Thursday October 25, 2001

An apology to the UA community

The following is an apology for a transgression that occurred on June 26, 2001 at the Family and Consumer Sciences building on the campus of the UA.

We - Ravi Arora, Kristen Carlson, and Christopher Kahler - deeply regret any inconvenience or insecurity that may have arisen as a result of our inconsiderate and foolish behavior. On the aforementioned evening, the previously noted parties inappropriately entered the FCS building at a time other that that designated for public use and without proper authorization.

As a result of our rash behavior, we have been suspended and currently face charges of trespassing in Pima County. We are sorry for our actions and would like to discourage anyone else from disrespecting the university's policies.

Ravi Arora - psychology junior

Kristen Carlson - law student

Christopher Kahler - Pima Community College student

AIC's failure caused by Likins' lies

I was very disappointed when I opened the Wildcat yesterday and saw the editorial section repeating the same sort of skewed information that Likins has been feeding the press ever since he ambushed AIC with his plans to close it.

Yes, it is true that AIC has not yet become financially independent. However, how can you rationally expect a college with only 12 faculty members to be independent, financially or otherwise?

The sad truth is that AIC has been underfunded and understaffed since day one, when it opened with a skeleton crew and promises of more funding. Time and time again, that promise has been broken. Likins has never given the support he has consistently promised, and now he's trying to write us off, claiming that we're a failure when he's the one who has been sabotaging us all along.

The only failure is his inability to keep his word.

Sure, it's easier to close AIC. We have virtually no alumni, small enrollment and untenured faculty. But it isn't right. Nor is it unreasonable to want more funding for the program, if the proposal to close it down fails. What we want is a chance to prove that AIC can stand on its own if it is given the resources to make a viable start, which is what we were promised at the outset.

AIC is not a failed experiment; it is one that was never given a chance to succeed. I can't speak for my classmates, but I'm staying at AIC, regardless of the outcome. It's an incredible school with small classes, professors who actually care about their students and a great curriculum. I feel a strong sense of loyalty to this place, and I will not abandon it. And I'm going to be "sniveling" the entire time, so you may as well get used to it.

Jesse Nelson

liberal studies sophomore

A six-step program to understanding

In absolute support of Edward Mariscal's statements made in his letter on Oct. 24, I have submitted this simple 6-step procedure to help those who oppose violence in Afghanistan understand why it is necessary to turn that country into a giant parking lot, and in so doing eliminate any possible terrorist threats.

Step 1: Approach idealistic pro-peace demonstrator who is spouting words of non-violence. Step 2: Wait until he says that violence solves nothing.

Step 3: Smack him in the head as hard as you can.

Step 4: When protestor becomes irate and attempts to hit you back, quickly explain that violence solves nothing.

Step 5: Wait until protestor accepts your argument and is no longer angry.

Step 6: Repeat steps 3-5 until protestor grasps the error of his ways.

Adam M. Susser

UA Alumnus

America must protect civil liberties

In this time of intense patriotism, who among us is truly ready to risk death for our freedoms? I suspect that many people deeply believe that they are. But which freedoms will they risk death to preserve? The freedom of privacy? Of habeas corpus? Of speech? Of free assembly? Of free expression? The freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Are we willing to risk death at the hands of terrorists as the price of these freedoms?

I see many people waving our flag and - remarkably - at the same time proclaiming that we must give up our constitutional freedoms in order to be safer. I see members of Congress quick to legislate away our freedoms for our safety. Where is the courage and patriotism in that?

Now that we must choose between safety and freedom, we must not flinch if our flag is to mean anything. The courage of our convictions is being tested by history. We should let our representative know that we are not so fearful as to have them legislate away the freedoms and privacies that past generations have died for.

Dennis M. Burke

Phoenix, AZ

Air strikes will not solve fundamentalism

Mr. Edward Mariscal, in his letter on Oct. 24th asks whether critics of the war in Afghanistan "prefer the continued oppression of women" by the Taliban. He then shows how much he cares for Afghani women by concluding with the assertion that he would rather see the "complete elimination of Afghanistan·before one more American life is taken".

Unlike Mr. Mariscal, I find oppression and killing of Afghani women as objectionable as oppression and killing of American women, or men and women from any other country in the world. This is why I take extremely seriously the opinion of RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan), that country's only women's rights group (operating illegally and from abroad, of course) whose members were risking their lives resisting Taliban oppression long before most of the developed world learned to locate Afghanistan on a map.

RAWA's position on the bombing can be found at http://www.rawa.org/us-strikes.htm. And believe it or not, they do not regard air strikes as a good way to get rid of oppression and fundamentalism in their country.

Giorgio Torrieri

physics graduate student