Gen eds should be scaled back

I find it ridiculous that in order to obtain eligibility to enter a certain field of study students are required to take over 21 units of general education courses. As a student who has already decided on a major, I do not find it necessary to waste my time and money taking courses that I would not be willing to take on my own. Do not get me wrong; I am all for taking courses that will broaden my education and enlighten me on topics I have never been introduced to. I just do not believe it should be a requirement that students take two Traditions and Cultures, Individuals and Societies and Natural Sciences courses in addition to Fine Arts and other Tier Two courses. For many students, taking on and trying to complete so many units in order to get into their field of study places them a semester or even a year behind. Coming from out of state, I am already paying $13,682 for tuition and fees every year. I do not enjoy the thought of having to spend more money on an extra semester or year in school due to not being able to finish my prerequisite courses in time. There are students who do not find the courses offered within the Tier One and Tier Two course selections to be the least bit appealing or to have any relevance to their field of study. I am not saying that general education courses should altogether be excluded from a student’s education, just that the number of units required for a student to complete prerequisite courses should be reconsidered.

Veronica Stahl
pre-nursing freshman

Bernsen should receive jury trial

I have to say that I am appalled by what appears to me to be a gross miscarriage of justice at this university. I read yesterday that Cade Bernsen faces punishment by the university merely because, according to the Dean of Students Office, the office found the complaints against him “”credible”” had “”cause to conclude, more likely than not”” than Bernsen engaged in sexual harassment. There is a reason why we are nation of laws according to which people are to be judged by a jury of their peers, are considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and are judged in a public court of law, not in secrecy. It is simply wrong to punish people, and perhaps ruin their lives, merely because someone arbitrarily judges a complaint credible and more likely true than not (51 percent likely, 49 percent unlikely hardly seems just cause to punish someone). Crimes, as well as infractions of university rules, should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in a public hearing, to have occurred and should be judged by an impartial jury of peers, not in secrecy by an all-powerful Dean of Students Office.

Marcus Arvan
philosophy graduate student

Major gap between soft- and hard-core porn

With the recent rants regarding pornography, I would like to offer my two-cents worth. I think it is important to distinguish between soft-core pornography, which I tend to enjoy, and hard-core, which I detest. In the former, artistic merit plays a role and the beauty of both male and female nudes is typically apparent. In the latter, however, male and female nudes are shown engaged in a form of carnal debauchery that appeals to our mammalian senses, not our heightened human ones. It is my opinion that soft-core pornography is acceptable, as it lifts us from the cesspool that is our daily existence and shows us that beauty is indeed possible in this beast of a world. Think about it; do you prefer the present or the anticipation of the present?

Alex Bentley
UA alumnus

New ticketing policy benefits rich, not ‘true fans’

Many students are aggravated by the idea of raising athletic game ticket prices as discussed in May 3rd’s article “”Ticket prices hiked by 80 percent.”” It is already difficult for students to find the money needed to buy tickets, let alone the extra $90 that will be added between costs of football and basketball games. We should not be punished for having a popular basketball team. I don’t think this idea of raising money is going to make buying basketball tickets any easier. Tickets will simply go to the people who have money, not necessarily the ones who are “”true fans.”” Although the lottery system wasn’t perfect, it was more efficient than this new system will be. Fans who won the lottery tickets and didn’t want them didn’t have to buy them, so we were still getting people who were interested in attending the games to buy tickets. Furthermore, the idea of letting the public buy tickets for the student section after 5 p.m. is absurd. This will defeat the whole purpose of having a student section. These changes next year are not in the best interest of students. We didn’t even get to vote about this. Sure, a select group of students who have the money may be happy with this new system, but for those of us who are average college students, it will be hard to come up with enough money to support and enjoy our athletic teams.

Allison Schneider
speech and hearing sciences freshman

PSU food monopoly exploits students

The Park Student Union is the main headquarters for the majority of grocery needs for the dorm residents of the southwestern region of campus. The extremely close location to Coronado and Arizona-Sonora Residence Halls make the PSU a practical choice for grocery shopping. Moreover, the ability to use the CatCard’s meal plan furthers our reason to invest our money into the PSU. In turn, the PSU becomes the only possible stop for most freshman customers.

The PSU acknowledges and capitalizes on this apparent situation. The charges on everyday products are amplified to outrageous prices. For example, a six-pack of Fiji water is priced at $15.00 in the PSU, while in most stores you can find the same product for under $10.00. Also, the standard pack of Juicy Fruit gum is clearly stated on the pack itself to be priced at $0.30, while the PSU manages to inflate the price to around $0.50.

Most students view the money on their CatCard as imaginary money and thus find it easy to ignore the inflated cost of their groceries. Furthermore, the convenient location of the PSU results in the only feasible option for students anyway. The students are unfairly being taken advantage of, and nothing is done about the problem. Our parents are busy enough working to pay for our education, to worry about being manipulated by the meal plan. The UA meal plan advertises a cost-effective food option, but fails to follow through on its claims. The PSU recognizes the monopoly of the grocery market and exploits my fellow students.

A change is necessary simply for ethical reasons. The school shouldn’t be out to abuse its own students; rather the school should be on the side of the student body to provide quality products at lowest competitive prices. Even if the food is bought with meal-plan cash, the meal-plan cash is still money. The status quo requires an immediate change; otherwise the mistreatment will continue in the future. The student body must challenge apparent injustices in an effort to instill our own authority over our own domain.

Josh Kurian
pre-business freshman