Discrimination not the law
In response to many YCT firing lines, and most recently Ed Oden's (The Firing Line, Jan. 31), I would love to hear an official stance on homosexuality from the Young Conservatives of Texas. Each new op-ed and article reeks of the idea that homosexuality is some sort of perversion, akin to pedophilia, and should as such be done away with altogether.
To say something should be upheld just because it is law is a mark of a person poorly informed at best and severely closed-minded and possibly bigoted at worst. St. Augustine, someone that any person holding their views against homosexuality for religious reasons should be familiar with (or at least those claiming a Christian theological backing), once said that "an unjust law is no law at all." It was this sentiment and that quote that Martin Luther King Jr. used in his famous letter from a Birmingham jail when he suggested that we have a duty to stand against an unjust law. In this time, we are presented with another situation in which it is considered okay to discriminate against a class of people because "it's the law."
I will never understand how someone can sit back and claim that the core idea of all men being created and treated equally is being upheld when it is so obvious that it simply is not. I may only be able to speak for myself, but I would be both elated and proud if my University stood at the forefront of ending a systematic, institutionalized discrimination of any citizens of this country. Remember, people of Texas wanted to keep segregation and Jim Crow, too.
Matt Parks Government and philosophy junior
Closed-minded hypocrisy?
It is often believed that those who oppose homosexual spousal benefits are of a closed mindset. However, Nicolas Shumway quotes in his column ("A plan UT could benefit from, Jan. 30) a telephone exchange with a strikingly closed-minded "promising young professor" who adamantly supports homosexual employment benefits. Shumway helpfully tells us there are many similar folks out there with similar attitudes, all of whom UT is desperately trying to hire, it seems.
The individual told professor Shumway that she refuses "to make common cause with a bigoted school." The use of pejorative insults to characterize an argument shows that the person does not consider that a rational person could come to disagree with her. She's not open to other points of view, preferring to question the school's character instead. Even Shumway is guilty of this arrogant form of persuasion: He concedes at the outset that the proverbial other side is "morally indefensible," but fails to elaborate. That is a lazy way to make a case.
The domain of truly open debates and discussions in academia is surprisingly small when viewed from outside.
Chris Burns UT alum
Setting it in stone
Once again, the statues on the South Mall are in danger of extinction. While all the people under consideration for a statue may be worthy by some standards, why are they being considered here?
Neither Cesar Chavez nor Martin Luther King Jr. ever set foot in Texas. Barbara Jordan, at least, was a respected political figure who was from Texas. But where does Gandhi figure into the equation? The foreign students' associations must have an active role in the statue selection process.
And what is wrong with the statues we have there already? It is by no accident that the South Mall faces south. This, by original design, is the "front door" to UT. The generals and past presidents are suitable for this location. It is also no accident that the entire state Capitol building faces south, with the main entrance facing south - again, by design.
I hear there is some controversy surrounding the [removal of] individuals already statued on the South Mall.
Could it be George Washington, who was our first president but also a slave holder? Or is it Woodrow Wilson, whose plan to invade Russia in the early 1900s did not succeed, and who dreamed up the "League of Nations," which was also a flop. Wilson also so admired the central banks of Europe that he foisted the Federal Reserve system, which still plagues us to this day. Yep - he's gotta go.
Could it be the honorable Robert E. Lee who is at the heart of this controversy? Highly respected by friend and foe alike, he actually lived in Texas during his Mexican War army days and was opposed to slavery. He can stay.
I am starting to remember why I did not renew my UT alumni association membership.
Samuel Bennett UT alum
Romney can win
In his Jan. 30 column "Mitt's the man for America," Daniel Earnest hit the nail on the head. Mitt Romney is truly the full-spectrum conservative who has both the ability to unite the conservative coalition and govern effectively. All the other candidates lack some core component, whether it is in regards to social, economic or national security policy. Furthermore, Romney is a completely viable winner in November. Polls mean nothing right now. In contrast to the Democratic candidates, Romney has offered specific plans in every major policy initiative, and they are plans that will ultimately keep taxes and spending down, help the economy grow, keep Americans safe, protect our borders and offer free market health insurance for millions of Americans. The flip-flopping charge is not true; if you want proof, look at Romney's record in Massachusetts. Washington is broken, and students who want real change in their government should consider Romney. If Romney is elected president, it will be the opportunity of a lifetime to bring real change to Washington, making our government more responsive to the people and more effective in its duties.
Matthew Horine Government junior
Conservative pragmatism
Ignoring Jon Pearson's broad generalizations of conservatives and free market capitalism ("Welcome to the conservative dystopia," The Firing Line, Jan. 31), the most shocking point he makes is that one is not able to recognize a "true conservative" due to the lack of a "broad liberal arts education." Are we to believe that a liberal arts education would lead everyone to the same informed decision? If so, that would only confirm the view of many conservatives that colleges are brainwashing their students as opposed to teaching. It is elitist to believe intelligent people will come to the same conclusion in a situation.
Before anyone considers adding more liberal arts to an already-packed degree plan, they should consider the technologies that we take for granted now. Electricity was not discovered after reading Milton's "Paradise Lost," and the ridiculous Prop. 15 will not pay for copies of Goethe's "Faust" or Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" in an ambitious quest to cure cancer. Instead, those who took the path of "specialized training" will continue working to provide the computer from which you sent your firing line. They will learn to build the infrastructure that helps provide your quality of life or treat your family for any illness they may contract. They will continue improving farming technology so that maybe someday hunger can be eliminated. Of course, none of these things are valuable or useful in your economy. It is my own belief that people who can survive organic chemistry or interpret the Navier-Stokes equation (Google it) would do well enough in deciding what is good for them and which candidate best represents their interests.
Cooper Gill Mechanical engineering senior
Editor's note: We Googled "Navier-Stokes equation" and are quite confident that a person who can describe the motion of fluid substances such as liquids and gases in order to establish that changes in momentum in infinitesimal volumes of fluid are simply the sum of dissipative viscous forces is perfectly capable of running a country, or doing anything for that matter.
A conservative's appeal to Democrats
As the election draws closer, I feel it is necessary to give some advice to my Democrat brethren. I'm writing not to give policy advice or to inform of the folly of liberal policies, but to ask for one small favor: When voting for who you want to represent your party in the race for the White House, please vote for Barack Obama. You Democrats clearly want "change," and a vote for Hillary Clinton will not give you any.
Hillary will continue the corporate welfare that both you and I abhor, along with the socialist policies anathema to the conservatives of this country. This will not bring change to the nation, but only further economic chaos and a continuation of the divisive politics that has plagued us for the past 16-odd years. This is not to say that I like Obama, but he is certainly better than the current rank hypocrisy characterized by the Clinton camp. The dichotomy between Republicans who don't tax and spend and Democrats who do tax and spend is what they want to give our money to - businesses or the poor. Hillary will give our money to both. Don't make the same mistake we made in 2000. Stay dedicated to your underlying values and vote for someone who will truly represent them. And finally, keep in mind that Hillary Clinton, nor anyone else, will not bring back the 1990s.
Joseph Wyly Government senior YCT treasurer
A cheap shot at Big Oil
Reading Friday's Viewpoint ("UT's oil spillover," Feb. 1), I can see that the Texan editorial board is unhappy about the price of gasoline and tuition. They also seem to be concerned about the influence of corporations on higher education. In response, they evidently wanted to say something bad about a big corporation (ExxonMobil) and about the University. But whatever it was they wanted to say, they said it badly.
There certainly are real issues worth discussing related to energy, corporations and education, but to imply that ExxonMobil's recent $125 million gift to the National Math and Science Initiative is really a plot to turn UT-Austin into a petroleum engineer factory is the kind of outrageous claim you would make in a bar to your friends when you are feeling downtrodden and angry at the world. It is certainly not the kind of carefully reasoned argument that should appear as an opinion piece representing a university newspaper staff. While I highly recommend petroleum engineering to anyone who is interested in an exciting, challenging career working to secure the world's energy future, I must point out that we are not taking over the University. Biology is the largest major at UT with about 2,500 students. Petroleum engineering doesn't even make the top 15, and we won't get a penny of the above-mentioned ExxonMobil gift.
The money is to support the education of math and science teachers. And to imply that the UTeach program is somehow programming future high school math and science teachers to indoctrinate their students to be future corporate lemmings that will flock to ExxonMobil's doors is irrational. If you go to the NMSI website, you will read that the non-profit's formation was in response to a report by the National Academies bemoaning the poor performance and lack of interest of U.S. children in math and science. If we ignore that problem, our global competitiveness could suffer. Former UT President Larry Faulkner and current UT President William Powers went to ExxonMobil because it has money to give (and a responsibility to give it), and ExxonMobil gave the money to NMSI because it was so impressed with the UTeach program (which is administered by UT's Colleges of Education and Natural Sciences) that it wanted to support an effort to expand UTeach across the country. Kudos to UTeach.
Watching the Texan twist those things into a Viewpoint that besmirches two great programs at this University (UTeach and petroleum engineering) and implies they are in some vast conspiracy to make more money for ExxonMobil is breathtaking.
Jon E. Olson Petroleum and geosystems engineering associate professor
Be the first to comment on this article!