Success in public office cannot be accurately measured by the legacy that you leave, nor by the amount you accomplish. Instead, a hard-earned reputation for effectiveness and integrity is significantly more important. Student government and the way it is perceived on our campus are no different and follow the same social rules as the rest of the world as far as judgments and opinions are concerned.
Last week, the Campus Times profiled two positive projects created by the Students? Association Senate.
The first project involves the construction of a Vietnam War Memorial to honor those from the University and the surrounding community who served our country.
The second project is the creation of the Student Services Committee, aimed at accurately gathering student opinion on a variety of matters, brainstorming solutions, and following through with both administrators and students.
In the spirit of democracy, the Campus Times tries to give the branches of our student government equal treatment.
For the first time in several weeks Students? Association President Meng Wang utilized this printed space in which he could write about absolutely anything relating to his administration and its accomplishments.
Much to the amazement of the student body, the article appears to be nothing more than a shameless defense for his admittedly weak performance as the voice of the students.
Where were the details behind the ?justified delay? in a representative Cabinet structure? Where was the meat behind the claims of a successful freshman housing model? Believe it or not, the Masquerade Ball will not go down in history as a great accomplishment of his administration, because the primary role of the President is not to program events.
He tells students to contact him for the ?full explanations,? but with apathy in full force, students cannot be expected to press forward to request information he does not share from the beginning. Better yet, by choosing to use valuable printed space for his self-defense, Meng has very clearly shown that he, too, believes his performance has been less than satisfactory.
In essence, the article was too little, too late from a generally quiet administration. For once, Meng?s actions have spoken louder than words.
? Daryl DuLongDuLong is a senior.
Universities must take a stand
I am student at the University of Kentucky and a member of our chapter of the United Students Against Sweatshops. I understand that your university is currently debating your policy on this.
Our chapter of USAS had a sit-in last semester to encourage UK to join the Workers Rights Consortium and withdraw from the FLA. Unfortunately, our President refused to have any dialogue with us, arrested the 12 students involved in the sit-in and pressed charges against them.
It is the responsibility of our universities to take a stand against the moral outrage of sweatshop labor.
I believe that it is apparent that the WRC is a much better monitoring organization that the FLA that has apparel companies such as Nike on their governing board. This is an obvious conflict of interest.
A corporation?s bottom line is profit, and letting them police themselves on issues that have the possibility of lowering their profits is not logical.
It is a moral imperative for many students that their university clothing not be made in sweatshops.
In my opinion, and that of many other students, it is necessary to join a monitoring organization that will hold the companies who make our apparel responsible for their treatment of workers. I would encourage your paper to call for your President to objectively study the facts and join the WRC.
? Amy F. OliveOlive is a student at the University of Kentucky.
Schroth ignores important facts
I am writing in response to Alison Schroth?s February 1 editorial, ?Bush Reinstates Abortion Gag Order?, and in support of President Bush?s decision to reinstate the policy.
Schroth argues the policy contradicts the concepts of ?liberty and justice for all? and ?freedom of speech.? This argument is flawed.
The right to life must be protected above all other rights, because it is fundamental, the condition of all other rights. Worrying about free speech is useless when life is unprotected. Caught in a house fire, would Schroth worry that she was losing her belongings, or that she might herself succumb to the inferno? Once she escapes the flames, she can try to save her possessions.
Schroth also raises a prudential question: ?The gag order might actually increase [abortions]. By denying funding to the clinics that provide family planning assistance.? This is a red herring. The government will still fund those organizations that promote authentic family planning, rather than abortion.
The Mexico City Policy does not affect the amount of aid, which remains $425 million for the fiscal year 2001. Since the aid budget remains the same, we will actually spend more on authentic family planning, meaning fewer unwanted pregnancies, and fewer abortions.
It would be disingenuous not to mention that while I support authentic family planning, I would prefer different means. For those who are unmarried, abstinence provides complete protection from both pregnancy and disease. For married couples, natural family planning, such as the sympto-thermal method is effective 99% of the time when properly performed.
Finally, Schroth appeals to emotion: ?Consider the number of women who will die trying to get an abortion 78,000 worldwide annually.? She might also consider that according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute 46 million women worldwide will have abortions each year.
? Samuel J. HowardHoward is a sophomore.