Wednesday August 29, 2001 |

Grad student paying to keep her job

Since the issue of unionization of all UA staff is being bandied about, I'd like to comment on it a little. Actually, what I would like to do is share a conversation that I had with an administrator in the Graduate College today.

Some friends had told me that in order to be considered a full-time graduate student, I only needed to be registered for three units. Three dissertation units - the kind that don't come with any classes. So, I went to the Graduate College to investigate.

Turns out it's true. To be a full-time grad student at the dissertation stage, you only need to be registered for three units, UNLESS you work at the university (are on an assistantship, fellowship or grant). If you work at the university, you must be registered for six units of dissertation units. I am a research assistant in the infant language lab.

This seemed curious to me, so I inquired:

"Why do I have to pay over $300 a semester to have a job here at the university?"

The answer, "Because you are using university resources."

"How? I'm being paid off a grant."

"You use the library."

"But that's so I can do my job."

"You are an apprentice. You are being paid to study."

"No, I'm not. I do work that someone else needs done. The educational benefits of my job have long since evaporated. I am a worker. My studies are separate."

"So you could work someplace else."

"Yes, I could. And if I did, I wouldn't need to PAY to have a job."

"That's the difference between a private company and the university."

"How?"

"You are using university resources."

So just consider this conversation when debating the merits of unionization. In the meantime, $2,400 out of my $10,000 a year salary will continue to return to the university. Just so I can have the "privilege" of working here.

I truly love this university, but how long can I keep this up?

Rachel Wilson

psychology graduate student

Dale's column failed

Shane Dale's commentary in the Aug. 27 issue of the Wildcat was a sorry and failed attempt to lash out at democrats and the new DNC Chair, Terry McAuliffe.

First, Dale claims that we have no idea what's going to occur as a result of the $1.35 trillion tax cut. The truth of the matter is, however, that we already do know: Republican congressmen and senators have readily admitted that the surplus is now gone. Furthermore, they publicly stated that tapping into Social Security and Medicare may be a plausible option. With republican majorities all across the board (until recently), it's hard to swallow the argument that somehow this is the democrats' fault. Yet Shane Dale seems to believe this is the case.

Second, he admits that the average American only receives a measly $347 from this tax cut. He is correct here but again manages to blame the democrats for this menial return. He claims that "congressional republicans would have given more back, but the democrats wouldn't hear of it." He's right; the republicans did want to give more back - they wanted to give a significantly higher amount back to the top 1 percent in our country, precisely to those who don't need a tax cut. The reason the democrats wouldn't hear of it is because they wanted to transfer the refund downward to the people who need it and who will use it to generate the economy, not upward to the people who simply want to buy a new yacht. In the end, the republicans prevailed and my parents walk away with $347.

Dale continues his string of false notions with the idea that school vouchers give "children stuck in poor-performing public schools" the opportunity to "receive a free private education." What he fails to mention is that most of the children in these poor-performing school are poor themselves. A voucher covering some of the cost of private school, transportation not included, is not enough to fund private school in its entirety. Thus, vouchers do nothing to benefit the poor and instead become subsidies for the wealthy, who can already afford private school tuition.

And as far as the environment goes, I was unaware that it's acceptable to destroy the "barren and quite frankly, ugly" portions of the earth, namely the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are some not-so-nice parts of Arizona as well - is it acceptable to destroy this land simply because it's not "pristine" and beautiful? Terry McAuliffe and the democrats say no.

Kelly Ward

political science senior