I would like to respond to Jesse Handy's Feb. 10 column about President Smith's choice of student to do a role reversal with. I like the premise of your suggestion for him to pick a "working student." However, what do you expect to be achieved from such a role reversal?
As an alumnus, I don't want the president spending all day doing a role reversal when he could be doing more productive things. It's supposed to be a symbolic gesture, and it might be interesting if he worked at a part-time job for a couple hours, but there's no need for him to pick up a student's kids, tuck them in and read them bedtime stories.
And do you actually think the president has an easy job? Do you really think he just goes home at night and relaxes in "the opulence of his mansion?" I remember being told a few years ago that in order to get the University of Houston president on your club schedule, you had to book him months in advance because his schedule is so full.
He likely spends every night at two or three functions and never gets a night to relax. Sure, it's glamorous for a student to step into the president's role for a day, because he doesn't have to think about any of the numerous e-mails, faxes or voice mails left overnight and doesn't have to make any decisions during the day which he may be criticized for.
Sure, it is a powerful, visible position, but the position is achieved only after going to graduate school, publishing academic articles and books, demonstrating excellent fundraising skills and giving up lots of family time. He also has to excel in each of these areas while trying to maintain balance with respect to his family.
Do you think the president doesn't understand the "working student?" On the whole, you make a good suggestion about his student choice, but I contend his role isn't as easy as you make it out to be. After all, maybe he could change with you, and he could write articles about your performance and petty choice of a student to switch with for a day.
Steve Harper, alumnus
I would like to respond to several charges made in The Daily Cougar article Thursday on the possibility of renewed conflict with Iraq. Mike Bremer challenged the assertion by the U.S. that U.N. inspectors are being denied access to weapon sites in Iraq. He is flat out wrong.
Over the years, Saddam Hussein's government has repeatedly interfered with the work of the inspectors. Spy photos on many occasions have shown that while inspectors were left waiting to enter sites large trucks were driving away from suspected weapons facilities. The Iraqi government has adamantly and very publicly refused to allow the inspectors access to presidential palaces. Some may argue the palaces are not weapons sites, but the point is moot. The cease-fire resolutions that Saddam agreed to state very clearly that inspectors would have unrestricted access anywhere in Iraq.
Professor George Reiter stated that the United Nations has no evidence against Iraq. He is right. U.N. inspectors have been consistently stonewalled by Saddam Hussein's regime when trying to do their jobs. As long as they are blocked from suspected weapons sites, it is impossible for them to determine whether Iraq has complied with Gulf War cease-fire resolutions. While the plight of the Iraqi people draws my sympathies, let's not lose sight of who is ultimately responsible. Saddam has built himself luxurious palaces and rebuilt his army while his people suffer.
If he let U.N. inspectors do their jobs and scrapped all his biological, chemical and nuclear weapon facilities, this standoff would end. There are no easy answers to the current crisis, but the U.S. must not back down. Allowing a tyrant to keep his weapons of mass destruction would allow Saddam to threaten people in ways far worse than sanctions ever have.
Neal John, freshman political science major
Letters to the editor are welcomed from all members of the UH community. Letters should be typed and must include the author's name, telephone number and affiliation with the university. Anonymous letters will not be published, although names may be withheld upon request. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, grammar, profanity and personal attacks.
Letters may be delivered to
Room 151 of the Communication Building, or may be e-mailed to allstrom@bayou.uh.edu.