Break UA's private prison ties; prisoners human too

In his Feb. 14 letter to the Wildcat, Anthony Nelson attacked Students Against Sweatshops on our most recent campaign to end UA's ties to the private prison industry.

I am unclear on which "system" Mr. Nelson says the private prison industry benefits, but it is certainly not a system which values the rehabilitation or education of criminals, or does anything toward addressing the problems that land so many people in jail, and absolutely not one in which universities should play a part. When incarceration becomes a profit-based industry, the concern is no longer effectiveness, it is money. It is simply incorrect to say that private prisons are safer or more efficient than federally-monitored prisons. Statistically, they have much higher occurrences of rape, riots, forced prostitution, and racial discrimination. Working conditions for prison employees are inferior to those in public prisons.

The mission of SAS is work for social justice and human rights. Though it is often forgotten, prisoners are human too, and are legally and ethically entitled to be respected as such. We will certainly take on any company that systematically profits from industries that perpetuate the violation of any people, especially when it is our tuition money which helps fund them.

This is not a matter of "zealous communism," it is one of human compassion and accountability. As students, we have a responsibility to ensure that these ideals are upheld.

Erica R. Watson
creative writing and journalism freshman
SAS member

SUV problems result from bad drivers, not bad cars

This is a response to Jessica Suarez's article "SUVs target the vain and the selfish." It is presumptuous to assume that because people drive SUVs they are "selfish, vain, and ultimately stupid." Growing up with SUVs, I learned how to drive in an F350 one-ton. Why does my family buy SUVs? Not for the reasons listed in Suarez's article, but for the real reasons that everyone buys an SUV. We have trailers, boats, and quads that require an SUV with a hitch to trailer. We like the size of the vehicle not because we wanted to "drive something huge and tough to attach a bullhorn to," but because there's room for more than just two people and a suitcase. Does this mean that my family is "insecure and vain"? Does this mean that my parents, who have been happily married for 25 years, are "frequently nervous about their marriage"? No. I fail to see a correlation between the two.

I currently drive an SUV, as do many of my friends. Does that mean I am a sorority girl with leis hanging from my mirror? No. Does that mean that my friends are the fraternity boys you so stereotypically described? No. And in no way are we supporters of terrorists simply because our vehicle of choice requires a lot of gas. These accusations are entirely unfounded and ridiculous.

Has it occurred to you to look at who is at fault in the accidents that define the statistics? I'd be willing to bet that most of the time it is the fault of the driver in the short car who is cutting off the large SUV simply because he doesn't want to be behind it. Yes, some SUVs do roll easily. But the more important question is why do they roll in the first place? Because the drivers turn corners too fast. Is that the fault of the vehicle? No. The problem with automotive accidents isn't the size of the vehicles involved, but the driver that sits behind the wheel. Keep that in mind the next time you rant about something that you know nothing about. Happy trails.

Jessica Crance
general biology sophomore

Plan for construction rubs salt in UA's financial wound

This letter is in response to Tuesday's Wildcat article "Legislature may fund new UA buildings." First, let me explain that as a researcher, I am very much in favor of having good science facilities here at the UA. However, it is important for students to understand that this construction project, along with hundreds of others that the university has pursued for the past twenty years, is a disaster in terms of funding and will adversely affect their educational opportunities here at UA.

The justification for this project is the same justification that has been used to justify other major construction projects such as the Marley building and the Life Sciences building. The reasoning that university officials and lobbyists put forth is the following: this building will actually pay for itself because of the increase in federal and private grants and patents that the university will enjoy after a top-notch facility is built. This facility will not only bring the university money, it will bring jobs into the community and increase tax revenues for the state of Arizona as well.

This is the reasoning that has been used for the past twenty years. It is faulty. It does not work. Here's why: 1) There is usually a significant lag time between the time the buildings are built and the time it takes to bring in grant money. 2) The university usually does not complete buildings either on time or on budget, thus increasing the financial gaps caused by the lag time. 3) Operations budgets were slashed and continue to be slashed by the Legislature, making it difficult to recruit and keep top-notch researchers, who require top salaries and support staff. Loss of the researchers means loss of grant money. 4) Federal and private grants usually carry restrictions on how they can be spent. Grant money usually cannot directly be used to pay for past construction. Only a portion of the expected increased grants can be spent for "overhead" and that amount has never been enough, nor is it ever likely to be enough, to pay for the buildings. 5) The university has taken, and by all appearances will continue to take, the debt from the buildings, consolidate that debt, and then use tuition money to pay off the debt. Therefore, although officials and legislators claim that no tuition would have to go to pay for the buildings, a significant amount of it did (and does) pay for buildings.

Students and faculty: please stand up to this. Call your legislators. Call Peter Likins. They claim they can do nothing about the budget shortfall, but that is simply not true. They can keep it from growing.

Rachel Wilson
UA infant speech perception lab

Creationist Îscience' has no new evidence, ignores facts

I will tell you why no scientists/professors want to sign up for your debate. The reason is that there is no debate. Creationists continue to present the same tired, and long ago refuted, "evidence" against the theory of evolution ÷ like the gaps in the fossil record stuff. Give me a break! Darwin thought that evolution had to happen slowly, but this has been disproved by molecular biology. You can turn a gosh darn shrimp into a fruit fly by two single point-mutations of a gene! Your "evidence" against evolution was in fact refuted a long time ago, but you never listen. After a while, your "science" just gets tiresome. If you don't want to listen to the facts, you don't have to. (That's why we get so angry, by the way.) We don't have to listen to you either. You keep doing what you're doing with your "creation science"÷ nothing except patting yourselves on the back ÷ while the rest of us use our "mere theories" to actually make real scientific progress.

Marcus Arvan
philosophy graduate student

Opinions board wasted space on Delta Tau Delta

This is in reply to the Wednesday Wildcat editorial, "Delta Tau Delta cuisine scores zero stars." I first must apologize for giving this topic more time and credit than it deserves, but the Wildcat has gone delusional.

As I read the editorial, I took the article to have a humorous tone. Yes, it was funny and yes it did get my attention. If the opinions board was taking a poke at the "boys' clubs," job well done. You should have placed it on the back pages with the comics under "Blue Balls."

I'll admit, the UA's greek population is one of the highest in the country, but do we really need to know what they are eating? Even if it is a pasta cuisine topped with a sugary condiment, I do not care. If the boys want to overpay for supper, let them. Leave them in their own jaded world wearing their appropriate team uniforms. Is the backward, flat-billed hat with the rim bent up still part of the dress code, or was that last year? The "Rodeo Clowns" (Jack Johnson) will always be the same and will always make me laugh.

On a serious note, there are more important topics today to be discussed and argued. Was it a slow news day or was the opinions board fed up with their responsibility to take a serious stance on an issue that mattered? Leave the comic relief to those who actually try.

Jacob Prietto
hydrology and water resources senior

Wildcat got it right with date of Columbine tragedy

This letter is in response to Elizabeth Hazelwood's Feb. 14 letter, and her criticizing of the Wildcat for their misinformation and mistake about how many people died during the Columbine massacre. Now while she was correct in pointing out the error the Wildcat made in not having the right number of victims, her opening line read, "On April 19, 1999, 15 people lost their lives." This is wrong. The Columbine tragedy happened on April 20, not the 19th. It would be helpful to not criticize the Wildcat without having your own facts straight. Next time you should not jump so quickly to insult the Wildcat for their mistakes, because insults make you look worse than the Wildcat. Not only should we remember the correct number of people that died, but we should also remember the correct date in which they did.

Mike Rosenthal
Judaic studies junior

U.S. sovereignty doesn't let nation ignore U.N. Charter

This is in response to Joe Callaway's letter published Monday. Mr. Callaway states that the United States is a "sovereign nation" and "has no obligation whatsoever to bow down before the United Nations." Even disregarding Mr. Callaway's inflammatory language, I fear that his legalist stance may hinder any further debate on this issue.

To begin with, the United States does have a legal obligation to abide by the U.N. Charter. The charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the U.S. president and Congress. Therefore, under the U.S. Constitution, it has the force of "the supreme law of the land" just as a federal statute would. Secondly, on the international plane, we should think of sovereign states as people within a larger society. When individuals enter into contracts with each other, no one would seriously dispute the enforcement of those contracts by the courts. The same is true of states. (This is the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda.) They act freely, but when they consent to be bound by a treaty, they have consented to constrain their actions. Current international law, of which the U.N. Charter is the centerpiece, says that a state cannot invade another. One of the bases of this holding is the protection of (surprise!) the sovereignty of the invading state. The only exceptions are 1) self defense, allowed by the charter, or 2) a resolution of the Security Council, which represents the will of the international community. My point is, don't be cowed into thinking that "sovereignty" is a legal cure-all, allowing us to just opt out of obligations we freely entered into.

Asa Markel
third-year law student

Protesters, peace activists Îanything but peaceful'

I am responding to Phil Leckman and Kendrick Wilson's constant Bush-bashing, peace-marching, left-wing propaganda in Wednesday's "Issue of the Week." Speak for yourself. Those of us who support President Bush do not have time to march on the streets to let the world know about it. We do not have time because most of us are at work or at school. Liberal fascists like yourselves do not represent world opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as President Bush said, but other people are entitled to theirs as well. People who support peace through strength are not going to take to the streets with signs saying that we support war. We are not going to do this because we do not want war, but we are not willing to sacrifice our individual liberty for peace like the French do. A side note: The same people that are taking to the streets in Europe are the same people that opposed Winston Churchill's tough stance on Nazi Germany and the same people that opposed Ronald Reagan's tough stance on the Soviet Union. It is the same people with the same argument. When the United States goes into Iraq and finds Saddam's death camps and the arms sold to Iraq illegally by the French and Germans, all of you will have to put your foot in your mouth once again. You call us warmongers, but it is you so-called peace marchers who are constantly setting buildings on fire and are increasingly aggressive against those of us that are not pacifist. You people are anything but peaceful. If you want your voice heard, sit down and respect the opinion of others and I am sure our leaders will be more willing to listen.

Your violent protests around the world and here on campus goes to your discredit, not your credit.

Doak Cheatham
political science senior

Wildcat deserves kudos for front-page Iraq coverage

I appreciate the front-page coverage of student activism concerning war against Iraq. This is an important issue that will affect all of us whether we go to war or not. I commend the Wildcat for placing students' perspectives on this issue where it belongs on the front page. I would only suggest that if you are going to provide a timeline of events about the "Iraqi conflict," it seems appropriate to include January 17, 1991 ÷ the date the United States and its allies began bombing Iraq in the last Gulf War.

Carrie Brown
Near Eastern studies graduate student