thlete excels in academics, too
Michelle Gough excels in the classroom as well as on the tennis court (sports story, March 21). She is one of the highest-achieving majors in the mathematics program and has been awarded the math department's prestigious Pierce scholarship.
She is a true scholar-athlete, a species cynics thought went extinct long ago. But it is alive and well, and students like Michelle Gough inspire the rest of us to set no boundaries and to strive for excellence in everything.
Bruce Bayly
mathematics associate professor
Campus health ad not proof of student safety
There have been previous letters addressing the advertisements Campus Health runs in the Wildcat but I still find it necessary to write again about this subject. The Wildcat on Wednesday, March 21 ran this ad by Campus Health: "Most UA students are safe when they drink." Eighty-three percent use a designated driver, 67 percent keep track of the number of drinks they have, 71 percent do not drive under the influence and 86 percent do not get hurt or injured.
Another advertisement by Campus Health states, "64 percent of U of A students have four or fewer drinks when they party."
I might be the only one who looks into these percentages, but they hardly constitute safe in my opinion. Let's take for example that you go out to party and drink with five of your friends on any given night. According to these statistics, one will not use a designated driver, two will drink more than four drinks, two will drive under the influence, and one will be hurt or injured.
These numbers scare me. How can Campus Health use these statistics as a way to promote safety when drinking? It seems to me that these numbers should be used to show how irresponsible U of A students are. I didn't like driving around on Friday or Saturday night before seeing this ad but now I don't want to drive around at night at all with so many UA students driving under the influence. So before you go out to party with your friends, Campus Health would like to remind you that most of you will be safe. Remember only two in six will drive under the influence, and two in six will be piss drunk. So have a safe time when you party and drink, and don't worry if your friends will be OK at the party they went to. Campus Health says chances are your friends will return home safely.
Michael Shaffer
biochemistry senior
ASUA should advertise suggestion boxes
In response to the news article regarding ASUA's need for an online suggestion box, I would like to make a suggestion to ASUA.
What ASUA needs is publicity. If half of the student body actually knew what ASUA does for them at the UA, it would not need a new system of suggestion procurement. Do not misunderstand me, I think that the Online Suggestion system is a great idea. But let's think realistically about this. How well was the old system advertised? I know for certain that maybe 10 students out of the 350 that live in my student dormitory are able to locate the ASUA suggestion boxes. If you are going to approve spending our money on developing an effective Online Suggestion system, then I would strongly recommend that ASUA announce throughout campus, on the Web page, and in the Wildcat, where to find it and how to use it.
Christopher Marcum
sociology freshman
Numbers don't add up
The numbers in the Wildcat Fast Fact section of Thursday, March 8, do not add up. The first "fact" says that 4 million babies are born each year in the United States. That means all 4 million of them are U.S. citizens. But the next "fact" says that U.S. population is growing by only 2.5 million people each year, and more than 1 million of that 2.5 million is by immigration, which gives a birthrate of only about 1.5 million per year. Meanwhile, the last "fact" in the list indicates that more than 2.5 million people immigrate to the U.S. every year.
What should we believe? Does birthrate equal 4 million or 1.5 million? Does the immigration rate equal 1 million or 2.5 million?
I have to admit I'm not very interested in these particular statistics, but they make me wonder if we can believe anything else you print. Aren't journalists supposed to strive for accuracy?
Janna M. Harris
materials science and engineering graduate student
Letter ignores free speech
I read with amazement Lynette Cook Francis' letter to the editor regarding the Wildcat's decision to print David Horowitz's brilliant rebuke of the "slavery reparations" argument. The term "amazement" is truly descriptive since Ms. Francis is an Associate Dean of Students on a major college campus yet she lacks a basic understanding of the phrase, "Freedom of Press/Speech."
Ms. Francis loosely couches her "support" of the Wildcat's decision with a suggestion that, next time, the newspaper should "properly frame difficult topics." Specifically, she says, when a free press handles a paid advertisement of a controversial nature, the heretofore "free" editors should set aside additional, costly space to address the controversy, identify the parties, etc.
I, for one, am curious to see the NAACP's stance on this subject. In fact, if liberal Democrats wish to put their credibility and political futures on the line, their leaders should clearly express their support of this insanity, which Horowitz so brilliantly assails. How, for instance, does Hillary Rodham Clinton feel about "slavery reparations?" The campus and the country are all awaiting a response that deals with the topic, not a response that insidiously seeks to deal with those who dare oppose the idea.
The bottom line is this: Mr. Horowitz paid for an advertisement. His advertisement dealt with a controversial subject. Therefore, over 225 years of American history dictates that those who object to Mr. Horowitz's viewpoint have, at their fingertips, the same process.
Eric E. Clingan
James Rogers College of Law student
