The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

93° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mailbag

    Off-the-cuff column poorly researched, argued
    I am writing in response to Andi Berlin’s column “”A student’s suggestions on UA Transformation”” (Oct. 6, 2008), specifically regarding her quality of argument and the qualitative content she suggests for removal. I wish to begin by recommending an increase in the amount of journalistic research done prior to making such suggestions. For example, the practical applications of the Terry J. Lundgren Center for Retailing may seem frivolous initially, but I can easily imagine a scenario by which this program provides corporations with both middle management and research and development personnel. Given the close and binding relationship between corporations and university funding (Washburn), cutting this program might do terrible damage to the very funding you are suggesting we preserve. Consider the possibility that the sponsorship of a major corporation is dependent on the existence of just such a program!

    There is a very practical reason that media arts students are lodged in a relatively new building: infrastructure. The Marshall building possesses a battery of computers equipped with Final Cut Pro and other film editing tools, software that is both expensive and complicated. I think you’ll agree that it would be expensive and impractical to both install this software on public access computers at the Integrated Learning Center and then reserve those computers for media arts students. Access to a dedicated lab is perhaps the only way for media arts students to learn the ins and outs of their highly mechanized trade. Not all media arts students are writers associated with the aesthetics and criticism branch. Others, who are more interested in the highly lucrative economics of television and film, learn about the marketing that goes on behind the scenes, a rather complicated process. Then there are the elite few selected for the production branch of the media arts department, a taxing and hands-on program that has already produced one Academy Award winner, Ari Sandel, whose 2005 short film, “”West Bank Story,”” dealt with relations between Israelis and Palestinians. If you had perhaps taken the time to properly research the media arts department before recommending its removal in such a cavalier fashion, you might have discovered this fact.

    Lastly, regarding your assertion that media arts students are a collection of smug cappuccino drinkers and smokers, I once again strongly recommend that you avoid such generalizations. For one thing, it is unprofessional. For another, your assertion is immaterial: By your logic, we could eliminate the law school if the students thereof smoked or drank cappuccino in a smug fashion. But we both know that’s not what you were suggesting.

    In closing, I have a final question: if you are so terribly concerned about your pocket book, why go to Pita Pit for a meal? For the same cost as one meal at Pita Pit, I could cook a meal at home and have three meals worth of leftovers to spare. Perhaps if you didn’t eat out so much, President Shelton’s proposals would not affect your funding so adversely.

    Jordan Matti
    media arts senior

    Social agreement basis of laws, not religious morality
    My objection isn’t a personal one, it’s a professional one. “”Many people of varying faiths believe that any kind of sexuality outside the scope of heterosexuality is immoral.”” (quote from John Winchester, Mailbag, Oct. 6, 2008). What does heterosexuality include? And what other types are outside of it? It seems that this graduate level argument links back to the belief I mentioned before where, apparently, allowing gays to marry leads directly to debauchery among animals (research slippery slope; also the same argument used to defend bans on interracial marriage). This is a highly religious topic, so why not just say so; the only opponents to homosexual marriage come from religious communities. So where exactly does John get off claiming that the separation of church and state “”does not apply””?

    And no, John, “”every law”” is not moral: The tax code isn’t moral, campaign finance laws aren’t moral, copyright laws aren’t moral. The reason these laws exist – alongside those for which you can claim a moral backing – isn’t because the Bible says so. They exist to promote social cohesion. Murder is illegal and punishable by law because the existence of the law gives the general population some piece of mind when walking down the street (i.e. it’s good for business). America isn’t the moral leader of the world, it never has been. America is the financial, business and social leader. The Vatican and Rome take care of the world’s moral crises.

    As a passing note regarding Proposition 102, Arizona already has a state law banning gay marriage. Proposition 102 seeks to amend the constitution because apparently Arizonans have a hard time following the law as it’s spelled out.

    Dylan Leischow
    economics senior

    More to Discover
    Activate Search