UA doesn't ignore the financial aid drug law

The Wildcat published a story Thursday on the federal law that limits federal student aid eligibility for drug convictions. This story implies that students can blithely ignore the federal drug law and its financial aid implications. Don't you believe it!

The U.S. Department of Education does enforce this law, and contrary to the Wildcat headline, UA officials do not ignore this law. We do, in fact, receive information on each student who should be denied federal aid. The UA has systems in place that assure 100 percent compliance with this requirement.

I did not say or imply that students could easily lie about drug convictions to keep their federal aid. Students who lie about this are subject to felony charges that may be more serious than the original drug conviction. This is especially true for anyone pursuing a program of higher education. Getting caught on this one could put an entire career at risk for very little gain. Don't even think about it.

We know that this law has effects beyond the number of students identified as ineligible by U.S.E.D. The application itself has a deterring effect that is unknown. If you have any doubts about your eligibility for aid under this law, please contact one of our financial aid counselors. I promise that they will give you compassionate and accurate help, help that will protect you and the incalculable value of your UA education.

John Nametz
director of financial aid

Forum turnout low due to lack of communication

On Feb. 4, the Wildcat published an article stating that "only two neighbors showed up" at the community relations forum held by ASUA the previous evening. The implication is that the university's neighbors do not care about communicating with students.

I represent Feldman's Neighborhood, located to the northwest of the university. My neighborhood was not invited or even notified about the forum.

If ASUA (or any group of students) would like neighborhood representatives to attend an event, they must contact us. The contact information for all neighborhood associations within Tucson city limits is readily available by calling the Department of Neighborhood Resources at 791-4605. The number is listed in the blue pages of the phone book under Tucson City Government - Frequently Called Numbers - Neighborhood Information.

If you don't invite your neighbors to an event, don't blame us for not "showing up."

Diana Lett
president,
Feldman's Neighborhood Association

Animal testing needed for modern medicine

I'd like to offer a few comments on the recent "Fully in Tact" article by Ms. Sabrina Noble. I was most amused to see an article written from the perspective of a lab mouse - how very creative! However, since I m not a creative writing major, I can only respond with a couple of doses of reality. I'm always amazed at the hypocrisy that surrounds the animal rights debate. I couldn't help but notice that your story focused only on cute and cuddly mice and rabbits, with no mention of those "poor abused" fruit flies, worms and mosquitoes that are also the subjects of animal experiments at our university. The fact that I don't see anyone running around with signs chanting "free the mosquitoes" tells me that the animal rights crowd is more concerned with image than reality.

Nobody enjoys the image of a rabbit being blinded by hairspray. However, as someone whose research involves animal subjects, I am offended that such an image is associated with legitimate medical research. I took some time to browse stopanimaltests.com to see exactly what "alternatives" existed to animal testing. Most of the suggestions (at least those few with even a shred of scientific data to support their use) involved using cultured human cells as final test subjects. Looking past the fact that the FDA would laugh at any drug not tested in animals, cell culture requires growth factors and reagents derived from, you guessed it, cute furry animals.

So, to Ms. Noble and those like her, I say this: End the hypocrisy. If you truly love animals so much, then any drugs from antibiotics to aspirin are ethically off-limits to you. Don't even think of calling 911 if you cut yourself and need stitches; call PETA instead. I m sure they can offer you an "animal-friendly" alternative to Lidocaine. In fact, unless you have never used and never will use any medical technology again, make sure you slap on a big red "hypocrite" sticker the next time you protest in front of my lab. Phil Gray
biochemistry, and molecular and cellular biology senior

Resident students should quit crying about tuition

I am writing in response to the editorial in Thursday's Wildcat entitled "Resident, nonresident tuition gap shrinking." I would like to express my extreme disgust with this article. Not only is it offensive to out-of-state students, I should think that in-state students would be affronted by the stupidity of its author. For four years now I have heard in-state students whining ad nauseum about tuition hikes and how they are "unfair" and "unbalanced." Well, things could be a lot worse, so quit your useless whining!

Allow me to give you a basis for comparison. The University of Illinois, Illinois being the state from which I hail, has a tuition of $7,010 for in-state students, already more than in-state students here at the UA pay. But there is more. The out-of-state students pay $18,050, which is only 257 percent more than in-state students. Why then is it such an egregious offense for out-of-state students here to pay less than 350 percent?

While the opinions board believes, rather idiotically, that UA was not created for the purpose of educating the country's students, this is a public school, and is therefore open to anyone, should they make the cut academically.

The fact that the Arizona constitution says that education should be "nearly free" should not be taken so literally. I d like to proffer the adages that you have to give a little to get a little, and that you get what you pay for. If you residents want your education to cost nothing, you are going to get nothing in return. The less Arizona residents pay, the more it will affect the quality of their education. If you residents want a good education, you are going to have to pay for it, not the out-of-state students! Quit passing the buck. On behalf of all of the other out-of-state students who put up with the constant barrage of insulting remarks, shut up and pay up, in-state students!

Andrew LoPinto
anthropology senior

Student lobbyists have unrealistic view of tuition

Student lobbyist Alistair Chapman needs to tell us where to buy groceries for $45 a month, especially if this latest tuition hike is approved. In Tuesday's Wildcat, Chapman said that reducing the $490 increase by $90 would be enough to "pay for two months' worth of groceries." This is of course assuming that the regents agree to reduce the hike, which they are under no obligation to do. I checked the official U.S. poverty statistics, and the minimum food budget for a family of two without children on the poverty line works out to $138.75 per month per person, approximately three times what our representative says groceries are worth. The cheapest meal plan at the UA is at a minimum $1,600 per academic year, or $178 per month over nine months. Apparently Alistair is eating nothing but Ramen noodles.

How can "accessibility and affordability" for low-income students not be harmed by such massive increases? - Brian Marks geography and regional development senior on a proposed tuition increase

I disagree with the other student lobbyist quoted in the story, Alexis Coury, who was quoted, saying students' "accessibility and affordability won't be harmed" by the tuition increase. $490 is a significant amount of money by itself (I don't exactly have that kind of money between the cushions of my couch, and I think many students are in the same situation), but this isn't the end. When this increase is combined with next year's projected $300 or so increase for a cumulative jump of $800 by 2005, on top of last year's jump of approximately $1,000, tuition will have increased from 2002 to 2005 by 72 percent (from $2,490 in spring 2002, to $3,508 in fall 2003, the proposed $3,998 for next fall, and finally $4,290 for fall 2005, an increase of around $1800) or an average of 18 percent per year. How can "accessibility and affordability" for low-income students not be harmed by such massive increases?

Brian Marks
geography and regional development graduate student

Drug users unfairly targeted in denying financial aid

Regarding the article Thursday on the Higher Education Act, why is it that drugs are being singled out as a reason to deny financial aid? The FAFSA doesn't ask whether someone has been convicted of a DUI or of a felony (like murder or rape). Doesn't this seem a bit off? Why should smoking some pot get you denied financial support for college when a felony doesn't? And isn't this a creative way to punish someone twice for the same crime? If you are convicted of a drug-related offense, you have already been punished for your crime. Personally, I think this is an unfair law that unfairly targets students with drug convictions. Jim Logan
computer engineering and computer science senior

TPD acts responsible in raiding UA area parties

This letter is in response to Grant Sahag's letter entitled, "Protect and serve' mission ignored by TPD." I would like to comment on a number of aspects of his letter.

First, Mr. Sahag asks: How do five police cars raiding an apartment complex protect me or anyone else? I assume Mr. Sahag is referring to the raid at Star Ranch early last semester. If the answer to this question is not obvious, then I think we are in real trouble. There were hundreds of minors drinking at that party, and even some juveniles. The property damage and vandalism alone would be cause enough to break up such a party. But that aside, how many of those people do you think had designated drivers? I guarantee not all of them. If one drunk driving fatality was prevented because of that bust, then I would say it was worth every penny.

And you are right, Mr. Sahag - maybe five police cars to raid an apartment is a bit of a waste of our resources. But why do you think a raid is necessary? It's because kids like you run. So it's your own fault that the officer can't stop a murder because he is chasing some college kid down Euclid and Grant. Rather than running down the street peeing your pants, and putting others in danger, make the right choice and own up to your actions.

It all comes down to what people have been repeating over and over, but no one seems to get. If you are under 21 and you drink, expect to get caught. It seems as though in Mr. Sahag's mind, "protect and serve" means "babysit and taxi." His suggestion that the police break up parties and give rides home is even worse than what is happening now. This would encourage more drinking, promote irresponsibility and use up way more time and manpower than our present system. Get your head out of the sand, Mr. Sahag. How can the police stop the motor vehicle thefts and burglaries you talk about if they are giving rides home to 300 drunk college students?

So here, Mr. Sahag, I am going to tell you what the TPD's purpose is. To protect and to serve. Just because you got caught for drinking and have to pay 150 bucks for the fine, doesn't mean the police have stopped protecting and serving. It means they are actually doing their jobs. Imagine that.

Rick Humiston
public administration sophomore

Students given choose of federal financial aid, drugs

It is a shame that students can so easily get around the Higher Education Act discussed in Thursday's Wildcat. Students who decide that getting high is more important to them than getting a college education on the government's dollar should lose that benefit. One of the anonymous students quoted in the article tried to make the argument that students who "messed up once" wouldn't be able to receive an education. The law doesn't say that students can't receive an education, or even that they are permanently ineligible after the first offense. Students are even able to go through a drug rehabilitation program and apply earlier than the one-year suspension. It is only after the third offense that students permanently lose their ability to receive federal aid. Even after all of that, nothing denies a drug-using student their education, it only denies them government/taxpayer money to pay for it.

It is shameful that we even have to listen to the argument that college students have to choose between illegal drug use and receiving federal financial aid. Are students so ignorant to believe that higher education should not come with costs that they themselves must bear? If the student qualifies for federal aid, their cost is that they can't do drugs. Although one wouldn't know it from looking at the current Democrats running for President, drug use is a social problem, not something that should be protected.

Jereme Bintz
political science junior