Wildcat should note greek clean-up efforts

I would like to comment on the article about greek bid night. It seems very contradictory that the article starts by negatively stating "25 arrests bruise greek bid night parties," when the majority of the article is about how safe the parties were at Sigma Phi Epsilon and Pi Kappa Phi. It is clear that the editor is taking advantage of the fact that most people will only read the headline, which fails to take into account the positive aspects of the situation. Although the president of Pi Kappa Phi stated, "bid night went much more smoothly than last year," the article still singled out the numerous arrests made on bid night, without specifically stating how many arrests were actually related to bid night parties.

Why does the Wildcat so commonly feel it necessary to bash on the greeks? Instead of simply being reporters of mundane facts, it is time that the paper becomes investigative. I challenge the Wildcat to investigate just how progressive greeks have been over the past year. One will realize that parties are more controlled; greeks have given back more to the community and the majority of greeks have a higher GPA than the campus average. Most importantly, fraternities and sororities have given many college students an environment that is not all about partying, but instead promotes personal and social well being.

Tyler Running
regional development junior

Jewish faith in Israel honorable, not blind

Aaron Gubi's article concerning the actions of Israel in the Middle East crisis is just another example of the simple ignorance that still exists in today's society. While I do not doubt Mr. Gubi's knowledge of the subject, I do however doubt and am appalled at his inability, as a graduate student, to look at a situation critically without passing quick biased judgment.

The crisis in the Middle East has, for almost 50 years, been one of the most volatile and inhumane situations that this world has ever seen. However, I do not see how you can condemn the actions of one side without those of the other. For example, within the Palestinian culture, women are seen as worthless and expendable, yet terrorist groups like Hamas find a use for them by strapping a bomb around them, placing them in a bus or restaurant and blowing them up along with many other innocent victims. Not to mention that after each act of terrorist activity, including our own here in the United States on 9/11, many Palestinians have been seen cheering and dancing on the streets of the West Bank. Mr. Gubi, you speak of "unjust and inhumane actions." I ask you, where is the humanity in cheering for the loss of life?

My grandparents also survived the death camp at Auschwitz. Yet my grandparents and a countless number of other survivors of the Holocaust remain alive today for two simple reasons: faith and hope. They had faith in the Jewish culture and heritage and they had hope that, although millions were lost, the sacrifices of many and the will of the rest would ensure that the Jewish faith would continue into the future. A large part of that faith is the belief in Israel. Mr. Gubi, I ask that you not disrespect the sacrifices of millions with ignorance, but honor them as well as all of those who have died as a result of inhumane actions with respect, pride and dignity.

Aaron Schulman
political science senior

Wilson fails to respect rights of bar owners

If Kendrick Wilson would have argued in his Monday column that local bar owners should prohibit smoking in their establishments, liberals ÷ or libertarians, if you prefer ÷ could have supported him.

At the very least, if Wilson would have anticipated the arguments of those who disagree, and at least tried to argue that the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking in private establishments should not be reserved for the owner, he just might have written a good column.

Instead, we were treated to yet another typical Wilson piece, in which ethical questions are ignored and ends justify means. As a political science major, Wilson ought to appreciate that the U.S. is neither Prussia nor socialist. We have a liberal tradition; the benefit of the doubt is almost always given to individual liberty and the burden of proof is on the statist. Since law is force, eliminating a private right and replacing it with a law raises serious ethical questions.

In order to skirt around ethical concerns, Wilson disingenuously appeals to class conflict. He transforms small business owners into a faceless, behemoth "bar lobby," obfuscating the fact that they are our neighbors and friends and have rights just as we do. He tops this off by comparing them to people who defraud the public by serving contaminated meat. Additionally, he crassly suggests that the law is in their interest, as if it's the Legislature's role to decide what is good for business. Bar owners are thus predatory, fraudulent and stupid. What need have we for ethics or rights when this is a question of Us versus Them?

While there are differences between an opinion column and philosophical discourse, merely citing statistics and quoting those who share your opinion does not make a good column. The masters of opinion, from Cicero to Royko, always built their arguments on strong ethical footing. Until Wilson begins to flex his ethical muscle, he will remain a mere reactionary, and worse still, a gadfly.

Bennett Kalafut
first-year optical sciences
graduate student

Students should buy out Mackovic contract

This past summer, the Arizona Board of Regents decided to raise tuition at the state universities by 50 percent. After watching the LSU and Oregon games, I have come to the realization that this was a pre-emptive maneuver to raise the funds necessary to buy out John Mackovic's contract. When you do the math, though, Mackovic's salary is just a drop in the bucket ÷ kind of like his football teams. To buy out the remaining two years of his contract, the school would have to raise about $1.6 million ÷ his year's salary is already in the books and down the drain. God knows the universities need the extra tuition money, so I have devised an alternate method of raising the funds.

There are approximately 32,000 students at the University of Arizona. If each student donated $50, we could buy out Mackovic ÷ though we can't buy back our dignity. If you purchased student season tickets then you've already put $35 toward the cause. However, buying out Mackovic's contract doesn't solve the problem. From top to bottom this team is bad. They show signs of improvement and then they collapse completely. Also, hiring a new coach will likely put us through three more years of painful "re-building." So, do we keep Mackovic and pray we make the Las Vegas Bowl in 2005, or do we ante up and start over? Fortunately for us, we don't have to make this tough decision; this one is up to Livengood. As for our dignity, that can only be regained by winning. All we can do is pray. Pray that this team learns to play PAC-10 football.

Kyle Varvel
civil engineering graduate student

Administrators' pay not top priority

This is in response to Thursday's editorial response to the administrative pay hike. To start, I must say that it is not denied that administrators do need incentive to continue at the university with a pay hike of their own. However, it must be emphasized that the priority this issue has taken is one of question. Is it not understandable to say that this issue could have been dealt with at a later time? Rather than dealing with the question of whether or not administrators are behind or ahead of such-and-such university, should the issue of how to deal with class cuts and budget issues have taken priority?

The reason why I ask these questions is because I am certain that there are students out there who feel that class availability should have taken a higher priority on Likins' list. For instance, I have heard from some who are in the journalism department that they have had to delay their graduation by some time because the classes they wish to take are full or nonexistent. As for the departments that are targeted for cutting, shouldn't there have been a discussion to see if this could be avoided?

In essence, I feel that the priorities are not where they should be. Sure, settling faculty raises would take some time, but it would have sat better with the faculty if they had also been given their raises at the same time. It would also have sat better with the students had they known that class availability and department closures were dealt with, rather than suddenly hearing that administrators received a lavish pay hike.

Stephen W. Bieda, III
UA alumnus