UA: Keep Professor James Todd

In our political sociology class we started to debate the benefits of a research versus teaching university. Our school is a research university, where tuition is cheaper because professors bring in research money. However, you get what you pay for. It is quite obvious that a number of professors at the UA are here to do research and the teaching aspect is an annoyance to be given as little attention as possible. This can be seen in a number of different departments, where sometimes the TAs are the best teachers you can have.

Theoretically, a teaching university is better because it allows the professors to focus on the students. With the current brain drain, student learning is falling ever more by the wayside. It's understandable that we were shocked to learn, in our international law class, that one of our best professors is facing contract issues. Why? Because he has does not spend enough time doing research.

Professor James Todd is one of the most student-oriented teachers we have. He could be making considerably more money as a lawyer in the D.C. area. Instead, he has chosen to become a teacher. As a faculty fellow at Yuma Hall, he has office hours for students to come and talk to him about anything. Prof. Todd takes students on regular field trips, which range from hiking to bird watching. In order to be helpful to the students in his class, he spends significant amounts of his time on campus for extra office hours every week. Professor Todd is also the honors thesis coordinator for the political science department.

Perhaps others are resentful of his great student relations. This could be why the political science department is telling him to publish or leave. When would he have time to publish? With his schedule the way it is now, never. In order to publish it seems very likely he would have to drop an activity. Which one should it be: the extra office hours or honors coordination that help students academically, or his faculty fellows' position, which makes him socially available to the students? The department is forcing him to stop helping students, help we already desperately lack.

What more does the university want? They have a great teacher (Prof. Todd is this year's five-star teaching award winner and the Outstanding Faculty Fellow award winner) whom the students like, and respect, and yet the school and the department seem to be more interested in money and prestige. It must not matter to the administration that a professor actually cares about the students' needs. But it should be noted that the students appreciate all the hard work and time Professor Todd has given us. If the University of Arizona truly is the "student-centered" research university it claims to be, then it should stop taking away our most "student-centered" professors.

To the university: We are disappointed. To Professor Todd: We are grateful.

Kat McClernan
risten Devacoux
political science juniors

Athletes should finish school first

The NCAA championship tournaments now get some of the best ratings out of any sporting events. Any sport ranging from golf to basketball has a NCAA final tournament. In today's world, the star college athletes are not only famous in the amateur ranks but are known around the world. With all this fame they all have to make the same decision. Should they pass up all of this money and fame and get their degree?

In men's Division I college basketball, the graduation rate is a disgusting 31 percent. That means that out of every Division I school, only 31 percent of the athletes stay in school and get their diploma. Sure, I will be the first to admit if I got offered 5 million dollars a year to play a sport that I would seriously take that into very strong consideration. But there are some athletes who feel the same way I do. Arizona's own Loren Woods was a good example of how staying in school could hurt your chances of getting big bucks down the line. Loren Woods was a sure number one draft choice and he decided to stay in school for his senior year. He ended up getting drafted in the late teens in the first round and it cost him millions.

Vince Carter, while he was a junior at University of North Carolina, decided to turn professional. He made a promise to his mother that he would finish his school and he took summer school classes and he did get enough credits to graduate. His graduation was on the same day of his game seven of the Eastern Conference finals. He flew to North Carolina and then just made it to his game. This is a perfect example of how school is still important to some athletes.

I do believe that school should be the number one priority for all athletes. If they want to turn pro they should be required to finish school. Even if it takes 10 years, they should still finish their schooling.

The collegiate level should set rules and regulations about athletes leaving school early. Kids can't be leaving school early if they haven't gotten a degree and laws need to be set to regulate that.

Adam Sollers
pre-business freshman

Web of lies

Mr. Adeel Elahi's response to Mr. Rish Patel on April 11 is just an exercise in ignorance. It is quite typical of the Pakistani establishment (the government, the so-called intelligentsia and even the common man) to rake up the Kashmir issue when confronted with the contradictions in that society. Here is a rebuttal of Mr. Elahi's claims.

He says, I) India mobilized troops into Kashmir in 1948. To blow away this lie, we should go back a bit into history. In 1947, the Indian subcontinent was divided on communal lines into India, Pakistan and other princely states. Kashmir was one such state governed by Raja Hari Singh. Soon after the partition, in view of the strategic location of Kashmir, the Pakistani army and other tribes from Wajiristan invaded this state, in a bid to integrate it into Pakistan. Raja Hari Singh, fleeing for his life, agreed to a provisional accession to India, in return for the safety of Kashmir. Under such circumstances, Mr. Elahi's contention reduces to a comical statement.

II) UN ruled for a referendum in Kashmir to let its people decide what they want, and this never happened. The public at large should know that about a third of the Kashmir territory is still held by Pakistan. One of the prerequisites for a referendum is that Pakistan vacate that territory, which I do not see as a possibility. Mr. Elahi's statement just flies in the face of this reality.

III) Mr. Musharaff has gone out of his way to help the United States fight terrorism. I ask Mr. Elahi if Mr. Musharaff has a choice other than agreeing to the dictates of the United States.

IV) India has the biggest defense budget in Asia. Mr. Elahi, India's defense budget for 2002-2003 is $13 billion, while China's is about $20 billion. Do I need to point out the blatant lie in your remark? Moreover, India has a much bigger threat in Pakistan and China. So, why do you regret at your inability to match India's budget?

You are right. Both India and Pakistan have issues like poverty, education and health care. But peace can return to Kashmir only if Pakistan realizes the futility of continuing the proxy war. A burning Kashmir is a glue that binds the different sectarian provinces of Pakistan. Once the Kashmir issue is resolved, Pakistan would be confronted with severe internal conflicts, which is why successive governments in Pakistan continue to foment trouble in Kashmir.

I join you in hoping that sanity would prevail over all the concerned parties, leading to a peaceful and prosperous south Asia.

Prasad Boddupalli
Ph.D student computer science
Vice-President, India Club

Equal rights, not special treatment

This letter is in response to Brianne Pekar's April 12 letter about the hypocrisy of feminism. I am a feminist and as I read her letter I was appalled at the statements she made. She claims that every feminist she has come in contact with has left a bad taste in her mouth. Well, did you stop and think about all those feminists who came before you? The reason you are able to come to college and receive higher education is feminist activism. You can vote and join the military because of feminists as well. We, as feminists, are asking for equal rights, but we do not ask for any special treatment other than legislation that will allow us to be treated as equals to our male counterparts.

I believe that you may have run into some feminists who were hypocrites, but that does not mean that feminism as a whole is hypocrisy. I think that we, as a society, need to stop looking at feminism as a naughty word and start to look at the ideas behind it. Feminists were the first to advocate child labor laws, and they are the reason behind family/maternity leave. We are not anti-family, we do not hate men, and most of all we do not deserve to be stereotyped by people who don't understand what the word means.

Sarah Lyn Hargand
biology sophomore

Dorm workout facility a bad decision

Here's an idea for you. If Residence Life is so concerned about the housing shortage crisis that we have found ourselves in, why do plans to build a new "residence hall" as part of Highland Commons include a workout facility? Highland Commons is going to be located across the street from the Rec Center! I'm sure freshmen can manage to make it to the crosswalk without breaking a sweat before their "big workout."

Why not use that area for a couple of extra bedrooms or something more useful other than to contribute to the evermore laziness of the American culture? Honestly, how ridiculous does that seem? I'm willing to bet that Residence Life put a LOT less thought into its planning as it would like us to think. But then again, isn't it like that with all its decisions?

Michelle Benoit
pre-medical technology junior