Bake sale boils over

This letter is in response to the negligent, misleading bake sale hosted by the College Republicans on Wednesday.

Don't get me wrong; as a political science major, I love to see social activism on campus. However, I believe that the College Republicans skewed the aspects of affirmative action in an attempt to sway opinions of fellow students.

Despite what Sean Hannity and Pete Seat may tell you, the purpose behind affirmative action is described by the Department of Labor as: "Taken together, (affirmative action laws) ban discrimination and require federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam-era or special-disabled veteran." Before this critique of the bake sale becomes too partisan, let me say that I am not writing to advocate the justification for affirmative action. What I am suggesting is that instead of irresponsibly spreading inaccurate propaganda about the issue, the College Republicans should attempt to educate colleagues in a manner that warrants an impartial decision to be made on the matter. We, as political activists, must take into account that there are a significant number of students on campus who are exceedingly uninformed about many of the social and political issues in circulation today. Instead of poking fun at a very serious and controversial matter such as affirmative action, political organizations (College Republicans and Young Democrats alike) should focus more on conveying an accurate depiction of the details of an issue so citizens can make an unbiased, well-informed decision in regards to their support and/or disapproval on the matter. By doing this, the opinion of the majority will be represented accurately and truthfully, which is precisely what a democracy should strive for.

B.T. Farley
political science freshman

I am extremely proud of the College Republicans for the job that they did in sparking debate on the issue of affirmative action. Claiming the bake sale did not help start a dialogue on the issue is absurd, considering the fact that half of the letters to the editor were concerning the bake sale. It was also discussed in the editorial section of the Wildcat on Friday. The idea of using the bake sale to garner media and spark debate was first started at the University of Richmond in Virginia and on the California, Berkeley, campus. I know this because I was directly involved in the process. Taking potshots at the College Republicans for using a great idea that has again proven to be successful in accomplishing its goals is not only ridiculous, it proves the left is bitter that College Republicans have found a way to consistently get their point across and have it covered by the media.

Manny Espinoza
UA alumnus

Suicide lane debate continues

The Grant Road suicide lane should not be taken away. Excuses like "It's hard for people new to Tucson," "The lane is dangerous" and "What if the time on my cell phone is off?" are not strong arguments for the removal of the lane. First, the excuse for out-of-towners: Is Tucson the only city that has street signs? No, I think not; there are plenty of signs that tell drivers what to do and what not to do. All drivers are responsible for knowing the laws wherever they are driving, including those who are not from Tucson. Next, the lane itself is not dangerous, period. The people who do not follow the rules of the lane are the problem; they are the ones who put other people's lives at risk. If you aren't going to read the street signs, get off the road! To address the time concern: Do not look at your watch or cell phone; look up at the lights that indicate whether the lane is open. There should be no question of when you can be in the lane; the lights tell you! Now, if a light is broken or faded, that is another issue. If it is determined that the lights are not visible enough, they should be replaced. If it is determined that there are not enough signs, then there needs to be more. But there are just some people who you can't put up enough signs for. The suicide lane is a necessity as long as we do not have an east-west road, or even freeway, that can help relieve the load from Speedway Boulevard, Broadway Boulevard and 22nd Street. If the lane is removed, the traffic in this town will get even worse - and no one wants that. It is up to the drivers in this town to be smart, responsible, defensive drivers. If you are one of those drivers who doesn't look at or for street signs, then please, get off the streets.

Matt Kellner
history junior

I know in our nation today there are a lot more problems to think about, but Zach Colick, the author of "City officials to consider killing Grant 'suicide lane,'" failed to give anyone's opinion from the side of keeping the "suicide lane." I know as a commuter, I drive from Houghton Road and Speedway Boulevard, which is 10 miles east of Campbell Avenue, and park at my work at Glenn Street and Campbell Avenue. As such, I take Grant Road both to and from school and work every day. I have to say hitting Grant Road at 3:30 p.m. stinks to high heaven. It takes about 30 minutes longer to get home than at 4:00 p.m. simply because that extra lane isn't there. As for the argument that someone's clock might be off: Well, they have lights over the lane that show which stage the lane is in, i.e. a usable lane, a left-turn-only lane or an unusable lane. How hard is it to look at that sign, which is posted every half mile or so? Getting rid of the suicide lane would be a very bad idea, and I think the city council needs to look at the benefits to the commuters as well as the flaws.

Joseph Tucker
ecology and evolutionary biology senior

Sex, lies and Nietzsche

In Thursday's Wildcat, Danny Duran attacks John Lepore for condemning something he knows nothing about. Duran goes on and feeds us the same bullshit we hear from every frat boy - don't forget the charity work. While Duran has a legit point in saying one should not judge what one does not know, I will take a stab at disposing of the philanthropy myth.

I must first shamefully - yes shamefully - admit that during the first 15 months of my collegiate career, I affiliated myself with a fraternity. I was young, susceptible and malleable. It is something that, in my later years, I would try to hide from new people I met. If it came up, I would lie about my brief affiliation. After seeing the horrors of greek life, I was ashamed to have ever been a part of it. My organization's community service was to clean up street trash left after home football games. An honorable service at first glance, but the work was hardly done out of the goodness of anyone's heart. Rather, it served as a means for hazing. Pledges were required to show up early Sunday mornings for cleanup. If pledges were missing, the others ran or did pushups while waiting for their pledge brothers. We were informed that the trash had to be picked up to keep alumni happy and keep donations coming in, not to keep the community clean. We were begging for praise from those with money. This is not the only source of hazing I witnessed, but by far the most despicable. Spitting in a pledge's face, telling him he's worthless or outright beating him up is one thing, but to force pledges to work with the threat of pushups while members stand back and brag about what good they do for Tucson is absolutely appalling.

Frat life wasn't for me. I viewed other members as date-raping pretty boys. While I only knew of one forced rape within the organization during my 15-month stint, I'm confident there were other incidents. And I am only knowledgeable about what happened in my organization. None of us should be surprised that greeks jump to defend their system; from day one, they're brainwashed to believe it. At the same time, we cannot be fooled by the philanthropic smokescreen they continue to supply us.

Brian Danker
UA alumnus

While Friedrich Nietzsche was many things and held many diverse and sometimes opposing positions, he was most certainly not "a Nazi sympathizer," as claimed by Jack Robbins in a letter to the Wildcat on Friday. Friedrich Nietzsche died in 1900. The National Socialist German Workingmen's Party (abbreviated to Nazi in German) was created in 1920. It would be far more accurate to say that the Nazis were, mistakenly in most cases, Nietzsche sympathizers; but as often happens, they distorted his views to suit their own purposes. This was largely due to the influence of his sister, Elisabeth Fšrster-Nietzsche, who was indeed a Nazi and Fascist sympathizer (she died in 1935, and Hitler attended her funeral) and married to Bernhard Fšrster, a noted German anti-Semitic leader in the late 1800s. But she also distorted, revised and in some cases destroyed those of her brother's works, many unpublished by Nietzsche himself, that did not conform to the Nazi ideology. Because of her actions and political leanings, Friedrich was quite estranged from his sister. His misogyny is probably not in doubt, although 20th century scholars, including women, have varying interpretations, particularly of his famous aphorisms dealing with women.

Ken M. Williams
principal systems analyst, department of molecular and cellular biology

If I were a woman, I'd be very irritated with Sara Warzecka. In her column Thursday, "She was asking for it," Warzecka victimizes women by completely ignoring the role that a female can play in rape - or, more importantly, preventing rape. There are precious few situations in this world in which blame is so binary that no behavior could change the outcome. Rape is not one of these circumstances. It's aggravating to read about an issue that has so much gray area, colored in only black and white.

We can all agree that rape is one of the most disgusting forms of male behavior, but to ignore the choices that women have to protect themselves is an equal crime. To accept Warzecka's argument that a skimpy skirt is not correlated with rape would be to concede that the same woman has an equivalent chance of getting raped dressed like a nun. This is absolutely absurd.

Every choice involves costs and benefits. Clothing attracts attention. When a girl attends a party dressed like a slut, she is saying, by definition, that the benefit of attracting attention from men outweighs the cost of that attention coming from the wrong man.

The bottom line is that women do get raped. Warzecka seems to want you to believe that you have no choice in this matter. While rape statistics and emotional anecdotes may be appropriate in a Fem Lit class or a support group, they have no place in this conversation. No one believes that a woman "asks" to be date-raped, or a lifelong smoker "asks" to die of lung cancer, but we all must take responsibility for the measured risks we consciously engage in.

Rape needs to be addressed on two mutually exclusive fronts. First, there is the immensely complex issue of societal and psychological inputs that create rapists. Second, there are the choices women make every day that minimize the risks associated with rape. Warzecka needs to drop the ubiquitous, ill-defined cultural critiques and offer some realistic advice. If you don't want be a victim, don't act like one.

Jon Knutson
management information systems and operations management junior