Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Letters to the Editor

Smoking policy changes flawed

To the editor,

The proposed changes in the campus smoking policy are seriously flawed. I doubt that there is a single committed smoker on campus that has any intention of conforming with the changes. Why should we? There appears to be no effective method of enforcing the 25 foot smoke-free zone. In policy changes of this nature it is vital to consider their actual impact. One either makes draconian changes and provides an effective enforcement method, or one looks for a compromise solution that will be respected by those it will affect.

Compromise takes a minimum of two parties, in this case the smokers and the people whose health can be affected by their smoke. To most non-smokers on this campus the only effect of smoke in an unconfined space is annoyance, on a par with over usage of cologne, loud music, car exhausts, or a mobile phone ringing in your ear. To an asthmatic however, smoke can lead to very unpleasant consequences. This means that the two parties that need to reach an agreement are the asthmatics and the smokers. Has the university asked either group for their input?

One solution to the issue would be the designation of a no-smoking door for each campus building. This is a solution that would have immediate impact upon asthmatics, allowing them a smoke free route into any campus building, and yet causing little or no inconvenience to smokers. In this way smokers would be able to accept the change and conform with it, many smokers would be happy to know that people walking through their smoke could avoid it if they desired.

Without some alterations the proposed smoking policy changes are meaningless, an empty P.R. gesture that gives asthmatics false hopes and will be ignored by the majority of smokers.

Adam Shaw

Physics Grad Student

Sabbatical proposal mispresented

To the editor,

I am delighted by the amount of press that the proposal for the six-week staff sabbatical is receiving; first in Lo Que Pasa and now in the Wildcat. Hopefully the editorial titled, "Master's in Mopping" will generate considerable and considered response that will further educate the University community about the contribution made by members of Classified Staff.

As Mr. Zeckets notes, "...the leave would allow time for gaining course credits and attending conferences or seminars in employees' respective fields while continuing to be paid." He also stated that "....classified staff are allowed to take two courses per semester at an amazing discount. Taking six weeks off would only cover one-third of a semester anyway."

Fortunately for many students and for classified staff, the University of Arizona offers courses not only during the Fall and Spring Semester, but also during the summer (two sessions) and during the winter (wintersession). In addition, we are offered courses during Pre-session. One could, if one was given the proposed leave time and if the course was available (imagine if courses were videotaped and re-offered during these times), complete four courses a calendar year during these periods. The key phrase here is "given leave time." Although classified staff are offered the employee benefit of two courses per semester, few can take advantage of that benefit because either their supervisors do not grant them that leave time à even during lunch hour à or because they are the sole support for their office and the supervisor cannot afford-because no support system is available to that supervisor -- to give them leave time and therefore cause the office to be closed.

Yet, many of us have continued to work here because we believe in higher education and we believe, especially here at the Land Grant University of the State of Arizona, that people should be offered the opportunity of a higher education. Many of us completed college degrees years ago; many of us are working on degrees; and many of us, with family obligations, aspire to the same opportunity that you are being given. Of the 1.0 FTE classified staff here at the UA, 14 percent of American Indians, 28% percent of African Americans, 67% of Asians, 17% of Hispanics, and 45% of Whites have earned at least a BA/BS degree. According to the U.S. Census in 1995, the national average of educational attainment is 26.5% for an A.A. degree or above; for all UA Staff it is 45.2%. The University of Arizona attracts an educated workforce and the calibre of the employee here enhances and improves the environment for you and other students here.

We who have worked here for ten years or more are asking for an opportunity to apply for development time to improve our capabilities not only to improve our marketability but also to increase our value to the University; not only to better serve our departments and the University but also to enhance our sense of accomplishment and self. We often are asked to run offices until administrators are hired and to coordinate major UA committees and councils without additional compensation. We often work 45, 50, 60 hours a week to make this a better place for you to learn and live. At no additional cost to the University. If we were to leave, recent data show that the cost to replace us is between 90 and 200 percent of our annual salary. How better served the University would be with the proposed solutions that we have already forwarded and will continue to work on to compensate for our proposed brief absence.

The University would gain much by providing us with leave to attend conferences and workshops, to complete degrees, or simply to regenerate our incredible energy levels. And Mr. Zeckets, a sophomore student and his colleagues, will continue to "get through to his department or advisor" because we're here, helping and, in fact, cheering you all the way.

Jennifer Hesketh AvilŽs

B.A. Simmons College, 1966

Development Office