Thursday August 29, 2002    |   |   online since 1994
UA News
World News
Arts & Entertainment
Police Beat

Write a letter to the Editor

Contact the Daily Wildcat staff

Search the Wildcat archives

Browse the Wildcat archives

Advertise in the Wildcat

Send feedback to the web designers

Arizona Student Media info

TV3 - student TV

KAMP - student radio

Daily Wildcat staff alumni

UA News
Letters to the Editor

Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday August 29, 2002

Definition of Îhappy hour' not subjective ÷ it means drinking

Apparently, Mr. Mackenzie is one of few Americans who is unaware of the definition of "happy hour." Most people do not need to consult a dictionary to learn that happy hour, according to the "American Heritage College Dictionary," is "a period during which a bar or lounge serves drinks at reduced prices or free hors d'oeuvres." I am certain that no one would interpret the billboard in question as referring simply to a gathering of friends, as Mr. Mackenzie seems to believe. The phrase "happy hour" implies the consumption of alcoholic drinks, and to believe that the majority of the public would interpret it otherwise is ludicrous.

If alcohol consumption at ball games is already a problem, encouraging it through advertising is irresponsible. I call upon the UA athletic marketing department to reword the billboard or remove it.

Alexandra Clinton
Nutritional Sciences senior

Wildcat unfairly labels greeks and ignores positive qualities

In regards to the Aug. 26 front page article titled "Dean Pulls Delta Chi Recognition" in which Cyndy Cole states, "Vito also suspended Pi Kappa Alpha last fall for reported fights involving members of the fraternity," I would like to bring to the attention of the editor some major oversights and inefficiencies of the article.

I would just like to respond to the blatant ignorance this quote expressed on the author's behalf. As a member of Pi Kappa Alpha I take offense to the reference to the fraternity in the article on the grounds that Pike has not been involved in any official hazing investigations. The transition used in the article is unprofessional and erroneous. After speaking with the president of Pi Kappa Alpha, it was understood that there had been no effort made in contacting any member of the fraternity at which time the house would have been given the opportunity to represent itself.

Furthermore, in my attendance at UA, I have seen far too many articles addressing the negative actions and aspects of the greek system. I have seen few articles that acknowledge either a fraternity or sorority for its efforts to contribute to the community that surrounds UA. This just happens to be overlooked time and time again. The fact that Pi Kappa Alpha raised $12,000 for the Sept. 11 relief fund by making and selling ribbons on the mall and at the Tucson Convention Center last year apparently is not newsworthy. Despite all of the previously stated successes to the greek system, the Arizona Daily Wildcat continues to print articles that cite last year's events and the consequential probation that followed, which, by the way, has already been lifted.

What needs to be understood is that Pi Kappa Alpha is not just a fraternity; it is a family to its members and an integral part of many men's college experiences at UA. When someone defames my family for no reason in such a manner, I will not stand to the side and accept it. In the future, I would appreciate more careful considerations taken in the writings of the greek system in general and, more specifically, the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity. I would appreciate an apology and feel that more consideration should be put into such articles. Thank you.

George Cosmas
undecided sophomore

Search for rapist brings to light dangers of Victims' Bill of Rights

Across campus, flyers have been posted warning students about the accused rapist James Allen Selby. This Monday, the Wildcat printed Selby's face and included a two-page article listing the charges and the evidence supporting the allegations. What the Wildcat failed to mention were the names of the alleged victims.

Of late, the American public has been adamant about protecting the rights of alleged victims, particularly those claiming rape. In fact, the Arizona State Constitution was amended in 1990 to include a Victims' Bill of Rights to "preserve and protect victims' rights to justice and due process." Some of those rights protect a "victim" from intimidation and harassment, allow a "victim" to refuse an interview or deposition, and may permit the "victim" to preclude certain evidence from all criminal proceedings. (Instead of "victim," the constitution should read "alleged victim.")

What the Victims' Bill of Rights inevitably does is curtail the rights of the accused. It contradicts the principles of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which serves to protect the accused from an oppressive and tyrannical government. It ultimately takes away the rights of the accused in the name of the victim. The danger of such a trade-off is that the wrongly accused are not guaranteed their constitutional rights. For example, if the alleged victim refuses a deposition, the accused will not be able to exercise his or her constitutional right to confront witnesses. If the alleged victim precludes certain evidence from trial or hearings, the accused will not receive a fair trial.

The Wildcat, like every other media organization ÷ especially the show "America's Most Wanted" ÷ are willing to post the photo of an accused rapist but would never mention the names of the alleged victims making the accusations. What about due process? What about those who are wrongly accused? Shouldn't the accused have the right to challenge the credibility of the alleged victim or victims? What if you were accused of rape? Wouldn't you, just like Selby, want to be protected by our U.S. Constitution? Where do we draw the line against an oppressive government? Sadly, most people would be comfortable infringing on some of our basic rights as evidenced by the Wildcat's front-page article. After all, the media just feeds the public what it wants and often ignores the basic legal implications of its work.

Jeremy Tor
political science freshman

Residence Life does service to society by enacting no-pot policy

Three cheers for the anti-marijuana crusaders who seek to protect you and me from the deleterious hazards of weed.

Residence Life has implemented its "one strike and you're out" pot policy. Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall staged a recent press conference, decrying that Arizona voters again, for the third time in a decade, may pass medical marijuana initiatives. Meanwhile, across the state, the Arizona Narcotics Officers Association, surely only interested in the public's health, lobbies heavily against any ratcheting down of the pot wars.

Marijuana, like all drugs (including alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceuticals, and tobacco), has potentially harmful effects. Only a truly misguided pothead would think otherwise. Nevertheless, Arizona's war-on-pot, initiated by the Phoenix Anglo-elite to harass poor and/or minority users (although they are certainly not the only consumers of cannabis), continues into its seventh decade.

Remember: The next time your bike is stolen or your car is broken into, the dorms will be safe from pot and pot paraphernalia. Remember that the next time some waste-of-an-embryo rapist is running loose that our elected leaders are making us safe from the scourge of pot.

Ummm · thanks?

Sean Duffy
doctoral student, department of history


Webmaster -
© Copyright 2002 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media