Theoretical physicsists need space, time to unwind
In response to the April 12 article regarding the planned elimination of the physics lounge, I would like to commend The Daily Texan for bringing this situation to light. The issue of student spaces is a very real concern on this campus, especially when you consider the size of both our undergraduate and graduate student populations. We have about 50,000 students on this campus with about 13,000 graduate students.
Recent discussions about building a new Student Activities Center are well and good, as they will provide a single location for student organizations and leadership groups. However, this does not address the issue of student spaces in individual departments where many graduate students spend a great deal of time.
Of course, professional programs such as business and law are able to provide a great deal of personal space for their graduate students but at a cost; the students pay for it through higher tuition.
Now that other graduate students and all undergraduates are starting to feel the impact of tuition hikes, I think it not unreasonable for them to be concerned about where the money is going and whether the University's priorities are in line with those of their main consumers: students.
Personal and communal spaces outside the classroom are essential for a healthier and more motivated student body. Every department on this campus should have dedicated and suitable lounge space for both undergraduate and graduate students that cannot be eliminated without student consultation.
- Erik Malmberg, Education doctoral student
Government students seek to claim lounge territory
One of the ways to advance the quality and reputation of the University is to provide graduate students with spaces in which to convene and share and compare ideas. Not only does this spur on innovation, co-publishing and interdisciplinary exchange, it promotes healthy competition - the key to putting the University's graduate students a cut above their peers.
In my home department, government, the only spaces in which to convene are the computer laboratory and individual offices. A "lounge" area is exactly what is lacking. The recent tendency to eliminate these spaces, or in the case of my department, to not provide them at all, signals an alarming trend toward further graduate-student isolation and stunted possibilities for collaboration.
The administration and graduate representatives of every department must take steps to provide spaces which will encourage graduate students to derive the many benefits of interaction with both fellow students and professors. At present, my colleagues and I spend a bare minimum of time in the department; lacking a real space for graduate students, there is little incentive to be there - lamentable, but easily remedied.
- Greg Michener, Government doctoral student
Civil War statues really about World War I, rebel casualties
All of the recent Firing Lines as well as Ben Douglas' column miss the larger lesson of why the Main Mall statues were built in 1933. After all, why would statues of Confederates be built 68 years after the end of the Civil War? Did the UT administrators and alumni who approved the statues in the 1930s secretly wish for the return of black slavery?
Or course not. The statues were built to commemorate the end of the enormous hostility between North and South that existed until the end of World War I. This is why statues of three presidents were included: one of George Washington, the "father of his country"; one of Woodrow Wilson, the president during and immediately after World War I; and one of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy.
In short, the statues were supposed to bring the nation back together symbolically, which many historians believe that World War I accomplished, in fact.
And why was the nation still at odds more than 50 years after the end of the "war between the states?" Maybe it had something to do with the enormous carnage inflicted by both sides.
The American Civil War was the most brutal war of the 19th century, killing 620,000 people, one out of 50 Americans. A war today that took a similar percentage of American lives would result in almost 6 million American deaths, more than 100 times the number of Americans killed in Vietnam.
The Confederate statues were placed on the Main Mall in 1933 not to honor slavery but instead to honor the thousands of Southerners who perished in the war.
- Clark Patterson, Liberal arts special student
Web Firing Lines
Historical reminders importance to history
In rebutting Leah Caldwell's piece, I will point out again my original thesis that emoting the atrocities of the Civil War and of slavery does nothing to further the understanding of the why war happened in the first place and certainly does not make an excuse to start tearing down historical markers on campus.
Caldwell claims that the states' rights "jargon" is a modern invention used by Southerners to somehow justify their plight with the North. How, then, will she explain that Southern lawmakers had complained for more than two decades before the start of the Civil War about the unfair, unconstitutional economic policies that exploited the South for the gain of the North?
She also states that everyone in the South who supported secession were racists. How, then, will she explain how four Northern states remained slave-holding states throughout the Civil War? How will she explain that Lincoln was completely willing to keep slavery legal upon taking office and in fact supported a constitutional amendment that would give greater legal power to the institution of slavery? How will she explain the Northern states' use of "black codes" that severely discriminated against blacks and restricted free slaves from settling in the North? By her logic, were Yankees not racists, too?
Lastly, how can anyone explain why the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in Confederate territory, while doing absolutely nothing to free the slaves in northern territory, including the four northern slave states?
To the answer of all of these questions, perhaps it is because my original point, that slavery and racism was only a factor, and not the cause of the Civil War, is factually correct. As deplorable and heinous as slavery was, we must learn to take emotion out of our understanding of history. Furthermore, to erase vestiges of this nation's history, whether you agree with certain aspects of them or not, is deplorable. The statues should stay, if anything, so that this debate never dies, lest we forget its importance as well.
- Matthew Hammond, UT alumnus
Looking back at history a subjective activity
In regards to Leah Caldwell's firing line on Tuesday: You're right, the main thing on Confederate leaders minds probably wasn't fighting tyranny. They were fighting for their way of life which was completely sustained by slave labor. These people were racist slave owners, but so were most of our founding fathers for whom most people revere and have great respect.
The thing you must do when studying the people who shaped our world is think of how great and ahead of the game they were in their time. I highly doubt that many people would vote for anyone nowadays who hold the same beliefs that George Washington or fellow slave owner Thomas Jefferson held.
I wouldn't lose any sleep at night if the Calhoun statue, along with some of the other Confederate statues, was removed. At the same time, I do enjoy walking past monuments dedicated to the people who made this world what it is today. I enjoy being inspired after walking past the MLK statue while walking through the East Mall, what's wrong with that? I also love the Littlefield fountain (paid for and named after a quite prominent racist). So I'm basically saying statues aren't all that bad, besides, birds need a place to take a break and our extra tuition has to go somewhere.
- Mark Irby, Government junior
Be the first to comment on this article!