To the editor:
Just wanted to send a clarification to you. The article about the language classes in the April 8 Daily Cougar stated that UH student Dorothy Koroleski was concerned about violating a "60-hour" transfer credit rule.
Actually, students may transfer and apply a maximum of 66 credit hours from a community or junior college (any two-year school or schools combined). There is no limit on the number of hours that can be brought from a 4-year institution.
In our departments (biology and biochemistry), and probably all others, some students do complete more than 66 hours at a two-year school. In such cases, we use the most advantageous 66 hours toward the degree plan (e.g., we satisfy UH core requirements first and toss free electives out).
Please be careful in the future, and if you ever need to check on such things, I would be happy to help.
Lawrence R. Williams, Ph.D.
director of undergraduate affairs,
Departments of Biology and
Biochemical and Biophysical Sciences
To the editor:
Recently, Russell Contreras wrote a column for your paper about the Bible's teachings, which agree far more with modern liberalism than conservatism. In his piece, Contreras was kind enough to mention my Web site, "Liberalism Resurgent," from which he got his arguments. In response, Chetlen Crossnoe wrote a rebuttal to the editor. As the author of "Liberalism Resurgent," the Web site to which Contreras and Crossnoe are referring, I invite everyone to visit the original essay, "Myth: The Bible is Conservative," which can be found on-line at www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-bibleconservative.htm.
Crossnoe's letter raises several red herrings and false denials. I agree that the newness or oldness of Jesus' ideas is irrelevant, as are political labels, which shift with the wind. As my essay makes clear, what are important are Jesus' ideas themselves, which almost perfectly correspond to the ideas of liberals today.
Crossnoe lists a handful of examples where the New Testament espouses ideas embraced by modern conservatives. We could grant him these few exceptions and he would still be no closer to disproving that the New Testament is largely liberal.
Third, Crossnoe asserts that conservatives are just as interested in promoting care, compassion and equality as liberals are. However, every ideology in the world - communism included - has uttered such propaganda, and there is no doubt that many of its followers have even believed it. The real test of any ideology is how it works in the real world.
Conservatism has a historical track record that we can check to see if these claims about compassion and caring ring true. Dramatic examples of conservatism include the 1980s in the United States and Great Britain, the Roaring '20s, the Gilded Age and the Pinochet Regime in Chile, which underwent 17 years of near-libertarian capitalist reform.
The statistics, which are available on my Web site, show that each period had the following results:
1.) Income inequality grew.
2.) The poverty rate, especially child poverty, soared.
3.) Minorities lost ground.
4.) Workers lost ground.
5.) The rich made out.
So how can conservatives profess to "care" and "have compassion" when their policies benefit middle- and upper-class white males but harm women, children, minorities, workers and the poor? Is it any accident that middle- and upper-class white men form a disproportionate share of conservatives? Clearly, they know on which side their bread is buttered. This why they are attracted to conservatism, all disclaimers about "caring" aside.
Finally, most conservatives do question whether the poor should be helped at all - not whether the public or private sector is better suited to dole out the help. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is quite vocal on the point that the poor should either work or starve. Of course, Jesus' philosophy towards the poor was very different.
Steve Kangas
kangaroo@scruznet.com
To the editor:
In the April 7 Cougar, an column was printed titled "Avoid a divorce, Smith, and sign these prenuptials." The column contained several statements that show the writer's ignorance and bias against athletics but, unfortunately, also represent the prevailing attitudes towards UH athletics among students.
The writer complained that UH athletes are shown "privileged" treatment over regular students. The example given is the fact that student athletes are allowed to use the new athletic complex while nonathlete students are not.
Aside from the fact that the donor of the facility desired it to be used only for support of the athletic program, I do not understand why non-student athletes should be permitted to use the facility. Under that reasoning, non chemistry students should be allowed free access to labs, non-semiconductor students should be allowed free access to semiconductor facilities, non theater students should be allowed free access to theater props and on and on. Does The Daily Cougar allow free access to its offices, computers, etc.?
No one should have free access to all of campus simply because they are an enrolled student. Are Daily Cougar writers considered "privileged" simply because they obtain access to something others do not? I am tired of hearing about "privileged" student athletes when the facts simply do not support it.
The writer of that editorial also stated that regular students will graduate and student athletes will not. Once again, this is a widespread, yet false, perception. Today's Daily Cougar reported that only 35 percent of students at UH graduate within six years. The most recent graduating class indicated that UH student athletes (particularly football players) are graduating at a rate much higher than 35 percent. Looks to me like the editorial had the facts backwards: A UH student athlete will graduate and a typical UH student nonathlete will not.
Lord knows the UH athletic program has problems, mostly in the form of lack of attendance at games. But when you criticize the program, please make sure you use accurate facts and reasoning.
David Roland
alumnus
To the editor:
In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" No, at least not at the University of Houston.
Each year, UH celebrates Frontier Fiesta and each year there is controversy. There are groups on this campus that label this event racist, sexist and exclusive. But why? This event is a time to get together, hoot, holler, dance and drink beer. What could be so wrong with that?
Well, I am here to lend insight. When you call this event "Frontier Fiesta," it is an obvious celebration of the conquering of the West. With conquering comes acts of rape, slavery, murder and the genocide of indigenous peoples: Africans, Asians, Mexicans and Native Americans. Entire populations were killed off by frontiersmen. So this is what
is being celebrated - genocide!
It is true we cannot be held responsible for events that took place 200 or 300 years ago. However, to paraphrase Elizabeth Martinez (from California State University-Hayward, who recently spoke at UH), this is not about blaming white people for genocide. It is when you justify or celebrate it that we have a problem.
Plain and simple, Frontier Fiesta is racist and sexist. It is a disgrace to the university, yet it is continuously funded by groups on campus - money that could be used to enhance the educational process. Isn't that why we are here anyway?
How can this event promote school spirit when it is making a mockery of important histories and excludes a large part of the student population? There are many other ways to celebrate school pride, but they have to be inclusive of all UH students. Such celebrations could be international or multiethnic festivals.
White people need to take themselves out of the center of the universe and examine other histories. The great frontier wasn't so great for about 10 million people.
A few progressive groups on campus will be holding events to discuss these realities. There will be two panel discussions, titled "The Realities of the Frontier" (at 7 p.m. April 14 in the University Center) and "Expansionism in the '90s: What is the New Frontier?" (at 7 p.m. April 15, also in the UC). There will also be a candlelight vigil to commemorate victims of genocide April 18, starting at 6:30 p.m.
These events will give people an opportunity to discuss what really took place and the ever-growing imperialism of the United States.
If Frontier Fiesta continues at UH, it will eventually be the kind of celebration that dons white robes and burns crosses.
Liz Alexander
Latina Coalition
To the editor:
Well, I tried to do it. I really tried to make it through my final year here incognito and incommunicado. No guest editorials. No cases filed against the Students' Association (what ever happened to them, anyway?) for gross misspending of student fees. Just finish up and get out. However, much like Al Pacino in Godfather III, "Every time I think I'm out, they keep dragging me back in." As usual, it's a Russell Contreras editorial (April 7).
It's not the unparalleled hubris (look it up, Russ) that he would purport to speak to the new president on campus policy. It's not that he has some misguided concept of reality. It's that he thinks he speaks for a large segment of the student population.
Most of all, Russell, you don't speak for me. So, in an effort to drive the point home, I'll enter your fantasy world and I'll speak for President Smith and answer you, point by misguided, mischaracterized point.
No, Russ, it doesn't take the president of a university to solve the parking problem. It does, however, take an SA that won't kill every proposal in committee as this one has done for years. It takes students who realize the parking lot has more than three rows and just because you can't park up front is not a reason to park in a fire lane.
Russ, do you want the parking problem solved? It's simple. We'll start towing the cars. We won't let you register if you have tickets. We'll start holding students to the same standard they would have if they parked anywhere in the city.
You do have an athletic complex. It's called "The Firm." You, yourself, suggest that students should be willing to pay for use. That's what The Firm does. The real issue is: Here's one more attempt to fill the paper with hate speech because someone else has something you don't. And you know what, Russ? You can't go over to the Science Building and use their lab facilities at your whim either.
Frontier Fiesta. Get over it. Why is it, Russ, that you are the only one allowed to celebrate your cultural heritage? You may not like the history of the United States. You may continue to write about it, excluding significant facts, pointing fingers to avoid atrocities committed by your culture. But you know what? This accomplishes nothing!
This "us vs. them" mentality typifies the kind of thinly veiled racist diatribes which pervade your columns and is far more destructive than anything remembering a part of Western history brings.
You see, diversity is not about color. It's not about checking off a list to ensure that there is one from each color, because doing that creates more discrimination than it ever solved. Diversity is about diversity of ideas. That's why bigots like you are able to continue to write for this paper. Otherwise, you'd have to be censored for having ideas that are outdated, out of reality and out of any notion that contributes some positive attribute toward university life.
In short, Russ, I want a divorce.
Patrick L. Lalor
senior, speech communication