Monday October 22, 2001

AIC is not given the consideration it deserves

As a member of the AIC faculty who focuses much of my professional and educational time on introducing students to the research experience, I have a point that I think is very important to the overall discussion but, to my knowledge, has not been clearly voiced.

It is increasingly clear that when students take ownership over a project and see it through from conception to appropriate conclusion, they learn a great deal in the process. Student-run research projects represent one of the best ways of introducing concepts important to their current and future development as critical thinkers and doers. Research introduces students to the art of exploration and discovery. Research introduces students to the awareness that one can create knowledge and not simply be resigned to learning what others have discovered.

At a major research-one university, research is promoted heavily among the faculty and graduate students. This is the way it should be done. However, due to understandable constraints, few research-one universities have figured out how to involve the thousands of undergraduates in the research process.

When I was at the University of Michigan in the mid-1990's, the president made a proposal by which every undergraduate would be granted the opportunity to conduct research advised by faculty. The faculty reaction was to go ballistic. How could they be blamed? The very real concern for the faculty involved constraints on time and energy allocation. Regrettably, more often than not, providing undergraduates with a sound research experience is unrealistic. And yet, many of us feel that inherently the idea is worthwhile.

Here at AIC, we have the focused interest of giving all of our undergraduates an education that incorporates the research experience. We have, in our list of requirements, a statistics course, three semesters of research methods classes AND a senior thesis (capstone) all designed to help prepare our undergraduates with the means by which they can begin to conduct original (and generally primary) research.

I am concerned that during these days of debate over the future of AIC, faculty colleagues on the main campus may not be aware of just how compatible our curriculum and requirements are with the educational goals of a research-one institution. Providing undergraduates with a sound research experience is a central part of our mission. Education through doing, experience, service, learning and exploration are all at the core of what we do.

As a faculty member of AIC, I promote undergraduate research and consider it to be firmly and philosophically linked with the AIC experience. Those who feel that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the AIC and main campus might consider these points.

Pete Sherman, Ph.D.

AIC professor of science

Montgomery letter moronic

I am writing in response to Silas Montgomery's letter about the lack of response to the blood drive. Honestly, I don't know why these kinds of moronic letters get published. Perhaps you thought we all needed a good laugh. It's letters like these that make me wonder if anyone on this campus thinks before they go voicing their opinions. Maybe it didn't occur to Montgomery that the people who are not responding to the blood drive are not only liberals, but conservatives and moderates as well. Oh my gosh, am I suggesting that the university is not just comprised of liberals and conservatives?

It takes all kinds of people to make a blood drive fail. Montgomery also fails to recognize the outpouring of blood donations immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. As a blood donor (I'm assuming), Montgomery should know that one has to wait eight weeks before one can give blood again. It has been only six weeks since the attacks, which means that those who gave blood then cannot give it now. Perhaps this, and not the liberal bastards' quest to bring anarchy on the free world, is the reason for the poor turnout at the blood drive.

Katie Stika

studio arts junior

Dale column whiny

When I first read the title of Shane Dale's commentary, "For the love of God, give us a break," I didn't know he would be whining about getting a speeding ticket when he was "only" going 61 in a 55 mph zone.

Did you know, Shane, that if you are going even a mere mile over the speed limit it is still illegal, and a police officer is well within his rights to cite you for it?

You went on to say that you always do 60 on the highway and that you were "keeping up with the flow of traffic." However, you also state quite clearly that there was no traffic. So, my question is, a) What traffic were you flowing with?, and b) what makes you so special that you can set your own speed limit?

All of the violations you listed, i.e. passing through a street light as it turns red, changing lanes without signaling and doing 61 in a 55 mph zone, are illegal. It doesn't matter how common the offense is. It doesn't matter if you do it all the time. It's still wrong.

Whine all you want, Shane, but you deserved that ticket.

Cynthia Mullaly

facilities management

Students should mind crosswalks

On Wednesday, around 5 p.m., traveling west on East Sixth Street between Campbell Avenue and Euclid Avenue, a UA student endangered her life my life, and any number of others because she didn't bother to use the crosswalk 20 feet away to cross the street on her way to the gym.

She was standing on the dividing line during rush hour. She was going to work out but was too lazy to walk the short distance to a proper and safe crosswalk, of which there are many along that stretch. Then, two hours later, traveling east on East Speedway Boulevard and approaching Campbell, two UA students disregarded the crosswalk at the light and carelessly walked through traffic to cross the right-hand turning lane, where I almost killed them - at night and in heavy traffic. They didn't bother to look for any cars coming their way considering where they were. Please remind your college students of rules we all learned in kindergarten. It could save their lives, mine and yours too.

Tanya Tercero

Tusconan

Lee column infuriating

In a recent response to the anthrax panic, Jessica Lee has demonstrated something disturbing about how we should respond. After listing the targets that were affected by the recent anthrax scare, she made a few statements that infuriated me. The first of which was how she stated we should end the anthrax scare. She states that, "those responsible for the attacks want the U.S. military out of Persian Gulf region," because, "they want sanctions lifted on Iraq so their children don't keep dying from hunger and disease." I do not know why Lee made such a statement, but these terrorists are out to attack the freedom-loving countries of the world, and their means to do so meant the deaths of thousands in an instant at the World Trade Center.

Let's not forget that countless numbers of children's lives were also ended in that dreadful attack, for which you feel that we should ignore them. Furthermore, Iraq is one of many states involved in sponsoring terrorism, and I do not think that Saddam Hussein really cares about our children in much the same way that you feel for Iraq's children.

Lee then states that their cry is "for the United States to stop meddling in their affairs." Oh really, Lee. So you feel that it is completely necessary to allow the terrorists to win by killing thousands and withdrawing our foreign policy as a result. President Bush has made various statements stating that allowing the terrorists to rule our lives is a victory for them. So why should we let the terrorists rule our foreign policy? If you feel that killing through terrorism is a means of foreign policy that is justified, then go ahead and support those nations that would like to destabilize the United States and other civilized nations by terrorist means. Anthrax does signal a change, and this envelope full of "oil" can kill you without caring about whether or not you support the terrorists.

Stephen W. Bieda, III

atmospheric sciences junior

We must defend reproductive freedoms

Mary Frances O'Connor makes several excellent points in her letter printed in Friday's Wildcat. It is incredibly troubling that Planned Parenthood workers are already trained to fight attacks that the highest levels of U.S. national security and intelligence are just now being forced to address. It is a travesty that those who uphold reproductive rights have been forced to guard against what the strongest country in the world deems to be the unthinkable.

As O'Connor pointed out, no matter how any individual feels about reproductive rights, she or he cannot tolerate the intimidation, vilification and murder of Americans who fight for them. Planned Parenthood should not be a target. While this time of crisis shifts the focus to protecting our country from foreign terrorism, it is incumbent upon all of us to stand up for Americans who work to uphold reproductive freedoms from those who threaten them with intimidation and violence.

Sheila Bapat

political science junior