Craig issue shows hypocrisy of Democratic Party
As someone who’s been a keen observer of the political scene and is working his way toward a political science degree, I know political hypocrisy when I see it. While I am in no way defending what Sen. Craig did, I believe that it, along with the Mark Foley scandal, shows a wider hypocrisy amongst the Democratic Party.
In 1973, Gerry Studds, a congressman from Massachusetts, admitted to having an affair with a 17-year-old page. The act itself was not illegal, because 16 is the age of consent in Washington D.C., but Studds was not forced out of Congress. He received a censure, lost a committee seat and continued his service as a member of Congress. Compare that to Mark Foley, who also did nothing illegal (while the sending of his explicit e-mails was certainly disgusting, it wasn’t illegal) yet he was forced out of Congress. Guess which party Gerry Studds belonged to? If you guessed the Democratic Party, you’re right!
It’s part of a much wider pattern that proves that today’s media is out to get Republicans and they believe that Democrats can do no wrong. After all, you don’t hear about how Dianne Feinstein and John Murtha used their positions in Congress to get money for themselves, and you barely hear about William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democratic congressman who was arrested by the FBI for money laundering. Yet, the moment a story about a Republican scandal comes out, the media is blaring on and on about it.
Don’t take this as me defending any Republicans who have been involved in scandals. If they’ve done something wrong, then they deserve to be punished. However, it’s ridiculous for the news media to attack one side while ignoring the other. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true. Our media is in sad shape, and quite frankly, I don’t trust a word that comes out of it. Until there’s real balance from both sides, and FOX and especially liberal networks like CNN are committed, at least in their news shows, to bringing true balanced news to the people, then none of you should, either.
-Kevin Rand Wos
political science freshman
Profit motive damaging UA
When demolition crews bulldoze a liberal arts building at the edge of the University of Arizona campus, does anybody hear about it? Does anyone even care?
Recently, the political science department received notice that in two weeks, an off-campus office would be demolished due to “”unsatisfactory building conditions and underutilization.”” The office is used by the Arizona Model United Nations club as a headquarters to train for competitions and coordinate their annual high school Model UN conference. Granted, the club represents a small percentage of the student body, but the “”demolition”” of extracurricular liberal arts programs alludes to a broader, more pressing issue of blatant profiteering that is creating road blocks for students who strive to be well-educated and invested members of the UA.
The university administration has begun charging students to park in the Cherry Garage after hours, which means that fewer students studying late at the ILC or Main Library can afford to stay on campus. A recent letter from graduate student Adrian Stoian puts it succinctly: “”In relative terms, attending a football game is cheaper than studying at the library.”” What does that say about the university’s priorities? Is disrupting an established, popular learning environment really worth the paltry revenue? To illustrate this point further, the Arizona Health Sciences Library recently limited its hours of operation due to budget cuts. The former 24-hour library is one of the safest places to study for all students, but the new budget cuts and garage tariffs have created an environment that is less focused on producing accomplished students.
The university even targets incoming freshmen for petty revenue. Research has shown that freshmen who live on campus are more likely to remain in college and graduate on time. ResLife, however, seems to be using this as justification to go over dorm capacity. Many students who have paid for the semester are “”temporarily”” housed in study lounges, hotel rooms or with RA’s. The only way to “”detemp”” a student is if someone gets evicted or drops out, neither option promoting a supportive, friendly learning environment.
In order to continue to grow in standing among the nation’s universities, UA Inc. must indeed gain profits. However, it must take the utmost care in assuring that these measures do not restrict academic success of the dedicated, well-rounded students who give this university its most important added value and social benefits. Otherwise, we can be certain that the Sun Devils wouldn’t mind some company among the dregs of the academic community.
-Lalita Abhyankar and Shaharyar Ashraf
Executive Committee, Arizona Model United Nations
