University cuts costs, but increases tuition

Dear Editor:

This letter is in response to the university deciding (without consulting the students, I might add) that they are no longer going to print booklets with the schedule of classes. This is going to save the university thousands. How wonderful for them. While they save thousands, the students are forced to pay increased tuition. But as long as the university saves money, then by all means, we should allow this to continue. The university said there were too many booklets left over at the end of the semester. My response to that is to print less books but don’t cancel them out completely.

Some students liked using the books, myself included. I can’t believe they did not do a poll of the students before making that decision. I think the new way to schedule sucks. It actually costs the students money because you have to print out the times of all the classes that you wish to take.

The university is all about cutting back while increasing costs to students. This has been proven a lot this semester: First by saving more than $30,000 on postage by no longer printing and mailing tuition bills, and now not printing booklets. What does the university do for the students? They cost us more money every year. I will not be happy until the booklets are brought back into production, and I am sure that I am not the only one who feels this way.

Sarah Bowers

Junior middle childhood education major

Intolerance the reason for outcry regarding the abortion trucks

Dear Editor:

I read with interest the various articles in the Daily Kent Stater about the pro-life trucks which toured campus. The unfortunate primary outcome of the event was to dramatically flush out the intolerance of the liberal left and the news media.

The only incident approaching this outburst is Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in Montgomery, Ala., propelling the civil rights movement and showing the true hypocrisy of the segregationist South. To their credit, the Reverse Roe trucks refused to take a back seat in the bus. Like the white segregationists, the ministers of tolerance finally had to face their own schizophrenic version of political correctness.

A hyperlink to the Matthew Shepard case may serve as an analogy. When Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student, was senselessly and needlessly murdered, activists turned his unfortunate fate into a news media feeding frenzy. Homosexual activists started bus rides and tour groups to the murder site, and encouraged people to visit the murder scene. It was never mentioned, as to what an upper middle class college student was doing hanging out in a cowboy bar late on a school night. It was also conveniently ignored what an upper middle class college student was doing trying to pick up two gentlemen who hadn’t taken a bath in a week, and both with rather long criminal records.

If the intolerant tolerant were what they pass themselves off to be, they would have been as outraged over the pictures of aborted fetuses as they were over the death of Matthew Shepard.

Mr. Shepard had a choice. The unborn fetuses on the trucks didn’t have a choice. Only the purveyors of diversity could see a difference. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled, in its Dred Scott decision, that an entire class of people had no legal or constitutional rights. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled, in Roe v. Wade, that an entire class of people had no legal or constitutional rights. It is unfortunate that today only the Ku Klux Klan and the liberal left support these decisions, respectively. Nothing else needs to be said.

Ed Fisher

Kent resident