The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

74° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat



    See what college papers around the country are saying about this week’s news

    A federal debate: the price of privacy

    The next time you call the folks back home or close friends at another university, they may not be the only ones legally listening in – not if the principal deputy director of national intelligence, Donald Kerr, gets his way. A recent debate concerning whether or not to give telecommunication companies immunity on the issue of government eavesdropping along with Congress’ effort to rehaul the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act spurred Kerr to claim that U.S. citizens must modify their definition of privacy. While the United States has long been heralded for its protection of anonymity – the authors of the Federalist Papers even published anonymously – Kerr argued that privacy should no longer mean anonymity, but rather that the government is obligated to preserve citizens’ private communications through warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping.

    Kerr argues that since millions of young people in our generation have already forfeited and willingly divulged vast amounts of personal information to the public through social networks such as Facebook, which boasts 43 million subscribers, this revamping of privacy isn’t anything new, nor is it something that people should fear since they are already actively perpetuating this new definition.

    Despite the prevalence of social networking sites in our generation, Kerr’s argument is flawed. Our generation does not have a different notion of privacy, as Kerr suggests we do. Rather, people are simply embracing new communication and technologies to voluntary give out information about themselves. Facebook is this generation’s version of salons and barber shops, where our forefathers privately exchanged information and valued anonymity as we do through these sites.

    -The Heights (Boston College)

    Show me the progress!

    Sky-high executive pay at Fortune 500 companies is nothing new, and although many of us might not like it, CEOs receive gargantuan compensation packages even if they send their companies diving into the dirt.

    And just as private sector executive pay has skyrocketed, so has the compensation for university presidents. Inflated pay packages at private universities have put many presidential salaries at over $1 million, and public universities seem ready to follow. In The Chronicle of Higher Education’s latest survey of presidential salaries, eight public institutions doled out at least $700,000 for their presidents, while only two had similarly compensated their presidents the year before. Indiana University President Michael McRobbie’s haul totaled $481,680, right around the median in the Big Ten. But that’s nothing compared to the $880,950 made by former Purdue University President Martin C. Jischke. It’s worth noting that most university presidents still make less than the head football coach, but inflated executive salaries have become progressively more commonplace.

    This information leads us here at the Indiana Daily Student Editorial Board to wonder just where all this money is going. Certainly universities today, especially those with sizable research goals and multiple campuses, are complex organizations that require well-compensated leaders. Nevertheless, we wonder just how much of an increase in quality all these highly paid presidents get us.

    -Indiana Daily Student (Indiana U.)

    Bigotry, racism fuel push for anti-affirmative action initiative

    It’s painful to think about how this Ward Connerly/affirmative action nonsense will play out here as election day approaches.

    It won’t be pretty.

    In case you missed the news, one week ago, Connerly, who led successful crusades in three other states to pass anti-affirmative action legislation, filed a petition to do the same in Nebraska. Marc Schniederjans, a University of Nebraska management professor, joined Connerly’s group in filing the ballot initiative.

    The group aims to ban affirmative action in Nebraska, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma this election cycle. California, Washington and Michigan already have been conquered.

    No question here: This is all brought to you by a modern brand of racism. Super Tuesday for Equal Rights is a contemptible group, and it’s embarrassing its leaders found a mole at the university to put his name on the group’s effort.

    The most insidious part of the Connerly ordeal is the insincerity with which his group operates.

    As the election nears, a scary picture will be painted: People who are black and brown are stealing college careers and jobs from the state’s hard-working white youths – you know, the kids who really face an uphill battle from the beginning. (…) In reality, it’s about fear-mongering and bigotry. It’s in the mold of this country’s ridiculous debate about banning gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

    It’s a Trojan horse aimed to inject racism into Nebraska’s constitution.

    Please, please, please folks, don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

    -Daily Nebraskan (U. Nebraska)

    More to Discover
    Activate Search