I REALLY ENJOYED YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT sorority rushing at SMU [“Battle of the Big Three,” September), but I wouldn’t have read it if not for an incident at the bookstore where I work.
One evening a college girl was purchasing D. She asked if it was selling well. I told her it was and we were all amazed at how unusually fast it was moving. She told me about the article and said she was told it didn’t paint a pretty picture of the sorority system. “In fact,” she said, “the house heads have asked us not to buy the magazine. They said if we want to read it, they have photocopies.”
It seems that the sororities are worried that people will find out what the Greek system is really all about: exclusion based on the standards of vacuous, vain bubble-heads where education takes a backseat to appearance and popularity. The sooner we get rid of this outmoded beauty contest and get back to what college is really about, the better.
EDITOR’S RESPONSE: We would like to remind those who may he templed that photocopying of copyrighted materia! is a violation of federal law.
STICKING IT TO SPANO
I READ YOUR ARTICLE ENTITLED “WHAT IS Your House Really Worth…Now?” [September). Although the majority of the article’s content seemed to explore the question posed in the title, I failed to understand the relevance of the comments regarding Mr. Spano.
The information regarding a 30 percent increase in the appraised value of a home in University Park is relevant to an article assessing the present state of Dallas-Fort Worth real estate. However, I do not see the relevance of the inclusion of the statements mentioning Mr. Spano and his ability to post bond, labeling him a hockey team scam artist, or questioning the legal knowledge of New York prosecutors and their possible future internions in a legal matter.
Isn’t this what we call taking a dig at someone?
EDITOR’S RESPONSE: Yes.
IN THE “PULSE OF THE CITY” ARTICLE ON John Vance [“How John Vance Got Eased Out of Office,” August], you don’t even have a clue. I have been a prosecutor in the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office for almost 26 years. The policies set by Henry Wade are, for the most part, the policies followed by John Vance. The turnover in our staff is not any greater under John Vance than it was under Henry Wade.
Under the direction and leadership of John Vance, the D. A,’s Office disposes of 20,000-25,000 felony offenses and upwards of 50,000 misdemeanors per year.
During his tenure as District Attorney, John Vance created special prosecution units to deal with child abuse, family violence, drug dealers, and car thieves. He has been dedicated to the rights of victims and especially to the protection of children.
You are apparently miffed that John Vance did not return your phone call. In February you published a story concerning the whereabouts of John Vance on a daily basis [“Desperately Seeking the District Attorney,” Inside Dallas]. Your research apparently consisted of a series of phone calls by your reporter to various people around the courthouse asking when was the last time that person saw John Vance. Based on the answers you apparently received, you concluded (erroneously) that John Vance was not at work much.
The problem with your story was that your reporter-apparently not knowing what the D.A. does-called people who would seldom, if ever, have occasion to see the District Attorney. Poor research, done while sitting on your duff talking on the phone, equals totally erroneous results.
While your reporter was making these phone calls and doing her research (if you can call it that), John Vance placed several phone calls to her, which she never returned. Why then should he return yours?
First Assistant District Attorney