Letters to Felix

I am writing to complain about the planned closure of the library in the mornings in two weeks in February. As this fortnight coincides directly with the week of the second year Biology and Biochemistry exams and it also covers the week that the final year Biologists have been granted a reading week, I am beginning to feel that the reliance of the Biology and Biochemistry students have upon the library is not appreciated.

The students of the Life Sciences are often required to spend long hours in the library as lectures and practicals frequently need to be supported by journal articles, not to mention the background reading that is required for essays, dissertations, projects etc. I am sure that you will understand that to photocopy all of these articles is extremely expensive. I feel that a closure of the library is particularly unfair on the Life Sciences students: we do not have a departmental library and many of us find that the current opening hours are restrictive - it is a little ridiculous that we are allowed to work within our own department until 11 pm, but we are only allowed to consult textbooks until 9pm.

We have been continually disrupted with closures of the library occurring at short notice, plus the noise and even the workmen themselves can be an annoying distraction. I doubt that my degree will be compensated for by the lack of facilities available. Perhaps the library could compensate for the time lost during the building work by either staying open later during the next few weeks or by transferring journals from the library to a room within the Biology department whereupon they would be accessible to all students?

I understand that the library is being run for all students and that the building work will improve the situation for future students. However, with less than two months to go before the final exams, I doubt that altruistic behaviour will be found being exhibited freely amongst the students. Many of us are working extremely hard at least twelve hours a day to try and ensure the results that we need. It would be a shame is some students were not allowed to achieve their aims if they were denied the facilities that have been offered to students of previous years and will be offered to students of future years.

Yours Faithfully,

The letter is signed by 72 members of the Biology Department, and a copy has also been sent to the library.

The wisdom of College’s decision to halve the library’s opening would certainly seem a little suspect, though I imagine that almost every week is important to at least one department. Certainly it would seem common sense to move some of the more important publications to a more readily accessible site for the duration. However, the shut-down will no doubt be worth the sacrifice (assuming that this time the building work doesn’t result in falling masonry, a leaky roof, power failures....)

Dear Felix,

In response to Karen Yates’ article A Bunch Of Poofters that appeared in Felix 1076, I’d like to make a few points about her statement that "The Bible condemns same sex relations" is a common argument "against gays, lesbians and bisexuals" that "...can be easily countered".

Firstly, I do not think that this constitutes an argument at all against homo/bi-sexuality unless the person in question is someone who would call him/herself a Christian. Otherwise why would someone who does not believe that God has revealed Himself to us through the history recorded in the Bible care what this book, believed by Christians to be the "Word of God", has to say?

As for the issue of whether the Bible really does condemn same sex relations, I believe that in the Bible, GOD condemns same sex relations in no uncertain terms from the opening pages when He creates Adam and Eve to the end when the body of believers are referred to as the "Bride of Christ". Moreover I believe that, contrary to what Karen wrote, the whole Bible, "original Hebrew Scriptures" included, is self-consistent with the view that all sexual relations (homosexual or heterosexual) outside marriage are wrong in God’s eyes.

With regard to the New Testament condemnation of homosexuality by St Paul, Karen wrote that "the writings of St. Paul are believed to be mainly personal opinion..." Even if a Christian chose to believe this how could they possibly have the divine discretion to know whether in these instances Paul was not actually speaking the Word of God? Christians who choose to ignore half of the New Testament would have a very difficult time convincing people that they were actually Christians, no matter what they called themselves! I also disagree with her justification for her statement about St Paul ("... as he (St Paul) also condemned women even speaking in church") because this mentions an important issue out of context. There is not space for a full discussion now but I believe that the whole Bible including St Paul’s writings when put in their appropriate historical and Christian context are consistent with the self-evidence that men and women are equal but different.

Finally, Karen says that "many churches teach that people should love the homosexual but hate homosexuality..." Surely, the reason they do this is because they have examined the Bible and come to the conclusion that God DOES condemn same sex relations but that He also urges Christians to love EVERYONE as He loves them. As Karen rightly pointed out, it is this latter command that many Christians forget.

Vikrant Bansal

As an atheist, I whole-heartedly agree that what the Bible might or might not say has no relevance to the right to choose your own sexuality. Anyone of any religion has the right to their own system of values or beliefs - so why should a non-Christian view the Bible with any more or less reverence than the Koran or Torah?

Dear Alex,

Much has been written about the nature of the Union in the last few weeks; understandably as the loss of the ICU Bookstore has given us all something to think about. However with so many issues being discussed, such as including ‘Union’ in the name of all clubs, it appears to me that something is missing.

Nobody seems to be thinking of the Union as a representative body: something to voice not only our academic worries but general concerns about life at IC. I’m not so much saying that there is nobody around to speak up for us, more that the majority of us can’t see that there is.

Being excluded from the Fantasy Sabbatical League I’m forced to fantasise about what would make my ideal Sabb . . . someone who know’s that ICU is not the representative body it should be, someone who cares enough to make this a priority, and - most importantly - someone who’s determined to do something about it.

ICU’s biggest nightmare shouldn’t be that it is unable to trade; it’s that it doesn’t fulfil a true representative role, making it irrelevant to the student population that it exists to look after.

Yours etc

Olly Newman (Civil Eng 4)

Taken for granted?

It’s good to see Imperial students getting involved in the debate on higher education funding (Simon Wistow, Felix 1076).

I was interested to see that in the ‘Options for Change’ box there was no mention of a funding scheme which I believe to be the best option: A return to a full grant at 1979 levels. Obviously Mr Wistow no longer considers this to be an option. The student population is getting too carried away with ‘new realism’ that we are beginning to question our own rights. We should have the right to a free education, no matter what.

Yours Sincerely,

G Constantinides

Apology

I would like to express my concern about the report in Felix today about Richard Parker’s death, especially inaccuracies in the article.

The specific inaccuracy that most concerns me is that Richard is said to have gone to "a business lunch in his department on 20 December". There was no business lunch in the Biochemistry Department that day and Richard was not drinking in the Department, as implied.

I would also like to comment that it is regrettable that the article attempts to give such detail of the events preceding Richard’s death.

With best wishes,

David Chapman

The News Editor replies: We apologise for the minor factual inaccuracy - Mr Parker had in fact been at a business lunch with his company. Details of Mr Parker’s last day were included to shed some light on his motivations.