NAFTA mythology
In the Nov. 29 column "Ignoring immigration retro-politics," Andrew Vickers makes the curious claim that "treaties and organizations such as NAFTA were a first step" in helping to improve "the lot of our neighbors in Mexico and Central America." Improving their lot is important, he writes, "if we really want to prevent immigrants from coming into our country."
Vickers' claim has no basis in reality, however. Indeed, NAFTA and other trade agreements are primary forces compelling immigration from Mexico to the United States.
In 1994, NAFTA was crammed down the throats of the populations of the U.S., Canada and especially Mexico, even though analyses by both the Office of Technology Assessment and the labor movement predicted it would harm the populations of all three countries. NAFTA's underlying purpose was to cement U.S.-Mexico economic relations on the assumption that U.S. corporations should exploit Mexican labor, material resources and markets. This is usually called "liberalizing trade," although it has nothing to do with it.
In NAFTA's first year, 6 million Mexican farmers were forced out of work because they couldn't compete with government-subsidized corn and wheat flowing into Mexican markets from the U.S. and Canada. And in 2008, as many as 2 million more farmers will be ruined by the full opening of Mexico's borders to U.S. exports of corn, beans and powdered milk, the last products to be liberalized under NAFTA. It's worth noting that U.S. agriculture is heavily subsidized by tax dollars, a patent betrayal of the free market principles that NAFTA's supporters routinely praise.
The position these people are forced into drives many of them to immigrate to the U.S., where vicious racists malign them. NAFTA and other free trade agreements and organizations should be dismantled, not lauded.
Matthew Tedrow Journalism graduate student
Dangerous materialism
In reply to Ben Cohen's Nov. 29 firing line, "Horn is a hero," in which he applauds the actions of Joe Horn as those of a "great American." Cohen poses this question: "I wonder if those folks would feel so forgiving if the property in question were their own. I'd challenge them to take a mental inventory of all their stuff, then ask them if they wouldn't love an armed and ornery Joe Horn next door should someone try to take it from them."
So let me get this straight, he's asking me whether or not I value my stuff over the life of somebody else? I've made my mental inventory, and I can't think of one single thing that I own, or that anybody could ever own - yes Mr. Cohen, even their kittens and puppy dogs - that is worth more than somebody else's life. If we have begun to think that people who commit property crimes deserve to die, as it seems that Cohen and Daniel Earnest have done, then we truly have our priorities mixed up.
Dean Farley Spanish sophomore
Not that simple
In reading the article "Tuition hike necessary, committee says," Nov. 30, I truly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Doesn't it strike anyone else funny that the headline is so absurdly simplistic and obvious? Why would the Tuition Policy Advisory Committee disavow their own program? It certainly wouldn't be because of the overwhelming opposition from the concerned student body. Sure, we all say that we don't want higher tuition, but to look around at the empty seats in Hogg Auditorium during the TPAC Forum was a very educating experience. Apathy is the enemy, my fellow students. If we honestly wish to ensure an affordable education for all who seek it, we must act as one! Write/e-mail your senators and representatives at the Texas Capitol, the UT System Regents, the governor and anyone else of importance who will listen to the plight of Texas students! Tuition deregulation is a failure. It is high time that we remedy the situation.
Edward C. Oden IV Tuition Accountability Coalition member Government sophomore
TAC, not TPAC
A nine-member panel has decided that tuition needs to be increased $318 per semester next year and $303 per semester the year after that. There are four students on that panel, and though they are a minority, four out of nine is plenty to develop opposition to unfavorable policies. Policies don't get any more unfavorable than taking more money away from college students.
We students are busy with classes, jobs and our lives. That's why we elect student leaders to be our voice. Saying, "I guess we need to raise tuition to keep UT competitive with Michigan or Cal," is not a good representation of students' voices. The voice of the students would be more accurately portrayed by saying, "Not no, but hell no!"
I admit, I've never been to an SG meeting, but if issues like this and plus/minus grading aren't taking up at least 90 percent of SG's time, then what are they working on?
The Tuition Accountability Coalition is the new voice of the students. Its leadership includes active members and officers from such groups as the Young Conservatives of Texas and the University Democrats. Opposition to the proposed tuition increases comes from the entire political spectrum. Conservatives, moderates, liberals and socialists all agree that enough is enough. If the elected student leaders won't stand up for broke college students, then we will.
Nathan S. Friedman Tuition Accountability Coalition Government senior University Democrats events chair
Be the first to comment on this article!