'Sorority girl' comment insensitive to assault reality

In Thursday's issue of the Daily Wildcat, staff sports writer James Kelley wrote, "LSU had its way with the UA like it was a drunk sorority girl." As the director of the ASUA Campus Acquaintance Rape Educators and as a student of this university, I am disappointed that the Wildcat would choose to publish Mr. Kelley's statement and trivialize the serious issue of sexual assault. Nearly one in four college women are the victims of an attempted or completed rape. The great majority of these assaults are committed by someone the victim knows and involve alcohol use by the victim, perpetrator or both. The scope and magnitude of this violence makes sexual assault not just a women's issue, but everyone's issue. Mr. Kelley's statement not only trivializes rape, it tries to make it humorous and normalizes this criminal and violent behavior. By letting such a thing be published, the Wildcat harmed its own reputation as a professional newspaper and showed a lack of concern for the safety of the students on this campus. We are all responsible for ending sexual assault, and I hope in the future the Wildcat will do its part.

Noah Aleshire
political science and creative writing junior

Taxpayers don't want to pay to teach abortion to doctors

Kendrick Wilson contends that the 1974 bill that funded the football stadium and prohibited the College of Medicine's University Medical Center from performing and teaching abortions "endanger(s) women and fail(s) to make sense." The state Legislature used this bill to prohibit the College of Medicine from using taxpayers' money for something many taxpayers find morallyrepugnant.

Mr. Wilson suggests that this restriction contributes to a decline in the number of abortionists, and that College of Medicine should attempt to "cure the lack of doctors who can safely perform abortions." The majority of taxpayers, however, do not want to pay for training abortionists. Doctors who wish to become abortionists may pursue abortion training that's not funded by Arizona's taxpayers. The real reason for the declining number of abortionists is that the legitimate medical community does not hold abortionists in high regard, and most medical students do not want abortion training.

The idea that the abortion restrictions are "a major health risk" is outrageous. As Mr. Wilson points out, the bill provides an exception for extremely rare cases in which the mother's life is in danger (according to the column, this has happened only once). UMC's policy of not performing elective abortions is not a health risk to anyone.

The real issue with the funding bill is whether taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions and abortion training. Fortunately, this bill gives us the right to choose whether our money is used for abortion.

Sara Stuhan
ASU chemical engineering senior

Israel Center's reaction to deportation was unreasonable

The Tucson Israel Center should be ashamed of itself for its reaction to the deportation of Paul Snodgrass, a UA student, from Israel. The statements by its director were unfounded, defamatory and sadly indicative of the ignorance that fuels the cycle of violence in the Middle East. The comparison to an Al-Qaida student wishing to come to the United States is disgustingly irresponsible. I have known Mr. Snodgrass for almost 14 years and I know him to be a well-meaning, well-reasoned and compassionate person. His interest in going to Israel was fostered by a desire to learn about the culture, the language and the people of the region. He is not, as the director asserts, pro-Palestinian; he is pro-peace, pro-understanding and anti-violence.

By deporting Snodgrass, the Israeli government has decided to continue its long-held practice of blocking out the eyes of the rest of the world in order to operate in secrecy. They fear alternative voices, and use their citizens' fears to justify their tyranny. That the Tucson Israel Center chooses to walk lock step with this oppression is sad and does not bode well to the chances of there ever being a lasting peace in Israel.

Eric Hawkins
second-year law student

Zona Zoo a bargain, columnist a whiner

In his Friday commentary, "Don't rush to buy Zona Zoo passes," Justin St. Germain fails big time. He needs to lighten up. Admission to seven UA fooball games, all of which should be great games against some tough schools, is included in the Zona Zoo pass. A chance at watching our nationally-ranked basketball team play against some of the best, while some are paying $35 to watch just one game. The Zona Zoo pass is, without a doubt, a bargain for the UA student. Admission to other athletic events is included in the one-package price.

A true Wildcat fan isn't concerned about the color of the complimentary t-shirt that comes with the pass. St. Germain sounds like a whiner. Instead of complaining about the Zona Zoo pass ÷ which actually benefits UA students ÷ he needs to move on to important issues that need his commentary.

Melissa Sanchez-Wortzman
undeclared sophomore

Criticism of APJME was a rush to judgment

In his letter to the editor last Thursday, Ben Pri-Tal called Carrie Brown's comments concerning the deportation of Paul Snodgrass "not only ill-conceived, but intended to deceive uninformed readers." For the record, Ms. Brown said only that she believed in the free exchange of ideas among cultures, and then wondered why Israel would deport Mr. Snodgrass. What about these comments is ill-conceived? Deceptive?

The mission statement of the Alliance for Peace and Justice in the Middle East reads, "We will promote peace and justice in the Middle East and will strive to encourage positive U.S. involvement in the region." Yet, Mr. Pri-Tal cites Paul Snodgrass's affiliation with the organization as a reason for believing his intentions to be "suspect." Since Mr. Pri-Tal is presumably not a member of APJME, and his criticism could not have been in reference to the group's mission statement, he must be privy to a stock of secret "evidence" ÷ unless, of course, one is "suspect" for believing that Palestinians ought to be treated fairly. Is it too much to wonder if Mr. Pri-Tal judges his books before he has even seen their covers?

Mr. Pri-Tal's failure to make a (surely weak) case against APJME, together with his criticism ÷ explicit or otherwise ÷ of such virtues as academic freedom, political activism, peace and justice, prove that he is simply tilting with the windmill of political dogmatism. The kind of sophomoric dimness that leads Mr. Pri-Tal to assume that Paul Snodgrass is dangerous because of a bombing "that was carried out by a British national" won't get him anywhere (except the U.S. Department of Justice).

Dai Heide
Philosophy graduate student
Ohio State University

Parity illegitimate reason to raise VP salaries

I had to laugh when I read President Peter Likins' justification on uanews.org for raising the salaries of some vice presidents. Got to keep that parity!

Years ago, when I was a student, they raised the prices of the soft drinks sold at UA football games. When folks complained they said, "That's what all the other PAC-10 schools charge." Just suppose the VP salary comparison had shown that the UA VPs were overpaid. Would Likins have demanded that they take pay cuts? Of course not. These sorts of demands for parity are just excuses for something you have already decided to do.

Suppose a comparison showed UA parking permits were overpriced compared with other schools or that some student fee was the highest in the nation. Would that fee be reduced or the cost of parking be reduced? Of course not. The disparity would be hushed up or simply ignored.

I have no personal opinion on what the VPs should be paid. But is there really any logical reason why their salaries should be based on the salaries of people at other institutions? Maybe the UA VPs are less experienced, maybe they have better academic backgrounds, maybe a lot of things. But their salaries should not just be based on a comparison to folks at other schools.

Jim Douglas
1987 alumnus

Mexico travelers should keep safety in mind

Friday's article about students' events this past Labor Day weekend in Mexico was of no surprise to me. These events have happened before, and will most likely happen again. Unfortunately, I feel for many undergrads that this is a problem that will increase in the near future. With the recent crackdown by the UAPD and the Tucson Police Department on partying and underage drinking, I fear that even more students will find themselves heading south to dodge the police, drink and have a great time.

Being a student here for the last four years, I have seen and experienced more than I ever could have imagined when I went into my freshman year. I too went to Nogales to party and on a few occasions and (like most others) do not remember much of the trip. Unfortunately, I feel that there was not enough information given to us of both the risks we took and consequences we faced if things did not go as planned, as is what happened to those students just two weeks ago.

All of you students who go to the bars in Mexico, please keep a few things in mind:

1. Mexico has laws too. Mexico is not just a big playground for Americans to go to and act stupid. Being drunk in public is just as illegal there as it is here, and if you are making a scene, bad things can and will happen to you. Be respectful and do not be an ass.

2. Try to avoid those vans that take large groups of people. Go with your friends, people you can trust.

3. Be safe when you go, think things out. Everyone should have more than one form of identification, and try to go with someone who knows some Spanish in case of any altercation.

4. One person should stay sober ÷ designate a driver. When the bars close, go with the sober person back across the border and go home. Rotate with a group of friends for this, and pay for their gas ÷ it's still cheaper than the van, and you are with people you know and trust, people who will take care of you and try to keep everyone safe.

I am only speaking from personal experience and the experiences I have seen or heard from friends. I have had two different incidents with police in Mexico, once in Puerto Vallarta and once in Manzanillo. Both times were misunderstandings, and after I spoke with the police, they were both cordial and professional. It is true; People in Mexico do like you coming there and spending money. Amigo does mean friend, and they probably call you that as if it is your name. Call them the same back, be nice and enjoy yourself. However, keep in mind that many American students go to Mexico and find it appropriate to act like complete jackasses. Do not be one of those people. Let us not forget that to many Mexicans, the stereotype of a drunken American idiot is much more prevalent than the stereotype of a drunken Mexican. I do not feel that underage drinking will ever stop in a university of this size, even if one must go to a neighboring country to find it.

Dan Crockett
Senior majoring in Spanish
and economics