Keep school-based Senators
Dear Editor:
I have serious problems with Student Life’s assertion that “student concerns do not track which school they belong to.” While this may be the case for arts and sciences, which holds the majority of students, this is not the case for many schools, particularly art, architecture, and engineering.
Recently there was an issue with Architecture students being able to log onto wireless networks that was superbly handled by an architecture Senator, Jeff Waldman. Similarly, I have many concerns that are unique to the engineering school, but that I might not care about as much if my constituency is the people from my freshman dorm.
Currently, I feel like there are three distinct groups of students in the engineering undergraduate body: the four-years, the dual degrees and the UMSL students. Right now there is a lot of separation between the three groups, something I would like to see changed by having events that bring them together so they get to know each other because the sharing of ideas and time will only make the engineering school greater.
I also fear what the idea of making the Senators freshman floor specific will do to transfer students and dual degree engineers. Will they just be stuck in a random freshman floor, unable to vote for the people who reach out to them on campus? I think it’s much better to give them a broad selection of all the students in their school and be able to vote for that kid who helped them figure out their course listings or thermodynamics homework than just random people who lived together a few years ago.
-David Hall,
Engineering Senator
Class of 2007
What about cunnilingus?
Dear Editor:
Congratulations on the SEXXX edition of Student Life this week. I enjoyed all of the many tips you provided, especially the article entitled “How to Give Good Head” by Eric Senta. However, we were deeply offended at the absence of an informational column regarding cunnilingus.
In our experience, it is far more common for a woman to give oral pleasure to a man than [vice versa]. The fact that Student Life has neglected the vagina furthers the idea that guys should be getting it and girls should be giving it. The oversight feeds into this bias making the assumption that cunnilingus is not important. Gender inequality will persist as long as sexual inequality exists.
-Rebecca Martin,
Class of 2007
Financial aid cuts target the middle class
Dear Editor:
I am one of those 2,178 students that receive a Perkins Loan and without it, I would not be here. The recent Bush proposal to phase out Perkins Loans deeply disturbs me. As noted in Student Life [Feb. 9, 2005], Bush is cutting 150 programs in the 2006 budget, of which nearly a third of them are in education. I understand the need to cut the deficit, but at what cost? By sacrificing future generations’ prospect for a quality education?
I am from suburban South Jersey. My town is solid middle class and in most households both parents work to pay the bills. Most of the students from my public high school went to state or community colleges, as private schools were just too expensive. The reality of the current financial aid system is that families like mine are royally screwed. It appears on paper that we have more money than we do or is available and as a result I am not qualified for federal grants. My parents help me where they can, but federal student loans were and are my only other option. $40,000 a year for college is too much for an average family like mine. I do not see why I should have to face the choice of sacrificing a good education simply because my family does not fall within a specified income bracket.
I wonder: is the new change going to foster an elite university system that only the wealthiest and poorest can attend? What about Middle America, the group that does the “grunt” work that keeps our nation going? I fear that the current budget cuts in education show that the nation’s true concern and priority is on foreign soil while sacrificing what would otherwise continue to make America great.
-Stephanie Smith,
Class of 2006
Republicans, religion demonized in cartoons
Dear Editor:
I am increasingly disappointed with Brian Sotak’s “editorial cartoons.” One which appeared in Student Life nearly a year ago [Apr. 9, 2004] marginalized black conservatives-a GOP elephant referring to Clarence Thomas as the “only colored vote we need”-and showed white men (representing the Center for Equal Opportunity and the American Civil Rights Institute) calling black college applicants “uppity darkies.” I was shocked at his hateful rhetoric, gross racial and religious misrepresentations and lack of judgment and thoughtfulness both on his part for writing it and Student Life for publishing it.
More recently Sotak used Ash Wednesday as a vehicle to espouse more insulting language; he strips the receiving of the ashes of any importance, demonizing the service and those who observe it and makes a mockery of the Lord’s Prayer to push a prejudiced secular agenda. Burning fetuses are less than funny. These cartoons have crossed the lines of good taste, good cartooning and good satire into outright insult.
For anyone who cartoons or writes political satire, make fun of George Bush all you want, I don’t particularly care. Go read Cagle’s blog on MSN for inspiration; they’ve got some of the best. But think about what you’ve written or drawn, address the issues and their inherent humor, not the I-hate-George-Bush knee jerk reaction so prevalent on campus. Be subtle about it, and above all make it funny.
-Sam Stribling,
Class of 2005
Why is liberal prejudice OK?
Dear Editor:
In light of the recent articles and letters to the editor regarding fair treatment of minorities, I would like to draw Student Life’s attention to its consistently insulting commentary and cartoons regarding the Republican Party (particularly Sotak’s cartoon [Feb. 9, 2005]). If the paper regards prejudice as something to be eliminated, I politely suggest that your Forum writers and editorial cartoonists learn the art of civilized debate. I would hope that most of the students here are capable of intelligently debating substantive political and moral issues; however, I find myself losing hope when I read the sophomoric and often downright cruel characterizations of Republicans in Student Life.
There are far better ways to express disagreement with Republican political beliefs and the policies of the Bush Administration. Perhaps Student Life can set an example for the rest of the campus by publishing intelligent and well-written articles as opposed to inflammatory and offensive screeds.
-Joseph Goldkamp,
Class of 2006