Comics should not be tolerated
To the editor,
I would like to go on record as objecting highly to two "comics" that appeared in the Wildcat today, Sept. 13. In particular, I am referring to the "Voice of Doom," N. C. Winters and "The Hot Dog Stand," Cody Angell.
Considering the current climate of violence prevalent in our society these days, it is appalling that the Arizona Daily Wildcat would condone the appearance of two strips that not only depict violence ( assault with a deadly weapon in one strip and implied murder in another ), but violence against women.
Violence directed towards, or involving women, should never be tolerated in our society. In order to change the attitudes that brought about the murder of O.J. Simpson's wife, and other countless women who die as the result of domestic, male-initiated violence towards them, we must decide as a society that such actions will never be tolerated.
For far too long, it has been the misconception in our male-dominated society that in order to change the tide of violence against women we must educate women on the ways to avoid the situations that bring this about.
This solution could not be further from the truth either.
Men need to be educated that violence against women is cowardly, wrong and that if it occurs, it will be punished to the fullest extent of the legal system. Men need to learn respect for women - that women are not the punching bags for their inadequacies, insecurities or egos. It is the male portion of society that should be taking the lead in this regard and not let a few minority members of our sex taint the overall image of the way a majority of men act and feel towards women.
I fail to see how either Winters or Angell could consider their entries into today's edition as being remotely funny. Comics are meant to entertain or, in the case of editorial cartoons, to provoke us into thinking or action. These two strips accomplish neither objective. It would seem to me that the editors of the Arizona Daily Wildcat should demand an in-print apology from both of these "artists" and begin to appropriately monitor the submissions to this part of the paper in the future. I also feel it would be the responsibility of the editors to insure that the glorification, personification or even intimation of violence towards anyone and particularly violence against women never again appear in a page supposedly devoted to entertainment or humor.
Finally, I would like to also point out that one other "comic" in this edition also speaks of violence, degradation and insult: i.e. "Dehydrated Culture." Hopefully, the condoning of such acts of violence that appeared in today's paper is an isolated act that will not be repeated in future issues.
Kevin Prahar
Office Assistant, Sr.
Parking and Transportation Services
Corporations can't self-monitor
To the editor,
To Mr. Josh Aronsons' letter I'd like to respond as worker, parent and reader of journalists. First there is no terror reign. Such overblown nonsense is low argument, insipid journalism and counterfactual. Those who support Nike may organize public demonstration, (but the lack of a moral basis for doing so may slow the effort).
SAS students did not disrupt the Open House with President Likins. As UA staff, I commend their persistence in the pursuit of justice for all workers and Dr. Likins' willingness to engage the campus community. However, Dr. Likins neatly side-stepped the issue the SAS representative articulated. In no arena is it good practice to let insiders audit their own worst or even questionable practices, whether unions or factory owners. At best, Mr. Aronson missed the point of SAS efforts. If multi-national or even local corporations are allowed to set wages and working conditions as low as they wish, all workers, even salaried ones like myself, eventually suffer. Perhaps as a class project he could do some real investigative journalism on sweatshops in Los Angeles or Phoenix, or the children at work in the fields of Arizona, California, etc.?
Choice is a serious issue. Corporate officers choose to cut salaries, staff (and thus patient safety) to make short term profits in managed care.
When Mr. Aronson graduates and seeks employment will he have a choice about corporate practices that tend to shift his wages lower or worsen his working conditions - or tell him to edit a story counter to good journalism practice? To whom will he turn for support? Anyone who has worked in a sweatshop can tell you that they are very much like slavery. In our own country serious journalists such as Jacob Riis, Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, Ida B. Wells and others exposed "serious issues." All workers, even those in the factories Nike refused to disclose, want to choose from among places of employment where one's life and family well-being are not threatened for asking for regular bathroom breaks. Each us wants to freely choose overtime and workplace air that does not damage our lungs, to be free from sexual harassment of the grossest kind. SAS and its supporters help offer all workers a choice. Finally, I would answer Mr. Aronson's fatuous dismissal of UA and Nike culpability with a reminder of the billions of dollars of liability assigned to those who did work for and business with the Nazi's system of forced labor (sweatshops too). We are accountable to our fellow men and women and our own children to change sweatshops to decent places to work.
I hope for the sake of his career in journalism that Mr. Aronson's letter is not his idea of serious treatment of a serious issue.
Steven Marks
Senior Research Specialist
Drinking ads disturbing
To the editor,
I've been reading the Campus Health Service ads, like the one appearing on page 7 of last Wednesday's Daily Wildcat, for years. A large photo of bright faced UA students flashing happy smiles. Bold, multi-shaded, jumbled lettering. The message is presented in such a festive, celebratory tone.
"Wow, '64% of UofA students have 4 or fewer drinks when they party'!" Someone help me understand, please. Is this something I'm supposed to feel good about? Should I feel comfort, as I head home from work late at night, in knowing that around one-third of UA students are well on their way (if not already there) to being legally drunk when they come out of a party?
I'm not sure which disturbs me more-this fact, or the notion that the university apparently feels this is something for which we should be proud.
Paul Muhlrad
Senior Research Specialist, graduate student
Molecular and cellular biology
Test prep alternatives
To the editor,
As Coordinator of the University Learning Center's Test Preparation Courses, I was disappointed to see that Christian Richardson's 12 Sept. article on local test prep classes did not include mention of our department's offerings. In 1983, in response to UA students' requests for a low-cost alternative, the University of Arizona developed low-cost, high-quality preparation courses for the GMAT, GRE and LSAT exams taught by experienced college-level instructors. Since 1995, these courses have been coordinated by the ULC, a department of the University College. We pay for advertising in your publication on a regular basis, so this exclusion may have been an oversight on your part.
Since your article's emphasis is on the financial strain local test prep classes cause students, I believe you would be doing your readers a service to at least mention a low-cost alternative which happens to be conveniently
located on campus in Old Main, room 202. Our student/staff fee is currently $350.00 and includes materials and practice exams. I would welcome the opportunity to share the honor of being featured in a Wildcat article with non campus-affiliated test prep providers. I will be glad to provide detailed information about our test preparation courses and other services.
Nancy Frazier
Program Coordinator
University Learning Center
