming that has happened in the last 200 years occurred before 1940; well before most industrialization and before most people had used cars. It shows that global temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1975, which is the time of the post war economic boom, the highest period of global industrialization in world history. According to the theory of man made global warming the temperatures should not have gone up much before 1940 and should have went up quickly after 1940. Exactly the opposite is what took place.

Says Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the director of the International Arctic Research Center, “[man-made] CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940 but the temperature actually began to decrease and continued ‘til [sic] 1975. We cannot say that CO2 and temperature go together.” Dr. Nir Shaviv of the Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem states that “there were periods in Earth history when we had three times as much CO2 as we have today or ten times as much CO2 as we have today and if CO2 has a large effect on climate we would see it in the temperature reconstruction.”

Dr. Piers Corbyn, lead climate forecaster for Weather Action (England) said, “None of the major climate changes in the last 1000 years can be explained by CO2.” Dr. Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia and IPCC author states that “Anyone who goes around and says that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.”

Dr. Ian Clark a leading paleo-climatologist from the University of Ottawa says, “If we look at climate in the geological timeframe we would never suspect CO2 as a major climate driver. You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.”

So what about Al Gore? It is right about at this point in any conversation about global warming I have when I am asked, what about Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”? Gore’s movie is largely centered around two pieces of evidence. The first is those computer models that we discussed earlier that show the ever increasing temperatures in the troposphere that just is not happening in real world measurements. The second is the long graph that Gore claims shows a correlation between global CO2 levels and global temperatures over thousands of years. The graph is from what is called the ice core record. This measurement is taken by drilling into ice glaciers that are many millennia old. The CO2 levels of the atmosphere trapped in the ice can then be compared to the known global temperature records.

According to a BBC interview with Dr. Clark, paleo-climatologists have discovered a link between CO2 levels and temperature, but what Al Gore doesn’t say in his movie is that “the link is the wrong way around.” When the global temperature rises or falls, only after 800 years do the CO2 levels follow. Every ice core record measurement has shown this same correlation.

Global warming alarmists don’t want you to know that global CO2 levels lag behind temperature levels by 800 years and Gore’s own method of comparing CO2 to the global temperatures shows this to be true. The data is clear, warming causes CO2, CO2 does not cause warming; if it did the CO2 levels would have to rise before the global temperature does and the data shows that this just isn’t the case. Says Dr. Clark, “Temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years. CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, it is a product of temperature levels, it is following temperature changes.”

Below is the graph showing the CO2 levels measured using the ice core method that Gore is so fond of over the last 400,000 years and as you can see the CO2 levels spike about every 100,000 years in what appears to be a natural cycle. There is no way that the CO2 spikes over the last 400 millennia can be explained by man or industrialization. Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are trying to either stop a natural cycle, or exploit it for political purposes. The science has spoken.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Volume 4, Issue 5 | 24 Comments »

Myanmar: A Country Which Has Many Names

Posted by iusbvision on October 22, 2007

On September 24, Buddhists monks lead a demonstration march with an estimated 100,000 people through Burma’s former capital. They protested the high price of oil—in last two years, their government raised it  more than nine times and the government has recently increased prices by 500%.

The monks and citizens in Myanmar have been perplexed by the gasoline prices; they decided to march against their government, the Junta, which has been in power for 19 years. According to CNN News, more than 200 people have died and the death toll is expected to increase; however, each media reports a different number of deaths.  Numerous others have been arrested by the government.

In addition, many international journalists and activists have had difficulties reporting on the political situation.  A Japanese journalist, Kenji Nagai (50), was shot when he reported on the march. His documents, including some notes and memory cards of his digital cameras, were completely erased when his relics came back to Japan.  

He entered Myanmar with a sightseeing visa. According to the official report from the government in Myanmar, he should not have been reporting and that he joined in the protest march.   

Immediately after Nagai’s death, parts of his visual reports and documents were made available through the internet by other journalists. However, the government shut down all internet access in the country. The government dislikes free internet access, activists such as the daughter of General Aung San (a Nobel Peace Prize winner), and international journalists.

Behind this political situation, there is a complex history. Even the country’s name is complicated. Historically, Myanmar or Myanma is the name of the country. When the British first arrived, they heard Bamar which became Burma. The Bamar is the main ethnic group with 134 groups, including the Junta. The ruling military Junta changed its name from Burma to Myanmar in 1989. One year later, thousands of people were killed in the suppression of an uprising. 

In 1947, General Aung San, who had agreed to honor the agreement between the states in Myanmar, was murdered, and a year later the British departed. The new government did not honor the agreements; therefore, the disagreements between the main ethnic groups of 134 continuously caused many civil wars. Most groups wanted independence for political reasons.  

With all those political conflicts, such as disagreement with oil prices, the monks and Buddhism are very important cultural icons in Myanmar. The citizens mostly support the monks and they are diligent in learning Buddhism. Citizens provide the monks with food, money, and even their doctor appointments as a symbiotic relationship.  Therefore, if one person strikes at the monks, the person strikes at the spiritual heart of the country, and striking at a monastery, effectively strikes at a village.  

Some of the citizens are escaping from Myanmar and working in neighboring countries such as Thailand. Most of them have not received an official educational degree, so they work in factories and restaurants. Some of them become housekeepers like servants. Their payment is extremely low; for example, a Thai worker would be paid double for the same work. 

According to The Age, more than 1 million Burmese are living in Thailand and most of whom do not have identity papers. When the government finds them, they are repatriated to Myanmar. In any of the surrounding countries, the citizens live with police harassment. Moreover, if they use the term Burma and are overheard by the wrong people, it is considered  a political act worth 3 years in jail.    

The Junta has a practice of “Not just taking the tree, but taking the seed too,” which means that if one person commits a political act, their whole family, extended family and friends are targeted for punishment and imprisonment. Therefore, many people hesitate to be active in changing this situation.

The citizens still live under unstable situations and will have sleepless nights until they can safely walk on the street and freely speak upon what they think.

References:

Asahi News  http://www.asahi.com/english

BBC News  http://news.bbc.co.uk

CNN News  http://cnn.com

Irrawaddy.org  http://irrawaddy.org

The Age http://www.theage.com.au

Naoko Fujimoto

Posted in Naoko Fujimoto, Volume 4, Issue 5 | Leave a Comment »

The Cancer of Our Generation

Posted by iusbvision on October 22, 2007

In the 60’s and 70’s, the United States headed in a direction that would forever change the generations to follow. My generation is at a loss for words, it is almost as if we are at the door, but do not want to do what it takes to step through it. Even worse, we would much rather go up to our rooms and play computer for “just a few more hours” than risk going out there.

Most of the time Mom, Dad or Uncle Government will help us if we get in trouble anyway. The fact is, at some point, our generation has to wake up to the realization that our parents left us with a disastrous system of self gratification, irresponsibility, greed and lust.

In hindsight, the rationale behind the 60’s and 70’s was actually not that surprising. After all, they came from a generation of strong conservative beliefs and “hush” values. The explosion resulted in the pendulum swinging far to the left and a very rapid rate. Many people experimented with what they did not understand and rationalized it as “If it feels this good, how could it possibly be wrong?” Now we have the aftermath, an explosion of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, children with no moral grounding, and no hope for the future.    

We have a system of government whose waste has become satire rather than a serious issue. Our politician’s primary concerns are not the state of the U.S. but the state of their own political image. In the middle, you find our generation, taking the wisdom of the generation before it, and attempting to make some sort of political, moral or meaningful sense out of all of it.

Here is the trick, it does not make any sense and there is a good reason for it. When our parent’s generation rationalized that right and wrong were all relative to perception, we forgot who we were. When a man is murdered in another country, we stop to say “Is it wrong by their perception?” instead of remembering that “murder is simply not justified.” We have no grounding, and without a basis to determine what is right or wrong, just how can one possibly evaluate political decisions, government issues, personal responsibilities or even whether our own children should be doing drugs, having sex or going to school.

It makes my stomach churn, and often brings me close to tears to think of those in my generation who are at a complete loss from the incessant mixed signals of the generation before us. Many of the concepts are simple and do not work such as: “Sex before marriage is okay” even though it has been statistically disproven. “Moving in with each other before getting married is good for you” – also has been statistically disproven. “Abortions without education of the after effects are okay” even though it has been proven there can be serious psychological issues after the decision. “The government has always been wasteful” when in reality it has not. “There is no God” has not been proven. “Evolution is not a theory” is also, not true. “If it feels good, do it” should make most people laugh because cocaine probably feels good. “You only live once” is now an excuse to make a poor short term decision.

What is mentioned above is just a taste of modern day morality, if we can even call it that.  Morality is defined as “con-formity to the rules of right conduct”, but in reality we have no firm basis of societal right and wrong. We could hardly establish “rules” because they are constantly changing. My hope is that my generation will soon realize that we cannot be a functional society without a moral framework by which to live. We cannot make exceptions to evil, including hate, jealousy, anger, lust, envy or greed. Evil is the cancer of a great society, and it will slowly eat away at our foundation.

Now, if you listen closely, you can hear a thousand philosophers scream. “Just whose philosophy should we live by? Who are you to say your philosophy is better than ours? Some people perceive evil differently than you do, what about them?” They are all justified questions, to be sure. Questions two and three especially adhere to the philosophies of the late 60’s and 70’s. The reality is we are barely scraping by as a society right now, we are so confused about right and wrong we do not want to take a stance at all. We would rather go the movies, play a game or just relax and worry about it later. Meanwhile the cancer is spreading and those who are suffering as a result of our indecisions are still out there. At some point society needs to agree on some kind of a standard of right and wrong. This standard needs to happen on an ‘individual’ basis first. We each have to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, and we need to agree with each other on what is best for society as a whole. We need to look evil in the face and say, “You are not welcome here, or anywhere for that matter.”

Our generation has a lot of work to do. There is so much damage that has been done in our government, our schools, to our families and friends that we just need to get out there and do something about it, even if it is one person at a time, cleaning up trash or giving a good friend inspiration one day a week. We need to bring good back into our society and stop spending time on lust, greed, envy, jealousy and hate. We need to take the focus off of ourselves, and perceive ourselves as part of the community of mankind, as brothers and sisters. We need God to help us. Until we do this, until society realizes that each individual person has the capacity to make a huge impact on at least one person every day of their lives, we will not see progress, and the cancer will continue to spread.

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”  – (Matthew 7:24-27)

Craig Chamberlin

Posted in Craig Chamberlin, Volume 4, Issue 5 | Leave a Comment »

Preserving the Past Preparing the Future

Posted by iusbvision on October 22, 2007

The Indiana University South Bend Archives, located in the Franklin D. Schurz Library, is the repository for materials that document the history of Indiana University South Bend as well as the histories of the larger Michiana area.

“The Archives collects, preserves, and makes available for researchers campus records of historic or administrative value, as well as special donated collections.” This is part of the greeting you receive upon entering the IU South Bend Archives webpage, on the Schurz Library website. One can access this page by clicking “Archives / Special Collections” under the “Library Collections” heading on the Schurz Library webpage. This tiny link will connect the viewer to the very tip of the iceberg that is the massive collections housed in the Archives. 

On this site, viewers will find the histories of IU South Bend, the Schurz Library, and also inventory lists and collection summaries of people, places, and events that have influenced not only IUSB as we now know it, but also the entire Michiana area. 

At first glance, especially to those people who do not have much of an interest in history, the idea of reading through inventory lists and collection summaries sounds dull, lifeless, and like a complete waste of perfectly good time. If one takes a closer look, however, they will see that these lists serve as an outline for those wishing to find hidden treasures amidst a shore seemingly bereft of treasure.  

For those interested in the history of campus and club events, or wish to gain ideas for their own campus events, the IUSB Archives offers you the opportunity to take a look at our photograph collection which contains images of events, buildings, and even professors dating back to the mid-1960s. 

For those interested in the history of our campus publications, Archives invites you to search through our collections containing past issues of The Vision, The Preface, and other publications from years past.

For those interested in IU South Bend students’ stances on past wars and conflicts, Archives encourages you to contact IUSB Archivist Alison Stankrauff about our wide variety of anti- and pro- war documentation throughout the decades. These documentations include publications, photographs, and even a letter written by Chancellor Les Wolfson to President Nixon with concerns of student strikes . . . . as well as a letter directly from Nixon himself, in response.

The largest collection, by far, housed in the IU South Bend Archives is that of James Lewis Casaday, a drama teacher in the South Bend Schools system for nearly fifty years, who “mounted or participated in some 500 performances of school and community theatre groups”, and whose grandfather founded the South Bend Chilled Plow Company (http://www.iusb.edu/~libg/archives/casaday/bio.shtml).

These are not the only collections! Also housed are collections such as that donated by the Civil Rights Heritage Center, collections concerning each IU South Bend Chancellor, a multi-faceted collection from the local Torrington Company, Labor Studies collections and much more! 

The IU South Bend Archives has lots of unique trinkets and treasures. The Archives needs to keep collecting and gathering more great stuff! It calls on the aid of the students and faculty of IUSB. There is a great interest embedded in mankind to know where one came from and what one’s past consists of. It was the interest of those before us and it the interest of many of us now. It only makes sense to believe that this interest will continue on for those in our future.

Archives is asking for donations about club events, campus events, fundraisers, and anything and everything else that makes IU South Bend what it is today and what it will be. Please help preserve today what many inquiring minds may learn from tomorrow!

To donate or inquire about viewing a collection, contact:
Alison Stankrauff, IUSB Archivist / Assistant Librarian
Email:  astankra@iusb.edu
Phone:  (574) 520-4392

Article Contributed by
Kristi J. Dunn
Archives Student Worker

Posted in Contributors, Volume 4, Issue 5 | Leave a Comment »