Animal rights article in the Wildcat does a disservice

Regarding the article "Animal rights group wants UA to cut animal sciences program," written by Bob Purvis and the photo provided by Danielle Malott on April 22, I would like to say that I feel the Wildcat has done the college of Agriculture and Life Sciences a great disservice. While I do not feel the article had any malicious intent or that is should not have been published, I do feel that the front page was not the place for it. Nor was it prudent to catch the eyes of potential readers with a lovely picture of one of the UA horse facility's foals, which was taken with permission from the Equine facility management on the pretext of being part of a West Nile virus article. The fact that the article was based on the concerns of a rather ignorant individual at the head of an equally misguided organization and concerning, for the most part, the issues many animal rights organizations have with the harvesting of beef and the production of dairy products in the United States makes me wonder why a picture of UA horses was chosen to accompany this article at all.

For those who are concerned, something to think about would be the implications of large private corporations training their own workers and management. I feel secure in saying that such businesses would soon be appallingly neglectful of the welfare of production animals, while those who have been, are and will be educated in Agriculture and Animal Industry operations at public universities across the country are taught always that the welfare and humane production and harvesting of these animals are our livelihood, not just our occupation. I know I don't speak for myself only when I say that I applaud Dr. Likins for not dignifying such a letter with immediate reply and undue concern.

Angie Bowen
animal industry freshman

Cantor should apologize to Likins and the university

I take issue with Mr. David Cantor's comments published in the April 22 issue of the Wildcat. This person has no valid reasoning and is only attempting to gain publicity, not contribute to animal welfare. If I am correct in assuming that this person is a vegan (and I could be wrong in my assumption), then explain the ethics of eating vegetables while they're still alive, as in a salad. If this person drives a car, then he should know there are animal products (gas, oil, leather, grease etc.) incorporated into all cars.

For 35 years, I have worked for animal welfare as a researcher, and before that, I grew up on a farm that made its living from quarter horses. Their welfare was our life. Therefore, I take great offense at this idiot's assertion that "All involved are linked to those atrocities, since all activities in the animal and agribusiness industries, including education and training, are interrelated."

I expect and demand an apology to the university, and President Likins at minimum. And Mr. Cantor, if you are a truly caring individual, which I believe you aren't, you would better spend your time caring for the sick and dying and abused humans on this planet we call home. We are animals too, you know.

And all animals deserve respect and caring, not your callous attempt at publicity. You and your ilk make me sick.

Sam Marion
physiology research specialist

Minorities should not have to enlighten the majority

I agree with Steve Campbell that education is the only viable way to remedy continuing racism in his April 21 column, but I write in response to two of his subsequent points.

First, calling on minorities to educate the majority so as to disabuse it of stereotypes that perpetuate racism amounts to a double-burden; already laboring under racism, minorities are exhorted to devote additional resources to helping majorities become enlightened. Pragmatically, this may be an effective way to foster among groups the mutual recognition prerequisite to achieving equality (however defined). But such a project must not be phrased in moral terms, as if (to paraphrase a feminist scholar) it is the moral obligation of the oppressed to alter the minds of their oppressors.

To the contrary, in recognition of its position of privilege, it is the dominant group that must educate its members and thereby use its surplus power in service of justice. This is not to silence the voices of minorities who have shown extraordinary courage in combating racism, and surely this vision cannot come about unilaterally; it takes engagement amongst divergent groups. However, where susceptible of apportionment, the costs of such education should, in fairness, be borne by the majority. Those bearing the costs of racism in very personal ways should not be called on, from a morality standpoint, to also bear the costs of eradicating racism.

Second, Mr. Campbell observes that minorities use derogatory words without triggering accusations of racism, while the majority usually cannot. This is an accurate description, but doesn't de-legitimize the circumstance. A marginalized group's appropriation of words of objectification and oppression neutralizes those meanings and transforms such words into terms of endearment or sarcasm, or ridicules the ignorance that begat such derogatory meanings in the first place. Either way, this strategy of seizing and transforming objectifying identifiers empowers the group to reclaim its own authority to constitute its own identity. Paradoxically, what was an indignity becomes a tool of liberation. This interplay does have different consequences depending on whether the speaker is a member of the minority or the majority, but this is explicable (and fair) in light of the power imbalance this linguistic strategy aims to rectify.

A minority population should not sacrifice a vocabulary that serves mostly to empower it; however, a dominant group should avoid using that same vocabulary if it reinforces oppression. To argue that not every use of "conventionally" derogatory language is so steeped in meaning is beside the point; the point is that it is worth historicizing these usages so as to discern their continuing vitality. Perhaps if we achieve a world of substantive equality, the linguistic controversy will die of its own irrelevance because the words themselves will simply become obsolete for any speaker. Jen Szoke
UA law student

See-saw sculpture is stupid and a waste of good money

Months ago I walked past the historic Old Main building and thought that there was something missing. I then asked myself, "What does this place really need?" Luckily, someone else thought the same thing, and thus a giant, purple, non-working seesaw was erected. It was great; the brilliant purple really went well with the Old Main's dark red brick facade, people could really have fun not using it (because it its ends were chained down so it could not possibly be used), and it really gave the students and faculty at this school piece of mind when they realized the deeper meaning and symbolism of the seesaw. I even thought that the $6,200 invested into the sculpture was wisely spent; better the money go to playground equipment than into education programs and teacher salaries.

What makes the piece even more exciting is the fact that it is now broken and now is more atheistically pleasing than ever before. My guess is that someone was trying to actually use the sculpture as a seesaw and one of the sides collapsed under the pressure. Who would of thought that if you build a really big seesaw in the middle of campus that someone might try to use it. That's not what a seesaw is for.

The funniest thing of all is that after months have passed since this teeter-totter was originally broken, it still remains in its spot, still broken, and even more unusable and unattractive. So why does it still remain in its spot and what purpose does it have now? I truly don't know. This whole time I was thinking that a little grass might make the front of Old Main a bit nicer.

Drew Tucker
architecture freshman

Soldiers who freely enlisted are means of executing war

The guest commentary "Public, not soldiers, must decide necessity of war," which appeared in the Wildcat on April 17, although interesting, contains fallacies. The main fallacy is Todd Arena and Jonathan Hustad's belief, upon which they justify the rest of their arguments, that supporting the war is not analogous to supporting soldiers.

Soldiers are by their actions actors and supporters of war because they kill during wartime. Soldiers are simply means of executing war. Soldiers who have enlisted on their free will, untangled with economic pressures or other external forces, have done so immorally. This is because they have signed their souls away to their administration and its future wars. They allow themselves to be used to murder people. They perform an action not based on their own morality or philosophy, but on the faith of an administration. Soldiers, like Todd Arena and Jonathan Hustad, gave an oath to the Bush administration. Sadly, it is possible that this institution will use its soldiers in morally wrong ways. Because of this, the philosophy of being a soldier is morally erroneous.

Soldiers, if they freely enlisted, condoned and supported every war they will fight for in the future. It is necessary for soldiers to take responsibility for the lives they have taken in every war, especially this one. Supporting soldiers is tantamount to supporting war.

Daniel Greenspan
philosophy and political science freshman