Texan doesn't need D.C. bureau
In response to the three Firing Line letters criticizing the Texan's coverage of President Reagan's passing (published June 8): National news is not the priority of a college newspaper.
To avoid going into a meandering rant, I will only say that university and local community news should be the prerogative of any college paper, and the Texan usually does a satisfactory job in this regard.
Anyone wanting information pertaining to "a biography highlighting points from [Reagan's] presidency or even explaining funeral events that will affect the day-to-day business of all Americans" could easily find such information on any of the major networks or in one of several "newspapers across the country, and around the globe" which "devoted pages to celebrating and recounting President Reagan's life."
Richard Hasenmyer UT alum
Tunnel guy shoots back
Regarding this Firing Line: "I'm far more concerned about the guy who wants a map. Normal students don't need maps to simply satisfy their curiosity, so what's he got in mind?" ("Subterranean journalism," June 7)
Unless their curiousity, of course, is wondering how big those tunnels were. Note the previous Texan article: "Miller was curious about the dimensions of the network. He said a physical plant official told him such details were secret 'because of 9/11'" ("FBI investigates underground tunnel requests," May 6).
If that is still not under your definition of a "normal" student, then perhaps it is time The University of Texas had some new blood.
Mark A. Miller Physics freshman
Beagle infection cover-up
Dear Editor: While the UT Animal Research Center might tell reporters that no experiments were done on beagles related to UT's patent, a review of the patent itself reveals otherwise.
Thirty-one beagle dogs were used in at least one set of experiments that involved destroying their immune systems through exposure to radiation and dosing them with immunosuppressive steroids. The weakened dogs' lungs were then exposed to mold to cause fatal lung infections.
Three of the dogs died due to secondary or unintended bacterial infections, and four others died due to the induced infections. Two dogs had to be euthanized because they were so sick, and the remaining 22 dogs were killed for necropsy.
All of this was done so that the University could patent sickened dogs whom they could advertise as "models" for drug testing. This information can be found in columns 21-23 of U.S. Patent # 6444,872 on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Web site (www.uspto.gov).
Crystal Miller-Spiegel Senior Policy Analyst American Anti-Vivisection Society
No matter who's in charge, Los Alamos keeps going
Frankly, it concerns me a bit that the University is still debating this topic. I haven't seen any new information on Los Alamos in more than a month, since UT Watch put out its report.
Regardless of the situation, it seems to me that the entire argument against bidding for management of Los Alamos is the fact that Los Alamos is Los Alamos. By this, I mean that you are really debating whether the government should be supporting the Los Alamos research, as opposed to whether UT should apply to get a research opportunity for faculty and students.
I know UT is a very powerful school and certainly is one of the best in the nation, but if it decides not to apply for Los Alamos, the research isn't going to stop. The research will just be done elsewhere (for instance, Texas A&M, and who wants them managing nuclear defense and weapon research?).
The only other type of argument that remains is the one that states that a bid for Los Alamos would show that the University supports nuclear weapons. I guess, in that respect, so would having a nuclear engineering program (a distinguishing program that UT has, and something that has never been protested). Other than that, it is important to note that Los Alamos does more than research atomic bombs (a seemingly common conception); it also works on missile defense.
So, why deny your institution the money and your students the research opportunities? Regardless of how you feel about Los Alamos in a moral sense, all the information about how it will help recruitment, bring in more money, and allow easier access to research jobs for more students is entirely accurate (the University of Kansas would probably do anything to have the opportunity to be remotely considered for such a bid).
UT's refusal to bid for Los Alamos will not end any research being done in those laboratories; it will only deprive your university of the possible benefits. Protest Los Alamos all you want, but don't protest making your university better.
Jason Boots KU student
Web-Exclusive Firing Lines
Now, who's the president again?
While I can certainly appreciate Mr. Smith's individual sentiment concerning Sixth Street and the biker rally ("Bikers not worth the trouble," June 7, 2004), I do not approve of his invoking the name of our organization. The Alumni Conclave counts many proud bikers among its membership. However, as an organization we neither support nor oppose the Republic of Texas Biker Rally. According our bylaws, undergraduates are not eligible for membership. I'm shocked at the Texan's oversight in this area. Due to your chicane, Mr. Smith, you have severely hurt your chances of gaining membership upon graduation.
Hook'em Neil Maguire UT Alum President, The Alumni Conclave
Be the first to comment on this article!