Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Letters to the Editor

Spring Fling more than money

To the editor,

Spring Fling was an obvious success, and it has prompted execs to consider moving it off campus. Before everyone bows to the almighty dollar sign and moves this event permanently off campus, we need to consider a few factors that need to be recognized.

First and foremost is the fact that the entrance fee was waived to drum up more support. This is a factor that had been considered in the past when it was still on campus. Any basic economist will tell you that you will get a higher turnout or sales when you give something away for free. This idea seems to have worked.

The weather is another factor. About every third year Spring Fling gets rained out, as it did last year. This year it did not, and the turnout was higher accordingly.

Considering these two factors raises the flag for the third and most important factor: the location. The university has really struggled in the past year to save some of the last remaining traditions in favor for making a buck.

One of the last remaining events on campus is Spring Fling. It is a student-run event for the sole purpose of raising funds for clubs and organizations. Having the event on the mall brought visitors to our campus and gave it exposure to people who would not normally come to the university. There's nothing 'UofA' about a horse track. Let's take time thinking this whole thing through before everyone starts jumping on the bandwagon too fast. I would suggest, in the future, having a Spring Fling back on campus with the same factors that made this year's a success, before we all make up our minds to move it and lose it for good.

Kirk Sibley

Alumnus

"Censorship" warranted

To the editor,

Earlier this week I was walking out of the Union when I was accosted by a man wearing an obnoxious sign that shrieked "The Arizona Daily Wildcat Censors the Truth." As I passed by the gentleman, he shoved a paper in my face, stating it was an ad the Wildcat had refused to run.

The flier, which publicized an anti-Semitism contest (rewarding $666, I might add) appalled and angered me. Freedom of speech is one thing, but sponsoring contests that directly target those of another religion, ethnicity, etc. is entirely different; it is against the ideals of this country. I applaud the Wildcat for keen judgment in not running the ad.

Lisa J. Leavell

Pre-education freshman

Smoking not harmful

To the editor,

In response to Debbie Golde-Davis' letter "Smoking is harmful to all," I would like to say that this is still a free country. You are right, smoking is not necessary to life. But to insinuate that someone smoking outside is going to give you cancer is a bit far-fetched. Think dilution.

I think that Jordan Shoor had an excellent point when he commented that the exhausts from vehicles are a more pressing problem than someone smoking, adding tons more pollutants to the air each day than cigarette smokers do. So I think we should ban all cars on campus, no wait ... ban all cars in the city! If you are driving to work - from my point of view - you should not complain. I would much rather bike by a person smoking on my way to work than to breathe in the exhaust of all those in the city who are too lazy to ride their bikes, or too selfish to ride the bus. Yes, smokers kill themselves, and second-hand smoke in closed places has been shown to cause cancer (but not at the concentration someone would be exposed to by the few people that smoke on campus), but I cannot get away from all the pollution that the vast majority of the people in this city emit everyday on their way to work as it pervades the entire basin.

Just look across our valley some chilly winter morning and you will see what I mean, or go to Phoenix anyday.

John Villinski

Dept. of Hydrology and Water Resources graduate research assistant

Cartoon offensive

To the editor,

I am writing in reference to the cartoon published in your paper that makes the comparison of the NASDAQ to the crash of the Marine MV-22 Osprey.

I am an active duty Marine Corps captain stationed in Tucson, and for five days last week I had the great displeasure of working the crash site in Marana. I was ten feet from the plane while the remains of the 19 Marines were being recovered. If you had to do what I did, and had seen what I saw, I am sure you would not find this cartoon humorous at all. I do not find it funny. The reserve Marines who are currently students at the U of A that stood security at the crash site do not find your cartoon funny. I am sure the Marines who had to go to the houses of the parents and wives of the 19 Marines and tell them that their son/husband/father would not be coming home do not find it funny. Your cartoon not only dishonors the sacrifice made by these 19 Marines, but mocks the very institution that defends your right to free speech. The NASDAQ will recover, the 19 dead Marines will not. They are gone forever except in memories, memories that are tarnished every time someone publishes a cartoon like yours. While I understand it is your right to publish what you want, I would ask that in the future you use a little more common sense, taste and class in your selection of the cartoons you run.

Thomas Pratt

Captain, USMC

Death story distasteful

Most days, it seems adequate to dismiss the Wildcat as simply a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing, teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes recounting a possibly entertaining but certainly not informative junket. It is an understatement to characterize many of the stories as sophomoric in content and style and amounting to little more than flatulent babbling. The quality of the writing prompts one to surmise that it is done from a painful sense of duty.

Even given these low expectations, I was surprised to see the front page article on the death of Melvin Perry.(UA employee found dead, 5 April 2000) I have no doubt that the story was legal, but as presented it was certainly in bad taste. Melvin's death was sad, and to those who knew and worked with him, still unexplainable. It is not the sort of thing any of us experience often, and members of his family will no doubt struggle for understanding into the future. How did this article serve the university community in general, or the Wildcat's readers in particular?

To shroud the story of this death in a justification based upon "the public's right (or need) to know ..." is to be subject to the worst sort of perceptual anesthesia. You may believe that your audience is defining your content, but in reality, your content is defining your audience.

J. Glenn Songer

Professor, Department of Veterinary Science and Microbiology

Cartoon insults memory

To the editor,

This letter is in response to the irreverent depiction of the NASDAQ in the April 17, 2000 Arizona Daily Wildcat. I am a Sergeant in the Marine Corps Reserves, with six years of honorable service. There are no words to describe the pride I felt when I earned the title of United States Marine at the age of 17. The feeling is true of all Marines. I have seen many horrendous events, from shootings to airplane crashes, but none have turned my stomach the way that this "joke" did. 19 Marines died training to defend this country. Marines with families, most of which are no older than I am. "Death before dishonor" has always been one of our unofficial mottos. Those Marines died for you, America, yet the cartoonist and the editors of the Arizona Daily Wildcat dishonor their memory by printing this sick and twisted portrayal of the Osprey and NASDAQ. Those Marines are not like the stock market, they will never rise again. Their families' sorrow will never "Go down." I, as a Sergeant of Marines, cannot and will not stand for this dishonoring and disrespect of the very people who dedicated and sacrificed their lives to serving and protecting this great nation.

A.J. Conger

Sergeant, USMCR

Athletic department wasteful

To the editor,

It is indeed sad that the University of Arizona students must again reach deep into their pockets to pay for another tuition increase. For those students who need to work 2-3 part-time jobs to make ends meet, $100 can be a huge financial burden.

And all this when there is continual waste of resources by the university, especially involving the athletic departments. I'm particularly referencing the waste of resources at the Drachman Track Field and the Murphy Soccer Field at 15th and Plumer.

At the soccer field, all twelve poles of electric flood light are often turned on 1-1 1/2 hours before dusk, even when only a small portion of the field will be used. Of course, they probably wouldn't need so many lights if more of them were focused on the field and not into the neighborhood and straight skyward.

And then, this past weekend, someone felt it necessary to turn on the six poles of lights around the track field during the afternoon meet. That's right - 4 hours on Saturday afternoon - 6 poles of 24 flood lights each. This is not only a waste of our precious natural resources needed to generate all that electric and a nuisance to lovers of dark sky but also a great waste of money.

If the athletic departments have so much money to burn, perhaps they should be required to contribute to the professors' salaries instead of the university taxing the poor students' pockets.

Pat and Arlee Heimann

Tucsonans