Columnist research insufficient; Wildcat needs rigorous standards
Recently there has been debate on whether or not Laura Donovan’s articles are too controversial. I don’t find them to be out of line for their subject matter, but I am concerned about the level of research and articulation that the Wildcat editors expect out of their writers. The article “”Want to ‘Save Darfur’? Lose the slogan”” (Sept. 30, 2008) lacks a concise thesis or so-called solution to the slogan-dominated cause of preventing genocide in Darfur. What makes this article alarming is the informal, whiny tone of someone complaining to their friend at lunch. I’m not sure why there was such a lack of concrete evidence as there are countless Web sites devoted to educating others about Darfur and genocide in general. Instead, Donovan rests on the “”research”” she conducted on Facebook groups as an indicator of the interest surrounding this issue.

While writing this letter, I googled “”save Darfur”” and got 1,250,000 results in 0.18 seconds. One of those was for Facebook, which is apparently more reliable than the other 1,249,999 results. She asserts that the “”Save Darfur”” cause’s ineffectiveness is due to their marketing strategy in which their funds are predominantly used in advertising. However, individuals can write a letter, which will be ignored, as one of the few “”constructive means of solving the genocide””? Huh? A letter which is ignored or not read, is in no way, shape or form a constructive means of solving anything, let alone genocide.

In her addiction to Facebook, Donovan failed to read many important points found on what Web site? Savedarfur.org! On the site are step-by-step instructions on how individuals can correspond with their congressmen, check their legislative records and learn about important foreign assistance bills that are being lobbied in part by ‘Save Darfur.’ The organization which she decries as ineffective is working to help individuals make a difference by effectively corresponding with Congress and not be ignored. I urge the Wildcat editors to demand higher standards of research and topic synthesis.

Daniel Sotelo
political science junior

Conference center unwise venture; transparency needed from regents
Students of the UA should be aware of a funding vote that came before the Arizona Board of Regents recently. Apparently, the UA has delved into hotel development in a risky submarket of Tucson. After reading the story, “”Hotel at UA tech park gets regents’ blessing,”” in the Arizona Daily Star, I couldn’t help but think of the saying, “”If you build it, they will come.”” I work in hotel development and have looked at the tech park for private development in the past.

The fact is, there is not sufficient demand in the UA tech park at this time for a conference center. If having one will help entice businesses, then so be it; it’s a good idea for the UA to do it rather than a private investor. But this is rarely, if ever, true in other markets. That said, a 123-room hotel with 7,400 square feet of meeting space is not a conference center by any stretch. From an industry perspective, this would most likely be a limited service or select service hotel. So, as a UA alumnus, I wish the university administration was more honest with the regents and public.

Patrick Brennan
UA alumnus