Letters to the Editor

USG's petition for higher tuition increase hurts students' ability to pay

I would like to extend a personal vote of "no confidence" in USG in response to their recent recommendation for an 8.6 percent tuition increase. HOW, I ask, is higher education going to be made available for students when tuition is skyrocketing?

By approving reckless spending during tight fiscal times (the paintball funding being a prime example) and acting without thoughtful consideration, USG does not represent the best interests of the student body. Instead, they have made a mockery of undergraduates through their foolish behavior.

- Christopher Colangelo

8th-semester student

Obama's choice for HHS questionable at best

We have now occurring in the United States, under the leadership of Barack Obama, a holocaust far worse than the "Massacre of the Innocents" when there was mass infanticide under Herod during biblical times. While he was part of the Illinois legislature he voted against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act - in other words, his vote favored allowing the baby to die, if not outright killing it. You need to understand the character of the person who is now President of the United States.

On July 17, 2007, he promised Planned Parenthood "The first thing I do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act...."

He is in tight with an organization that performs close to 300,000 abortions annually, receives approximately $350 million in taxpayer money a year and has an income of over $1 billion. This "non-profit" organization has an annual profit of approximately $120 million. It is an organization founded by Margaret Sanger, who favored eugenics, as well as many other atrocious things, although Planned Parenthood desperately tries to sanitize her image. There is no doubt of Obama's strong support of Planned Parenthood.

The Freedom of Choice Act would do away with state laws concerning abortion. (As Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada recently said, federal law trumps state law.) It allows for unlimited abortion, including partial birth abortion. It compels taxpayer funding of abortion. It will force faith based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions. Many have already said they will close down rather than perform them, depriving people of many other desperately needed medical services. This places our country into a quandary. It does away with parental notification and informed consent. It essentially takes away all barriers to abortion, from conception to nine months.

He has appointed former Kansas Gov. Katherine Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services. As governor she vetoed every bill limiting abortion, and was an active supporter and fundraiser for abortion. She has been very tight with and received financial support from Dr. George Tiller, who is well known for performing thousands of partial birth abortions - some in violation of current federal law - yet she has done nothing to prevent it. His approach to abortion is not only against the law, but involves a practice that should be considered as ghoulish. This is now Obama's choice for HHS.

No surprise, recently Obama has announced that he will do away with restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. It has been made to seem that embryonic stem cell approach is the only way to do fundamental medical research toward the prevention of disease and all kinds of medical problems, but this is far from the case. People who oppose the embryonic approach are made out to be against medical research and against finding cures, yet this is still another untruth. Adult stem cell research and other fundamental tissue research have shown much more promise and yielded better results. Embryonic stem cell research is creating life for experimentation, and creating life to destroy it. This fits nicely with those, such as Obama, who are proponents of abortion, unrestricted in any sense.

I question the character of a man who has no respect for human life and I am deeply concerned with the current direction of our country. I question the character of Barack Obama who is leading us further into the depths of what Pope John Paul II called the "culture of death."

-Al DLascia

Chicopee, Mass.

Hateful graffiti should elicit anger, not apathy

On Feb. 16, an incident occurred at a North Campus residence hall in which one of the floors was plastered in anti-Semitic graffiti. The walls and mirrors were covered in swastikas and captioned with words of extreme hate. This information was not released to the general public, the newspapers, or even the other CAs at North. ResLife officials called a floor meeting for the following Sunday, nearly a full week after the incident was reported to police. Representatives from Hillel were notified and asked to speak to the approximate 30 young men living on the floor.

I attended the Sunday night meeting and it was clear to me that the meeting did not affect the students' perceptions in a meaningful way. I had expected there to be a lively discussion and demonstrations of concern, if not outrage, from the student residents. What I found instead was near total apathy. Some students were even annoyed at having been called to a meeting they felt had nothing to do with them.

An act such as this should stir up feelings and create tension. How is it that one student actually "informed" me that, "the swastika was once a sign of peace, so who am I to judge if these were meant to be hateful or not?" (Perhaps the words "F--- the Jews" scrawled in the men's bathroom should have been a clue?)

I don't think it is only this specific group of around 30 students who would react in this manner, with earphones in, staring at the ceiling. In fact, I wonder if this is only part of a larger trend on campus - and in America - in which individuals are choosing not to "get involved" if they aren't personally the target of an affront or crime.

In a university that aspires to be a leader in the study of human rights, is it acceptable for students to turn a blind eye to hateful acts right outside their doors? If the average student does not recoil from the swastika - the most recognizable sign of the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews and further millions of homosexuals and mentally challenged people were exterminated - then is it any wonder why we are collectively falling short in stopping the modern-day genocide in Darfur?

This larger issue of apathy is one that the university and students must tackle together. Whether the sentiment is anti-Semitism, racism, sexism or any of the other "isms," the university must show a strong stance of disdain, with no tolerance for any such perpetrators.

An e-mail was sent to the students of the particular residence hall after consulting with the Hillel, but perhaps this e-mail should have also been sent to the rest of the students on campus, publicly setting an example for any other student who may think acts like these go unrecognized; this is not the first time an act of hate has been committed on campus.

I'd like to suggest that the university take hate crimes more seriously by calling attention to them rather than just painting over them. While I applaud ResLife for contacting Hillel and being very responsive to our feelings and counsel, I'm not sure why it took a conversation with us before they sent out a letter to the residents of the dorm decrying the act.

We are fortunate to go to the University of Connecticut - a wonderful community in which people of all creeds generally feel safe, respected and empowered. It is up to us students to keep it that way by taking responsibility for one another. In the future, if incidences of this nature do occur, I hope they will be reported and dealt with - by students and the administration - in a more aggressive, expedient, and sensitive manner.

-Jennifer Chevinsky

Hillel President

4th-semester individualized major in bioethics in cross-cultural perspectives