Letters to the Editor
In response to “Jugs for charity? Not a problem” (by David Weissman, March 6)
If it’s so “light hearted” to even “joke” about judging a female body part and awarding the “best” money why don’t we have a fraternity do the same thing? “Which Frat has the Best Jugs?” I’m sure it will get a laugh and some money.
Or better yet why not have them sell food then we may be able to ask ourselves (with a semi-straight face), “which frat has the best sausage?” I guarantee it will get attention.
Incidentally, just because the sororities involved where “enthusiastic” does not make it any less demeaning. Plenty of women get behind the “liberation” of stripping and porn or advocate “real womanhood” that centers on staying in the home and making babies. That doesn’t make it okay.
-Ariel B. Flowers
The University of Arizona
Social and Behavioral Sciences
History and Gender and Women’s Studies
In response to “EDITORIAL: We’re done with GPSC President Brooks’ games” (by the Daily Wildcat’s editorial board, March 6):
Zach Brooks is just a bully who thinks he has power. If you disagree with him, watch out. He is manipulative, corrupt, and very immature. The worst part is he has no idea that nobody takes GPSC seriously. Thank you Daily Wildcat for finally standing up to this bully.
— Grad Student
Great article. I am a student and can attest to the fact that this is in accurate picture of Zachary Brooks’ abuse of his position as GPSC President. However, it doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface. I hope this sends a message to anyone who allows Zach to influence them with his power. He is misrepresenting so many students and I look forward to his term expiring.
— A student
It seems to me that all this editorial accomplishes is to distract readers from the central issue: That the fee proposals currently on the ASUA ballot do little to nothing for graduate students. In five years as an engaged graduate student on this campus, I’ve never listened to campus radio, and I didn’t even know UATV existed until this fee proposal came up. Don’t even get me started on the Wildcat Events Board fee, because I still have no clue what that’s all about.
This editorial tells us that two graduate students were employed by the Daily Wildcat last semester. Does this mean none are on staff now? And let’s not forget that the benefit of these media outlets for grad students is not measured by how many are employed. The benefit of media is the quality of relevant information it provides. Does the Wildcat have a reporter or a column designated for grad student issues? No. Does it send reporters to GPSC meetings or grad student events regularly? No. The GPSC sponsored several social events last year, and some had attendance of hundreds of graduate students. You’d never know that from campus media coverage, which systematically neglects to report on these events. Campus media needs to learn a lesson from this: If you want people to pay for your services, you need to offer them something in return. If the Daily Wildcat wants to compare itself to The New York Times (!), maybe it should take a page from their book. Other major newspapers employ “beat” reporters to cover neighborhood news or issues related to certain constituencies. It’s a good marketing practice to make all members of your target readership community feel served. This paper has utterly failed to do that. Supporting the grad student community means a lot more than giving jobs to a couple of people a year.
— Tired of Fees