Senior edition of Daily ‘crude,’ ‘disgusting,’ ‘not funny’
To the Daily:
“It’s just a spoof edition.” “It’s supposed to be funny.” “We really didn’t mean what we wrote.” Three excuses that can be used to justify offensive comments in Friday’s Daily. Here is a news flash for you: They were not funny. They were crude, degrading and misrepresented our University.
We realize that the Daily’s spoof edition is a tradition and, sad to say, this is the fourth time in our four years here that we have felt this way. The truth is that you can make a spoof paper really funny without making offensive comments like “Bruce Springsteen is a homo. Seriously, words cannot encompass his gayness.”
Placing this comment in your spoof edition inherently meant that the Daily thought someone out there would think that comment was funny. We personally know many people who did think it was funny. That fact is a disgrace. So our plea to you is this: Make a spoof edition; it is tradition. But think before you again help perpetuate stereotypes that our University actively tries to eliminate.
Daily reader is confused
To the Daily:
Could somebody please explain what was going on with the Daily online Friday? All of the articles are crazy and do not make sense. It is usually not like this.
Posturing of student leaders prevents development of open dialogue on Mid-East conflict
To the Daily:
Concerning Students Allied for Freedom and Equality founder Fadi Kiblawi’s comments in the Daily (Students face off on State St. with rally, vigil, 01/30/03), I have only one question: Have Palestinians really never had a single day of self-rule?
Comments such as “Palestine never had a single day without occupational forces controlling their lives” are profoundly misleading and, simply put, false. After Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, the land allotted to the Palestinians by the United Nations in their partition of British-mandate Palestine was taken by Egypt, Jordan and Israel. After the internationally-recognized defensive 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the remainder of that land – Gaza Strip and West Bank – from Egypt and Jordan, respectively. Beginning with the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel began to turn over portions of the territories to the Palestinian Authority.
The West Bank has been divided into three types of areas, “A,” “B” and “C.” In “A” areas, which contains six of the largest cities in the West Bank, the Palestinian Legislative Council has full responsibility for internal security and public order, as well as full civil responsibilities.
In “B” areas, which contain most of the towns and villages in the West Bank, the Palestinian Legislative Council has full civil authority and responsibility for public order, although Israel has overall security authority, which is stated to take precedence over Palestinian responsibility for public order.
In “C” areas, which contain mainly unpopulated areas, Israel has full responsibility for security and public order (This entire, unedited paragraph can be found on the website of the Institute of Law at Birzeit University, a Palestinian university in the West Bank: lawcenter.birzeit.edu/overview/pa.html).
I think it is time for our student leaders to refrain from misguided rhetoric. Romanticizing the plight of the Palestinians by claiming they have never had “a single day” of political self-determination only confuses the public, presents blatant falsehoods as historical fact and undermines any attempt to have constructive dialogue on this campus.
Corporate sponsorships could alleviate tuition crunch for students at the University
To the Daily:
Due to state budget cuts, the University faces a debilitating deficit. Now, as the Daily reported (University remains silent on its contingency plan for lawsuit loss, 01/30/03), the University could be responsible in paying up to $5 million in legal fees if it loses its cases.
Who picks up the tab for the needed money? We, the students. Do the math. The legal fees alone would cost each student an additional $150. The University is planning to raise tuition for the most expensive public institution to new heights. What’s the solution? Corporate sponsorship of classes. The possibilities are limitless. Economics 101, brought to you by Fannie Mae. Biology 101, sponsored by Merck, Ernst & Young Presents Accounting 271 and Communications 101 could be sponsored by AT&T.
We could even have corporate sponsorship of entire departments. The geology department, instead of being a tremendous drain on the University’s resources, could make us money if it was paid for by ExxonMobil. Electrical engineering could be sponsored by General Electric, the School of Natural Resources and Environment by Ben and Jerry’s and the political science department by Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, etc. for president in 2004.
What’s in it for the corporations? Well, there are 38,000 students currently enrolled in the University. Assume we capitalize on our degrees from this prestigious university and make $100,000 a year each. That amounts to $3.5 billion in earnings every year! Wouldn’t the corporations love to pay a few million dollars now to get some of our billions later?
Does this plan go against the morals of the University? Not as much as you may think. The football team, designed to teach student athletes to play football and to prepare them for future football careers, is already sponsored by Nike for many millions. Similarly, the Business School, designed to teach business and to prepare students for careers, could be sponsored by Visa. Is that so different? People have no problem receiving fellowships and scholarships from corporations. In fact, those corporations are considered charitable. Would it really matter if, in exchange for their paying part of our tuition, their logos appeared in the bottom right corner of your professor’s Power Point presentation?
Let’s face it. We’re all going to be working for them some day. They might as well pay for our education now.
The alternative is higher tuition.