Affirmative action is needed; education is a basic right

I'm writing in regard to Bryant Conger's letter on Monday against affirmative action in universities. Mr. Conger states that the "opportunity to excel" exists in the inner cities as well as the suburbs and that there are "some rich white kids" who shouldn't be punished for their parents' and grandparents' work.

I'm sorry but exactly how long have you been at the University of Arizona?

I am assuming as a freshmen on campus, it's been a little more than a semester but please open your eyes and look around. The demographics of the University of Arizona are predominantly Caucasian students. Yes, we have diversity but not nearly the amount you would expect in a city where the Hispanic population comes in at a close second to the white Tucson population.

Why is that? You simply have to go to the schools on the south side as compared to the schools in the Foothills. The educational conditions and standards are not even comparable. Money makes a big difference. I realize that maybe you didn't think about this when you sent your letter in, so this is to inform you that while the opportunities do exist, affirmative action, in some form or another, is necessary if we want to believe in America being a true democracy where education is a basic right of its citizens. Compared to the affluent who get to use daddy's credit card for anything and everything, those minorities as well as white kids who have to work part-time jobs to help out at home as well as keep up their grades provides a major stumbling block.

After years of abuse and discrimination against minorities in America, universities are finally recognizing the need to equal the playing field. The "rich white kids" from Orange County are rich because their parents and grandparents were given certain opportunities in the early 20th century that were strictly denied to the minorities. And it is unfortunate that you put down affirmative action without realizing the plight of the urban, poor student but recognized the "desperate" situation of the rich, white kid from Orange County. Eric Bohn's letter on Monday provided a perspective that can actually be taken seriously ÷ to consider economic factors over race is an excellent idea because, fortunately, there are many well-off/rich minority families that can afford many of the opportunities available to the white, affluent families.

As part of your education at the UA, I would encourage you to realize it is not all black and white. Your expectation for the future leaders of America was especially interesting because if we look at our current leader of America, we find that Dubya is the best example of the taking advantage of your parents' and grandparents' effort.

Mariam Durrani
systems engineering senior

SALT students enjoy higher graduation rate, are not Îslow'

This is response to Brian Danker's Monday letter. Mr. Danker first asks why there is a new building for the SALT program in the midst of budget cuts, but then answers his own question with ignorant and insensitive statements that "students who have trouble learning" and are "slow" do not deserve the opportunity to attend the University of Arizona.

To answer your question, the SALT program is fee-based, which means that students enrolled in SALT pay a separate fee over and above tuition, which makes SALT a self-supporting program (unlike the Honors College). And now I'll answer a question you did not ask: Who is the SALT student? Students who are in the SALT program are not intellectually deficient; they have learning disabilities and/or ADHD, which are not by definition a deficiency in IQ.

Even though I do not work for SALT, I have had the pleasure of meeting several students with LD/ADHD and I have thoroughly enjoyed working with every one of them. Each of them has the determination, persistence, and enthusiasm for education that is sorely lacking in other "normal" students with whom I have worked. These students are not "slow" but learn differently than many of their peers. The SALT program is a godsend for students who have learning styles that don't complement traditional teaching methods. It is unfortunate that the ignorance of others results in such a negative stigma on these students; however, in the face of this adversity, many of these students develop strong character and intellectual competencies that surpass those of other students.

Didn't you read the Wildcat last week when President Likins stated that SALT students enjoy a 75 percent graduation rate in spite of falling into a profile that suggests otherwise? The University's overall graduation rate was at 55 percent as of 2001.

Shelley McGrath
academic adviser, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Wrong programs are being cut for Focused Excellence

In response to Mr. Miller's Tuesday response to Mr. Danker's call for cutting the SALT program in favor of Focused Excellence: The problem with the student feedback in the Arizona Daily Wildcat is its lack of perception. Mr. Miller obviously missed the point of Mr. Danker's argument; that is, in order to pursue the quixotic ideal of Focused Excellence, we need, obviously, to cut some programs.

Mr. Danker, I think, was trying to argue that in some cases the wrong programs are being cut in order to achieve that goal. I for one realize this. As Mr. Danker had previously cited, part of the architecture program is being cut and the Honors College is run out of a ramshackle house while the SALT center enjoys a new state-of-the-art facility. Come on now. I'm not knocking on the SALT program, but it seems that the university is trimming the branches when it should be hacking at the trunk.

And, Mr. Miller, I will also disclose to you that not everyone in the SALT program is hard working. Indeed, I know several people who paid the extra two grand just so they could be lazy and take the untimed tests. And we all know there are no untimed tests in the real world. But that is another issue in and of itself. For Focused Excellence, we need to focus on the programs that need to be cut, not those that can contribute to the UA becoming a top-rate research institution.

Andrew Salvati
history senior

Raise tuition if it means more student opportunities

I am writing to you in regard to your recent articles on financial aid and tuition increases. While I agree with President Likins and others about the need to substantially raise the amount given for financial aid, I disagree with the way they are planning on raising the money. I, as well as others, feel that the university raising tuition as much as $1,000 for resident undergraduate tuition is outrageous. I might be a little more understanding if, as a student, we would be getting more for that extra thousand dollars, but we just aren't. In fact, that's quite the opposite of what we are receiving.

As an incoming freshman here at the University of Arizona, I was informed about all of the budget cuts and the lack of classes. All of this was acceptable to a point, and I understood why they were doing this. Much like my fellow classmates, I feel that paying more money for less opportunity shouldn't be acceptable. If in fact these tuition raises do occur, I feel that many prospective students might consider a different college because of money issues or the fact that the prospective student wouldn't be getting the kind of opportunity that one might expect. In this case, offering less classes and opportunity for more money is not the way to go, and I feel President Likins should realize this.

Jeff Palmquist
pre-business freshman

New standards Înot logical,' Ariz. students unprepared

College. I could assure anyone that if one hundred students were asked to fill out a survey about why they are attending this institution of higher education, one would receive one hundred different answers. Appreciating this opportunity to learn and express oneself is usually taken for granted by most students. I love college, and I think that if I had the opportunity, and funds, I would stay until I had mastered every degree on campus. Obviously, while I will enjoy the two remaining years of college, frustrations and inadequacies will arise, but I'll graduate and will learn an abundance of information.

I am a lucky individual, because I have this opportunity and because I am willing to work for it. Unfortunately, people working to reach the goal that I am living might be glued in their situations at community colleges and campuses hoping to transfer to UA because of Likin's proposal of gaining excellence at this institution. Many students I know did not succeed academically the way they could have in high school, and have had to work tremendously to achieve the necessities to transfer to a university campus. It's true that raising admission requirements may create a more prestigious atmosphere, but it also creates inequality and disability for students I am discussing.

The reason I feel so strongly about this is because, constantly, the state of Arizona and its instructional institutions create new standards for students to reach in order to be educated. Before the UA discusses raising standards, they need to encourage the state to improve the curriculum and worsening situations in public elementary and high schools. It's not logical to raise standards for students that have been inadequately prepared for furthering their education after high school. The value of higher education should be an opportunity that every individual endures, but by shading the real problems and issues that schools face in this state with cries of higher excellence only darkens the shade of hope for students that deserve a second chance at life.

Katie Greisiger
political science sophomore

Woman's right to choose is part of 14th Amendment

I am writing in response to Kendrick Wilson's Tuesday commentary, "Anti-choice bill a big waste of time," in order to voice my opinion in support of a woman's right to choose. I am sure that you will be getting many letters that oppose your opinion, which is why I feel I need to say something on this issue that I feel so strongly about. The government has more power than ever these days, and I for one am not willing to lose my right to privacy when it comes to abortion.

The issue here is not about deciding when human life begins; it is about freedom of choice. Giving the government the authority to dictate my personal choices is contradictory to the notion of "freedom" this country supposedly stands for. While I don't believe abortion should be exercised for the most part, there are extenuating circumstances (such as rape) when I feel it is simply wrong to bring a child conceived out of hate into this world. Forcing people to have children when they are not financially, mentally or physically in a position to do so is detrimental to that person and that child.

People are irresponsible when it comes to sex; that is a fact. However, if we give the government the power to stop abortions, to what end will this power lead? The power to regulate who can have sex and who can't?! Aside from the moral qualms I have for and against abortion, what it comes down to is our 14th Amendment right to privacy. I guarantee giving the government this jurisdiction will not end there, and will inevitably lead to even less freedom for the citizens of this country.

Raquel Litin
creative writing junior