Forum was non-ideological

We are writing to clear up some confusion about "Iraq: Perspectives and Responses," a public forum sponsored by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies on Monday evening, Oct. 14.

Tuesday's Wildcat included a number of erroneous statements, among them the claim that "some lecturers made the case for immediate invasion." Contrary to what the Wildcat reported, panelists were not asked "to present evidence to support the roles they were assigned, as opposed to their own viewpoints on the issue." They were asked to speak on their particular areas of expertise related to current events and Iraq, not to propound a particular ideology. Panelists represented a wide variety of departments and colleges: business, geosciences, history, law, Near Eastern studies, political science and public health.

At the conclusion of the forum, some fliers were distributed by special interest groups without CMES' permission or knowledge. Several audience members who received this information incorrectly assumed that CMES was allied with these groups.

Universities have a responsibility to share information on important topics and to encourage public debate. Open discussion with the audience always holds the possibility of unexpected, and sometimes unconscionable, outbursts. CMES has no control over who decides to attend any particular event, or who chooses to speak from the floor. We feel that the value of free speech far outweighs its disadvantages.

Monday's forum was videotaped; copies of the tape may be borrowed from the center. For further information, call CMES at 621-5450.

We remain grateful to the UA faculty members who so generously took time to participate in the forum, as well as to audience members who attended in a spirit of inquiry, openness and respect.

Anne H. Betteridge,
CMES Interim Director
Beth Kangas,
CMES Research Social Scientist

Prop 201 would benefit UA

When I read the Wildcat's Issue of the Week, I usually find my position represented by one writer or another. However, this week's issue, the gaming propositions, was represented by numerous Wildcat writers with naivete and a complete lack of knowledge about the propositions themselves.

Mr. Brand's comments stated that Proposition 201 would give 92 percent of racetrack gaming profits to "pompous, puppy-murdering racetrack dandies." Putting aside the complete lack of objectivity in his work, he was mathematically incorrect as well. The racetracks, under Proposition 201, give forty percent of their slot machine (their only new form of gaming under 201) profits to the state, while the Indians only give up eight percent of theirs.

Secondly, Mrs. Lee stated that Indians should keep the maximum amount of profit, over ninety percent. With Proposition 201, ninety-two percent of Indian gaming profit across the board would stay with the Indians; not only that, Indian revenues would probably go up despite this loss due to table blackjack and the other new gaming that would take place at the casinos. Besides, Indians in casino areas are already cut monthly checks greater than the scholarships of some of our best and brightest at the university.

Thirdly, seemingly every writer described those affiliated with greyhound or horse racing as evil or inherently bad. Have any of the writers actually been to Tucson Greyhound Park? The general manager is out betting and talking with the patrons, and you can probably count the people there on a weekday night with a few sets of fingers and toes. They are not evil, nor are they "raking it in."

I personally find it a wonder that, with all of the whining that the Wildcat writers do regarding the UA and state budget, they would not recognize the fact that Proposition 201 is $300 million per year for the state, not $100 million or less like the other two propositions. The state can use that money for education ÷ maybe money that can keep the next Nobel Prize winner here or money to retain the best teachers.

If you have a problem with gambling, vote no on all three propositions. But if not, vote yes on 201 ÷ it's more money for both Indians and the state. And please, Wildcat ÷ next time you do an Issue of the Week, cover every side and not just a couple.

William Bihn
computer engineering sophomore

Prop 202 best for Indians

I am dismayed with the biased and uninformed "Arizona's Indian Gaming Initiatives" editorials of Mr. Baran and Mr. Winsky. As students of public policy and politics, they seem to be unaware that Indian gaming is an expression of sovereign governmental authority by Indian tribes that can be a "win-win" situation for all Arizonans under Prop 202.

They suggest that Indian tribes are not benefiting from the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Such unfounded assertions are not supported by the research literature. Numerous studies indicate that the IGRA, while no panacea, is working. Indian gaming generates vital revenue for tribal infrastructure, economic development, political administration, cultural revitalization, social programs and healthcare. Even if some of that money goes for much-needed per capita payments to people living in poverty, it is being "spent wisely" as a means to an end.

Mr. Baran and Mr. Winsky champion "self-reliance" and "diversified economic development." All of the above reduce welfare costs, generates state tax revenue, and creates on- and off- reservation jobs during a time of cuts in federal appropriations for Indian reservations while their populations are increasing. That is what tribal sovereignty and Indian gaming are all about ÷ empowering their own people. Mr. Winsky incorrectly contends that Indians lack "experience." In reality, tribal governments are paying for and regulating all forms of Indian gaming. Again, the research literature shows that Indian gaming is very well protected, and has been successful in keeping organized crime out, and minimizing corruption. Before telling Indians they lack "experience" or "institutions," please reflect on the exemplary origins of Las Vegas or the urban splendor of Atlantic City.

Indian gaming also benefits the UA, especially in times of severe budget cutbacks. Many tribes have allocated substantial portions of their gaming revenue for tribal colleges and educational scholarships to non-tribal colleges and universities. Most Indian students could never afford to attend college without some tribal financial aid. But such largess is not confined to Indian students. Although I do not gamble, I have benefited from Indian gaming in Arizona. As a non-Indian graduate student, I have received some scholarship money from the generous Fort McDowell community.

So, vote NO on Prop 201, and vote YES on Prop 202. All the people of Arizona ÷ Indian and non-Indian ÷ will benefit from the shared resources and the spirit of cross-cultural cooperation.

John M. Shaw
history and American Indian studies graduate student