Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Letters to the Editor

Boycott pet stores

To the editor,

I hope that many students were able to view "Dateline"'s piece exposing the truth about pet stores. "Dateline" showed that most of the animals purchased in pet stores are not from breeders that love and care for the dogs and breed them only a few times during the dog's life. Instead, pet stores get their puppies from puppy mills - the term used for a commercial dog breeder where breeding dogs are confined to cages their entire lives.

I was horrified by the cruelty that is imposed upon the breeding dogs. Many of the dogs were confined to cages far too small for them, exposed to all the elements. As a result of not being allowed out of their cages, these dogs would run repetitive circles in their cages, pace back and forth, and exhibit aggressive behavior to the other dogs crammed into the cage.

The dogs were bred so excessively that many of them were extremely ill and suffering from exhaustion. Many of the dogs suffered from gaping wounds and malnutrition. As far as the breeder is concerned, the lives of these animals have no other purpose than to be spent breeding.

Every time you purchase an animal at a pet store, you are encouraging the inhumane treatment of animals. The pet stores have to have a supply of a large variety of breeds at all times, and as long as there is a demand, they will continue to turn to puppy mills to replenish their supply. Please, boycott pet stores. If you want an animal, there are many eagerly waiting for homes in the humane society and pound. In the last year, over 20,000 animals were euthanized in Pima County alone because there were not enough homes to place these animals in. Do your part in improving these animal's lives.

Reasa Haggard

Geography and political science junior

Column unnecessary offensive

To the editor,

Nick Zeckets' April 26 commentary on staff sabbaticals is an expression of one point of view. I understand it has caused considerable reaction - that's what editorial writers try to accomplish. I add these thoughts for consideration.

In the discussion of any idea, it is important to separate the issue from the people involved, and to treat people with respect. To disagree with the proposal for a staff sabbatical is one thing. To demean the important work classified staff members do is disgraceful.

To wonder out loud why staff could possibly need a sabbatical is to display a woeful lack of knowledge of what our staff contributes to the university. Secretaries are the first point of contact for many students, and in some cases know them better than the professors do. Custodial staff are critical to the quality of life for every student on campus. Staff members coordinate whole programs that are part of the university's outreach mission. They keep the university's complex computer systems running and innovate solutions to problems such as Y2K. They write and publish magazines. Students are admitted into this institution by staff, they are registered for classes by staff, and they are assisted in receiving financial aid by staff. Staff build giant mirrors for telescopes, and operate complex and delicate medical equipment. They shoot television news stories. They produce radio programs. To assume that none of these individuals could possibly need time to learn new skills or gain new expertise is shortsighted, and it fosters an "us and them" mentality.

I hope that the campus discussion on professional development for all staff continues. Perhaps new ideas will emerge, such as the possibilities for staff scholarships to workshops and programs that will enable them to perform at an even higher level. But, let us talk about the ideas with the civility and respect that the people who will be affected by them deserve.

Dr. Sandra Taylor

Vice president for Campus Life

Misguided view of free speech

To the editor,

How sad that my fellow students are being taught so little about individual rights. Case in point: one Lisa Leavell was approached by an anti-Semitic lunatic who claimed to have been "censored" by the Wildcat. Lisa's response ["Censorship" warranted, April 19] was a letter to the editor stating, in effect, that anyone who has "appalled and angered" her deserves no constitutional protection for their right to free speech. In a stunning display of ignorance, she cites "the ideals of this country" as a reason to disregard the First Amendment.

For the record, the irrational creature Lisa encountered was never "censored," because the freedom of speech does not give him the right to dictate the use of someone else's printing press. But this is not what Lisa had in mind; instead, she concluded that if she is offended, it can only be because someone has too much freedom and ought to be silenced.

But the First Amendment was not created to protect agreeable, uncontroversial or inoffensive speech. It was written precisely for the sake of speech that "appalls and angers" - no other kind of speech needs protection! One cannot say, "Rights should be protected until I find them distasteful," The fact is that freedom of speech must be protected absolutely, or else it is not protected at all. So when Lisa says, "Freedom of speech is one thing, but ...," the word "but" shows that in fact she does not recognize the right to free speech at all. And that is what is "against the ideals of this country."

Bryan Hochstetler

Philosophy junior