The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

77° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    Horowitz doesn’t have solution for higher ed complaints

    I read the Arizona Daily Wildcat’s review of David Horowitz’s article about our higher education system (“”Faculty responds to Horowitz””) and decided I needed more information. It is irrational and erroneous to make any judgment about a primary source based upon a secondary review of that source.

    Thus, I looked up the article “”Abusive Academics”” and read that as well, seeing as there is no better way to be fully informed about an article than to read the original article itself. While reading the article, I have come to the realization that I do not have a clear idea what educational ideology Horowitz or his constituents are advocating.

    He has offered many complaints about what is being offered, but he has not provided an alternate curriculum of what should be taught instead. I am not asking for a broad, general statement, but rather a finely articulated, detailed protocol of what these people would proclaim to be the “”perfect education.”” Perhaps then we can address the issues in our higher education curriculum, as they need to be addressed.

    There is one issue brought up by this article that may indeed be pragmatic. The free exchange of ideas in the U.S. stops short of complete freedom to say whatever one wishes. Specifically, libel and slander are prohibited. If Horowitz’s article violates this principle, then both the author and his publisher are accountable for these actions.

    I do not have the educational background to make the determination if this is indeed the case, so I leave the review of this matter to those people who are more fully qualified. I realize this sort of legal affair may be viewed as crybaby bickering in our sue-happy nation by liberal and conservative radicals alike, but the fact remains that we are all accountable to the same laws.

    Ben Kaur UA alumnus

    CEOs morally entitled to tax break compensation

    Contrary to Stan Molever (“”Playing Robin Hood””), the CEOs of gargantuan corporations responsible for employing thousands upon thousands of Americans deserve tax breaks. Sure, they receive paychecks greater than anything many of us may see in our lifetimes, but the fact that they are working countless hours managing companies that keep so many people employed is justification for a tax break.

    The tax strategy President Bush has pushed over the past few years has worked wonderfully. Cutting tax rates has raised tax revenues and stimulated the economy. Since businesses have had more money that is not going to the government, they can invest in expansions and more employees (thus creating more taxpayers).

    It is morally wrong and a violation of the heritage of American culture to penalize someone just because they work hard and become extremely successful.

    Alex Hoogasian political science senior

    DUI more of a culprit than Iraq

    I understand the recent displays of the fallen soldiers. I totally commend and support the soldiers in the field, but highlighting the numbers only for the political purpose of making a statement on the United States’ position on the war is off the mark.

    If you are protesting the war solely based on the numbers, here’s some facts that you should be aware of: During the time that the U.S. has been involved in the most recent conflict in the Middle East, more than 3,000 soldiers have lost their lives. In that same time, 20 times (or more than 60,000) the lives have been lost on America’s highways to drunk drivers.

    We’re not talking about distant people, like in Darfur; these are American civilians, here at home. I’ve never seen a display of flags for DUI fatalities before. The real weapon of mass destruction is alcohol, and it’s already here, slaughtering us.

    People, focus your efforts on where the real killing is, not on a political statement.

    Timothy Shih engineering senior

    UA professors not objective

    I hope that Arizona Daily Wildcat readers take the time to read David Horowitz’s expose. It gave me a flashback to my days at the UA, debating with “”objective”” UA professors, often to no avail.

    If you did read Horowitz’s column you would learn about a UA professor who scheduled class late, and offered extra credit to students to participate in a “”pro-choice”” rally. Did professor Kari McBride offer extra credit to participate in a “”pro-life”” rally? The hypocrisy of academia is astounding.

    If a professor advocating “”pro-life”” shortened class and offered extra credit to students who participated in an anti-abortion rally, would that professor still have his/her job? Could that professor obtain employment at other state-run institutions? Should the Daily Wildcat have exposed this apparent hypocrisy? Will the Wildcats win another basketball game? Are the women at UA still ridiculously good-looking?

    Bill Stack UA alumnus

    Overweight girls still beautiful

    I don’t read the Wildcat much, but I wanted to address something: Tyra Banks has been getting a lot of criticism for her weight gain. Being an overweight girl myself, I relate to her situation.

    These critics are appalling. Once anyone in the public eye gains weight, they become “”disgusting.”” Apparently, 161 pounds is gross and fat. That is how much I weight, and I am happy. I believe that Tyra Banks is relatable now. I can proudly say that I weigh as much as a model. I’m hoping she can change the face of the modeling industry with her pride in her new body.

    This is the way real people look, and now she’s a real person to me. Ever since World War II, the skinny girl has been the image of beauty in society. Before that, larger women were adored. Tyra Banks is bringin’ it back, and I’m behind her 100 percent!

    Sara Burke media arts sophomore

    More to Discover
    Activate Search