Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Greeks committed to tasteful philanthropy
Recently, several articles in the Wildcat have been brought to our attention regarding negative publicity surrounding some philanthropy events planned by a few of our fraternities and sororities. As council presidents representing these fraternities and sororities on the UA campus, we have decided that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
As a greek community that prides itself on being self-governing, our chapters have been given the ability to program on their own, and the accountability of events and their members has primarily been the responsibility of individual organizations. The guidance for these organizations has not always been consistent where it needs to be. This is not to say that the advisors of our organizations are not doing a great job, however some things being produced by our groups are not in the best of taste.
The objectification of men and women on our campus, in the greek community and in the name of charity, must come to an end. We commit ourselves to working to curb this problem of indecent and immoral philanthropies. As a result of recent events, we will be implementing a Philanthropy Advisory Board. Working closely with the governing councils, the board will be lead by one member of Interfraternity Council and one member of Panhellenic Council to determine what philanthropies will be allowed to occur. The advisory board is in the early planning stages, and we will work with presidents from all of our recognized organizations on the implementation.
This advisory board will have the final say in whatever events may occur and also help to promote, program and screen for appropriateness. We, as the presidents of the greek community, are trying to set examples for our younger members. We are confident that this plan will bring back the idea of tasteful philanthropies and also promote more hands-on community service.
political science junior
Cutting gen eds would ease class shortages
The article, "UA trying to ease class shortage," points out the recurring fact that general education classes fill too quickly and that budget cuts are reducing class availability. I know of at least one class that is a major requirement, with about 70 students per semester, that was cancelled for this fall in the College of Engineering. Keep in mind that this is the college that just implemented a $300 fee for upper-division students for the next school year. I think all the money that goes into general education is really going to the wrong place if the colleges can't even offer their major classes. The best solution would be to stop offering those horrible gen ed classes! We could take them at Pima or, better yet, they could be removed from the graduation requirements.
molecular and cellular biology senior
Frats out of control
Recently there has been a series of reports involving fraternities and illegal activity (big surprise).
First, we had our finest at ZBT arrested for drug possession (imagine that). Now we have rape allegations at a Sigma Pi fraternity house. Fraternities are out of control, and I am sick of my tuition helping to fund these immature "organizations" of college "students." I am not saying they are all bad, nor are the members. I know many good guys who are in fraternities, but seriously, the university should take action and put fraternities under stricter rules. They should have to adhere to a decent standard for our community, which they are not. In direct response to Joe DiVita's comment that Sigma Pi keeps an eye on all non-members, I say that is not true. If you spent as much time watching the people in the fraternity house as you do enforcing the list at the front door, this would not have occurred at your house. As for anybody who questions this, take a walk by ZBT; it is a dump! Look at the litter, then look at the cars in the parking lot, then write back and tell me what you think.
industrial engineering sophomore
Playboy column arrogant, ignorant
All right, I'm going to shamelessly manifest my ignorance by disagreeing with Dillon Fishman's column in April 12's Wildcat. I'm no fan of pornography, but I'm even less a fan of arrogance. I haven't seen such arrogance in maybe two or three years.
If we had twice as much good sex and half as much arrogance as we do now, the world would be so much better off. People would be happier, more relaxed and
peaceful. Life would be richer.
Why do so many anti-pornography crusaders say "sex-and-violence" like it's all one word, like they're the same thing? In my experience, they're definitely not. Sex can be great, life-enhancing, beautiful. Violence maims people, both givers and receivers. Sexual violence is particularly horrible because it takes one of the great gifts of life and turns it into a source of pain. To take that deep well of physical joy and connectedness and turn it against someone is one of the most vicious things a person can do. If you don't believe me, ask any rape victim and listen to what they have to say. It's our culture that ties sex and violence together, and we ought to be doing our best to untangle them.
Where I see pornography as a problem is that it's often misogynistic and it creates impossible images of the body and sexuality. Those photos are all airbrushed or computer-enhanced. Women injure themselves trying to live up to those images, and men are going to be disappointed if they expect real life to look and act like Playboy. Anybody's going to be unsatisfied if they spend their time chasing impossible images. It blinds you to the beauty and the richness of your life and of the world. The beauty's there - along with the mess and suffering.
So maybe Dillon isn't a complete idiot, because we do agree on one point - Kill your TV and video games! Free your minds from their endless numbing, flattening BS. My TV's been dead for a long time and I'm happier.
fine arts senior
Clubs shouldn't have to pay fees
Charging clubs to register with the school? It seems that yet another plan for the administration to avoid properly managing their budget will include a fee to all student clubs on campus - a cheap shot to students if you ask me.
As a fourth-year student here at the UA, I've made a point to involve myself with events on campus and to encourage other students to do the same. I did this through the creation of several campus organizations this year. Each organization started with the two required members and grew from there. The clubs now total a membership of more than 200
students. Members have had the opportunity to meet other students with similar interests and to increase their awareness of campus life, diversity and to provide students with unique opportunities. After I created one club, I found there existed a contingent of students on campus who were already networked and simply had not become officially recognized. Those students are now able to receive funding from the school and officially use school facilities. We've provided students with a comfortable place to relax during the day and we've traveled to Baja California for some awesome surf. If the Center for Student Involvement & Leadership had required me to shell out dollars every time I submitted another club creation form, I can assure you that none of these events would have taken place.
Just as the library should remain free for students to use, so should clubs. As another venue for education here at the UA, clubs give students the experiences, the networks and the environment that they don't get from classrooms and books. Clubs expose students to new things, new opportunities and new insight. By requiring clubs to pay $10 we are losing sight of the purpose of student clubs on campus. The majority of clubs on campus are not revenue generating, and by instating a club fee we force clubs to charge membership dues, in turn restricting membership and decreasing the awareness and diversity on our campus.
Clubs should be free to create, join and explore, and a fee assessed to clubs will ultimately destroy our wonderfully diverse and copious number of clubs on campus for students to enjoy and learn from.
Please support me in encouraging CSIL to rethink the club fee for fall.
John Patrick Mizell
Column on Dems' values confusing
I did not understand Jonathan Riches' point in his column about the drift in socio-economic class of Republicans and Democrats. It was all quite confusing. He seems to say at the beginning of the article that the Democrats were a better party when they supported slavery and plantation owners in the 1800s. Now that they care about minorities they have begun "to alienate the apolitical moderates" and have become elitist. Later he equates a higher income level among its supporters to "liberal elitism" while mentioning nothing of the elitism within the Republican Party. As I seem to recall, George W. Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale, quite the elite institutions. Riches also makes the mistake of throwing around statistics that have no meaning. I did not understand the point of mentioning the income levels of people who voted for Gore or Bush. Why is it a huge problem when many voters for a certain party come from higher socio-economic levels? It only becomes a problem when the elected candidates are beholden to special interests and looking purely at the legislative record, it is pretty obvious that the Republicans are more concerned about big business than they are about Riches' beloved common man. If Democrats have become so elite, why are they the ones who fight for more money for social programs like unintended pregnancy prevention, education and veterans' benefits? In contrast, the Republicans have been busy passing the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, which makes it harder for the common man to get out of debt but does not close loopholes that allow crooked executives to keep most of their money even when they must file for bankruptcy. Perhaps there was some fact hidden amongst all of Riches' opinions that I missed.
I hope that Jonathan Riches responds to this to clear up any confusion that I, and I am sure many other people, have about his column.