Where's the outrage on Mackovic's huge salary

I've always taken exception to the fact that intercollegiate basketball and football are stepping-stones to professional careers (At least baseball's got one thing right; they rely on minor leagues to groom major leaguers).

The NBA and the NFL, however, rely solely on colleges to feed their teams, and often to the academic detriment of the universities. I don't know about anybody else, but watching an illiterate "college grad" give a post-game interview in Cardinal Stadium makes me uncomfortable.

Cold, hard cash is the grease, and ultimately the payoff, of this insidious machine. Jim Livengood and John Mackovic are just the current players in this compromising game. They sell promises, and throw money at sports and sports facilities, on the hopes that it'll generate more money.

The UA bought that promise for five years in Mackovic's salary. At $800,000 a year, Mack gets a check for over $30,000 every two weeks! Where's the outrage? If we took the same win-at-all-costs approach to our scholastic pursuits, I'm certain we wouldn't be lamenting our "brain drain."

While academic purists recognize that football is fine family fun on a Saturday afternoon, they also realize that football's just not that important. Harvard students love their pigskin, but they don't even have football scholarships; they're all walk-ons.

The Ivy League has a sensible approach to sports. The University of Miami, on the other hand, is only known for football. Though I love the game, I don't confuse a good passing grade with a good passing game.

While academics and athletics aren't necessarily exclusive endeavors, school administrations are frequently in a position to choose. The UA has made its choice.

Retaining an overpaid football coach despite his underperformance, and losing an underpaid Nobel laureate in the same year sends a clear message to the college community.

Scott D. Dreisbach
laboratory manager,
department of chemistry

Wildcat irresponsible in lack of diverse Mideast protest, activism coverage

In the past week, there have been three events on campus put on by UA groups regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Last Thursday, there was a pro-Israel rally that was held on the UA mall. On Saturday, there was a presentation by a Chicano youth that had spent time in the occupied territories.

As was their intention, both of these events were presented in a one-sided manner that for the most part ignored the suffering of all those involved and therefore attempted to devalue other perspectives.

At each of these events the message was clear: "Our side wants peace but the other side doesn't so we need to defend ourselves" ÷ a justification for excessive and unnecessary violence.

Each of these events was divisive and only pushed people farther toward extreme positions.

The third event was this Monday and featured the co-founder of Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI). At this forum, Josh Ruebner revealed that the actions of the Israeli government are not as conducive to peace as we are led to believe.

As an American and as a Jew, he feels a responsibility to speak out because he sees American complicity in a situation that denies people on both sides the right to live in freedom and security.

Mr. Ruebner's position was contested or complimented by a panel consisting of a Hebrew instructor and former Israeli soldier, the manager of Business Development at Raytheon, and a PhD student in near Eastern archaeology.

This diverse representation made this forum stand apart from the other two campus events where only a narrow position was presented. Student and community interest in the event was demonstrated by the two hundred-plus attendees.

Of the three events, only one was covered in the Wildcat. It was the pro-Israel rally and it made the front page last Friday ("Students, faculty rally for terror-free peace in Israel"). The inability of the Wildcat to cover campus events equitably stinks of bias, ignorance or perhaps both simultaneously.

Complex situations require an increase in education and awareness to which a campus paper should not be an obstacle.

By not reporting alternative viewpoints, the Wildcat is implying that they do not exist. This is grossly incompetent considering the numbers of people that events, such as the one featuring Josh Ruebner, are drawing.

Paul Snodgrass
history senior