Seniors deserve opportunities inherent in smaller classes

As seniors at UA, it seems time that we should be able to attend classes with fewer than 90 students. However, such is not the case and we are extremely frustrated and disappointed. Our tuition would be better spent on a library card to the Pima County public library system.

We love this school, and for the first three years thought it was acceptable to have large class sizes. Six out of our combined 11 classes are so large that discussion is not a feasible or productive way to spend hours upon hours of class time. In a recent Wildcat column, a staff reporter expressed her disdain for students who try to initiate discussions with an instructor during class time. We have both experienced the same situation, when a student in front of a 90-person class converses with the professor and the 89 other students cannot hear or participate because of the sheer class size.

In a senior level class, is it not too much to demand that we be encouraged to discuss and participate with fellow students and professors in a classroom environment? Where is our money going? Granted, many of the improvements to the campus are wonderful, but could we bring it down to the education level? We would be much better served with professors and classes that were suitable to learning. We would like to express our gratitude to those professors who succeed at creating optimal learning environments when confronted with 90-person classes. We sympathize with those professors, as we understand it must not be easy facilitating any manner of learning in such large classes.

Kim Fielding and Meaghan Brown
family studies seniors

Republicans were first to delay court appointments

Well, the academic year has barely begun and already I am reading a laughable and inaccurate work of fiction ("Democrats hold courts in crisis") in Thursday's Wildcat from a conservative ideologue intent on demonizing all Democrats. A quick summary of recent history suggests that Jason Baran has not done his research in this area at all.

First, let me say that I certainly agree with the fact that there is a great need for additional judges at all levels of our justice system. A balanced judiciary is essential to adhering to our founding fathers' unwavering belief in the separation of powers and checks and balances. Yet Mr. Baran fails to point out that it was the Republican-led Senate who set the precedent in failing to approve a myriad of qualified judges during President Clinton's term. Despite the fact that Clinton's nominees were far more to the center politically than were Ronald Reagan's, George Bush's or George W. Bush's, there were more than 100 vacancies on the federal bench by the end of his term.

Mr. Baran also fails to state that the current Democrat-led Senate has approved President Bush's nominees at approximately twice the rate of those nominated by his predecessor. This, despite the fact that Bush has cited Clarence Thomas ö of all people ö as his model for a good Supreme Court appointee while exclusively selecting nearly all right-wing candidates during his first 18 months in office.

The fact remains that Senate confirmation of judges has long been and will continue to be a largely political process. Thus, their confirmation will continue to be controversial well into the future. Unfortunately, intelligent and fair nominees from both Democratic and Republican presidents will be rejected. For this, members of both parties are to blame. But the fact remains that it is a Democratic president who has recently nominated the most ideologically centered candidates and it is the current Democratic Senate that has confirmed the greater number of judicial appointees in recent years.

Democrats are not "trying to punish President George W. Bush for making appointments that aren't way out in left field," as Mr. Baran would falsely have us believe. They are simply trying to ensure that there is some sense of balance and equity among judges that will preserve the quality and success of our entire political system.

Paul Francis
public administration graduate student

Injustice, disrespect lead to fanatacism ö not Islam

I would like to congratulate Prasad Boddupalli (Tuesday, "Left and right ignorantly see Muslims in black and white") on his response to Silas Montgomery's letter. His letter made several important points, but there is a very important point that no one has yet made: Islam is not blame for the anger that Americans see on their television screens beamed to them from the Muslim world.

It is much easier for America to just blame Islam than to look at the real reason behind this problem. I challenge Mr. Montgomery and Professor Fregosi to go on a cultural field trip to the mosque right on campus this Friday, and just talk to the Muslim students who gather around the mosque after prayers. Perhaps they will be shocked to see that "those Muslims" are not much different than themselves. They are students, faculty and everyday people who enjoy much the same things as everyone else. They are peace-loving Muslims. And peace loving Muslims are not only found here in Tucson, or only in Arizona, or even only in America.

Peace loving Muslims are found all across the world where they are treated with basic human respect. But when people, Muslim or non-Muslim, are not given the respect that every human is entitled to, then that, and that alone, is what breeds ignorance and anger. And perhaps that ignorance and anger finds a voice in religion.

If it was not Islam, it would be Christianity. If it was not Christianity, it would be some other religion. If it was not another religion, it would be nationalism. If it was not nationalism, it would be something else. The point is it has absolutely nothing to do with the religion of Islam and has everything to do with people who are born trapped into a society or conflict that they feel is completely helpless and unfair, and it just so happens that many people in the Muslim world are currently living under the oppression of monarchs that are supported by America.

Mr. Montgomery and Osama bin Laden can both misinterpret certain ambiguous parts of the Quran all they want. One's goal is to increase ignorance of non-Muslims about Muslims and the other's is to increase ignorance of Muslims about non-Muslims, but neither is a valid source for what Islam is really about. Anyone who is truly interested in knowing about Islam would be best off talking to Muslims here on campus.

Armand Navabi
computer science senior