Carrying through with promises
I wanted to wait until after the elections to write this so people reading wouldn't perceive what I was saying to be "empty campaign promises."
I have read in the Texan and have been hearing from people that I have spoken with while campaigning that grad students feel that Student Government doesn't really pertain to them. Indeed most students that I spoke with didn't even know they could vote, much less utilize their representatives to represent them. While in the past this may have been more true than not, I am convinced that this does not have to be the case.
The truth is many of the issues SG deals with affect grad students ipso facto, but it is entirely appropriate to utilize your grad reps as a vehicle to improve graduate specific life as well. When I was campaigning, I told people to contact me before or after the election; I meant it. I am listed on the SG Web site - look me up, shoot me an e-mail or give me a call. I don't promise I will be able to change the world or make the University a perfect place for all grad students by the end of the year, but I do promise to do my best to make SG relevant to grad students.
Laura Gladney-Lemon Women's and gender studies graduate student Graduate representative to SG
A terrible mistake
I saw the results from the SG elections, and I think I've made a terrible mistake. I didn't see which ticket, Reprezent or Focus, was either for or against gay marriages. What have I done?
Patrick Hotze Law student
Looking at the pictures
The several pictures in Thursday's paper of elated candidates jumping and shouting for joy were emblematic of something. Politics, and the state itself, is first and foremost self-serving. You would think by the hugging and screaming that they had won the lottery.
I'm sure the candidates have sincere beliefs, and I'm sure that a measure of their excitement is about implementing their platforms. But everyone should look at those pictures again and ask themselves, who won what on Wednesday?
Ian Roberts Law student
Scott off the mark
James Scott is slightly misguided in his March 4 column. The EU is not "threatening retaliatory tariffs if the United States doesn't adopt a more globe-friendly stance." In fact, they are attempting to adopt those tariffs, because their stance is untenable.
Exporters in the EU pay more in taxes than exporters in the U.S. That's the issue. So instead of lowering taxes to make their own exporters more competitive on our markets, they want us to raise our taxes.
We don't need higher taxes just for the sake of higher taxes, and we certainly don't need them simply to appease Europeans. They don't live or work in our economy; they don't get the set the rules. It's that simple.
The best way of dealing with these sanctions is to reduce our own restrictions on trade. If the EU wants to make US companies less competitive on their markets, we owe it to our companies not to handicap them more.
Robert Walsh Humanities junior
Selling out
James Burnham's article "Free trade benefits U.S., foreign workers" ignores the sickening hypocrisy in the U.S. system: Corporate executives are rewarded with bonuses for selling out their coworkers. Note, these are the same executives whose per capita incomes and pensions have skyrocketed over the last two decades. Also note that executive pay is demonstratively tied, not to corporate performance, but rather to the number of people below a given exec on the organizational chart.
Attention shareholders: Management is selling out its coworkers for the purpose of stealing from you, the owners. You want greater profits? Cut executive pay, and tie it explicitly to performance. If your execs don't like it, promote from within ... or heck, you might even outsource.
There's always someone willing to do it for less.
Stephen Waters UT alumnus
Offended by campaign
On Wednesday afternoon, the East Mall was turned into a sex shop, as representatives from the Reprezent SG ticket were distributing unsolicited condoms as part of their campaign. This type of behavior should be deemed completely unacceptable.
I took great offense to this form of sexual harassment. A condom itself implies sex. By distributing these condoms Reprezent is implying one of two things: Either I'm getting too much sex, and I need extra protection or, according to Reprezent's standards, I'm not getting enough sex. Both assertions I found incredibly offensive and very distasteful. The male representative who singled me out of a crowd only furthers my suspicions.
This is sexualizing politics; instead of utilizing conventional campaign tactics, Reprezent is relying on sex to sell their ticket. Such practices are degrading and distasteful. Student campaign tactics should be revised and politics should be kept out of the bedroom. This is indeed a poor reflection on Reprezent, Student Government and the University community for allowing such action to proceed. The university constantly has visitors from industry and Austin area public schools. Is this the type of message we want to convey?
This is unfortunately not the first time that this ticket has been accused of using sexually explicit materials in their campaign. I feel that such activity is inappropriate and offensive in an educational setting. There appears to be a need for the SG student elections to be more closely monitored to prevent further insult. Hopefully, future political campaigns will be free of sexually offensive material.
Lisa Nall Senior, UTeach Mathematics
Be the first to comment on this article!