Celebrity adoptions: good, bad or fad?
Celebrity adoptions have garnered a good deal of media attention recently with A-listers like Madonna and Angelina Jolie bypassing the stork and bringing children from far-flung locales into their families. Some have praised the attention that this has brought to the cause of adoption and to the places the children have hailed from, while others have suggested that these adoptions can be, at worst, rule-breaking attention grabs. Who’s right? Celebrity adoptions: good or bad?
| Family friends of mine not only waited months to receive their daughter from the Philippines, but they had to jump through all sorts of hurdles. To contrast, Madonna got to show up in Malawi, pass GO and collect a new son – one with a living father (a violation of Malawi adoption laws). Plus, she managed to get around further adoption rules that require that foreigners be resident in the country for 18 months before adopting a child. Regardless of what country we are talking about, celebrity couples should be held to the same standards that other foreign couples are held to – just because they are famous doesn’t mean they are inherently better parents. |
– Courtney Smith is a senior majoring in anthropology and molecular and cellular biology.
| Regardless of the drama surrounding Madonna’s recent adoption of a young boy from Malawi, it cannot be denied that recent celebrity adoptions have shined light on parts of the world often forgotten by the average Joes of the Western world. Angelina Jolie has adopted a son from Cambodia – exposing us to the country’s continued struggle with land mines – and a daughter from Ethiopia – splashing images of famine in our U.S. Weekly. When these adoption stories are recounted in gossip blogs, in magazines or on Oprah, they provide not only a lesson in geography but also a reminder that we do not all live our lives in this world with television sets and SUVs. |
– Vanessa Valenzuela is a junior majoring in international studies and economics.
Trespassing in the end zone
This year the Wildcat’s surprise Homecoming upset gave fans a strong – and exuberant – feeling of déjà vu. And the students’ response to the win gave the police and security guards tasked with ensuring the game’s safety some déjà vu of their own. The now-familiar sight of students rocking back and forth on bright yellow goalposts, trying to bring them down in celebration, begs an important question: What should consequences be for these revelers? Is this a criminal act or innocent celebration?
| Let’s get a couple of things straight: First, you’re not going to be able to take down concrete-anchored goalposts, second, it’s illegal to try, and third, after the incidents last year, students should already know it’s illegal to try. What’s more, it’s particularly disingenuous to accuse the police of confused priorities. Sure, there are petty thefts happening elsewhere, but unlike the raucous situation at the football game, not many of those have the potential to escalate into a full-fledged stampede that could leave hundreds injured (à la the real football crazies in Europe). So let’s not fault the police for doing their job (enforcing the law) while glorifying students who really just wanted a chance to be seen swinging from goalposts on ESPN. |
– Damion LeeNatali is a senior majoring in political science and history.
| The University of Arizona Police Department shouldn’t be wasting its time going after students who climb goalposts. The posts are specially designed to withstand the weight of a few drunken students, so there is little risk of the structure collapsing – plus, students who climb the posts should know that they do so at their own risk. |
Considering that FBI statistics rank the UA the second-worst campus in the nation for property crime, UAPD should have better things to do than prosecute a few goalpost offenders. I’d rather feel safe leaving my car unattended than see a few revelers arrested.
– David Francis is a pre-business sophomore.
