Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Letters to the Editor

Flag burning must be allowed

To the editor,

If America is great at all (a questionable issue), it is because we as citizens have the right to protest and show our discontent with our own government; this protest includes, among other things, the burning of the American flag. A constitutional amendment that would make this a crime would certainly lead to more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms.

The flag is a piece of cloth, nothing more. Yes the flag is a symbol of America, but symbolism is not what is important in a country. It is discomforting when someone gives so much respect for a symbol. You know who highly regarded and respected symbolism? Fascists and Nazis. I doubt that not many people would even like to think about finding any similarities between those ideologies and America's ideology. Protecting something as frivolous as the flag is truly a step towards more governmental control. If we allow an amendment such as this to gain momentum, where will it stop? We think we have so much freedom in this country, which we may have compared to other countries, but that does not mean that we have the freedom we deserve. The right to freedom of speech is certainly one freedom that we need to be able to exercise if we are to live in a just society.

People don't die for flags. They die for ideals, not symbols. I must say that, to me, saying that someone would die for such a symbol as the flag seems to make that person's willingness to die much less respectable. In fact, a great number of veterans (I'm not sure but possibly a majority?) support the right to burn the flag.

How can this country be great when two consenting adults cannot do as they please; when the government tells a terminally ill patient when they can and can't die; when the government has taken it upon itself to us what we can and can't do to our bodies; when basically the government decides what is right and what is wrong. To me, these and many other attributes do not constitute a great country. But the road to achieving a great country must include all forms of expressions and free speech. Above all, the burning of the American flag.

Santiago Canez

Mathematics sophomore

Tuition policies unfair

To the editor,

In concern to Thursday and Friday's Daily Wildcats, where debate has been waged over upcoming tuition increase that will be voted on in Flagstaff on April 6th and the 7th. I am writing on behalf of a group that has yet to be mentioned in these tuition increase, yet stand to pay the most amount of money: out-of-state students. President Likin's plan calls for in-state students to pay, on average, $100 [more] for the year of 2000-001. Meanwhile, out-of-state students would pay, on average, nearly $400 [more] for the upcoming year. Arizona residents pay such insignificant prices for tuition as it is, $100 is not nearly as absurd as the out-of-state student's responsibilities would be. These students pay over five times as much as Arizona residents pay for tuition, and yet fall below Arizona residents for financial scholarships; and there is a call for higher increases. Out-of-state students come to the University of Arizona to reap the benefits of one of the finer institutions in the country and they do so as the University's advertising offers "ivy-league" quality education, without the price tag. Yet prices, not only in tuition, but in residence housing and amenities, are gradually increasing, without support for the students these changes directly affect.

I feel that Arizona students are being unjustly favored, as UA President Likins stated that in-state tuition accounts for only a mere 3% of total financial contributions towards running the university. I am deeply disturbed that once students are recruited to go away from their homes, out of state, they are disregarded and cast to the side; yet the Board of Regents and all others in favor of this plan expect out-of-state students to continue to pay without question.

Aaron Barger

Political science freshman

Hate speech not protected

To the editor,

You cannot imagine the shock I felt when I read Sheila Bapat's endorsement of hate speech. That the editorial staff of the Wildcat would endorse hate speech against the State is an action that cannot go without me expressing my deepest regrets that such a transgression was allowed to transpire. While it is understandable to want to burn the flag of the United States (because it still labors under the outmoded pretense that individual rights supersede group concerns), it is after all the emblem of the State. It is widely accepted that the State is our best and only ally in the ongoing eradication of hate, and hate speech.

If the State is going to be the vanguard in the eradication of hate, then the state too needs to be entered into the elite cadre of the protected classes. One cannot expect our only effective tool against hate to have any bite if it is placed into ridicule by the burning of its standard. Like a protected class, the government has special needs, and weaknesses that the enemies of truth can exploit. Passing a law banning the burning of the national flag, would be a ban on hate speech against the government. Placing the State into the same protected class as other protected peoples, would foster a feeling of comradeship and bonding between these groups and their government. Thus creating a more effective force against prognosticators of hate. The natural paring of protected classes, and the State would create a common feeling of trust in our newfound tolerant society. That final victory will not be reached until we eradicate hate in all forms, and that means hatred of the State as well.

Andrew Tubbiolo

Physics Senior