The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

60° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    Grijalva, MECHA good-intentioned

    In response to Alex Hoogasian’s (letter in Monday’s Arizona Daily Wildcat ) “”Congressman Grijalva does not have Arizona’s best interests at heart””: All Grijalva has is Arizona’s best interests at heart. I guarantee it.

    Rep. Grijalva has been a strong supporter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlǭn, an organization whose sole purpose on this campus is to promote higher education, and development of a positive and strong cultural identity among Raza students. None of these things come close to promoting militantism or sedition.

    We are an organization that supports peace, human and civil rights. Reversing the Gadsden Purchase isn’t even an issue with Mechistas, and to even suggest otherwise is slanderous and false. If Hoogasian wants to disagree with us, he’s more than welcome to, but he better come at us with more than a treaty.

    Simply put, Rep. Grijalva stands for the same things that all Mechistas do: education, human rights and cultural awareness among all people.

    J.J. Federico
    Latin American studies junior
    university relations chairperson of MECHA de UA

    Probationary status changes do not affect all departments

    The article on academic probation in the 9/21 issue of the Wildcat contains some confusing or inaccurate information. The elimination of the “”academic warning”” status may in fact have no impact on students. In some colleges, such as Social and Behavioral Sciences, the “”academic warning”” status has always been treated the same as “”probationary”” status, so changing the terminology does not change our students’ academic standing within the college. Rules regarding probation and disqualification vary between colleges and may even be modified further within a single college; for example, when a student is re-admitted under an academic contract. It is crucial that students speak with their academic advisers regarding probation and disqualification. Go to advising.arizona.edu/students for advising contact information.

    Julie Reed
    academic adviser,
    College of Social and Behavioral Sciences

    Who is really dishonoring the dead?

    The comments that it was inappropriate for Refuse and Resist to table on 9/11 made me think of my Chilean friend Lucas, for whom the day has particular significance. It was on Sept. 11, 1973, that the U.S. destroyed democracy in Chile. Ten thousand people were killed that night – the CIA provided the names of those to be executed. Thousands more were killed afterwards as Chile was forced into years of fascist terror. This was not just one day of horror – it was the systematic annihilation of the will and humanity of an entire nation. Lucas lost half his family. They disappeared into detention centers. They were tortured to death. They vanished off the street. Their bodies were dumped, headless, nude, into the Rio Mapocho, joining the many others that piled up as if they were logs. All the while, the U.S. made sure it kept happening. Lucas was a student in the U.S., so he survived, but he could not return home. For many years, he saw this anniversary ignored in the U.S., a day of no significance. Now, of course, it is emphatically noted. What do you think he feels on that day, when he sees the organized public grieving (most of it heartbreakingly sincere, but some of it grotesquely, cynically manipulated by those who yearn for war)? How do you think he feels to know that his grief, his incalculable loss, the still gaping hole in his heart, means nothing in the country responsible for it? Who among those who never gave a thought to Chile’s 9/11 would look him in the eye and tell him that on that day, of all days, he should not give voice to his pain? That he should forget his dead and only speak in approved ways? Those who demand that Refuse and Resist, or anyone else, remain quiet on 9/11 should think seriously about this. Who, really, is dishonoring the dead? Who, really, deserves rebuke? And who, really, for their ignorance, for their arrogance, for their contempt for the humanity of other peoples, deserves shame?

    Greg Knehans
    political science graduate student
    Refuse and Resist member

    American Apparel sweatshop free but full of oppression

    This fall, a new American Apparel will be shacking up in the new Marshall Foundation buildings. They scream sweatshop-free clothing, but that term can be interpreted in a different light. Sexual exploitation of his employees is how Don Charney, the owner of American Apparel, racks in the profits. Photos are required with applications, and sexual advances are the norm in his Los Angeles factory. There have been quite a few sexual harassment cases filed against him by female employees in the last year or so. Is this the type of store that should be near campus?

    What this means is when UA students begin to shop, they inadvertently support the lack of ethics and behavior of Don Charney. Just because his employees make $12 hourly and have an air-conditioned building doesn’t mean they aren’t working in a sweatshop. Regardless of what country you are in or how much one is making doesn’t give anyone the right to impose a sexually hostile environment among female workers.

    American Apparel may use sexually charged advertising to sell its “”sweatshop-free”” clothing, but at what cost? What would Louise Marshall think about leasing a space to a company whose CEO and founder uses derogatory language toward women and asks employees to masturbate with him?

    Would she condone this behavior?

    I don’t feel like she would support this, and UA students should think about what they are buying when they walk into American Apparel. Sure, you are getting simplistic, overpriced clothing but at a price that is more than just monetary.

    Nicole Hocevar
    junior majoring in studio art and journalism

    Airshow could make up for noise pollution

    As UA students, I believe we are charged with making our campus a better place for ourselves and those who come after. So what I have here is a simple proposal to turn a major defect into a major benefit. While I am sure that we are nothing but thankful for the daily reminders of American air supremacy, manifest in the fly-bys and touch-and-go exercises passing over campus every few minutes, these spectacular embodiments of our tax dollars at work have a fiercely negative side: noise pollution.

    I’m sure no one is to blame for orienting the landing pattern directly across campus, but let’s be honest; not only is the screeching and roaring annoying, it directly inhibits the learning process in many classrooms not yet fitted with triple-pane windows. I have pondered how to solve this issue and come up with such plans as moving Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, moving the UA and outfitting every single aircraft with silencers. None of these seem feasible at the moment, so why not make the best of the situation?

    I propose that the Air Force devote 15 minutes once a week to an airshow above campus at either noon on Monday, Wednesday or Friday, or at 12:15 on Tuesday or Thursday to afford for the greatest number of spectators. This would not only provide UA students with an often much-needed break from the intensity of class but would also allow for our pilots to practice their dog-fighting skills, which I am sure they would enjoy personally. Who knows? This could even become a new UA tradition that sets this fine institution apart from the rest, ensuring a multitude of future honors and students.

    Brian McArthur
    junior majoring in Spanish

    UA policy not racist

    I am replying to the onslaught of letters in (Tuesday’s) Wildcat, which decry policies making the UA substantially more Hispanic as being “”racist.”” It is in itself racist, as members of the educated classes, in the most privileged segment of society with the most responsible quality of choices, to restrict opportunities to all other segments based on the fact that they are “”breaking the rules”” of entry into University. It is crucially the fact that these rules are broken which is productive in reconstructing the racist society in which we live.

    It is important to recognize that this country is founded upon racism. It is

    Thomas Jefferson who petulantly writes in his “”Declaration of Independence”” of the “”merciless Indian savages”” as menacing vermin, and blaming England for subjecting the colonists to them. Taken further with the “”manifest destiny”” of the white race to “”march from ocean to ocean,”” as Representative Giles of Maryland put it in 1847. Many doctrines of American democracy were constructed to protect and encourage racial superiority, and they continue through today.

    I came from Tucson High Magnet School, where whites are greatly in the minority yet many of the Advanced Placement classes are filled with white faces. What does this imply about the subtleties of our educational system? Furthermore, student ethnicity regarding entry and completion of graduate studies programs in universities are still predominantly white. I’m not solely degrading our country’s values, our history, our culture, our institutions–merely further recognizing that there are some very serious problems with our society and our institutions that need to be corrected.

    Affirmative political action in university institutions are among direct ways of taking power away from a system which is inherently corrupt, and correcting the serious flaws by implementing policies of equality by force. Because, let’s not forget that it is the social movements for civil rights of the 1950s and 60s, and ongoing, which ensure these powers of force to ordinary citizens.

    When racial diversity is fully realized and institutional assimilation no longer functions will be when our culture truly redeems a rightful attainment of what novelist Kurt Vonnegut calls “”original virtue.””

    Gabriel Matthew
    undeclared sophomore

    Longing for a bygone Facebook

    This week has been a sad one in the life of a college student. Despite the deep depression I am suffering, I felt it was my civic duty to express my disappointment in the recent changes to “”The Facebook””. For the past two years I have accepted it as one of my family members; gleefully accepting friend requests, chuckling at the groups I joined, and anxious waiting to see if a special someone would poke me back. But now … that is all lost. For Facebook took a glorious networking tool of the college student and reduced it to a database of despair. Now, when I sign in, I hide my head in shame, for I feel like a stalker. And now, couples must face the difficult decision of whether to tag each other on their profiles, or put “”it’s complicated,”” or simply remove the “”single.”” They must making this decision knowing that their choice will be seen by hundreds, if not thousands of people.

    In closing, my parents often use the phrase “”I remember when … “” to signify when movies were a dollar, or burgers were 75 cents. Well, perhaps I am getting old, for now I find myself saying, “”I remember when Facebook was fun.”” How I long for the days of old, and how I sob at what my precious Facebook has become. R.I.P. Facebook September 5, 2006.

    Tyler Carrell
    Senior majoring in business administration and finance

    Better pianos needed

    I am not a music student or anything, but I do like to play songs I like on the piano. The other day, I was at the music building with some music I brought. I went down to the practice pianos in the basement. The first piano I played was severely out of tune. So I chose another one; It was better sounding, but had a couple of keys that did not work at all. On to a 3rd piano I went … it was both out of tune and had a few sticky keys. I am not asking for world-class pianos, just some that sound better and have no sticky keys. Am I asking too much?

    Jeffery S. Anderson
    senior in the rehabilitation program.

    More to Discover
    Activate Search