Basketball revenues needed to keep athletics

In Friday's Wildcat, there were two simultaneous complaints about rising tuition and the scarcity of basketball tickets for students. You can't have it both ways - if you want your education to remain as "nearly free" as possible, departments like athletics must remain financially self-sufficient. In order to accomplish this, the athletics department must run itself as any other freestanding business in a free market economy. The athletics department's most sought-after product must be sold at high enough prices to cover the losses incurred by less popular products. Sorry folks, but that means what discounted student tickets we're lucky to have will remain rare and difficult to obtain.

So how do schools like Duke or Oregon get more students at their games? The same way corn farmers can sell corn at prices below cost - subsidies. Duke is a private school with tuition set at many multiples of that of state-supported schools. Duke can afford to run its athletics department in the red on occasion, and can thus allow more discounted tickets to its highly valuable product to go to students. As for Oregon, a state school, it is lucky enough to have a very rich benefactor supporting their athletics department named Phillip Knight, the founder of Nike. Again, the less financial strain on the department's bottom line, the more discounts they can afford to give.

There isn't an athletics director in the country who wouldn't like to see more students at games. The best way to fix this problem isn't to complain about and disparage the successful alumni that keep your athletics department financially solvent, but to encourage them to donate their hard-earned funds toward directed student section subsidies. If that doesn't work, then use that time you would have been sitting at the game to study more economics in hopes that one day you can be one of those rich old alumni. When that day comes, let's hope you'll remember that one of the things the UA needs with your money isn't pretty park benches or a hideous sculpture, but a bigger student section at basketball games.

Christopher Morrison
non-degree seeking graduate student

Raising interstate speed limit a dangerous idea

I disagree with the state Legislature increasing the speed limit on all rural freeways from 75 mph to 80 mph. Today, I-10 looks like the Daytona 500; increasing the speed would make it more dangerous to drive on.

Most drivers today go faster than 80 mph on I-10 anyway. Increasing the speed limit to 80 would probably increase those drivers' speeds to nearly 90 or more.

I don't like the idea of having the big rigs going 80 mph either. The faster the trucks go, the longer it takes them to slow down.

Increasing the speed limit isn't going to save that much time - only six minutes, according to the article.

The state Legislature and the Arizona Department of Transportation need to have a long study on the freeway and look at everything from the speed to traffic (cars and big rigs), accidents and other factors to determine if this stretch of road should have the limit increased.

Mark Thompson
geography junior

Tolerance need not mean acceptance of others

Today I received a message from my department's listserv. The message announced:

"The Department of Residence Life at the University of Arizona has developed the SafeZONE program with the goal that workshop participants are an identifiable source of support and nurturance for gay, lesbian, bi-affectionate, transgendered and questioning (GLBTQ) students, staff and faculty on campus."

I understand the university to be a leader in liberal thinking and tolerance. These are values I admire when they apply to tolerance of individuals who are physically, emotionally and mentally different than the majority. But I am getting tired of being told I should be accepting of those who are "morally" different. If an individual chooses to be a homosexual in his or her home or on his or her own time, without bringing it to school and work, tolerance would be without question.

There is no witch-hunt going on here. There is instead a no-holds-barred sexual assault against those of us who do not want these types of actions condoned at work. The vast majority of us would never consider discussing our sexual conduct in an open forum. So why is it that we stand quietly by and merely cringe when forced to consider the sexual conduct of homosexuals dancing on the Mall and sending messages requesting support to our listservs? This is not a request for tolerance. This is a demand for acceptance. This type of behavior should be included in the policy against sexual harassment that the university so rigorously forces on all employees.

It is time for the university to stop the gay sexual assault against students and employees and begin to treat all displays of sexual conduct with the same policy.

Mary Sparks
chemistry administrative associate

Ashcroft doing no more than enforcing the law

In a recent article, Jennifer Kursman, a columnist for the Daily Wildcat, spent her section desperately trying to ruin the credibility of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Among various petty arguments Ms. Kursman makes, she keys in on partial-birth abortions. Ms. Kursman cannot comprehend why Ashcroft would request sensitive patient medical information on partial-birth abortions, and she blatantly defends the illegal procedure. I am assuming Ashcroft is requesting the records of partial-birth abortions because they are illegal to perform. If our attorney general feels the need to prosecute the parties involved in killing children, then I for one am not going to argue with him. Ms. Kursman writes: "Instead of advising patients to the best of their knowledge, these doctors will feel pressured to recommend an anti-abortion solution ... (for example, if a woman were raped, became pregnant and desperately wanted to abort the baby)." First off, doctors already discourage abortion. Abortion not only destroys the life of a baby, but it's very emotional for women and often leads to depression. Aside from that, these "doctors" should not be recommending partial-birth abortions for any, and I mean any, scenario because, as you very well know, partial-birth abortions are illegal. So, if that rape victim wanted to abort the baby, why didn't she eight months ago? Ms. Kursman also quotes Rep. Eliot Engel in hope of supporting her cause: "Americans should have the right to visit their doctor and receive sound medical attention." By "sound medical attention," I am taking the personal liberty of assuming that illegal procedures are excluded from that quote. Regardless of whether you feel that Ashcroft is trying to scare people away from partial-birth abortions or if you feel like he has a legitimate cause, partial-birth abortions are illegal and it is the duty of our attorney general to uphold this law to his best ability.

Phillip Buster
aerospace engineering freshman