Race shouldn't affect quality of education

I'm a little confused about what is a "proper learning environment" and what would make UA a "diverse" campus. President Likins was quoted as saying in the Feb. 26 Wildcat, "you need to be in an environment with people who don't look like you." But in the Feb. 6 Wildcat, Alex Wright, director of African-American Student Affairs, said "People want to see someone who looks like them. They want to see it in the classroom."

So which is it? And didn't someone once say that we should be judged "not by the color or our skin, but by the content of our character?" He was a pretty smart guy too, a doctor I believe. So I'm sure everyone can understand why I'm a bit confused.

Anthony W. Nelson
criminal justice senior

ÎBlue Balls' offends more than entertains

We are very disappointed in the Wildcat's choice to continue to run the comic strip "Blue Balls" when in the past weeks (specifically, Feb. 13, Feb. 14 and Feb. 18), there have been two racially charged comics and several which are sexually explicit to the point of vulgarity.

Not only are these comics offensive because of their extremely inappropriate use of race and sexually explicit material, but let's face it, they are poorly written. A comic that makes such little sense on its own merits and that so poorly jokes at someone else's expense has no place on a campus dedicated to higher learning. We find it hard to believe that among a campus of 35,000 students, this is the best humor we can come up with. The messages contained within this comic, in print and in the images portrayed, have no other purpose but to cause a cheap laugh at the expense of someone else.

The intention of freedom of the press is not to promote sophomoric humor with racial stereotypes or to "go farther" than others have gone by mocking people's race or sexuality. Instead, it is to allow a voice. It is not meant to, as this comic does, create an environment of hostility on campus for people of different skin colors or who don't appreciate such crass attempts at humor. The Wildcat has indicated by printing these comics that such vulgarity and racist attitudes are tolerated and legitimate forms of expression in a university newspaper. We find it sad that this university's newspaper can find no better comic strips than these vulgar and frankly racist attempts at humor. We urge the Daily Wildcat to find comic strips that are thoughtful, insightful and funny rather than the offensive and distasteful "Blue Balls."

It's not that we don't have a sense of humor. Some of the comics in this paper can be downright funny. However, we have not seen one installment of this comic that has not been racially or sexually charged. There are other (much funnier) forms of humor. Please find a comic that uses them. Please "go farther" by apologizing to the community, and please stop printing such hurtful and negative images.

Stephen Corral, Jamie Dolan, Beth Duckles, Jeff Kroll, Lorien Lake, Christina Liu
sociology graduate students

Trading in SUVs not patriotic ÷ voting is

I am responding to Kendrick Wilson's Tuesday column regarding SUVs. I will agree that anyone who owns an SUV that gets poor gas mileage should not be complaining about the high cost of filling up his or her SUV. He or she should have been aware of the mpg when it was bought and should have had the foresight to see that it may be expensive to fill up if prices rose.

But this is where my agreeance (just a jab at Fred Durst) ends. I personally find the ads he referred to to be rather obtuse. To say that SUV owners "hijacked a plane" because their vehicle depends on oil imported from the Middle East is ludicrous. With this skewed logic you would have to say that an owner of a more fuel-efficient vehicle also helped hijack a plane but just didn't help as much as the SUV owner. I also have a problem with his argument that our nation doesn't truly have free speech because ABC refuses to air the SUV/terrorists ads. See, it's arguments like this that make me doubt the quality of education the UA gives its students. Our right to free speech is the right to be able to speak one's mind and opinions without being persecuted; it is not the right to have your message heard and played wherever you desire. Finally, and for the love of God, please don't tell me that the most patriotic thing someone can do is trade in his or her SUV for a car with better gas mileage. There are about a million things people should be doing that are more patriotic. For example, with our poor voter turnout, the most patriotic thing in my mind would be to get off your ass and vote for change. If you truly believe that more restrictions should be put on SUVs, call up your congressman; don't write a poor excuse for an article and then forget about the issue. (P.S. No, I don't own an SUV.)

Tom Spillman
business junior

Peace activists anti-war, not anti-troops

I am writing to express my resentment at the claim that peace activists do not support American troops. Peace activists are the ones who support our troops the most. Apart from taking their lives into consideration, we are the ones that are looking at the reasons that American troops may lose their lives if this war is to happen.

Perhaps I have only heard the most closed-minded of the "pro-war" group, but I am amazed at their unwillingness to ever question or criticize their government, the same government that supported Saddam. Perhaps I would be more willing to listen if I felt that those who supported the war were not blindly following what is fed to them by their government and media. Many of those who support this potential war would believe anything and everything President Bush wanted them to believe.

To these people, the so-called "evidence" that Powell presented to the United Nations was "undisputable proof" that Iraq not only has weapons of mass destruction, but also is working closely with al-Qaeda, when in fact, most of the world found the evidence to be weak, especially regarding alleged ties to al-Qaeda. But in reality, Powell could have presented the U.N. with anything short of "The Cat in the Hat" by Dr. Seuss and claimed that it was proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism, and these same people would believe it without question. Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator, and although I oppose this war at this time, I do not dismiss that there may come a time where I may feel war is necessary. But whether or not war is the answer, at this time or in the future, the American government is partly to blame for the situation in Iraq.

For those who support this war: To ignore the reason why American troops may be sent to Iraq and possibly killed, not to mention the innocent Iraqis that would be killed, it really puts into question their ability to think on their own and how much they really care about our troops and the innocent people of Iraq. Whether this war happens or not, it is time we demand that our government never make the same mistakes it has made in the past, so that in the future, we do not have to send American troops to kill and possibly die to defend us from dictators that our government supported.

Armand Navabi
computer science senior

Iraq timeline left out crucial events of 1998

Regarding the Wildcat's "Timeline of Iraqi Conflict," published Feb. 20, I feel compelled to call attention to the year 1998 when, as is stated, the United Nations withdrew inspectors from Iraq. Understanding that the graphic in question was only intended as general historical background, it is nevertheless somewhat misleading by virtue of its brevity.

The U.N. documentary record indicates that the United Nations Special Commission's Executive Chairman, Richard Butler, pulled inspectors from Iraq without consulting all members of the Security Council in November 1998 despite promises not to do so. No consensus was sought, and thus no consensus reached. In December, press releases from Russian, Chinese and Costa Rican representatives of the Council accused Butler of outright abuses of his power under the mandate of UNSCOM and accused the United States and Britain of unilateral use of force during Operation Desert Fox, which came on the heels of the November withdrawal.

Butler's choices as well as the policies of Britain and the United States are crucial components in this conflict's history for at least three specific reasons: 1. Immediately after the removal of inspectors, the United States and Britain carried out Operation Desert Fox, a significant military operation resulting in Iraqi civilian casualties. 2. Shortly into the new year (1999), accusations surface from within Butler's team that the United States used sensitive inspection information to carry out bombing missions in Desert Fox (a.k.a. espionage, a strictly forbidden activity). 3. Serious talk had already begun in the council concerning the lifting of sanctions on Iraq before November. Scott Ritter, then a member of Butler's team and an American, has testified that he believes UNSCOM had accounted for approximately 95 percent of Iraq's weapons in question, which meant lifting sanctions on Iraq was foreseeable if Butler were to declare Iraq disarmed.

The record suggests that the United States and Britain purposely thwarted UNSCOM's (now called UNMOVIC) efforts, spirit and mandate, and that Butler was a willing tool. If so, the year 1998 and its implications surely reach us today when our own President Bush claims that this is a time for the U.N. to show its relevance. After all, how can it if indeed there are examples of such shameful attempts to undermine its legitimacy?

Kent Walker
former UA student