It’s not my job
The other night, my friend, who lives off campus, was at the Union with me studying for our chemistry test. It was a Saturday night, and we finished studying around 10:30 p.m. Little did we know, SafeRide is not open on Saturday nights. My friend lives on Drachman (Street) and did not want to walk home alone late at night, so I called the UAPD for her to ask if someone could come pick her up. The dispatcher told us that the UAPD does not drive off campus and told us to call SafeRide. After explaining to them that SafeRide was not open and being on hold for five minutes, someone was finally sent to come get my friend. I was in disbelief that I had to convince the UAPD to come drive my friend home late at night, even after I explained that she did not feel safe walking. It does not seem right to me that SafeRide is not open on Saturdays and that the UAPD was not willing to come pick up a 20-year-old girl and drive her five minutes down the road.
— Marissa Murphy
Nursing undergraduate
Sober pals
Thanks to Steven Kwan for his excellent article “”Sober does not equal buzzkill”” in the May 3 Daily Wildcat. In it, he articulately describes life as a student who enjoys relaxing after a stressful week as much as anyone, but who happens to abstain from alcohol. Wildcat readers may be surprised to learn just how many students don’t drink here at the UA.
According to the 2009 Health & Wellness Survey (N=1,720), administered every spring semester to a random selection of undergraduate classes, 30 percent of UA students did not use alcohol in the past 30 days. While it can be easy to notice and overestimate the numbers of students who drink heavily, most students who drink at the UA drink moderately, if they drink at all. In fact, of all the alcohol consumed by UA students, 75 percent of students drink only 25 percent of the alcohol consumed. While there are still those who drink heavily, there are about the same number of students who don’t drink.
If you are a graduating senior this semester, it may not be the late night study sessions, campus events or even the parties that you remember best from your years at the UA. Chances are, it will be the friends you share those experiences with. Whether you drink or not, there are plenty of social pursuits to foster those connections while you are here.
Steven, you said it best: at the end of the day, the most important thing is to be there for our friends when they need us — with or without alcohol.
— David Salafsky
Campus Health Service
Other concerns
Proponents of Israeli divestment should look back approximately 70 years ago when a portion of the public chose to boycott Jewish businesses instead of protesting an emerging tyrannical leader that called for anti-Semitic genocide. It is quite obvious the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very complex and heart breaking for those on both sides. However, divesting from Israel is not a great answer for the conflict when a Holocaust-denying president of Iran expresses great interest in annihilating both worldwide Jewry and this country as well.
— Eitan Cramer
Boom goes the dynamite
After picking up the May 4 issue of the Daily Wildcat, I felt compelled to write a letter. Not so much because of the paper, but because of what fell out of it. There was an insert headlined “”Money Beats Textbooks!”” with a cartoon showing a stack of bills carrying a handful of dynamite apparently blowing up a book sporting a nice pair of brown pants. My jaw literally dropped. Could have been for a number of reasons, such as:
— implication of burning books (didn’t Nazis used to do that?)
— implied violence (bombs are a bit politically incorrect at present)
— anthropomorphizing a stack of bills to a violent visage: note the ‘corporate’-like hands, though at least it was smart enough to wear ear protection (!?!)
But no. There were two more insidious factors at play here. First, there seems to be an implication that textbooks (and potentially their associated courses) are throw-away items. That shedding such burdens (“”Send ‘em back from where they came””) will make your life better. On one hand, this is condescending with regard to what the university experience provides, but on the other hand, it is merely a cartoon-ized cash grab where you the students are being taken for the rubes! Second, I wouldn’t have minded so much if this advertisement were merely from some random business trying to make a buck (we do live in a free country). But no, to my horror, it was from the Arizona Bookstore, a business that has served “”the students, faculty and staff of University of Arizona with pride since 1953.””
This type of advertising has no place on this campus, nor should the UA condone such methods. It is not only an affront to the school itself, but to the UA community (students/staff/faculty/alumni) as well. Besides, you might actually want to hang on to those books. Never know if they might come in handy one day (at the very least to keep the door propped open, as summer is coming and all)!
— Christopher Bergevin
Faculty, mathematics
Call for consistency
As finals are coming up, I am finding myself comparing what I have to do for my classes with my friends. My friend and I were talking about what we have to turn in for our final English papers in our 102 classes. Her teacher is having their class write a 1300-1500 word rhetoric(al) analysis or revision of another student’s paper; my teacher’s final consists of a cover letter for our portfolio, a revision of one of our essays into a short memo, another revision of one of our essays into a speech, and a three-page reflective essay. When we compared the work we had to do throughout the year, the classes seemed about even, but still not exact. I think that the English department needs to standardize their curriculum so every 102 class, or any level English class, has the same required papers throughout the year and the same final assignment. I realize every teacher has their own way of grading which might be different from another teacher, but it does not seem fair that some classes write upwards of seven papers throughout the year while others only write five.
— Marissa Murphy
Nursing undergraduate
Higher bridges
I am writing to respond to Sean Robert Pinkerton’s letter entitled “”Better borders,”” published in today’s Wildcat. The letter is factually correct in its assertion that many countries, notably including Mexico, have much more harsh anti-illegal-immigration laws than does the United States. However, “”they’re even worse than we are”” is not, and has never been, a valid argument for or against legislation.
I doubt that Mr. Pinkerton would favor rolling back civil rights legislation, simply because racism is more pronounced in France, Japan and South Africa than it is in the United States. I doubt that Mr. Pinkerton would support an end to workplace safety laws, simply because such laws are almost nonexistent (or not enforced) in China, Vietnam and El Salvador. And I doubt that Mr. Pinkerton would favor cutting back on the government subsidies that help pay for his education, simply because Berkeley, Michigan, and Illinois are even more expensive than the University of Arizona.
The fact is, Mr. Pinkerton’s argument is a red herring. For over 200 years, the United States has stood as an example among nations, often venturing where no other country has gone. Let’s keep this spirit of boldness alive by debating the merits and morality of immigration legislation, not by looking to other countries for justification.
— Brennan Vincent
Mathematics freshman
