A place for learning, except on game days
Having driven to campus Saturday afternoon to do research at the Benson Latin American Collection, I was appalled to be turned away from campus because of the UT vs. Rice football game scheduled for that evening. Even the parking garage was off limits to anyone without a permit, and of course there were no provisions made for anyone wanting to use campus facilities for anything other than tailgating and watching the game. Naturally, something must be done to manage the large crowds a game attracts, but UT is primarily a university, not a glorified football stadium. Students and faculty still have academic work to do, and for them to be required to put that work on hold while the athletics department monopolizes the entire campus is absurd. Football may bring in money, but the administration needs reminding that it isn't what makes UT a university in the first place.
Nick Carter
Latin American studies graduate student
Making football fans proud
In response to Mr. Jim Boon's e-mail, "Texas fans, make us proud": Honestly, at first I thought this e-mail was a joke - the idea that booing is unacceptable at a football game is a little ridiculous. The very act of giving an opposing team grief is usually taken as a compliment, as it indicates that the team is a legitimate threat. This isn't golf or tennis - a little heckling is part of the game, as it contributes to the total experience of being a football fan.
Perhaps offended patrons need to reconsider whether a college football game is an appropriate venue for young children. I'm not defending the cursing, but in the event that unacceptable behavior is occurring, simply speaking to that person(s) like an adult will usually do the trick. I wish the alumni organization would have given me the same courtesy.
Reminding people to be courteous to those around them would have been much more appropriate than this e-mail. To chastise many for the hurt feelings of a few is unnecessary, an abuse of your e-mail list and an insult to the alumni and students of UT.
Kathy Harrod
UT alum
Mack Brown is no babysitter
It's not fair to criticize Mack Brown as Robert Williams did in his column "No Mack Brownie points," Sept. 20. Brown is not a babysitter. He can't sit in Jester with the football team all night and watch over them like they are five years old, and chastise them when they misbehave. Is anybody blaming Jim Mora or Bobby Petrino for the actions of Michael Vick, or blaming Jeff Fisher for the actions of Pac Man Jones? Of course not.
If anything is at fault, it's the criminal justice system. These athletes are breaking the law and seriously endangering themselves and other motorists by constantly getting DUIs. But do they get punished by the courts? No. They simply hire special DUI lawyers (some of whom advertise in the Texan) to get them off the hook when instead they should be getting charged with attempted manslaughter (as that's what driving under the influence is). If being caught driving intoxicated can just get dismissed, why even enforce it? Why is it that a person has to kill somebody while driving under the influence to go to jail? Why are there no mandatory jail terms for first-time offenders?
Mike Nelson
Aerospace engineering junior
No crown for Brown
I went to high school in Austin and my father is a professor at UT, so I consider myself a die-hard Longhorn fan (even though I go to school at the University of Kansas). After following Mack Brown's tenure at UT, I have become very frustrated to learn that everyone believes he is one of the most elite coaches in the nation. Yes, you can immediately point to the fact that he has numerous 10-and 11-win seasons, yet if you look at the anemic Big 12 over the past few years, along with the pathetic non-conference scheduling of schools like Rice, Arkansas State, North Texas, the University of Central Florida, Louisiana Lafayette and so on, then you'll realize that these wins are nothing more than a facade.
Yes, we've played Ohio State and Arkansas over the past couple of years as well, but it is also a fact that these games had been scheduled far before Brown's arrival. Yes, Texas won the national championship in 2005 and, for that, the players (and Brown) deserve high praise. Let's face it, though. Vince Young is a once-in-a-generation quarterback, and any top-20 team in 2005 would have won the championship with him. It's no secret that Bob Stoops consistently out-coaches Brown almost every year. Let's face it: Brown shouldn't be so highly acclaimed. Yes, he's a remarkable recruiter, but beyond that, he's nothing more than an average coach.
Nick Pennebaker
University of Kansas senior
Red shirt for Ramirez
I disagree with the article "Quarterback's race could play a factor in early dismissal," Sept. 20, by Ramon Ramirez. I do believe that race is certainly a factor in the NFL, but to say that it is the primary reason for the shortened tenure of black quarterbacks is asinine. NFL players are cut due to ability (or lack thereof) or salary cap issues, not race. Mr. Ramirez gave a list of black quarterbacks who "underperformed." Here's another list: Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Drew Bledsoe, Matt Jones, Charlie Frye, Joey Harrington.
What links these men besides skin color? They all are underperformers: Leaf and Couch weren't any good, Jones was converted to receiver before he played a down, Bledsoe lost his job twice and Frye and Harrington are with new teams. Statues like Damon Huard, Trent Green and Peyton Manning - and mobile quarterbacks like Vince Young - keep their jobs because they are good at playing quarterback, not because of their race. McNabb, assuming he fully recovers from his injury, will keep his job because of his accuracy, arm strength and mobility. And while on the subject of race, Mr. Ramirez, would you mind telling me why there are zero starting white running backs and zero white cornerbacks in the NFL?
Jordan Brooks
Geography junior
Clean up the pay scale
The custodial workers do a great job keeping the campus clean, apparently with no complaint ("A different view of campus life," Sept. 20). It is worth mentioning how poorly paid they are. They have the most unpleasant job on campus, which includes cleaning up after the drunken pukefests that are home football games, yet they make so little that they often qualify for welfare. It's time we acknowledge these workers' invaluable contribution and pay them the living wage they deserve.
Glenn Gaven
UT alum
Not-so-royal UT policy
As the owner of a small business that designs and produces unique collegiate memorabilia, I was surprised and disappointed to find that UT has not only raised royalty rates from 8 percent to 10 percent of licensed item sales, but also increased yearly prepaid royalties from $250 to $750, and eliminated any small vendor categories they previously included for their licensees. For those not familiar with the collegiate royalty system, a prepaid royalty is the amount a company pays per year to keep their license even if their sales of licensed products do not amount to the first $7,500 that the $750 covers.
Out of love of Texas universities, our company designs and manufactures artisan quality items for discriminating customers, students, parents and alumni. We have produced a UT licensed item for four years, but when recently speaking with a licensing representative, we were told UT changed their policy because it is now only interested in licensing companies with large yearly revenues. The new policy imposes a 37-percent actual royalty rate on a company such as ours, which brings an average annual gross income of $2,000 per year in UT sales. With this change, small companies such as ours will no longer be encouraged to be a UT licensee. The new policy is very prohibitive, and a deterrent to the "American dream" of furthering small business.
I can only surmise that the UT Collegiate Licensing Office values money over all else. We hope that, with numerous small companies no longer manufacturing UT licensed products, the great University of Texas will not end up with only ultra expensive items and/or mass produced tacky trinkets to represent that fine institution.
Nadine Stuth
Former licensee of UT products www.Texacats.com
McDonald's miscalculation
Once again, the Young Conservatives of Texas' chairman emeritus has put his foot in his mouth, as did The Daily Texan. In his letter published in Friday's Texan ("Not Powers's hour," Firing Line, Sept. 21), Tony McDonald claims that "there was nary a mention of funding" in President Powers' State of the University speech in 2006. But President Powers said, "One of our themes will be that world-class research universities perform a special role in the state and that, accordingly, they need sustainable, reliable and long-term funding. This is a high priority for me as we approach the 80th session of the Texas Legislature in January." This looks suspiciously like Powers mentioned funding, but I could be wrong. In fact, funding is mentioned in three of the seven (not eight) factors mentioned necessary in creating a great public university. The last State of the University speech that didn't mention funding was delivered Sept. 21, 2001.
Likewise, there seems to be an error in McDonald's math. For the 2006-2007 biennium, the legislature appropriated $711.8 million (which represented 25 percent of the University's estimated total available funds for the biennium), and for the 2008-2009 biennium the Legislature appropriated $745.1 million (which represented 22.7 percent of the University's estimated total available funds for the biennium). Back in my day, we were taught addition, and I believe adding $17 million to $711.8 million equals $728.8, which is significantly less than $745.1 million. Additionally, the percentage difference between the two biennia's appropriations comes to something like 4.67 percent, not 6 percent. I suspect that President Powers' 2 percent is that 2.3 percent difference between the level of appropriation and the estimated total available funds for the biennium between the two biennia.
Charles Tolliver
UT alum
Graffiti in the first degree?
In response to "Illegal graffiti on the rise, but can be artistic expression," Sept. 21, UTPD Sgt. Glen Koen is quoted as saying, "Under the penal code, anyone who defaces University property is automatically charged with a first-degree felony and will be arrested." Actually, there is little legal basis for such a claim. Texas Penal Code section 28.08 states that for an incident of graffiti to be charged as a first-degree felony, the damage to the defaced property must meet or exceed $200,000. And as The Daily Texan article discussed, while the University routinely spends $50 to $150 to remove graffiti from and repair its property, I think it is safe to say that damage to UT property from these offenders rarely meets statutory guidelines for charging the defendant with a first-degree felony, much less often enough to warrant "automatic" issuance of charges.
Claire Kane McCarthy
Texas alum
Be the first to comment on this article!