ÎElite' oversimplifies efforts to reinvent UA by consensus

It's understandable that newspapers sometimes use shortcuts in headlines to describe complex issues.

The article "Likins details plans for UA's Îelite' future" attempted to describe a multifaceted process that will have multifaceted solutions that bear implications for all of us.

The word "elite," which has been used only by the media, is unfairly simplistic.

Far from elite, the UA is a workhorse for the state.

As the land-grant university, our mission is to serve the citizens of Arizona through outreach and transfer of knowledge, which we have been doing since 1885.

As the land-grant university, we are Arizona's flagship university, with leaders in research and professional and graduate education.

Leadership, excellence, and service ÷ these are the core values that are woven into the fabric of who we are. These things will never change.

But some things must change. As the UA struggles to manage the new reality of continual budget cuts, President Peter Likins, in consultation with the provost, the Cabinet, deans, faculty advisory councils and many others, put forth a document to begin the discussion: How can the UA maintain and enhance its excellence in perilous budgetary times?

The key point is that this document and the thousands of other discussions that will ensue from it will collaboratively lay the foundation of a vision for the university.

Everything will be examined, including raising academic standards for admissions (but that doesn't necessarily mean down-sizing enrollment).

Everyone will have an opportunity to suggest, recommend and advise. In time, consensus will be built. The president has on many occasions told us that this will be not be easy, but it most definitely will be a thoughtful process.

Janet Bingham, Ph.D.
Vice President,
University Advancement

Private golf clubs have every right to admit who they wish

This is in reference to Daniel Cucher's column ("Hands off men's clubs, ladies" Sept. 17) about the policies concerning admitting women at the Augusta National Golf Club. I for one couldn't agree more with him. Martha Burk, chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organization, is on a crusade to once again equalize men and women.

Hootie Johnson, as the owner of a private club, has every right to exclude women from becoming members. No one is second-guessing the fact that there is such a thing as a woman millionaire who can afford to pay the lofty membership fees of Augusta. It is simply a matter of principles and in this case, Hootie's. He has a right not to want someone who doesn't represent the law telling him what he can and can't do. In due time, women may in fact be admitted to the club, but as long as Martha is trying to force her way through his doors, the NCWO are only making him lock them tighter.

There are any number of clubs that exclude any number of different types of people. I know that if I tried to get into an all-women's gym, I would be laughed out of the building faster than Flo-Jo on a treadmill. If it is such a big deal, the NCWO should talk to some of the rich women out there and get them to help finance an all women's golf club and exclude men. Chances are there wouldn't be any National Counsel of Men's Organization trying to bully their way into it. Though it was a bit foolish of Hootie to drop the nearly $7 million worth of sponsors that pay every year to be part of the Masters, it is his way of proving a point: Do not force me into anything.

So please, women and women's organizations, the next time you feel like there is something wrong with the United States and it's all men's faults, think about other parts of the world without suffrage or where the punishment for an adulterous woman is stoning. Women, please consider this rule of thumb: Just because you are excluded from a certain a club, that doesn't mean you deserve to be admitted.

Evan Adams
geology junior

If any group is suffering from terrorism, it's the Palestinians

I would like to address some of the comments made by Reuben Goodman in, "Palestinian hatred of America, Israel result of Îbrainwashing'" on Sept. 19. For Goodman to suggest that the Palestinian struggle has no merit and is the result of brainwashing is ludicrous. How would Goodman like it if the land he had been on for the previous 1,000-plus years was taken from him and he was forced to live in a horrid refugee camp? The conditions in these camps are obscene and when Israel goes on its "terrorist hunts," the innocent people who live in these camps suffer greatly.

If this is a question about whose land this really is then the answer should be simple. It is true that the British promised both a Palestinian and eventually a Jewish homeland in the Balfour declaration (an attempt to raise Jewish support for a war). But it really wasn't the British's land to give because there was really nothing more than Palestinians living on it. According to Encarta in 1880, 95 percent of the people living there were "Arab-Palestinians."

If Mr. Goodman can justify British colonialism and then the giving of those native peoples' land for Jewish support (The Balfour), then I'll be the first person in line to support Israel.

Secondly, a large part of Pro-Israel arguments lie on this whole "terrorism" argument. What a crock. If any one group of civilians suffers from "terror," it's the Palestinians. The Israeli army has been known to shoot Palestinian police officers, deny the passage of ambulances and bulldoze houses. Even Ariel Sharon has been accused of war crimes and a 1983 Israeli investigation found him "indirectly responsible" for a massacre that occurred in Lebanon.

What has really angered me is the death of Palestinian children in the hunt for terrorists. About a month ago, I read a CNN article on how a bunch of children died in an explosion so that the Israeli army could take out a "suspected" terrorist. Maybe Mr. Goodman doesn't read those articles or maybe he is the one that is "brain washed."

Brian Wilson
economics junior