Res. Life sponsorship of 'Tunnel' hypocritical

While reading the cover page of the Wildcat on Tuesday, I saw how the Tunnel of Oppression, a Residence Life-sponsored event, sought to teach students about, and I quote, "stereotypes, oppression and hatred."

As I turned the page I was angered to see how Director of Residence Life Jim Van Arsdel put all young white males in a stereotype based on one biased study from Harvard University that surveyed only students from predominately white colleges.

In the article, Van Arsdel says, "Decreasing the number of young white males would decrease the number of students who fit the statistical category of a binge drinker." I guess Van Arsdel would rather just get rid of all young white male students than try to deal with underage drinking on campus. Van Arsdel follows up by saying that "there are typical things young white males do, but that goes deeper than using alcohol." It's too bad that the director of a university department, one that sponsors a thing like the Tunnel of Oppression, has such a stereotype against a large number of the university's students and residents.

Maybe next year Van Arsdel should walk through the tunnel and see a scene with a young white male experiencing reverse discrimination - it would be about time.

William Mordka
communication junior

Tunnel of Oppression full of misrepresentation

Every year, a group of liberal students gather together to put forth the Tunnel of Oppression, claiming it teaches tolerance. But it fails to show both sides of the issues. The girl holding the sign that says, "Anything helps ... God Bless" generalizes all homeless people as good people who are down on their luck.

If they bothered to check their facts, the majority of homeless are thieves and drug addicts, yet this negative side is not shown. If the homeless person in the tunnel was shown with a beer as you passed by, that might be more realistic.

It is funny how many homeless are veterans, yet the Tunnel made its homeless person anti-war by putting a peace symbol on her sign, an odd place for a political statement if there ever was one, further questioning this tunnel's innocence.

The tunnel is designed to capitalize on the feelings of highly emotional students by flooding them with derogatory remarks about groups in a short time span, so that the person is flooded with negative emotions.

The attempt is to turn everyone into a liberal by lowering their self-esteem because they may have had a passing negative thought about someone in the past, even though this is perfectly normal. They now feel poorly about themselves and want to be tolerant and accepting because they are now afraid of being rejected.

Instead of focusing only on the tolerance of homosexuality, we should be focusing on the preservation of the two-parent home, as most gays lack a strong relationship with their fathers.

Why not a "Tunnel of Shame" exposing the evils of abortion and extreme feminism? Liberals want tolerance for all thought that has to do with killing babies and avoiding war, but not when it goes against their own agenda.

Gabriel Leake
pre-computer science junior

UA shouldn't boast of shameful drinking stats

This letter is in response to the article written by Erin Schmidt titled "Binge drinking linked to white men." First, I would like to make the observation that it is great that 69 percent of the student population has four or fewer drinks when they go out. What is even greater is that that statistic, in turn, means 31 percent of University of Arizona students have 5 or more drinks when they go out. This is not a number that the UA should be boasting about, placing this statistic on signs and posters around campus and in residence halls as if it were some sort of an accomplishment. Second, I would like to point out how unfair and biased the article is against white males. Arguing that decreasing the white male population within the student body in favor of more diversification, is going to make the university a better, more alcohol-free place is absurd. While it is great that the university is catering toward Hispanics, that does not mean that they should be admitted simply to fulfill a goal of 25 percent of the student body, while more qualified white males are denied either to make room for them or to decrease the white male "demographic on campus." I am not one to take offense very easily, but this article and the conclusions made by its writer are an opinion not worthy of publication and should be discarded by anyone who has read her article.

Mark Wilson
business economics junior

Mount Graham story fails to present both sides

Wildcat staff reporter, Ashley Nowe, interviewed only two sources for yesterday's Mount Graham telescope project story - both project advocates.

Instead of being a mouthpiece for the project, why don't you write a balanced story and interview those opposed to the project? The Mount Graham Coalition and Apaches for Cultural Preservation are two that readily come to mind. These folks have gone as far as to demonstrate on the UA campus.

Stu Williams
accounting graduate student

Eisenhower promoted equality, not privilege

A letter published yesterday argued against financial aid at the expense of "those of us who earned our stay" at the UA. The writer mistakenly sought support in Dwight Eisenhower's remark, "A people that values its privileges over its principles soon loses both."

Indeed, in the same inaugural address (his first), President Eisenhower warned that, "any man who seeks to deny equality among all his brothers betrays the spirit of the free and invites the mockery of the tyrant."

Ronald Breiger
sociology professor