No such institution as the University of Ohio

I was reading the On the Edge column in yesterday's Wildcat and saw that you included an editorial from the University of Ohio. I am writing to inform you that there is no such institution. Ohio has two state-supported universities that use the name of the state in their name: Ohio State University and Ohio University. Ohio University, located in southeastern Ohio in the town of Athens, is the oldest university in what was once the Northwest Territory and is in fact celebrating its bicentennial this year. Every once in a while, it is misrepresented by reporters and sportscasters as the University of Ohio - who knows why? I see that your editorials were compiled by U-Wire. Perhaps you need to request that U-Wire get the names of the institutions they cover correct. The Ohio University Post has a long tradition as an excellent student-run newspaper. Certainly they deserve to have their words reprinted under the correct name for both the publication and the institution.

Ginny Geib
College of Education director for communications Ohio University alumna

Hafez provided key help to international program

In an effort to stress the significance of Rawya Hafez's layoff last week, I'd like you to look up from this letter and count off 10 college students around you. It's likely that at least one of these people has had the pleasure of working with Rawya. The UA plays host to one of the largest international programs in the country, bringing in over 3,000 students from across the globe to study in the United States. For almost two years, Rawya was the first person they saw when they walked into the international office and probably the only reason they got out in time for their next class.

Her ongoing concern for the international program has made her an effective face of the office and prevented a number of students from facing certain deportation, especially in our post-Sept. 11 society. However, that same concern for the welfare of underage students going in and out of the office got her terminated last week. In recent weeks, Rawya issued a number of complaints to the higher-ups in the international program regarding the open display of alcohol in the office as well as a slough of other reports of office mismanagement that put a number of students' INS-status in serious jeopardy.

In an effort to cover themselves from further defamation, the directors saw fit to issue a layoff notice to Mrs. Hafez. Their reasoning? Budget cuts. How convenient.

Whether or not her layoff was justified is no longer an issue. It's highly unlikely she will work there ever again. In any case, allow yourselves five minutes to send an e-mail, make a phone call or drop by the international office and let them know what you thought of Rawya Hafez. Maybe they'll think again before terminating the next person's position. Besides, it's the American way, so enjoy your stay.

Mostafa Abdel-Hady
electrical engineering junior

ResLife meeting policy disrupts community

I am writing in regards to the new Residence Life policy explained in Monday's Wildcat article, which I find extremely wrongheaded.

This policy - banning regular meetings of clubs and organizations not affiliated with residence halls in residence hall common spaces - like many rules of residence halls, seeks to protect the needs of individual students so that the place where they live might be a respected space where they can study or eat or relax (or whatever) in peace and at their own leisure without unsolicited interruption. Note that the policy deliberately errs on the side of protecting the needs of individual residents since even the mere potential for unwanted solicitation or recruiting is cited as a sufficient cause for implementing the policy.

Why is this high-minded defense of the needs of the individual problematic? Because the policy is inherently hypocritical, common spaces will still be used for regular meetings (which might "monopolize space" or disrupt those who would otherwise study), and residents will still be subject to unwanted solicitation. The key difference is that the offending groups will happen to be affiliated with the residence halls. What possible reason is there that this class of groups should be any more favored by the policy? Here we arrive at the more fundamental hypocrisy: Though ResLife perpetually preaches about the importance of building community and supporting diversity, this policy will directly attack both of these core values. Once this policy is in place in the halls, residents there will have any community they want - so long as it is constituted solely by residence hall groups. They will experience the fullness of diversity - within the inescapable bounds set by limiting regular meetings to residence hall groups.

Policing residence hall communities in this manner not only jeopardizes the larger university experience that residence halls are designed to nurture, but worse, residents may be put at more personal risk by having to leave their residence halls at night if they so choose to continue to attend clubs and organizations not favored by the policy.

Mike Urbancic
non-degree-seeking graduate student

Animal testing could be eliminated by science

After a week of articles lauding animal testing, greyhound racing and rodeos, I wasn't surprised to find Susan Bonicillo's editorial joining the anti-animal rights brigade. How easily she declares that her only problem with vivisection, or animal testing, is her "sentimentality," "a soft spot in [her] heart for all things warm and fuzzy." I wish it were so simple. Being a supporter of animal rights is not for people with soft spots in their hearts.

Rather, it is for those who will stand up to criticism, opposition and at times cruelty to oppose the ways humans often just assume animals should be treated. It is about realizing that animals are made of the same things we are and, as sentient beings, feel many things we feel, such as comfort and pain. This often means making small, sometimes large, sacrifices for the valuable lives of animals. I appreciate Bonicillo's argument for the benefits of medical research performed on animals, but I denounce her for closing the book on the case. It is essential that we remain very aware of the price an innocent, feeling animal has paid every time we use cosmetics, medicine or procedures that have used vivisection in their development. Not only will we be more appreciative of our own comfort and longevity, but hopefully it will steer us towards more humane testing procedures in the future. With the constant advances in science and technology that occur daily, it seems that the only reason we haven't moved beyond vivisection is because it isn't a common goal among scientists, the public and the government. There is no doubt a better and more humane alternative to using animals, from mosquitoes to monkeys, which can respond quite differently from humans to chemicals and procedures. It seems apparent that progress, and not animal testing, is what is really essential to science today.

Jessica Fowler
physiology senior