Article Īpornographicā

I am shocked that Arizona Student Media is actually paying the writers and editors of this newspaper to write borderline pornographic material on a topic that has no educational value.

The article seemed to make some sense in having a place in the paper at first. Sure, inform the students to help understand about the importance of knowing about their virginity or lack of being.

But, to classify the levels so boldly as to define a gay relationship or heterosexual? Why create a split in sexuality? Intercourse is intercourse.

We do not need to have this defined in such a descriptive manner in an academic newspaper. If you wish to write like this, contact the meeting place section of most newspapers.

This material was offensive to me and from what I can see, most other readers.

To the writers and editors of the Wildcat, please visit the Dean of the English Department and make a trip to the Journalism Department for some classes on what the general public would like to read and what is appropriate to print.

Most could care less what two fellows want to do with their wankers on their own time or what Suzie Virgin defines as being her first.

Greg Sarkissian
IDS Graduating Senior

Sex should be private matter

Regarding the July 31 lead story, "Going all the way": Are studentsā private sexual lives really a legitimate matter of public interest? Why is the Wildcat writing about this?

I am really not interested in reading about the private sexual lives of complete strangers who donāt have the discretion to keep their private lives private, nor do I believe that students need to have their curiosity raised about the sex lives of their classmates.

Your article managed to debase sexuality completely, reducing it down to a matter of statistics.

Christa Selig
Senior majoring in English

Diversity efforts counter productive

I am not surprised that diversity is a major issue on the minds of university presidents like Peter Likins, but their way of achieving diversity seems counter productive and a return to the past.

Let me explain. All minority groups today say they want equality, right? Of course they do and they are right.

However, instead of achieving equality, diversity programs make people unequal because jobs are given away not on the basis of intelligence but instead on color or gender.

Furthermore, I take great offense to the notion that reversed discrimination should be tolerated for what my ancestors may or may not have done to todayās minorities. As far as victims in history go, we all have ancestry that traces back to some group that was oppressed and mistreated.

This may be African-Americans, Hispanics, Irish, Jews and Gypsies ... the list could go on and on. Likins should think hard about hiring practices that do not solely depend on a personās intelligence.

Even if the minority candidate for a job is just as qualified as the white candidate, the minority candidate should not be given the job on the basis that he or she is not Anglo-Saxon. If Likins thinks that this sort of policy will create positive diversity then I must snicker at President Likins on a misconceived, backsliding belief.

Instead of avoiding what happened before the civil rights movement, jobs will once again be based on what people look like and not on what they know. People that are truly serious about equality and positive diversity for ALL people must first throw out their ideas of punishing a certain gender or race for what happened 200 years ago.

Focusing on the future is far more productive. Diversity efforts must be for the goal of equality and not for their token value to the university president and Arizona Board of Regents.

On a side note, liberal diversity wants people to have differences in everything but politics as Shane Dale pointed out. The only political diversity that liberals want to hear is just how liberal you are­ Gore Liberal or Nader Liberal?

Charles A. Peterson
History Junior

Education needs money

After reading last weekās commentary, "The Latest Disturbing Statistics About Education in Arizona" by Kendrick Wilson, I gather that Arizonaās educational woes are due to a lack of money.

Mr. Wilson states that the more affluent areas of Arizona graduate more students than the less affluent. While pumping more money into the educational system will not motivate all borderline dropouts, it can make a difference. Where should this money be spent? Schools ought to be updated with modern technology and essential classroom equipment. Additional schools could be built to improve student-teacher ratios. Increasing salaries and benefits can help retain faculty as well as attract teachers from outside of Arizona. Last, but certainly not least, is to improve the wealth of the student and his/her family. Students unburdened by the task of helping the family make ends meet, can devote more time to studies.

Despite the connection between wealth and educational success, why does the gap between the rich and the poor continue to grow? People in the U.S. assume that those who are Īwealthyā have earned their wealth and that those who are Īpoorā have not worked hard enough. As my friend Dave M. has told me time and again, "People are dumb" and I often agree with him. However, this ignorance of what is really going on is bred into us so as to make us accept the status quo and never ask if those who are rich/poor are deserving of their status. We are programmed to believe that this is the way society should be and that nothing will ever change.

To return to the plight of Arizonaās schools, including UA, why can there not be some Īrevolutionizingā of society so that funding for education would be ample? There is plenty of wealth in Arizona, the U.S., and the world for that matter, to solve these problems, but those who have it will not relinquish it and they continue to siphon more wealth from those who have little. The recent rash of corporate scandals is evidence of the state sponsored plundering of the working people that has gone on for years ö it just got too outrageous to pretend that it was Īlawful businessā. To be victimized in this way without question, is what truly makes us dumb. Think!

Chris Buja
Religious Studies Senior

Condoms shouldnāt be included on Īessentialā items list

Out of curiosity and my own experience in campus living, I browsed through Kaila Wymanās list of Ī33 essential first-year itemsā (July 24, 2002), and although I canāt say Iām surprised, I was rather dismayed to see what was listed under number 25, condoms. Now you may ask, "Donāt you support safe sex? Donāt you want to reduce the transmission of disease among students?"

My answer would be, "Yes, but..." Letās take a look at whom weāre dealing with: mostly, irresponsible young adults, recently freed from the constraints of parental supervision and primed for rebellion, right? By handing kids like that a pack of condoms, you are essentially saying, "Here is a way to lessen the consequences of your actions. You wonāt have to deal with anything as long as you follow our advice, and even if you do, we have a wonderful womenās health center (a.k.a. abortion referral service)."

To treat something as important and sacred as sexual intercourse so flippantly and as a way merely to have fun, we are undermining the very basis of our society, a strong family unit in which a husband and wife are devoted to each other and the success of the family.

You may scoff at this, but through the perpetuation of anti-family sentiments, you continue to foster divorce and domestic strife which returns in a vicious cycle in each new generation. "Well, theyāre going to do it anyway. Weāre just trying to make them safer," you may counter. My response to that is, "No, they wonāt." Now my parents werenāt perfect, but they did instill in me a respect for women and the family. I was taught that sex should be an expression of love and commitment between a husband and wife and not a Friday night tryst in the dorm to be forgotten by Monday.

Iām here to tell you that despite my rebellious attitude during my early college years, I didnāt just "do it anyway". You should give students a little more credit for their self-restraint and respect for others instead of trying to encourage deviant behavior and abuse of a sacred act. And if you try telling me sex means nothing, then why are people so hurt when someone uses them for instant gratification and then moves on?

Jacob Lauser
Electrical engineering sophomore