Hate rhetoric should be cause of campus concern

I am writing to express my grave concern about an ad that was placed in your paper ("Apology to Gays Overdue," Monday).

The speaker mentioned in the ad contacted my organization and wanted to talk with us. As a group, our Executive Board decided, based upon the hate rhetoric contained on his Web site (www.crossministries.org), that he was not welcome on this campus. We sent a letter to BSM informing them of our concern. They decided to bring him to speak anyway.

This university would never stand for a speaker that claimed to "Walk people out of Judaism" or "Help you find your way out of your sinful Hispanic lifestyle." This is no better. This is a thinly veiled attempt to use religion to disguise hate speech. This type of subversion is an insult to the GLBT community on campus and will only serve to create an even more hostile campus environment than we already have.

As Pride Alliance observes Coming Out Week, a celebration of who we are and of our own right to exist as individuals without interference from anyone, it saddens me that BSM has chosen to buy into hate rhetoric and give this man and his message the light of day.

I would encourage the members of BSM who decided to bring Mr. Wilchins to our campus to take the time to attend any of our Coming Out Week events (particularly Thursday's Hands Against Hate event) and discover who we are and what we are about.

Jonna Lopez
women's studies senior
ASUA Pride Alliance director

ÎMadness' feedback nice, but concerns still exist

I must admit it was nice to finally receive some feedback from someone with some authority on the Midnight Madness issue that has concerned students up in arms. So thank you, athletics relations, for your response and attempt to calm students' nerves. But I also would like to say that your response didn't satisfy my concerns in the slightest, and here's why: You say that the switch from midnight to 4 p.m. "was a judgment call made by the coaching staff in order to have the practice schedule dovetail more effectively with recruitment activities." Now, what in the hell does that mean? Would you like to translate that into common English, so we can all understand the logical reason why it is that you insist on taking away

something that was fun and actually generated an overwhelming student response? That aside, I am also enthused to hear that a factor in the decision making was that the new practice time will "have more family appeal." Now that's cute, and I am not discouraging family attendance, but the last time I checked, this was a university and the majority of the attendees are kids somewhere between the ages of 18 and 30. Do the students not have priority anymore? Or is it just the alumni that you all are thinking about when marketing these games? Well, if that's the case, then here's an idea: Why don't you just phase out student tickets altogether. You could just charge ridiculous amounts of money to alumni and "families" for tickets, and then with the money you make off of that, tear down McKale and build a new, bigger building that could actually fit everyone who wanted tickets. That way, there would be no selective lottery and no cops with riot gear, and nobody would have their feelings hurt.

Laura Hewitt
senior majoring in English

Ch‡vez was a union hero, didn't promote violence

The lies being spread by the Young Republicans and the double-speaky Student Objectivist Society are amazing. I feel the Wildcat has let down its readers by not providing an opposing view ÷ a historically accurate one, at that ÷ about CŽsar Ch‡vez. The SOS says they oppose Ch‡vez because he used violent tactics (ask them what their stance was on "the war"). This is a lie. Ch‡vez went on numerous hunger strikes, some lasting a month, in opposition to the use of force. SOS ignores this fact by saying "he must have changed his mind" ÷ you know, after risking his life denouncing it. Also, it is impossible to monopolize labor as they claim. They say he forced the majority of workers to join the union. Common sense defeats this one. In any situation without a power structure the majority will always win. He worked as a Union Organizer so that migrant workers could make a livable wage. To do this he risked his own life; history has repeatedly seen labor organizers murdered by their opposition. SOS also fails to inform people that Ch‡vez served in our Navy to protect this country. They managed to get the Marxist thing right, but then again, they think that collectivism and individualism are diametrically opposed. The Young Republicans did not show up for the protest,

however, not because they changed their minds on the issue, but because they thought it would "look bad" around election time. This left the number of protesters at six, not 30. The SOS has demonstrated its ability to rewrite history with lies and to double-speak to slander a progressive leader. I look forward to hearing what they have to say about Martin Luther King Day.

Mike Sousa
art education senior

Law fair article helpful to students picking schools

As an Arizona alum and a current law student, I was particularly interested in the recent law fair article by Elizabeth Thompson. I found it quite well written and insightful. I would encourage any UA student considering law school to take advantage of programs such as these, as the quality and fit of the school one chooses affects not only the three years of actual schooling, but indeed one's entire career in the law. Great work alerting students to these resources.

Alan Brownstein
UA alumnus

Bush, Cheney try to scare public to boost approval

In the last few weeks, the Bush administration has been on a public relations campaign to put out the fire on Iraq policy disapproval. Vice President Dick Cheney stated earlier this week that terrorists are "doing everything they can" to get weapons of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans "in a single day of horror." (CNN.com, 10/10/03) I find it interesting how weapons inspectors have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. Is Cheney trying to scare us into believing another 9/11 is possible in order to get better approval of our presence in Iraq? Over the past two years, the threat of another destructive attack has been overemphasized by the Bush administration to maintain our country's fear level. Cheney's prediction of a "single day of horror" is simply another empty statement made for the purpose of policy damage control. Get a life, Cheney, and quit trying to scare the public into undue fear.

Brian Leahy
pre-business sophomore

ASUA platforms based on students' needs

This letter is in response to last Wednesday's Issue of the Week: "Columnists play ASUA senators." Recently there has been a great deal of criticism directed toward ASUA senators and their progress thus far. First off, senate platforms are based on student opinions and needs, not personal agendas. When running for office, candidates listened to student concerns and ran on those issues ÷ weird! As the voice of the student body, this does not seem out of line. As we all know, most of these platforms are not attainable but, then again, not impossible. Kendrick Wilson said it best: "Persevere to keep promises." We could not agree more! Senators do intend to push their platforms to the best of their abilities, yet expand and take on new projects to conform to the changing needs of the student body.

Included is a list of senate accomplishments for the past seven weeks:

÷ Started an ASUA awareness campaign, which includes office hours on the Mall and senate meetings in different locations around campus.

÷ Formed a bi-monthly collaboration board with campus leaders to enhance the senate ear to the student body.

÷ Instituted a uniform class ring tradition for graduating seniors.

÷ Allocated approximately $10,000 to various clubs around campus.

Not to mention many more projects in the working!

We challenge the Wildcat to re-write this opinion forum and re-evaluate the senators at the end of their terms. A senator's success should not be measured by their campaign goals, but by their accomplishments in office.

Nicholas Bajema
Sara Birnbaum
ASUA senators

Israel argument leads to one conclusion

I take issue with Matthew Chuvarsky and his obviously poorly thought-out Monday letter. Mr. Chuvarsky mentioned two types of people in his letter: those that no longer exist as a group and therefore cannot have a claim to the land Israel inhabits, and those that conquered it at some point in history but either no longer exist or no longer have control over it. If Mr. Chuvarsky's argument is that those that have lived on the land the longest own it, then the only remaining group ÷ that which has occupied it continuously since the time of Joshua (c. 1300 BCE) ÷ is the Jews. If you are arguing that whoever controls the land presently (or in antiquity for centuries upon centuries) is the rightful owner, then, again, the Jews have it. If what the Romans, Greeks, Assyrians and Babylonians did is a historically and morally acceptable way to claim ownership over land (as Mr. Chuvarsky's letter insinuates) then the current State of Israel is legitimate. If a people can only claim a land because of the historic occupation of that land, then Israel is once again proved legitimate. Any way one chooses to look at the current bloodletting in Israel, and whomever they choose to blame for that bloodletting, one thing is certain: religiously, historically and legally, the land that Israel claims rightfully belongs to it, and to no other group besides that of the Jews.

Silas Montgomery
history sophomore

ÎAdults' don't support underage drinking

In regards to the article titled "Underage drinkers not deterred," it's truly tragic that some drunken undergrads are giving loud-drunken-undergrads a bad name.

First, interviews that portray college parties favorably should not be conducted with sober subjects early in the evening. The interviews should occur no earlier than 2 a.m. Done properly, the interviews might read more like a "Girls Gone Wild" transcript: "Woo hoo! I hate TPD for bustin' us! Look at my ***s!"

The UA wouldn't allow loud drinking parties in its dorms, so why should the neighborhoods be subjected to them? The UA has residence hall monitors and can level sanctions or fines. In the neighborhoods, there is only the police. And thank goodness for them.

The student interviewed simply seems to be seeking a practical application of the law. Permit me to use "you" in the general sense for undergrads engaged in drinking. If you're sitting in your apartment drinking quietly · you're right, you probably don't deserve to be cited. But you weren't. If you could drink like an adult, you wouldn't be cited. But you can't. You're an adult when you and everyone with you can be outside at night with a beer in your hand and alcohol coursing through your veins · and somehow you don't yell "whooo hooooo" at the top of your voice. But you can't · so you aren't.

And it's not a victimless crime. There are other people who don't want to be awakened at 2:30 a.m. and don't want their street strewn with broken glass and plastic cups, etc. These people are called "adults." They write the ordinances and they can drink as much as they please. Soon ÷ and it can happen earlier or later than your 21st birthday ÷ you'll become one too · and you won't want to be next door to a college party and you'll feel pretty silly for buying into the views expressed in the interview.

John King
UA staff member and local resident

Pedestrians fight for campus safety too

This letter is in response to Tyler Coles' letter on Tuesday. I am a pedestrian ÷ that is, I use my feet to get around on campus. I agree wholeheartedly that there are too many people on campus that stroll through bike lanes and streets like they haven't a care in the world, including being struck by oncoming traffic or slowing people down. It is purely unacceptable.

But it also goes the other way. Why should pedestrians be forced to stay on the sidewalks where we are buzzed by bicyclists speeding by? Or for that matter, nearly run over by a golf cart or a university van? So much for our sidewalks being there for our "mobility and safety" as Tyler says. It is on the sidewalks that I am concerned for my physical welfare. There are too many bicyclists and drivers of golf carts, vans, pickups, etc., that think that the sidewalk is where they belong. They have the nerve to be annoyed with me walking down the sidewalk, because apparently I am in their way. And that, too, is unacceptable.

I understand that there are many of you bicyclists out there that stay on the bike paths and follow traffic laws ÷ stop signs mean stop, as do pedestrians in a crosswalk. But there are many more that I am fairly certain lack the ability to comprehend a sign with a picture of a bike with a big slash through it ÷ by the way, it means to get off your bike and walk! So for all of you who choose to ride bikes, I agree that pedestrians should stay on the sidewalks. But realize that you are also responsible for your actions. So stay off the sidewalks!!!

Amy Graham
chemistry graduate student

Americans should be wary of ties to Israel

Once again I opened the Wildcat to read mindless repetition of mantras about Israel.

Of course there was an ancient land of Israel, and of course the land was never completely devoid of Jews. I do not think any rational person would deny that. Nor would they deny that, at this point in time, it is ludicrous to contemplate the eradication of the state of Israel. But it is equally ludicrous to say that there was not a Palestinian society in the Holy Land for hundreds of years or to say that Palestinians do not have as much right to the land as Jews do. The point is that they are both there and must now learn to live in peace.

The statement that the IDF "has demonstrated respect for human rights" is said without any evidence despite numerous independent reports to the contrary; once again I cite the International Red Cross, Amnesty International and over 15 others.

The statement that Israel is a friend of the U.S. is also made without any evidence. However, I would call to your attention the fact that Israel deliberately bombed a noncombatant communications U.S. Navy ship in the days prior to the Î67 war. No other country's official armed forces have attacked the U.S. in this deliberate and unprovoked manner since Pearl Harbor.

I would also submit that it is wise to be friends with the entity that allows you to exist. Israel could not exist without either major internal changes or U.S. support. However I would question what benefit the U.S. has derived from its friendship with Israel.

There is no doubt that other countries have human rights abuses but never does the U.S. unquestioningly support those abuses or pour capital into the offending countries like it does with Israel. In no other country are we directly responsible for the continued existence of a system that methodically abuses an entire ethnicity.

Joel Saylor
geosciences graduate student