Wildcat story on in-state qualifications misses on several facts

Unfortunately, the Wildcat did not adequately detail the outrageous criterion by which the university recognizes in-state tuition status.

As a 31-year-old, married fifth-year graduate student with over a decade of proven financial independence, I am still denied residency by the university. The university is free to reject a student’s request based on the criterion that “”presence must be coupled with a clear and convincing evidence of intent to establish a domicile in Arizona beyond the circumstance of being a student.”” This qualitative standard is impossible to prove, even with co-ownership of a house (yes, I have that too), thus the university is free to reject any student’s application for in-state tuition. I was told that since I moved to Arizona close to when I became a student, I cannot prove this intent. The qualifications for in-state tuition status detailed in your report, taken from the Financial Aid Office Web site, are simply incorrect. For many students, the university makes it impossible to become a recognized resident of Arizona.

Fifth-year psychology Ph.D. candidate

“”In Search of Calvin’s Dad”” article an exceptional piece.

I wanted to briefly comment on the “”In Search of Calvin’s Dad”” article by Justyn Dillingham from the Oct. 28 issue. Perhaps I am biased as a fan of Calvin and Hobbes myself, but the article really stuck out to me as a soulful piece of writing. I really enjoyed this article and will be spending the day rummaging through my house to find my old Calvin and Hobbes books. I know that the writers and those in the newsroom work hard and often receive more criticism than praise. Good job.

Ariel Anderson

The Constitution is our future, if we listen

I am writing in response to Rachel Leavitt’s column “”A constitution for the future”” published on Oct. 29. The first thing that frightened me about her understanding on the Constitution was her statement that, “”When the founders wrote the U.S. Constitution, the world was a vastly different place than it is today … (the Founders) could never have anticipated the situations our nation currently faces.”” At no greater time in our history do we need to look back and comprehend the Constitution than now. The Founding Fathers were students of philosophy, history and science.  Recognizing the most dangerous of all threats to liberty, they conceived the Constitution to limit the extensions of government and expand the natural liberties of U.S. citizens. Whether or not spacecrafts and the Internet existed, the Constitution put forth the most fundamental aspects of government restriction and placed great emphasis on personal liberty. With a proper understanding of the Founders’ reasonings, and with careful consideration of the document, the Constitution has the ability to promote a free society. 

It is the fault of society, however, that wishes to interpret the Constitution and move into a state of hostility towards liberty. Today, people call for restrictions on liberty in the name of security, give unwarranted power to the branches of government with no checks and balances, and establish policies that directly interfere with personal free choice. Yet the Founders clearly saw these obstructions happen time and again, and understood the forms and effects of tyranny.

If we simply read their words of wisdom, study the Constitution, and limit the government to what is written in our Constitution, our nation could thrive once again.

As Patrick Henry put it, “”The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.””

Jarrett Benkendorfer