No lessons learned in Rocky Point
Jessica Lee's tale of a stolen truck and a lesson learned is pathetic. Perhaps she learned that getting wasted at Rocky Point and losing your truck isn't nearly as bad as getting wasted and losing your life. But those of us who can't afford a truck or a week-long drinking binge in Mexico - not to mention those of us who have respect for our bodies - find that kind of behavior disgusting.
Does anyone deserve to lose their property or life? Certainly not. Yet, while she and all the other kids are driving cars whose insurance they can't even continue to play out another lame, repetitive tale of debauchery and death (every year it is the same thing), some of us had to stay home and work the entire week, hopefully making enough money to pay the rent next week. Lesson learned? Hardly, otherwise Lee would have taken care of herself and her vehicle in the first place. Hope she doesn't lose her new car in Florida next year.
Elaine Enriquez
Religious studies senior
Parking garage security needs a boost
Recently, the Police Beat ran a story about the breaking in of my car in the Tyndall garage. Since then, many more cars have been broken into within just a few feet of where my car was parked. The police officer who took my report said something to me that has been on my mind ever since the crime took place. He told me that the UAPD has repeatedly suggested that the University install some type of security camera in the parking garage, but they have yet to listen. Even after my car is fixed, nothing prevents this from happening again to my car or anybody else's.
Personally, I think it is well within the university's budget to protect the property of their students as well as faculty. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are paying $400 to park their car in the garages around campus. Shouldn't the university be able to foot the bill to ensure that the cars parked inside their garages have some sort of protection from theft? With security cameras in place, some crime could be deterred and the police will have at least some chance at catching those who commit these crimes. I beg the university, please, do a favor for your students, faculty and police: Install security cameras in the parking garages.
Tim Thiel
General biology freshman
Free speech comes with responsibility
I find it interesting that people always revert back to the first amendment whenever a controversial, often-times erroneous, statement or claim is made in print media. Such is the case with the ad, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea," printed in the Arizona Daily Wildcat on March 9, 2001.
While it is true that we do have a right to free speech, it is also equally true there is an inherent responsibility when we speak - a responsibility to our neighbors, our communities, our nation. It is important to remember that this was not a news story, an opinion piece or a letter to the editor; this was an ad. I assume some revenue was generated from the printing of Horowitz's "ponderings." How responsible is it then to assume this falls under the auspices of pure journalism? Perhaps the Wildcat should take into account the feelings of a large portion of its readers when accepting solicitation.
But for a second, let's simply look at the ad as a piece of pure journalism. Were there any voices to counteract the claims made by Horowitz? No. Instead, the reader is left with one side of history, which coincidentally leaves out significant historical facts. For instance, Horowitz assumes that many Northern whites were fighting purely for abolitionist purposes. This is not so. In fact, many Northerners harbored racist attitudes because they resented black competition in their work places. Many free territories and states wanted "pure white" populations; it served their economic interests.
Furthermore, Horowitz claims that only a small number of whites owned slaves. While this is true, he neglects to mention this created a social dynamic that oppressed almost all African Americans. Dred Scott, after all, claimed blacks were of no more value than mules. And while we have evolved from the days of the Civil War, Reconstruction and Jim Crow, it is a bit short-sighted to claim we have totally moved away from the social riffs created by these historical moments. We do not live in a generational vacuum - we struggle with attitudes and ideas passed down from our ancestors, despite what Horowitz claims.
However, the issue at hand is not to merely argue the veracity of Horowitz's ideas. Rather, it is to push the Wildcat to consider how Horowitz's ad presents history, and how that presentation challenges readers. Despite our first amendments rights, magazines and newspapers have always exercised journalistic tastes; periodicals are not free-for-alls, and there are editors making choices about who and what to present. Perhaps it was a valid move to present Horowitz's point of view, but to not counterbalance it with other opposing "ads" was an exercise in narrow-mindedness, not free speech.
Joseph P. Wood
Adjunct English and creative writing professor
