Disruption minimized during ÎPlaza' work

The Alumni Association would like to clarify a few statements made in the Oct. 30 issue of the Wildcat regarding the construction of Alumni Plaza.

As reported, the construction of the plaza is expected to be completed within nine months, commencing mid-December 2003 and wrapping up early October 2004. The project will have six phases designed to minimize the adverse impact of the project's construction upon pedestrian and bicycle traffic around the Administration building. The first phase ÷ December through February ÷ will have the greatest impact on traffic, especially bicycle traffic. Details about the construction schedule will be available shortly at www.fdc.arizona.edu/

uaconstruction/uaconstruction.cfm.

Patio access to the Student Union Memorial Center's food court will always be maintained, albeit somewhat restricted. However, access to the automatic teller machines on the east wall of the student union will not be available for an estimated two months during the summer.

When the fall 2004 semester begins, all major work on the plaza is expected to be completed, except the area directly east of the Krutch cactus garden in the center of the UA Mall, south of the Administration building.

Mike McDonald
chief financial officer,
University of ArizonaAlumni Association

Underage drinking just the same as speeding

According to Sabrina Noble's column, underage drinkers are criminals who should "at least be a good sport and admit when you've been busted" and "swim (in the keg) at their own risk." The problem with this is that Ms. Noble is supporting the idea that underage drinkers are criminals and should be taken care of accordingly.

Using Ms. Noble's logic, it is safe to assume that a criminal is one who commits a crime or breaks a law (like underage drinking), and therefore those who break the speed limit daily are also criminals. I don't see any police officer arresting anyone who is speeding, even 30 mph over the speed limit. I imagine that Ms. Noble would agree that they should be arrested because they are criminals who break the law. I understand that Ms. Noble's radical views would never hold up with the lawmakers, and that's why people who do 30 mph over the speed limit are not arrested; they are cited with a fine, and released. This is understandable. My point is this: People who speed and people who are drinking underage are committing crimes on the same level, and that is what lawmakers do not understand. Underage drinking is quite possibly very dangerous, but more than likely it's not. Speeding is usually very dangerous, in all cases, and treated as if it's nothing. Who is the bigger criminal, the person doing 100 mph on the freeway (and no, you would not get arrested going this fast, and yes, it is very dangerous to the driver and the other motorists on the road) or the 18-year-old who decides to have a couple beers at a party? We all know the real answer to this question, but it is just unfortunate that Ms. Noble and the police don't. Underage drinkers and people who speed should all be treated the same, for they are all criminals (apparently). Let's just hope Ms. Noble does not go into law because Tucson will need to build many more jails for the speeders to spend 24 hours in after they are arrested. I hope the Tucson Police Department will see the light on this issue sometime, but unfortunately that is improbable. Then again, what do I know? I'm just "a little kid having a tantrum."

Joe Hawkins
material science engineering freshman

Drinking age changes partially the problem

As a parent of a UA student, I have read the past week's articles concerning underage drinking with interest. I believe part of the problem with underage drinking has to do with the changes in minimum drinking ages over the last 30 years. When I was in college in the Î70s, those 18-21 could drink "low beer" legally at home and in bars. Low beer had a lower alcohol content (3.2 percent) versus regular beer (6 percent). This provided younger college students the ability to learn to drink responsibly without breaking the law. It also avoided the "all or nothing" mentality that I believe stimulates the desire to drink before 21 years of age. I would suggest returning to a transitional period between 18 and 21 to reduce much of the alcohol abuse problem as well as ease the workload on our law enforcement officials.

Fred Fisch
parent of UA student

ÎCode of values' key to figuring out morality

Responding to John Malek-Ahmadi's Friday letter, "Moral Îtruths' do not exist; only personal beliefs do," I vehemently assert that a rational morality is absolutely true and not a matter of opinion.

Malek-Ahmadi's claim is extremely destructive ÷ the justification for every oppressive political regime worldwide ÷ because it attempts to invalidate not only our values, but also the creator of all our values and our sole faculty for grasping reality: our minds.

Our evolutionary means of survival is our conceptual ability ÷ should we choose to engage it ÷ to identify and integrate the evidence of our senses using logic, the art of non-contradictory identification. The fact is, reality is objective: Things have identities despite our awareness or wishes.

If we choose to live, we've got to have a code of values to judge whether something is good or bad for us. A rational morality ÷ one based not on faith or arbitrary assertion but on the requirements of man's nature as a rational being ÷ identifies man's life as his standard of value: That which enhances our life is good, and that which harms it is evil.

By this rational standard, slavery is universally evil ÷ not a matter of opinion. Theft and murder ÷ the initiation of force ÷ is evil; and justice ÷ the use of retaliatory force ÷ is good. Socialism, fascism, ethnic tribalism and religious oligarchy, which demand self-sacrifice, are evil; and capitalism ÷ which defends the moral right of an individual to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness ÷ is good.

Today's university multi-cultural establishment seeks inappropriately to end western civilization's foundation of universal truth and to rebuild societies around arbitrary opinions or incidentals of "background" ÷ e.g. race, economic class and geography. But, in the revolutionary spirit of our founding principles, good Americans dismiss such "opinions" and embrace truth.

Erik Flesch
geosciences senior
president, Student Objectivist Society