Saturday ticket sales a disappointment

I am disappointed in the ticketing situation that occurred for Saturday’s UA versus Arizona State University football game. I have a Zona Zoo pass, purchased a ticket for the game and arrived an hour early to get a good seat. I was never told by the people who sold me the ticket or who checked it as I went in that there were specific general admission sections in the Zona Zoo section for that game. In addition, I was kicked out of my seat on two different occasions because they were sold as specific seats to non-students. From my experience this weekend, ticketing was handled very poorly and was unfair to those who already spent $70 to be there and arrived early.

Joelle de la Vara
elementary education senior

Student section should be just for students

I was thoroughly disappointed in the seating arrangements in the student section at the ASU/UA football game this past Saturday. My friends and I and hundreds of other faithful fans who are students did what we do every week: Show up to the football game almost two hours early to get good seats to cheer on our team. This game was especially important to us, not only because it was critical to our season but because it was a huge traditional rivalry. One can imagine the disappointment felt by the students who were asked to leave their seats because in selling tickets to the student section to the general public, families and non-students had tickets with printed assigned seats in the otherwise general-admission student section. None of this was marked, roped off nor indicated by any means. We sat in our section as we always do, and we were not informed to do otherwise. Yet some students, as many of us witnessed, were escorted out by security because they would not give up their spots in the stands to non-students with assigned seats.

Meaning no disrespect, but this was absolutely asinine. First of all, the students paid for these seats and got there way ahead of time. That is our team, and as tuition-paying students, we have full right to our own section. Had planning been adequate and effective, there would have been sections roped off for the students and for the assigned-seating ticket holders. Not only was this unfair for the students, but also for the general public who paid $30 to $40 for tickets and thought they had assigned seats only to get to the game during the first quarter and have nowhere to sit, assuming the seats printed on their tickets would not be filled with unruly student fans.

To mix general public and student seating was a terrible decision in the first place, seeing as a majority of students who attend the games are intoxicated and rowdy. It seems wrong to have a family with little children sitting right in front of a group of drunken college students screaming “”(expletive) the Devils.”” (This is, of course, protected by the First Amendment, in response to past letters, including one from President Robert Shelton, regarding students’ unruly behavior and language.)

And it seems even more wrong for these people who chose to buy these tickets to get into fights with students for being rowdy and obnoxious and complain that our behavior is offensive. Sorry, but that’s what we do in the student section. We get rowdy and obnoxious, and the student section is not “”family friendly,”” nor should it have to be. I suggest better organization in the future, because this was a complete disaster to say the least.

Bethany Fourmy
pre-medicine junior

Gender identity is assigned by nature

I was absolutely fascinated by the comments made in Julianna Bradley’s letter to the editor, “”Gender identity cannot be assigned by others,”” in Tuesday’s Arizona Daily Wildcat. Not only did she support the desire for gender-neutral restrooms, but she also compared questions of gender identity to physical disability. To correct her, there is a big and bold line separating the disabled and those who question their gender. Gender is not your decision; it is assigned by nature. As human beings, we do not get to choose what gender we are. The disabled have certain benefits because they are physically or mentally unable to complete certain tasks without assistance (i.e. wheelchair ramps). What I suggest is that the issue of transgender confusion is merely a mental state; it is a denial of what you are. To create gender-neutral restrooms promotes uncertainty and denial of what you are as defined by nature, while setting a precedent for future issues on this campus.

Set aside the natural aspect and take into consideration the safety of this action for a second. I found it disturbing how the submitter had no problem casting aside issues of security concerns. The UA is an open campus; anyone from around the city is free to visit the Student Union Memorial Center and most campus buildings, for that matter. Creating a gender-neutral restroom is the equivalent of taking the figure signs off the current restrooms and allowing anyone to use whichever restroom they prefer. Imagine all of the lowlifes in Tucson who would jump at the ability to access restrooms with people (including children) of the opposite sex without raising suspicion by being a man walking into a women’s restroom (or vice versa). Plus, according to the comment that it is impossible to assign gender to people, it would be impossible to determine the difference between the transgender person and the person taking advantage of the neutral restroom and its occupants. So, if for nothing else than the safety and peace of mind of the majority of the UA community, there must not be gender-neutral restrooms on campus.

Ryan Nielsen
criminal justice freshman

Attack on athletics off-base, ignorant

This is in response to Rebecca Lane’s letter to the editor (yesterday’s “”Re-evaluating sports and ‘school spirit'””). There are many people who do not find entertainment in sporting events, which is fine. Lane, however, seems to have a personal vendetta against all sports, which leads to a wildly off-base addition to the mailbag. First, Jeff Johnson’s letter, to which Lane was responding, is targeted at students who have either purchased Zona Zoo passes or enjoy attending games, not those who “”don’t give a damn.”” The capacity of the student section at football games is 10,000, yet more than 12,000 passes were sold. The student section for basketball is even smaller. There are more than enough interested people to fill them.

I can assure Lane that the lack of attendance at some football games is a result of this particular team’s performance, not an “”awesome paradigm shift within the U.S. public schooling system,”” although the comment did make me chuckle. The fact is that more people attended football games this year than any other in UA history. That’s right; the record for ticket sales was set this year. The constructs of school spirit are not being torn down, as was amusingly suggested.

Second, Lane’s attack on sports in general should be addressed. On top of trivial gripes, such as inconvenient parking and the existence of a sports section in the paper, Lane implies that athletes’ spots in classes are “”wasted,”” that sports dumb down “”personality and thought”” and that to support athletics is to “”mindlessly contribute.”” The ignorance and stereotypes involved with these comments should speak for themselves. Through experience, not conformity, I know that the pursuit of athletics is a “”wholesome, productive and admirable”” activity. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but don’t be bitter when others show passion for the sports and school they care about.

Brad Contento
marketing senior

Murdoch’s stations should be boycotted

We were pretty outraged when we heard that Rupert Murdoch’s media company was going to show a documentary about O.J. Simpson on how he “”would”” have murdered his wife if he killed her. As if Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News network had not reached a new low, last night on MSNBC it was announced that his lawyers offered millions of dollars in hush money to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and asked them to say nice things about Fox and Murdoch. Obviously, being the good Americans they are, they turned it down and instead took the high road by exposing Rupert Murdoch for the immoral, corrupt, megalomaniac, ulcer-infested propagandist rat that he is.

People who watch Fox News or any of his other stations should boycott them! This man always finds a way to add insult to injury, and everything he says on his stations are lies. This man even said himself that News Corporation Ltd. is a reflection of his thinking and values. In Britain they hate this guy so much that there were fears that he was going to buy the Independent Television Network and there were open talks about plots to assassinate him. They did this because there were fears that he would destroy British democracy. Murdoch represents everything immoral and wrong about our society. Whether it’s his backroom deals to make people millionaires overnight for his dirty work, the propaganda he features on his networks, his willingness to give jobs to other disgraced rats like Oliver North, or his control over Democracy and the free press, Rurpert Murdoch is a scumbag. He is the lowest of the low of human beings. He is heartless and he is insane.

Joel Shooster
political science junior