Greek system offers benefits beyond what many may perceive Despite the word “”greek”” often meaning “”party”” to some, many can’t seem to see the good out of the system. The greek system at the UA offers much more than what people see, say and think. Hours are taken each day from college students involved in fraternities and sororities. Being involved in the system, one grasps how much dedication and time is put into it by not only the new members, but also the Panhellenic Council. Observing from the outside, people assume that there is no point, but unless one is involved, that person can’t get the full effect of the purpose.

Philanthropy and scholarship are two of the top priorities for the system. Maintaining a good grade point average is an important task while being involved. By not meeting the standards each semester, an active member is likely to be punished. Although grades are very important, philanthropy is the main priority for the greek system. Usually, the fraternity or sorority holding the fundraisers advertise around campus to get people involved to help out.

On Nov. 15, 2008, sororities and fraternities came together for CATwalk to walk and run for the Bobbi Olson Fund at the Arizona Cancer Center. More than 3,200 people showed and $108,000 was raised. One recent fundraiser was Gamma Phi Beta’s “”Spagammi Dinner.”” They raised money for Campfire USA. And during Family Weekend, Alpha Phi held their “”Red Dress Gala,”” which raised money for Women’s Cardiac Care, benefiting the Alpha Phi Foundation and the Tacoma branch of the American Heart Association. Also, Kappa Alpha Theta is holding their annual Burrito Bash, which supports their prioritized philanthropy CASA this Friday, Dec. 5 at the Kappa Alpha Theta house.

Although many seem to not understand the point of being involved in the greek system, the people involved know all the good actions they are performing. Hopefully people will consider joining with the intensions of not only making new life lasting friends, but also helping the community and the less fortunate.

Kelsie Gutier pre-journalism freshman

Government should not seek to deny citizens of abortion rights Abortion rights is normally a territory that I do not go in because people tend to get a little touchy about this subject, but the article “”Gov. Brewer may veto AZ abortion”” in Tuesday’s Daily Wildcat really upset me. I just hate to hear things like “”… patients be notified of the pain their fetus would endure and otherwise making the procedure less accessible to women and minors …””

First off, I’m not a person that knows everything about abortion, but I have done enough research to know that the fetus doesn’t feel any pain because it isn’t developed enough. Also, whose right is it to make abortion less accessible or not allowed? If it’s not your life, then you don’t exactly understand what they are going through, so how can you tell them what to do?

I’m really nervous of what is going to happen when Jan Brewer gets into office because she is not pro-choice. Brewer says “”… government has a role to protect those who can’t protect themselves”” and I agree with this statement, but when you start to take away people’s rights, especially because of religious reasons, then the government should have absolutely no such role.

Wyatt Fournier undeclared freshman

Wildcat article paints unfair portrait of Ecstasy drug When my friend had told me that there was an article on the drug Ecstasy in the Daily Wildcat, I was extremely intrigued as to what it would say considering I have held the paper in high regards over my past four years here (“”Study seeks to demystify ‘hug drug,’ Dec. 1, 2008). What I found was an uneducated mockery of information being broadcast to the student and teacher population on campus.

First of all, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, aka MDMA, is not Ecstasy. Ecstasy is a street form of MDMA that contains adulterants such as caffeine, traces of crystal meth, 2C-B and other hallucinogens. The street term “”Molly”” is what MDMA is. This made me extremely disappointed because it is in the first paragraph, and immediately pointed me to the fact that the author has written this article strictly on his bias.

The writer quotes one study saying that after four days of Ecstasy use that there were severe damage to the nerve receptors in the brain. While this “”study”” may be true, it should have been noted right after that when taking the drug, one does not take it for four days. The study he is quoting is a joke of a study used by the government as a scare tactic in the early to late ’80s. Remember all those silly commercials about marijuana and how it “”kills””? I’m pretty certain that those commercials have been sufficiently proven wrong by independent researchers, just as the effects of MDMA do not cause permanent damage to the brain when exposed for the regular, average dosage time.

In reality, MDMA is classed as a hallucinogen. Most of the feelings of euphoria come from the street term “”dirty”” pills, or pills cut with crystal meth. The drug is also not just take orally in a capsule or tablet; many people snort, some smoke. Each has a different effect on the brain.

I am by no means advocating that everybody tries this. I understand the position of the paper, and that it cannot support any type of illegal narcotic. But I believe it is the duty of the paper to inform correctly, and to let the people make the choice on how bad or good this drug is.

C. Mikulich retailing and consumer sciences junior