Free Speech on Campus

As a student at the University of Colorado-Boulder, I have
had the benefit of being exposed to many different
viewpoints on my campus (on all sides of the specturm)
thanks to the American ideals of freedom of speech and
expression, and the notion that campuses are supposed
to be a place where you can challenge yourself with
different viewpoints.

I am disappointed to hear that the President of your
University has chosen to limit the speech that our
founding fathers held so dear to ALL CITIZENS (not just
those at public universities). How are any of the
intelligent students at your University supposed to
question/reaffirm their beliefs without having them
challenged? Or does your University prefer that people
live within the boundaries of their own ignorance?

I understand that your University, besides denying
Stanley Tucci the right to speak, has additionally denied
the NAACP student organization status, and doesn't allow
candidates on your campus during election time. All of
these somehow revolve around the idea of choice and
abortion. It makes me sad to see that CUA seems to
think abortion is the only issue that is important in the
world. Things like poverty, war, and the death penalty are
other issues the Catholic church has taken a stance on,
and many of the candidates/speakers/student
organizations who are pro-choice probably support the
Catholic churches stances on these issues, even though
they may not be anti-choice. This is narrow-minded and
hypocritical and denies the reality of the world outside of
the small area of your campus. It also denies the fact
that many Catholics are pro-choice.

It seems your University is more concerned with keeping
ideas out than creating an environment of debate and
learning where your students can defend their positions
with education and real life experience. For this reason,
as an American citizen, and student of higher education, I
urge the President of your University to allow Stanley
Tucci to speak and allow all students freedom of speech
and association that they are entitled, including the ability
to make educated decisions about who they vote for and
the ability to create student groups that they are
passionate about.

The students of CU-Boulder stand in solidarity with the
brave patriots on your campus who are fighting for their
own academic freedom. Good luck and GO BUFFS!

Laura Reinsch
Student-CU Boulder

Catholic Men's Rugby

The Catholic Men's Rugby team won saturday, October 2nd against a 2-0 American U team, 18-10. It was a big win and we'd like to see if an article can get into the tower, or at least the box score. Also is it possible for our games to be put in the "upcoming games" box on the sports page.

Thanks,
Colin Graham
VP CURFC

www.cuarugby.org

Repression of opinion

Dear Editor
It continues to unsettle me that President O'Connell and his supporters continue to paint themselves as champions of the University's integrity and mission while in reality they are doing a great disservice to both. How ironic, that the suppression of pro-choice speakers, independent student petitioners and political figures wishing to speak on campus should be labeled "fidelity" to the mission of the University instead of being exposed as the most lamentable display of intellectual cowardice. Is it not the purpose of this institution to nurture an intellectual climate conducive to our education as students and our development as individuals? What message will be sent to potential students when they hear of student petitioners being removed from the Pryzbyla center under threat of Campus Security involvement? What will become of the University's vaunted image when the only speakers allowed (and indeed, willing) to grace its lecture halls are those few who fit O'Connell's rigid and hypocritical doctrines as to what is acceptable? If this is the path our President wishes to tread, then he should at least have the courage to confront it honestly and remove from our institution's name that title of "University" against which O'Connell's policies have so often sinned. He owes us that much, at least.
Sincerely,
Daniel W. Ambord
Sophomore Politics Major
(909)263-3087

Iraq War

Dear Editor:

The New Jersey mother of an U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, Sue Neiderer, should be applauded for questioning congressional leaders whether they would send their children to Iraq. Not only was it not answered, but Mrs. Neiderer was arrested for shouting the same question at Laura Bush during a recent campaign stop. One party operative shouted back, "your son chose to go to war."

While Mrs. Neiderer's son indeed chose to enlist, perhaps he would not have if he had the same unfiltered information President Bush had about the real threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Mrs. Neiderer should be commended for asking the question so bluntly to those entrusted with her son's life. As John Kerry stated, we should send our children to war, "not because we want to, but because we have to."

In the end, if our leaders are unwilling to state whether they would support sending their own children to war, why should they send any one else's.

Sincerely,
Reed Gusciora, CUA '82

20 Maclean Street, Princeton, NJ 08542
(h) (609) 921-7079; (w) (609) 292-0500; reednj15@aol.com

[The author is a NJ Assemblyman for the 15th District and Chair of the Federal Relations Committee]

In Response to Not Allowing Pro-Choice speakers at cua

Dear CUA:

I would like to be reminded of the application I filled out in order to attend this institution. Where was the box to be checked asking whether or not I believe and practice every tenet of the Catholic Church? By allowing admission to students of every faith and belief in to our school, CUA puts on a false shroud of acceptance of all beliefs and people. As a liberal arts institution, Catholic intends to create well-rounded students and individuals. It is this university's responsibility to help prepare its students for life after college. Unless every graduating senior is intending on living in a soundless bubble for the remainder of their lives, CUA is failing. This education should continue beyond the classroom walls. Why must CUA students travel to different DC-based universities in order to hear an interesting speaker? Is the Pope alone 'good enough' for our sheltered ears? It is only through the learning and understanding of other people's differences that a person can truly understand their own individuality and beliefs. Look around campus, there are many different types of students here despite our mainly homogeneous student population. Not everyone shares the same ideals or religious preferences. By sponsoring an educated, articulate speaker on campus, CUA does not endorse their actions or beliefs as human beings. They do, however, prove their acceptance of all people on an academic basis. They also allow students intellectual and personal growth in learning something new outside the classroom walls. Until that day comes perhaps the university slogan should be: CUA: Do it all, but you can't do it here.

Kelly Flynn
Secondary English Education

To the Editor–letter about pro-choice policy

Don't Forget the Modifer

There has recently been some backlash to Fr. O'Connell's recent stand that has led to the withdrawal of an invitation to Stanley Tucci to speak at CUA. As an alumna of the Catholic University of America I applaud Fr. O'Connell's position. Mr. Tucci is well known for his very public support for abortion and for organizations that support abortion. Giving him a platform to speak on campus, even if it is about film, grants him some public approbation that is not in keeping with our identity as a Catholic university.

If a speaker was booked to give a lecture on economics but that speaker was well known for her anti-Semitism and public support of groups that were anti-Semitic, would we want action taken to withdraw this invitation? I would hope so. Or, would we provide a platform for someone publicly identified as a member of the Ku Klux Klan to offer a lecture on a physics discovery he had made? After all, the subject of his lecture has nothing to do with his racist views? We wouldn't and shouldn't have him; the platform that CUA offers confers some status to speakers. When they stand publicly opposed to the teachings of this Catholic institution, they should not be lecturing here.

A second point: I find fault with the poll regarding pro-choice speakers on campus as it is structured. One of the choices is: "We should let everyone speak on campus — it's the nature of universities." The statement has left out a key word - "Catholic." The nature of a "Catholic university" is quite different from the nature of a university. That modifier makes a real difference in understanding ourselves, just as "Jewish" or "Muslim" or "state" would be a significant modifier before "university." Being a Catholic university in all its dimensions does not restrict us as an institution of higher learning. We are not confined because we are Catholic; in fact, we believe that living out the Catholic life and exploring all dimensions of life in accordance with Catholicism will make us most free and lead to a fullness of life.

Catherine Camm, B.A. Art History, 2003

Raise in SAF

"Students need to ask questions regarding the SAF"

Within the next two weeks, students will undoubtedly hear more about the possible increase in the Student Activity Fee (SAF). They may hear how it will allow for better concerts and speakers, it will benefit the entire student body, it will allow the school to host better programs and therefore better the school's name. All of this is definitely a possibility, and hopefully true, but there are many other issues that should be addressed at this time.
I should take a moment to stat that I am a graduating senior, and whether or not the SAF is raised will not affect me either way. I am simply putting out issues based on what I have seen at CUA in my four years here.
There are two basic questions the I see associated with this issue. First, is a raise in the SAF actually necessary? Second, will the raise actually benefit the average student?
Is the raise in the SAF necessary? I am not asking if we need more money- everyone wants more money. That is a separate question. My question begs an answer that may lay "outside of the box."
The tuition at CUA is approximately $36,000. This is not a small amount of money. We have already seen that this tuition does not go to paying professors. Considering the mold in my dorm room and the leaking roof in the Pryz, we can infer that this money does not go to finding the best construction companies. Therefore, where does the money go? The students are consumers at this university- we shopped around and decided to buy into what CUA had to offer. Should we not get to see where our money is going? Is there a way of getting that money to benefit programming for students?
The budget process is a long and tedious nightmare that no one wants to relive. However, there are aspects of it that we must consider before tossing even more money into the pot. First, there is a growing concern that we should raise the SAF because of the growing number of student organizations. An easy counter to this is that we also have a growing student population. A possible solution to this "problem" is to not recognize so many student organizations. Yet another solution would be to allow student organizations to receive money elsewhere. For example, there are approximately 13 organizations with direct links to academic areas. Why not allow the academic departments to sponsor these organizations, rather than have it come out of our student activity fee?
This leads into the second question I asked- will raising the student activity fee benefit the average student? After looking over last year's budget, it has been argued that it is not a lack of funds, but a serious mis-allocation that cause the budget problems. Certain organizations received atrocious budgets, while others received almost nothing. This leads one to believe that some students are getting more than their share of the money, and some are going without. In some cases, it could be described as the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I believe students should push for certain safeguards to be put in place. For example, the Treasury Branch could cap the amount of money an organization is allowed to receive. If they need more, they can fundraise or apply for contingency. Another safeguard would be to allow students adequate time to look through the budget, rather than pushing it through under a strict timeline.
After all of this, there is still a rather large issue that remains. With the release of the USCCB's document regarding hosting speakers, the question remains if we can even spend this money on the speakers, concerts or programs we want. As of right now, the document leaves room for interpretation. Until the powers that be at CUA put into words a comprehensive explanation of what this means to the student body, it may be useless to even discuss giving more money to the university.
As I have said, I am not taking a stance for or against on this issue. None of the proposals I have stated here would serve as a clear solution. However, my belief is that a combination of them will benefit the student body and university more than just a simple raise in the SAF.
My purpose is to simply make the voters aware of issues surrounding this decision, in the hopes that they will seek answers. Many of these questions do not have easy answers, but should be explored before hasty decisions are made. This is an issue that should be discussed and debated before decided. Students should bring concerns or ideas to their USG representatives.

Karen Kassekert
Senior, Theology and Religious Studies Major

(I'd be happy to edit and shorten this if desired, or you are welcome to take excerpts of it. I apologize for not having it in sooner, this follows the USG L Branch meeting tonight.)

Answering the call to service

So, you're a senior. Graduation is a little more than seven months away, and you are "unclear" on what's next. Four years ago, I was in the exact same position.
I knew that I wanted to do some sort of service - to "give back." I also knew that I was at one of the only points in my life that I was free to go anywhere, do anything, and try something I otherwise might not have tried.
After countless hours searching the internet, I found Teach For America. Teach For America is a national corps of college graduates that commit to serve two years as public school teachers in low-income rural and urban public schools. The national corps is dedicated to closing the achievement gap between students in low-income communities and their peers in more affluent communities throughout the country.
One month after I graduated, I found myself in the small, rural community of Weslaco, Texas. Weslaco is a community primarily made up of Mexican-American immigrants, and is located about seven miles north of the border. After five weeks of intensive training at one of Teach For America's summer institutes, I was ready to get into my own classroom.
My first two years as a middle school social studies teacher were the most amazing, life-changing years of my life. I learned that I was capable of amazing things - like facing 150 eighth graders on a daily basis. More importantly, I proved to my students, and anyone else paying attention that students in a low-income school can do as well - or better - than any student, anywhere. In fact, by the end of my two-year commitment, my students' test scores were among the highest in the state of Texas.
Closing the achievement gap - providing all children, regardless of race, location, or socio-economic background, the opportunity to attain an excellent education is a difficult task. However, it is a task that falls to our generation. It is a task that we cannot afford to overlook. If you would like to hear more about joining Teach For America, I will be on campus next week (October 7 & for an information session. Look for posters, check Teach For America out on the internet at www.teachforamerica.org, or contact me at svsegal@hotmail.com.

Sean Segal
B.A. History
2001

Athlete of the Week (female)

I am the Women's Rugby coach, (I am not sure if this email needs to be sent here or to some other editor) and I would like to submit one of my player's name for Athlete of the Week: Jessie Newman.

Having been around rugby for over 10 years as a player, coach and referee, I have never seen a player take to the sport as fast and proficiently as Jessie. In only her first year of playing the sport, Jessie has managed to win a starting spot on the team's A-Side, score her first try, and convert 2 kicks to help lead the CUA Women in a 19-14 victory against top ranked American University. Jessie shows a confidence on the field that any coach would long to have in their players; she does what is asked of her, and then when you think she has done it all, steps up and gives her team the extra edge that they need to walk away with a victory. I light of the universities new motto, Jessie does it all: runs, passes, tackles (harder than any female rugby player I have ever seen), kicks, rucks, sees holes in her opponents defense, and most of all maintains her modesty… she really does not have one specific strong point, because she does everything so well. Despite all her talent, Jessie does not try and dominate the team, nor does she try and take the lead, rather she supports the upperclassmen and captains extremely well.

In her first game against Georgetown, Jessie replaced an injured starter late in the game and let her presence be known by making tackle after tackle, so much so that the opposition threw the ball away on multiple occasions so as to avoid being tackled by Jessie. On the sidelines, Jessie is one of the most exciting players to watch because you never know what she will do next.

Gabriel Ortiz

Ways to Improve the Tower/Satire on Conservative Media

Dear The Tower,
It is my understanding that your newspaper now has competition. I have a few suggestions for you so that you can maintain a spirited contest with this new periodical. It is important to compete directly with your adversary, so I suggest you adopt some of their tactics. First, change your name. The Tower…good so far; the Tower of what, though? I suggest freedom, which is very popular these days. Overused? Try liberty, or something to do with patriotism. But simply showing your support for universal concepts is not enough. It is important for an unbiased newspaper to have a combative name, so make sure to add something like "war" or "righteousness" to your name. You don't have to use this one, but I suggest "The Morally Upright Patriot's Weekly Guide to Independence and Liberty Related Topics." Or, if brevity is your thing, "Freedom Force," a name covering both liberty and action (note: ignore the fact that no one can be forced into freedom).
Ok, now that your new name is up and running, let's take a look at what you actually have in your paper. It is the job of the fair and balanced publication to let the public know who is evil and why we should hate them. These people can usually be found on network television and not in the White House. For instance, you might want to run an article about how Dan Rather should be publicly tarred and feathered.
Your paper's funding is another very important topic. This should be put on the front page of every issue. If you are a club using university money for something that crazy liberal Communist Nazi islamofascists might call "frivolous," it is your responsibility to make sure that these people not only pay your group to continue, but that they are convinced they should be paying more for it. Make sure not to mention that taking money from every student and then pooling it for use by other students is analogous to taxation and/or communism. If someone brings this point up to you, it is imperative that you begin shouting and refuse to listen anymore because you are too deeply offended. If the person is not scared off, you should stare deep into his or her eyes, making a connection. Then you should signal your buddy to hit him or her in the head with a stick or other large object until such a time as their eyes cross and close. You have just won an argument.
Lastly, a quick compendium of useful phrases and ideas:
1) Moral Outrage
2) Liberal Media
3) We as Americans
4) Any kind of pun involving the coincidence that "right" means both conservative and correct
5) Any kind of reference to September 11th. As in the headline, "September 11th: Why You, Personally, Are Still at Risk."
6) Refer to your newspaper as a "safeguard of pluralism." Keep in mind, you don't actually have to promote pluralism. You just have to say this because it's something that your liberal friends will have a hard time debating.
7) Refer to John Kerry as John F. Kerry, this way people will be forced to compare him unfavorably to JFK. Refer to John Kerry as "horse-face." There's nothing that says journalists have to be mature.
9) Lastly, don't ever forget that you have a solemn duty to make people think the same things you do.

Sincerely,
Tom McGuane

248-3434

Next Page »