With a diverse campus, geographically that is, most of us know the pains of flying back and forth to South Bend. However, this article is somewhat in response to the guest column of J.D. Piland that appeared a few weeks ago in Viewpoint. J.D. did point out some things that have occurred in airline security that I agree with. Not everything, though. Rep. John Dingell was the 75-year-old man who was stopped in Reagan Airport two weeks ago and was strip-searched in a private room. Dingell later replied to every reporter that he had agreed with the screeners' decision to search him. He didn't complain about it, or ask for any apologies, like Piland makes it appear. The problem I find with both the attempted security increases and Piland's article is that both the flying public and Piland are paranoid. Yes, paranoid. I hardly find it possible that my nail clippers and tweezers are a weapon. But at least the nail clipping executives are dancing in the streets, since now I have about 67 pairs of their product.

It is true that the airline screeners were simply "doing their job." But then again, why can't these screeners, like every other screener ever born, use the magic "wand" and not make this man take his pants off? I really doubt these wands are sensitive to cotton.

The "inconveniences" Piland expressed are more than minor troubles. The problem is that these inconveniences are becoming so big, people will choose not to fly. Rather than wait two hours to check in, two hours to get through security, and dealing with the enormous hassles, people will, and have been, decide to drive and avoid the hassles of the airports. Furthermore, companies have since enhanced teleconferencing, and if they continue to rely on it, there will be less need for the airlines. Why is this a problem? Well, if people don't fly, we can all wave good-bye to the airline industry.

Piland wrote that instead of accepting the changes, people have been "whining about their rights and whatnot." What? Well, I for one think we do have a reason to be whining about our rights. If someone infringes on them, we can "whine" about them. The Constitution kind of explains that one. I'm pretty sure we can find a way to have security checks without surrendering our rights. Just because I'm flying doesn't mean I should give up my rights, now should I? The fact is, too many of these airline screeners are dumb. I mean really dumb. For those of you that don't like the word dumb, use these: "lack of judgment." One in four airline screeners that are employed do not have a high school diploma, and the government does not require that they have one. The average 14-year old could probably outwit these people. So if you feel that these are the people you want running airline security Piland, then I just don't know what to say to you.

Even when the federal government takes over airline security next month, they will continue to employ most of these same screeners. What we need, is a revamp of the security personnel of airports. What is also needed is stricter enforcements (not at the airports) by the FBI and INS. These are the institutions that could have and should have stopped the terrorists in the first place. Airline security is not the only, complete answer. The FBI and INS are also in shambles and our first step needs to be in repairing them, as well as designing a way to still have ample security, without losing our rights.

• Panic in the sky