Presidents day as important as MLK

On Friday's Opinions page, Alexander Cook brought a legitimate argument to the Presidents Day topic. More than a decade ago, the state legislature removed Presidents Day from the list of paid vacations replacing it with Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Dr. King is a civil rights hero, and because of his and other's efforts, I am privileged as a white male to work beside many talented non-whites instead of having them serve me. We need to honor our civil rights heroes, but we also cannot forget that Presidents Day honors our 43 presidents, specifically honoring George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, who also are heroes in the civil rights movement. Without Washington, as a delegate, military general and leader of the people, we would not have a nation capable of spawning a movement towards equality. The Civil War, though not exclusively about slavery, was fought partially over human rights atrocities and Lincoln, just like Washington, was partially responsible for creating the environment that could incubate the Civil Rights Movement. Perhaps the university could follow the example of local employer Raytheon and close for Presidents Day every two years, with closures on MLK Jr. Day the years in between. Who could object to that?

Brian Thaxton
alumnus

Administrators need freedom of speech

I kept waiting for Alexis Blue to mention a certain president at a certain prestigious university who said ... um, certain things recently which drew fire. If I'm being unduly vague, perhaps it's because the superstitions of academic freedom seem firmly ensconced, regardless of the meaningless sound and fury Blue detailed. Anyone else see the staggering contradiction: academia lines up to defend Mr. Churchill, while Larry Summers might want to start packing whatever it is you need in oblivion. I firmly support the right of both of these fatheads to speak their minds, I just marvel at how Summers was crucified for candid comments in a supposedly off the record conversation, while Ward is hailed by the free speech crowd as some sort of hero. Harvard's president at least attempted to bolster his case with statistics, and if you read the transcript, he betrays more awkwardness than chauvinism. Uh, ACLU, are you out there? Free speech, anyone? No. Oh, that's cool anyway. Besides, wouldn't want to distract you anyway while you're shoveling dirt on Summer's entombed career.

Matthew Seaton
biochemistry senior

Smock's maliciousness exaggerated

Thank you for being such a good example to the rest of us. Your philosophy of pieing those who disagree with you has inspired me greatly. Why should we stand by and let people exercise their First Amendment rights when they are clearly wrong? Jed is obviously a racist! Of course, I haven't personally witnessed his racist and sexist comments in the several hours I have sat and listened to him. But this is not important! The newspaper has quoted his bigotry banter several times and you and I both know that the paper never skews meaning nor takes comments out of context! They have risen above their selective brains and their confirmation bias! As for the belittling statements to passers-by that I have heard of him saying (through an extremely trustworthy network of strangers), a sane person might suggest to go tell an authority figure like the UAPD what happened. But nay! We must strike while the pie is hot! The law has not done enough to shield us from this free speech of inaccuracy! It is time we take justice into our own hands! Some might say sticks and stones, but they have never tasted the sweet pie of humility! Again, thank you for showing me the truth. I would love to take you out for ... dessert ... sometime. It's on me (or you? depending on if I agree with you)?

Trenton Kennedy
undeclared freshman

Motley Crue review goes too far

This is in response to the article, Elizabeth Thomspons' "Motley Crue makes a Buck," it may be true that the album is basically a re-release of the greatest hits by Motley Crue with their newer material but there are a few things you are forgetting before you go on bashing Motley Crue. More than just "moms pushing 40" listen to the Crue. In fact there are lots of college kids who like and still listen to the Crue. It sounds more like you don't like Motley Crue to begin with and are just trying to put them down describing them as "old skeezy sleaze" songs. But the truth is you should look twice at the music you listen to because chances are the bands you listen to were all influenced by Motley Crue.

David Frischenmeyer
psychology junior

Smock didn't deserve pie to face

I'd like to agree with Ms. Rodriguez in her mailbag response to the pie assault toward Jed Smock. I used to just walk by Mr. Smock and ignore him, but I decided for just a couple of hours I might as well listen to what he had to say. I was sitting and respectfully listening to what he had to say and paid full attention to his gestures and I also paid full attention to people's reactions to his words and gestures. At one point during his speech, as we all know by now, he was pied by Ms. Middleman. Now, like both women, I do not agree with what he says and how he treats some of the passers-by; but there was no reason at that time to just go up to him and smack a pie in there face. I am one of maybe two or three other good-hearted folk that actually helped Mr. Smock wipe the sticky pie of him and his clothes. We all have to remember that regardless of what he says, he is still a human ... just like you or I, whether we like it or not. Can't we all be kind to our fellow human beings whether or not their opinions differ from ours ... or do we have to sink to their level? I was hoping that more than just me and (at most) two others would help Mr. Smock. I am ashamed that no one else could look beyond his gestures and words and realize that he too is human and does deserve some respect.

Anonymous

Words are just words

Last Monday's Wildcat printed a letter from Daniel Blinick complaining he was offended by a Wildcat comic strip. Wednesday's paper printed Karen Middleman's letter saying she was offended by Mall preacher Jed. So on a lark I went back and read of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Surprisingly, you do not have the right to not be offended. Really. I read it twice to make sure. If someone is breaking the law or violating school policy, report it to the authorities. If you're merely "offended" -- suck it up, grow thicker skin and stop whining.

Michael Badowski
microbiology and immunology graduate student

Story of Sodom misunderstood

There are a lot of things to be said here but I would like to contend with a single abuse of the facts, before anything else. Mr. Clelland stated that, "For one, God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality." Well then Mr. Brilliant historian can you tell me where the word sodomy came from? Have you actually read the bible sir? The information in question comes from Genesis 19. When the two angels came to Sodom to warn Lot of impending doom, the men of the town all gathered outside of his home and demanded that they be allowed to "get to know" them. So basically all the men of the town came out to gang rape two angels, and you're saying that they were destroyed for something other than homosexuality? Non sequitur. If the scripture itself doesn't convince you enough, then how do you explain professor Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices: The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites sexually promiscuous (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to Sodom, which departed from the order of nature (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.

Joe Callaway
aerospace engineering senior

Students need to cheer louder as well

I have written many opinions about getting rid of alumni seating close to the floor for men's basketball games. I agree with the majority of students that our student section needs to be larger and closer to the floor. However, I noticed last weekend during the Oregon State game that our students along with the old alumni don't cheer loud enough. Students, you need to be so loud and annoying to the alumni sitting below you, so that they don't even want to come back to another home game. No matter how much we try to get a larger student section the fact remains that our students still don't cheer loud enough. I expect every UA student at these games to stand up the whole time and cheer so loud that you piss off the elders in the stadium. Enough is enough, you want a larger student section, you want our televised games to equal a Duke-Maryland game, then stand up and cheer loud. Be respectful to a certain degree, but get loud, stand up and make your voice heard to all the viewers watching from home.

Aaron Vill
alumnus

Smock caused us to reflect

I'm glad Brother Jed came to campus. First, students are unreflective. They hold all sorts of opinions - on religion, ethics, politics - but they haven't really thought about the issues. They've never had discussions with people who disagree, they've never given their view a reasoned defense. But at a Brother Jed sermon, the students are disputing everything he says, he gives a sharp response, and they have to defend their criticism. You see dogmas and dogmatists colliding, and with any luck, people will end up trying to justify their dogma. Also, it's a lot of fun. Everyone's trying to spin zingers on the fly, make the crowd laugh, get a good reaction from Jed. For his part, Jed is willing to act like a complete fool, gesticulating and hopping, hamming it up with stories and voices. And for nonreligious atheists like me, it's fun to see a bona fide evolution-denying, KJV-only, young-earth, anti-Catholic true believer telling it like it is. If you don't like all the confrontation and spectacle, that's fine, but Jed is undeniably within his rights. The First Amendment (despite rumors to the contrary) still applies on campus, and a right to free speech that doesn't protect offensive speech isn't worth much. We can't entrust campus officials with the authority of the muzzle, especially with a provocateur like Jed, who tends to get unwittingly libeled by obtuse zealots who can't tell the difference between what he said and what he didn't. In a diverse society committed to freedom and pluralism, you're bound to run up against people with views you find horrible - that's just life. And while you're free to argue with these people, you're not free to assault them or sic the cops on them.

Cole Mitchell
philosophy graduate student

Churchill shouldn't be professor

Feb. 21's issue of the Wildcat did an impressive job of romanticizing the words of Ward Churchill. Let us revisit what the Wildcat failed to do: Ward Churchill has written that "unquestionably, America has earned" the attack of Sept. 11. He calls the attack itself a result of "gallant sacrifices of the combat teams." That the "combat teams" killed only 3,000 Americans, he says, shows they were not "unreasonable or vindictive." He says that in order to even the score with America, Muslim terrorists "would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people." And of course, how could any of us forget his comparison of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi. Yet still, UA professor David Gibbs believes that "part of free speech is the right to offend and say ugly things. For him to be fired would be a threat to the First Amendment." Why is it that college professors are the only people in America who assume they can't be fired for what they say? It is precisely because Churchill is paid by the taxpayers that "free speech" is implicated at all. The Constitution has nothing to say about the private sector firing employees for their speech. That's why you don't see Bill Maher on ABC anymore. The Constitution clearly states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Therefore, if the University of Colorado believes that it is in their best interest to fire Churchill, there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting them to do so. Let Mr. Churchill go spew his hatred of America at the Tuesday Night Hippie Festival, but don't let tax dollars to go into his pocket as he is "educating" our college students.

Jim Brody
electrical engineering junior

Divorce distinct from marriage

In response to the "debate" going on about the constitutionality of gay marriage, I think Mr. Tindell makes a good point. Some would have laws against gay marriage, but nobody is screaming about divorce. He doesn't suggest the divorce rates would be different, that argument clouds the issue. Mr. Monteleone throws out unsubstantiated "facts" that our rest areas are meeting areas for gay people. Who did this research? Mr. Monteleone also reinforces Mr. Tindell's assertion that some only speak out against "sins" only when it is convenient for them. "Also, divorce and adultery are frowned upon, yes. They are sins. That doesn't mean we should open up the floodgates to the gays to compound their sins." So, divorce is OK because it is practiced all the time even by those that berate other types of "sinners." But some prefer a heterosexual relationship, which doesn't agree with others, so we should make it illegal and force our views onto the masses. Our society has been dragged down? There's much wrong with our society, but if one were to listen to Mr. Monteleone, you would have visions of people roaming the streets as zombies due to the degradation we experience every day. Sorry, I read Mr. Tindell's letter and it had a definite logical "flow." Mr. Monteleone's letter, however, inspired visions of tantrums.

Walter Brown
history freshman

Students show childish, un-American attitudes toward Smock

In the two years I have been at the UA, I have never seen so much publicity on any topic in the Wildcat until Jed Smock came to town. It seems like daily there is an article if not several regarding Smock's speech either complaining about what he has to say, advocating that he should not be allowed to speak or stand where he is standing, or even discussing attacking Smock violently. Unless someone is making a bomb threat or similar speech that would warrant a clear and present danger, people have the constitutional right to say whatever they want. Jed Smock is clearly successful in his speech since so many people keep on listening. If you don't like what he has to say, either state your own views or better yet ignore him. I and many other people don't care how offensive, racist or bigoted this person is. The time spent listening to him and complaining about him could be spent actually making a positive difference in the world or community. If you cannot stand what he has to say, stop hanging around and listening to him like flies on poop. He has a right to talk, get over it. Is this "the land of the free, home of the brave" or "the land of the offended, home of the scared?" The last thing this country needs is its students trying to remove free speech when they feel "offended." Stop being crybabies, grow up and do something more productive with your time.

Eric Austin
engineering and physics sophomore

Best to just ignore Smock

The 11th Commandment: One shall not debate with Brother Jed. In response to the editorial on the Mall evangelist Brother Jed, I agree that students should not take it upon themselves to swear, yell and scream at Brother Jed when they have a question, or just want to call him an asshole in so many words. This lowers the appearance of the student's intellect and empowers Brother Jed even further. The mere fact that you have spoken directly to him immediately sends a message that he's gotten to you, stirring your emotions. Therefore the best alternative would be to ignore him as stated in the article, and enjoy him for what he's worth: entertainment. What I do not agree in the article is how Brother Jed's visit to the UA should be used as an open forum of discussion. This man travels around the country, hearing the exact same debates from the exact same kind of students, in which he has stock answers to and speaking techniques to turn the argument around onto the student. I'm not by any means saying students would not have a chance at defeating Brother Jed in a debate, but when you argue with a person that is so one-sided, you can rarely make them change their mind or give in to your side of the argument. From what I witnessed over the past week, arguing with Brother Jed was like watching a die-hard pro-choice liberal pouting and unsuccessfully connecting with a fastidious pro-life conservative. It's a waste of time, and usually leaves both sides enraged; but in Brother Jed's case, he leaves happy as can be, squealing with delight about his big crowd and his pissing off of liberals. Therefore, if you truly oppose such a man as Brother Jed as I do, simply observe, laugh when you feel like laughing, and leave his speech having witnessed more of the craziness that is the Evangelical faith. Indulge in what turned into an open mic session at each of his speeches, eat your lunch on the grassy knoll, and enjoy free entertainment straight from the heart of JC.

Nick Zautra
theatre arts and psychology freshman

Legislature doesn't provide adequate funding

Last Wednesday John Kromko was quoted as saying that the rest of the plaintiffs (Sam Brown and I) are still "in" on the lawsuit concerning tuition hikes. This is not true. I informed Mr. Kromko and Attorney Paul Gattone on Jan. 18th that I would no longer be a plaintiff in the case. I am disappointed that Mr. Kromko would lie to the Wildcat about this. I have repeatedly e-mailed him about his misstatement but he won't even answer me. I pulled out of the lawsuit in January due to a conflict with another individual involved in the case. I now take no position on the merits of the lawsuit. However, I continue to remain steadfastly opposed to more tuition hikes. Although UA's tuition may appear to be low in comparison to that of other states, it is still not affordable for Arizona residents. According to "Measuring Up 2002: A State-By-State Report Card on Higher Education," Arizona received a "D-minus" rating for affordability. Additionally, the study showed that Arizona is among the top ten states in terms of student reliance on loans. The Arizona legislature is to blame for this, for failure to provide adequate funding, as is the Board of Regents, for continuing to insist on costly construction projects without adequate forethought for operating expenses. I also place blame at the feet of President Likins for encouraging the Board of Regents' folly and for continuing to accept his obscenely high salary.

Rachel Wilson
2nd year law student

Academic integrity the issue

Monday's article on professors' right to academic freedom made some good points but failed to address all the issues that have led to the investigation of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Churchill did compare victims of the 9/11 terror attacks to "little Eichmanns", referring to Adolph Eichmann, who organized the Nazi extermination of the Jews. I can respect a person's First Amendment right to speech, even if in bad taste, and I wrote off that comment as falling into the category of protected speech. However, Churchill did not stop there. He later went so far as to suggest that more 9/11-style attacks on the United States might be appropriate. Not only do these comments show a disregard for public safety, but they also show a tremendous disrespect for all victims of violence. It doesn't end there. Churchill also claims to be a member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees, yet the tribal roll does not include his name. If it is true that Churchill lied about his Native heritage to further his career he should be fired! Tenure is not something which can be used to overlook or justify his actions. Academics suspect he may be guilty of academic forgery as well. Some of his essays appear to use information lacking credible sources. If he did make up these claims of biological warfare against the Native Americans, then he needs to be fired. Students follow strict guidelines on citing sources and plagiarism, so should Churchill. Churchill needs to apologize to all and resign his professorship. The First Amendment is not what is in question here, it is academic integrity.

Mike Anspach
political science junior

Political Correctness goes too far

Over the years, I have read countless Wildcat letters and op-eds from conservative types bemoaning campus "political correctness". Usually, they don't define it, but getting in trouble for saying something offensive seems to be the accepted definition. Well, here is a case on which these "defendants of free speech" have been strangely silent. Ward Churchill is a former department head at the University of Colorado. After 9/11, he wrote an essay where, among other things, he made the claim that some 9/11 victims were "little Eichmanns" who reaped what they sowed. Offensive? Yes. Don't read his essay if you can't handle it. Four years later, this essay was unearthed as Churchill was due to speak in a New York college. All hell broke loose: The College cancelled an appearance after the governor of NY complained. Colorado college republicans started a petition calling for his resignation. Eventually he resigned his Chairmanship, but the College republicans and the governor of Colorado want him fired. If he gets fired, it'll be only for having written something many find offensive. That is all, he is not even being accused of anything else. He just wrote an essay that outraged people. In his own time. In an obscure book which most people who are now baying for his blood would never have seen had it not been for Fox News nationally airing this non-story (haven't they got more important stories? The absence of those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction they advertised three years ago would be a good topic). If this does not fit the most authoritarian definition of political correctness, I do not know what does. Which brings me to the UA college Republicans, the defenders of "freedom", the guys who moan about how "oppressed" by "political correctness" they are day in day out. And who have put a call for Ward Churchill to be fired right on the front of their webpage. As Huey Long said, when fascism comes to the US, it will be wrapped in an American flag.

Giorgio Torrieri
alumnus

Learn how to respond to free speech

This letter is in response to the letter sent in by Karen Middleman. Let me explain freedom of speech: I can say whatever I want, wherever I want, whenever I want as long as it does not physically injure someone or incite violence. It s nice to know that someone is finally standing up to Brother Jed, though, and throwing a pie was a really mature way to express dissent. It s sad to think that in a center for higher education the best we can come up with is shouting and throwing things. Next time try being the bigger person and simply walking away or, if you are really passionate about your views, maybe try researching them enough to come up with a coherent argument. Here s a hint on how to do the latter: Base arguments on logic and/or facts instead of hearsay and feelings. I also find it terribly amusing that Brother Jed was not even struck by the already mentioned pie. If you re going to go about being childish and immature at least follow through. How hard is it to hit someone with a pie when they re sitting on a chair in the middle of a clearing?

Austin Stimes
Undeclared sophomore