'Laws to regulate' degrees shouldn't get another thought

This is a response to Adam Sollers' letter in the April 15 issue of the Wildcat. His letter, although bearing some important facts regarding a higher education, is totally irrational and should be void of any further thought. First of all, had Loren Woods left school after his junior year, he would have been a first round pick, or at least, that was what experts said. Experts also said he would again be chosen in the first-round after his senior year. But thanks to less than positive workouts in pre-draft camps, Loren fell all the way to the late second round, not the middle of the first round as you incorrectly stated.

Secondly, Vince Carter did graduate, a very positive event for him and his mother. He flew from his graduation to the game seven of the Eastern Conference playoffs, where he missed a last-second shot to possibly elevate the Raptors to the next round. A diploma is important, but was the ceremony more important than his current employment, which was to be at the game on time, and ready to make all the contributions possible towards winning the game?

I do agree with you that education should be a priority, but those who can make professional sports a career should be able to leave school early to devote their efforts to the cause at hand. Mr. Sollers, you are a business major. If you had the chance to leave school now to take over a Fortune 500 company, should there be regulations that would keep you in school? You know the answer, and for that reason, there should never be "laws to regulate" obtaining a degree.

Geoff Zahler
finance junior

Feminists want special rights

I would like to respond to Sarah Lyn Hargand's April 15 letter about how feminists want equal rights. Ms. Hargand, though I cannot deny that feminists and the women's rights movement have done a very large amount of good for women, I cannot agree that they just want "equal" rights. Let's take a current example of women wanting "special rights" and not "equal rights." Abortion is one of the most prominent women's rights issues today. The main justification of feminists is "It's my body, my choice." This isn't exactly true.

I don't think that feminists realize that a baby is made of/from two people; that would actually make a baby 50 percent part of the man's body. If feminists wanted equal rights then an abortion could not occur without the consent of both the mother AND the father. If one wants it and the other wants to kill it then it cannot be killed, it must go to term, but then the person who wanted a live child would become the sole guardian, thus removing the other party from responsibility. I highly doubt that any feminists would agree to this idea of equal rights. Feminists want special rights, not equal ones.

Matt Dieken
mechanical engineering junior

Canning Microsoft 'out of the question,' hurts education

As soon as I read Matthew Leigh's April 10 letter about the university dumping Microsoft for what he called "inexpensive and free alternatives," I knew I had to respond. Allow me to educate Mr. Leigh as well as others who may share his views.

Have you ever heard the saying, "You get what you pay for"? It pertains to just about everything in life, including computer software. "Free-ware," either downloaded from the Internet or received through mail order, is often restrictive and conditional. More often than not, it is nothing more than a "free trial" item subject to charges for its future use after a trial period. Many of the inexpensive alternatives are "beta" versions that have not been quality tested and have a much stronger chance of security holes, viruses and crashes, as any Microsoft software.

No, I'm afraid the budgetary problems that the university is facing right now are much bigger than just which computer software it chooses. And, asking a stretched-too-thin faculty and staff to use possibly sub-standard software is simply out of the question.

As far as tuition is concerned, I challenge any student to find a more affordable tuition while maintaining the same quality of education the UA provides.

Cynthia Mullaly
UA facilities management

Thanks to the directors and staff of Spring Fling 2002

I am writing this letter to thank the directors and staff of Spring Fling 2002. I have never been a part of a team that worked so hard to put on an event that benefited so many people. The teamwork and dedication that came from these individuals blew me away. I am so proud of the work they did and the success of the event itself. Each person truly made an impact on Spring Fling, making it the best Spring Fling in the history of the event.

I want to name each of the nine directors that worked for me to ensure that they get the recognition they deserve. Thanks, Peter Grubin, Pedro Contreras, Amy Crawford, Brandon D'Angelo, Kristin Samson, Nicole Nilles, Jaime Rovey, Alisa Delamotte and Craig Haubrich. Without each of you, Spring Fling would not have been so successful. This campus needs more people like you.

Chris Molessa
accounting junior
Spring Fling 2002
executive director

Quit complaining about money ·

For the past month or two, it seems as though there has been an article or letter to the editor every day complaining about the tuition hikes, parking or the student rec fee increase. There is no reason to complain for any of the above, and so far I have not heard one argument that held any validity.

Tuition: Yes, the university wants to raise tuition by 12 percent. So what, that amounts to $300. The yearly tuition still amounts to less than $3,000. All those complaining should ask the people who go out of state to Tulane or Vanderbilt or any other in a countless number of universities who are spending more than $30,000 a year. Oh, poor babies, now UA will only be the fourth cheapest state university, rather than the second. I guess it just so happens that the $2,700 that tuition is being raised to is the "most nearly free" that it can be.

Parking: Yes, garages are replacing Zone 1 spaces. Well that sounds like a good way to make revenue for PTS. All those complaining should realize that if a garage was not built, something would have to account for the loss of funding that the new spaces would generate. Hmmm · I wonder how PTS would fix that. Oh, I bet they would raise Zone 1 rates. Yes, parking passes cost $400; I know I have one, but look at all the advantages. You never have to wait for a spot. Your car will almost always be covered. Once you figure out the number of times you are back and forth from the university it only ends up being just over $1 each time you park, which doesn't sound like highway robbery to me.

Student rec fee: This shouldn't have been a complaint at all, and, fortunately, it passed in the elections. It is a $3 increase. The $28 spent for the rec is well worth it when anyone considers how much other health club memberships are.

So, I have one word for all those complaining about anything and everything: "LEAVE!" No one is holding you hostage at this "money hungry" university. So, rather than complaining, go sit out on the Mall and enjoy the beautiful weather.

Ryan Wicks
ecology and evolutionary biology freshman

UA needs to get priorities straight - no dorm gym

In response to the letters submitted in the April 15 Wildcat, I, too, cannot believe that a dorm gym is being built across the street from the main rec center. This is just ridiculous. Quite obviously those that planned these college buildings didn't bother to attend college themselves. Also, I am appalled at the way this university is turning into a big business establishment. Money is the driving factor behind EVERY decision. I thought that colleges were established to educate students, not to make a fast buck by exploiting students through every conceivable venue, i.e. astronomical parking and housing prices, building and building until the university covers a 100-mile radius and has a student/teacher ratio of 1,000:1, and shafting professors who don't make enough money for the university through research.

Which brings me to my next concern. This university holds the amount of money it can gain as paramount, even above the quality of a student's education. Quite obviously this FACT was demonstrated this month when the university gave professor James S. Todd the ultimatum that he had to publish or suffer the consequences. I don't need to reiterate his many achievements in teaching, or the immeasurable amount of service that he has contributed to students all over this campus and community. His legacy speaks for itself.

What I do need to iterate is that there is a growing trend across this campus of money taking precedent over the educational welfare of the students. Tell me this, University of Arizona: If you don't bother to educate your students properly today by retaining effective teachers, who are you going to hire tomorrow to do research to bring in more money to feed the corporate monster that this university has become?

Sunita Krishna
political science senior

A lesson in moral clarity

In these times of global unrest, it is important for the United States to clearly define its moral leadership on the world stage. But our boasts of high moral character are routinely questioned around the world. I personally believe this country is, in fact, a moral one. And possibly our strongest embodiment of morality is in our love for democracy. This is why I am so dismayed by the Bush administration's encouragement of the military coup that occurred last Thursday in Venezuela.

That day, democratically elected president Hugo Chavez was ousted by the military and replaced with a business leader. This "interim president" immediately dissolved the country's Constitution, Supreme Court and legislature. This doesn't ring democratic to me and it didn't to the Venezuelan people either. By Saturday night, the protests of the people grew so strong that the interim president was forced to step down after just one day in office. By Sunday, Chavez was returned to the presidency. As early as Thursday night, sources had questioned whether Chavez had actually resigned and his supporters were declaring that he hadn't. But the Bush administration's Friday response was to blame Chavez for the events that led to his forced resignation and arrest. It chose to call his ouster a "change of government" rather than a coup. Saturday's Washington Post reported that the Bush administration had been at odds with the Chavez government and now offered "a barely veiled sense of satisfaction at the demise of Chavez."

Do we support democracy or not? In Venezuela this weekend, the Bush administration chose "not." Interestingly, many of the protesters that demanded Chavez's return have been quoted as saying they don't necessarily support Chavez, but are simply against a non-democratic takeover of the government. This is moral clarity, and Mr. Bush could use a lesson in it.

If we are to stand as the defenders of democracy we cannot turn our backs on it every time the president decides he doesn't like someone. Hugo Chavez is no angel. But neither is he a tyrant. And the real point is that for better or worse he is the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. This weekend the Venezuelan people proved that that means something to them. I always thought that it meant something to us, too.

Michael Horn
liberal arts senior