For instance the smoking ban is not only a carpet ban on every place on campus but makes no “safe environment” for smokers themselves. The University is “supposed” to provide a less than hostile environment for learning. How can a smoking student learn when they are stressed from withdrawals and busy hating the school for it? It scatters the focus of the student and therefore inhibits learning, which last time I checked was NOT the mission statement of any upstanding university.

Now the lifting of the alcohol ban is laughable but is also a cause of great agitation to on-campus residents. The ban being lifted in every academic building and yet the residence halls are to remain dry? It’s complete crap. Having been to a few events here that were well catered by our on-campus food service I was shocked to see alcohol being served in Fulkerson Center to alumni. It was and still is my belief at this time that allowing any alcohol on campus for any reason and not allowing the students to partake is hypocrisy. I know at some point in life the vision of fairness that is pursued by every individual is shattered due to some reason or another but extending a beer to an alumni while telling a student over the age of 21 no is a major double standard. I think the School senate and faculty have forgotten that WE THE STUDENTS are the reason that; they are employed, the school exists, they enjoy their position of power, and the reason that alumni are created in the first place. Without WE THE STUDENTS the Faculty would be unemployed and/or seeking employment, the school would be closed, and what would a Missouri Western alumni be?.

In Closing I would like to take the time to remind the faculty senate and the school board that trying to ban tobacco to control the behavior of students while promoting alcohol to alumni can and may very well get messy once people see the double standard

The traditional student comes to college to live alone for the first time.  Finally, personal freedom triumphs over paternalism.  I, the scholar of MWSU, am finally able to make choices on my own (Freedom) as opposed to some authority making that decision for me. (Paternalism)

I came to college to experience less paternalism and more personal freedom. Not to have mommy western slap a no-no stick out of my hand.  MWSU is not for children and it is not an equitable practice prohibit an activity that students are willing and able to participate in.

I took part in that “Scholarly Research” Dr. Suzanne Kissock claims supports her smoke free campus.  The study that claims “student majority indorses it.” (smoke-free campus) That survey/study, which I participated in, would be a shame to any statistician.  According to that survey, I support a smoke-free campus.  ”Why” you ask? The free tee-shirt.  Not from my ardent opposition to smoking on campus.

As for Dr. William Russell statement that a new tobacco policy “allows us to make it easier for people to engage in healthy behaviors,”  I say: “Say what you mean, and mean what you say.”  You aren’t suggesting we “make it easier for people to engage in healthy behaviors,” as if we are being done a favor, students will be forced into a particular way of life that they may not have chosen themselves.

Lastly, I am surprised this article didn’t bring up the Murphy/Eder smokers.  This has been the only viable argument in this whole discussion because it brings up the negative externality presented when smoking close to buildings and brings John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle” into the argument.  As my rebuttal to this point I make a very simple observation; if you don’t want people smoking by the doors, don’t put the cigarette dispensers by the doors.

I agree with Dr. Daniel Trifan in that smoking areas are a “perfectly reasonable compromise.”

Cheers,

Nick Brewer

I think COVERED places (Which is a big reason that the breezeway between Eder and Murphy is often populated by people smoking) unlike the patio down from Eder and Murphy, should be made for smokers to exercise their freedoms on campus without harming non smoking students and faculty.
Many businesses have gone non smoking and have driven smoking employees and customers to their car, in alleyways, or on other parking lots nearby. I was a non smoking adult for years and understand the points of non smokers, but I also believe in freedom of choice with legal products. Freedom of choice should lead more to a compromise between the two groups than sending the smokers underground like drug addicts.
I would also like to know how many of the faculty members that received “free” smoking cessation programs have stayed smoke free. Heartland implemented a similar program but many of the employees have started smoking again and are forced to go off campus to smoke like criminals hiding a habit. I would also like to point out that the survey of people who supported a non smoking campus might have been swayed by the fact that people were compensated in some way and there was researcher bias from the beginning. In a perfect world cigarettes would never have been invented, but the fact is that it is a legal product. If people really want to make a change and protect everyone’s health, than we are persecuting the wrong people.
Of all the answers to the smoking problem this is not the one that will benefit everyone. We are handing over another freedom by doing this and when will it stop?

As a student worker that has been employed through Missouri Western in various jobs  on campus for almost a year now I feel that we, as students, should consider ourselves lucky to have the jobs on campus that are offered to us. Yes, we make minimum wage and are only allowed to work twenty hours a week, but those rules are put into place for a reason. We are in school to get an education so that one day we can have a career in something that doesn’t pay minimum wage,  gives us benefits, as well as allows creative input.

Depending on where you work on campus, whether it is in the department that you are majoring in or in the food court or cafeteria, things are not going to be perfect.  If you’re under the age of 26 you are now able to stay on your parents’ health insurance until you reach the new age limit thanks to Obamacare.  Never mind the fact that in the “real world” part time employers don’t get health benefits either.  So whining about something that is pretty much common sense and nothing that you can do anything about because you work part time through the school is a little useless.

Thanks to the Work Study program and jobs on campus, students have the option to save gas and work on campus or to go out into the community in hopes of finding a job that probably isn’t as flexible as one on campus maybe. Plus, having a job on campus allows students to get their homework done and the chance to help other students while they are still getting paid. Sure, they aren’t the most glamorous jobs in the world, but when you get down to it, students that have been lucky enough to be employed through the university have it pretty easy and posting flyers in the cover of night that make you look ungrateful  for the job that you have only look bad on you.

We are all adults now, grow up and talk to your employers and ask for the things you want and if you don’t get them  because of restrictions already set in place then try to accept that and move on.  Life isn’t fair and it hardly ever works in your favor because that’s just how it things go. Believe me, I speak from experience and I believe that honesty is the best policy in a lot of things.

Recently, the student government of this campus passed a bill that will cost full time students an extra $150.00 per year to attend college. According to the SGA president, there was not enough time to have a student vote, so the SGA felt the need to promise our money. Bear in mind, this is in addition to the tuition, and both Federal and State taxes we pay to go to this university.

So, this letter is a call to action. Because Jacob Scott and the SGA feel that there is a “clear need for additional revenue”, I want to see them put their money where their mouth is. The

SGA needs to take a fifty percent budget cut. This would lower the SGA fee for a full time student from $50 to $25. Thus, there would be a net increase of $50 for a full time student, rather than $75. This cut would ease the pain of every single student when paying tuition.

Keep in mind, there is not an office or program on campus that has not had a budget cut, or a spending freeze of some nature, yet the SGA continues to operate with the same money from their inflated fee.

Any SGA office holder, or like minded individual, that feels the need to do the right thing can contact me at choltz@missouriwestern.edu. We can work together to make this happen; to help the school, and the students.

Cass Holtz
And Also
Janell Stone
Sterling Fichter
Clay Rains
Logan Burgess
Jarred Edwards
Sarah Roller
Aaron Adrian
Derek Hawkins

Let us be clear here with all the legislation passed over the last 10 years, smoking in public is a privilege not a right, and as a smoker I understand this. MWSU campus belongs to those who founded it and turned it into a thriving educational institution, and therefore have the right to implement any policy they so choose on their property. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to attend this University and as Mr. Cross said, “Those who don’t like Western the way it is should go to some other school,” good luck on finding an affordable institution that is not a tobacco free campus.

The administration is very good about allowing students to set policy and govern. Yet, in this fiscal drought, they have the ability to cut costs on health insurance, and that helps keep the programs that contribute to our success and the tuition at an affordable rate. At the same time how can anyone with an ounce of common sense, look around at all the cigarette butts littering the grounds at almost every entrance on campus, and believe we have the right to enjoy the privilege of doing so.

Speaking of Mr. Cross, I have to believe the Griffon News to be truly desperate for writers to allow him a voice of any kind, and about all I can honestly say about his inappropriate language and repugnant terminology is, it is not worthy to use for wiping my, well you get the picture.

Clifford Petersen

Griffons are told that they, as students, “are not part of the 99%.” This alone reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the Occupy movement, and what it represents. One cannot opt out of being in the 99%, it is a statistical measure. While you may not agree with Occupy sentiments for whatever reason, if you or your family made less than $343,000 per annum since 2009, you are in the bottom 99%.

Is it really hard work that guarantees success, anyway? Since 1979, the productivity of the American worker has climbed two-hundred forty percent, while wages have stagnated. New technology alone does not account for that increase. Americans work hard. They work long hours. They do more than ever for virtually the same pay as they did in the 1970s. All the while, the gross domestic product has grown by leaps and bounds. And while our fourteen trillion dollar economy can’t seem to push the median wage over fifty-thousand, the top one percent’s share of the wealth has doubled in the last twenty years. Did every Wall Street executive earn that money with “hard work?”

The article also seems to imply that there is a surfeit of activist sentiment on American campuses that must be quelled by cold, hard reality. I wish that were the case. Despite dismal jobs prospects and a collective student loan debt of nearly one trillion dollars, an opinion piece in a campus publication excuses student apathy and the proto-solipsistic worldview that perpetuates the destructive “look out for number one” attitude that we know for certain does not make the world better. This is ultimately unsurprising however. Students and citizens in general throughout this country have been conditioned to believe that mass movements change nothing. On the contrary, mass numbers of ordinary citizens have changed society in the past, and they can do so in the future.

Yes, your job is to be a student. Just don’t let anyone tell you that you can only learn in a classroom.

Nicholas Brothers
Political Science Major, Occupier
Missouri Western State University

Bibliography

Gilson, D. (2011, July/Aug). Overworked America: 12 Charts to Make Your Blood Boil. Mother Jones. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

Luhby, T. (2011, Oct. 20). Who are the 1%? CNNMoney. http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm

The student claimed that MWSU received budget cuts because of hard economic times and that the cut shouldn’t be shrugged off onto the students. He preferred we look at cutting things like beautification projects.

For the sake of students feeling better, the author suggested that the increase in tuition be counterbalanced with cuts to administration salaries.

Finally, the student made this statement, “It is time our student representatives and SGA leadership stop behaving like toadies for the administration and defend our interest.”

In responding, for the record, you should know I am not and never have been a student representative or part of SGA leadership. I can, though, understand the need for a tuition increase, and I don’t feel it makes me a “toady” for the administration.

MWSU has increased its enrollment by 18 percent over the past three years, which is higher than all of the other four-year universities in the state. Interestingly enough, MWSU accomplishes this while receiving less state aid per student than all of the other four-year universities in the state.

A much improved, more beautiful, campus likely attracted a few of those new students. Thank you community members, because through your itemized donations we have been able to accomplish most of the beautification projects seen on campus. A thank you is also due to the MWSU administration, because they didn’t take a pay raise over the course of the past three years either.

Now, lets review the reason MWSU received budget cuts. Each year the governor hammers out a budget that he sends to the state legislature, which then goes through a legislative process filled with committee hearings, expert testimony, debate, and, of course, voting from the state legislature.

In the event of a major natural disaster the governor can choose to make certain funding withholdings from almost any government entity receiving state funding. These withholdings forego the legislative process; requiring no hearings, no expert testimony, no debate, and definitely no votes from the state legislature.

A state Representative from Joplin, Bill White, was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on Aug. 27 saying, “This is why we have a rainy day fund; higher education shouldn’t have to pay for debris removal in Joplin. We have other money for that.”

It should also be noted that the governor’s withholdings closely resemble his own budget that he issued to the state legislature earlier in the year. That budget went through the above process, and came out with MWSU receiving its adequate share of funding. Interestingly enough, the governor chose to sign the budget that went through the legislature instead of augmenting it with his power of a line-item veto. Using the line-item veto would’ve allowed him to set the funding level for MWSU, but he would have also been the only person to blame for the change.

SGA, if you’re now considering the proposed way of dealing with tuition increases by cutting administration salaries by the same percent of increase that the students are facing… please don’t do this.

I’ll admit I’m not a math major, but if this policy were to be put into place we would end up with a very poor administration and eventually none at all. For example, with a policy like this, if tuition were to increase with an average rate of inflation (say three percent annually) then within a decade the administration would have a pay cut of 30 percent. Within two decades 60 percent, three decades 90 percent, and 40 years from now the administration would have to pay to work at MWSU.

Sincerly,

Patrick Graham

Thank you for printing my letter in your paper.  I have been happy with the feedback I have received from many students both agreeing and disagreeing with myself.  There is one area of my letter, however, I would like to clarify for any who found my point vague.

The idea that the proposal I voiced was a “political stunt,” as some have suggested, goes to the heart of the intent of my criticism.  This proposal was not meant as a catch all solution to our budgetary woes, in which case it would indeed be a “political stunt.”  Asking the administration to help bear the burden of a tuition hike by the means suggested would be a symbolic gesture that would help us students swallow the pill of increased tuition.  I see no reason why or student representatives could not be in favor of such a condition on our approval.

Furthermore, SGA’s act of unanimously supporting this tuition hike in a symbolic vote is itself a “political stunt,” the problem being it is a stunt with the administration’s interests in mind, not ours.  By failing to promote student interests and allowing its actions to become talking points for the administration SGA has failed to represent its constituents.  It isn’t the system that the students, myself included, disapprove of; it is the abuse and neglect of the system.

There is no one-stop solution to budget problems, and I am not suggesting that tuition increases are out of the question.  If they are employed, however, they should come only after the students have seen evidence of budgetary cuts that do not hinder the quality of our education and only if they are not unilaterally placed on students.  We want to know the powers that be, specifically those responsible for raising tuition, are sharing the burden.  And we see our student representatives as being responsible for ensuring this.  Perhaps there was an administrative hand behind SGA’s tuition vote and perhaps not.  Either way, we students understand it to be a major missed opportunity.  Because our representatives failed to attach conditions to a bill vital to our interests, symbolic or not, they gave our voices up to the administration’s agenda.

I would like to stress that this is not intended as an attack on any individual’s character or integrity.  Respect is due to all persons willing to make an informed judgment on these issues, whether it is the same as mine or not.  Hopefully this dialogue will continue to provoke MWSU students to engage in thoughtful discussion on the issues we face, both as students and as a university.

Respectfully,

Gary Weidemann

There was an article about the SGA President and incoming SGA people concentrating their efforts to enforce the smoking policy of Missouri Western State University and how to deal with the complaints from non-smokers and meeting in the middle for all students to be happy. 

The smokers of cigarettes know to address the problem of trash that is left behind from uncaring people like smokers that leave a bad taste when they view cigarette butts around campus grounds; it’s for all people that come here. 

The passing of the student vote has made SGA become the voice for all students and help with the complaints about smoking and the rules that come with it. The SGA Director is glad the students have spoken in the vote. But, it may become the policy of MWSU anyway because of carelessness of the smokers themselves. 

Due to current financial constraints and to tidy up the campus, this may be the only way for MWSU to clean up the butts.

Employees get a paycheck and the cuts that the campus was dealt needs, to show up somewhere. 

I think that the author is explaining to be thankful of what you have and to respect others that you may affect because human carelessness will have a permanent effect on the campus. It is a privilege and not a right to smoke. 

People need to be aware and respectful of other people and be responsible for the acts that reflect on them. His past article calls it like it is and smokers better listen up. 

My position is that I am thankful that the smokers were there to vote. 

On that day of voting, I was telling people (that were smoking) that they need to vote if they want to continue with the privilege they have. I am a smoker and a firm believer that everyone’s vote counts and if you don’t exercise that right, then you get what you get. 

What I don’t like is that some people are lazy and are not willing to work to get along, like moving the smokers spot to an area that are agreeable for both parties. Now that cigarette butts on the ground have caused an issue, it is clear that we need to move the smoke pad somewhere else. We need to put peer pressure on them to not leave butts on the ground and have some pride in themselves ad help keep the campus clean. Either way, I don’t want to lose what I have and it looks like I’m going to fight to keep it.

Sincerly, 

Brian Gomez

As a student who has been an associate senator and a senator of SGA, when you have a complaint about SGA, you should talk to a senator or any one of the executive board members or come to a senate meeting, which is open to all students to attend. The senate meeting is at 5 p.m. Monday night on the second floor of Blum. The only way to get correct facts about what is going on with SGA is by attending a senate meeting or talking to a member of SGA. There has been a lot of talk about the administrative assistant for SGA that has been in the paper and other people talking about it, but they are giving out the wrong facts about this position that Kathy Kelly will be filling.

Kelly’s position is not really new, it’s mainly just a change in title and moving her office within the SGA office since she will be doing the same job that she has been doing for years with SGA. Kelly has been helping everyone in SGA for years with training all the officers in the responsibility of all the executive officers and senators, For instance, the director of finance who runs the FOC committee where the clubs and organizations apply for funding for their club events or conferences that the clubs are attending. Once FOC approves their requests, then Kelly sends the money to the clubs account or pays electronically for the tickets, hotel expenses or whatever the approved funding is for. Since the director of finance cannot send the money himself, Kelly will not be taking over responsibilities of any of the executive officers with her new position.
SGA decided to this, since we hired a new vice president of student affairs. Kelly’s responsibilities have doubled compared to our last advisor for SGA, who was an associate dean of student affairs, who has less responsibility than a vice president of student affairs? Dr. Esther Peralez who is the new VP of student affairs and our new advisor for SGA agreed with SGA wanting to make Kelly the administrative assistant for SGA, with this change we will continue to have consistency from year to year within SGA. Having Peralez as the advisor for SGA is a good thing for student government since Peralez is for the students and encourages more students to get involve with student government, and her being a vice president can also help with getting student’s voice with top administration.

Sincerely,
Dan Drope

I have a feeling this will be the last letter I’ll ever write to the Griffon News since I’m graduating very soon; so to everyone I’ve ever met or worked with at this University, it’s been a pleasure. The people at this school are amazing, and are going great places. It is awesome.
Joshu Todd
Former SGA President

In response to the April 15, 2010 issue of Griffon News Editorial.

Just as happens in most communities, the votes of a few have decided an issue. Perhaps the outcome actually represents the opinion of the majority since the economy is so poor. However, can we accurately make this claim since only a fraction of the students voted? What scientific methodology did the Griffon News staff use to confirm that the fee would have passed if only SGA officers had been more “prepared”? Did the Griffon News effectively inform the public? Let me offer my solution to the issue; let’s create a better relationship between the SGA and the Griffon News. Let’s embrace a cooperative effort to achieve positive outcomes and refrain from deceptive discourse.

Thanks for your commentary and support,
Jacob Scott
Parliamentarian & Student Senator
Student Government Association

Staff Response

Jacob Scott

Thank you for submitting a letter in response to the April 15 editorial. The Griffon News respects your position and obvious disagreement and we appreciate your pro-addictiveness in student politics.

The fact is though, Jacob, that not all students are as willing to engage themselves as you are. Students either don’t have the time or interest in the issues to get involved. This is where the Student Government Association plays one of its major roles. The SGA, spear headed by the president, are solely responsible for educating the public on any issues they wish to pass. This is called a direct line of communication—which has been lacking all this year.

As far as The Griffon News’ duty to the public, three stories were published on the proposal (Feburary 5, March 5, and April 2, which can also be found online). The final story’s headline read “Western students vote on technology recycling fee April 7th-9th.” It was the most detailed, describing how much the fee would cost and the provisions that the proposal called for. The article mentions Gordon Mapely, the Dean of Western Institute, who helped co-author the proposal, stating why the technology fee is needed. No doubt, the fee had support from the administration, especially in this current economic climate, but the administration is not enough to convince students why the proposal was important.

The Griffon News can only educate the public so much; at the end of the voting day only the SGA can be blamed for a failed vote. A failed vote can occur for several reasons, but it is the opinion of The Griffon News that the major contributing factor was the lack of communication from senior members of SGA to the public and in some places even within the SGA.

Government should never rely on newspapers to be their direct line of communication with the people they represent. As mentioned in the editorial, a public forum directed and advertised toward students to ask questions and respond to the fee would have been an appropriate response to opening the communications channels between SGA and the students. Senate meetings are held for senators and are not primarily for students to voice their opinion.

The Griffon News never attempted to speculate how the voters would have voted if SGA had been more pro-active in their communication. It is logical to conclude though, had SGA been more prepared (held more forums, prevent political divide among the senate, educate the students, and open the lines of communication between students and SGA) then voter turnout would have been higher than roughly 10 percent.

In response to your final sentence, The Griffon News and SGA have a healthy relationship as is proven with the coverage of the Technology and Recycling fee. Jacob, the issue though isn’t the relationship between The Griffon News and SGA, but instead SGA and the public.

The Griffon News will always “refrain from deceptive discourse” but to be clear, The Griffon News is not a propaganda tool for the SGA. The Griffon News in a student outlet and open forum for everyone on campus. The Griffon News will not “embrace a cooperative effort to achieve positive outcomes,” because that is not our duty to Western. It is instead, SGA’s duty to convince both the students and The Griffon News that your positive outcomes are indeed positive.

Once again, thank you for responding to The Griffon News editorial. We encourage every student to speak their mind.
Respectively
The Griffon New Staff

 King Whitney Jr, president of Personal Laboratory Inc., made a statement about change at a sales meeting that is appropriate and it was later quoted in the Wall Street Journal in June of 1967. He said, “Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.” At Missouri Western the question must be asked, will we view these new beginnings with hope, confidence or fear?

 There are always those individuals that would rather face an existence of mundane banality than open themselves to new experiences because new things can be scary. Mankind has always been afraid of what it does not understand, However we at the Griffon News feel that this should be seen as an opportunity to raise ourselves to a new standard. Missouri Western is facing a new dawn that ushers in the great light of knowledge to a community that could only stand to benefit from having a more collegiate environment. By seizing the new day with eager and willing hearts and backbones choke full of hard work, the students and administration could use this new beginning to propel our university into an era of greatness in this ever advancing society. We could build brilliant minds for tomorrow.

 Heraclitus was a Greek philosopher who lived from 540 B.C. to 480 B.C. but even as early in human history as he lived there was already one truth that proved constant and still does in this constantly changing world. That truth is elegant and simple. “Nothing endures but change.” Heraclitus was right about that. So with change comes new beginnings and new chances to do better or worse that was done before. We at the Griffon Newsroom are ready to do better. Are you?

The Republican toy, known as George W. Bush was elected because America wanted to get out of the immoral shadow that Bill Clinton had cast over it. Yea, I remember the good old days when Bill Clinton looked America in the face and lied to us. Is this what America wants?

Would we rather have an immoral president than one who will actually defend us? George Bush never deliberately lied. He was told by his intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush’s ratings may be bad, but only because liberal news stations plaster our television screens with negative reports of how or soldiers are being killed.

These news stations try as hard as they can to hide the success of the war on terror.

Successes like millions of Iraqis and Afghanis being saved from brutal regimes, and having a chance to vote and experience freedom.

America hasn’t been attacked in five years, and Bin Laden is hiding in a cave. Maybe if President Clinton would have killed Bin Laden when he had the chance to, we wouldn’t have experienced 9/11.

And yes Clinton did have the chance, this is fact.

This war is a war that has to be fought now, and President Bush has decided to take the fight to the enemy.

Radical Islam knows no boundaries.

There goal is to create a world of tyranny where freedom no longer exists. Lets say a Democrat is elected in 2008 and they withdrawal our troops. Will this make the terrorist leave us alone?

I think not. We didn’t ask for this war, it was brought to us on our front door step by cowards who hate our western culture and the freedoms that we enjoy.

With every war comes sacrifice. The question is: Are we willing to make sacrifices in order to protect our nation?

Ask our military men and women who are fighting if this war is worth it. They’re the ones who fight for your right to say you don’t believe in this country anymore! George Bush is not a mistake.

Brandon Boswell

Why would this student want to be closer to his classroom? Because it is more convenient; the “cost” of being further from the building would be greater. I assume this would be equally true for faculty (if you discount youth versus older faculty and creaky bones). And how many years would this student have to bear this cost? Four years? And how long would the faculty member have to bear this same cost? I am in my twenty-eighth year at Missouri Western. So, if this freshman were to graduate in four years, I would at that point have born 800% more pain than he. Contrary to the student’s charge of discrimination, it is just simple cost-benefit.

Patrick H. McMurry, Ph.D.
Chair, Dept of Economics

I’m sure you receive many letters of compliant about the limited parking on campus, but this one is different from the others.

I recently received two violations for parking in reserved parking areas for faculty members. The citations are currently on appeal and should be overturned due to legal justification.

However, through this ordeal I did learn that faculty members have reserved parking. Why is that?

Why can faculty members park in student areas, but students can not park in faculty areas?

As students we pay good money to the college for our education. Many students have work loans that rival and exceed many faculty members.

Part of the student’s tuition covers the many benefits of going to a large campus area.

But faculty members get paid to park closer to their office and students have to pay to park further from our office.

I have the utmost respect for professors and faculty members, but why do they get the privilege of parking closer to their office?

In this day and time one would think that all public actions and rules of discrimination by official public administrators would be extinct.

To treat faculty members as senior citizens or ones that are handicapped is outrageous.

There should be a review of the parking regulations on campus. If the policy of allowing faculty members to park closer than students remains, then we should divide the parking lots by how many credit hours a student has on their transcript. Or divide the parking lots by race, sex, religion, etc. Discrimination must end at MWSU by allowing “Equal Parking.”

- Scott Buis

Jason Jones is the media director of Human Life International and travels in many foreign countries. These two “thirty-something” men presented a very stimulating call to the  volunteers in attendance to defeat Amendment 2. It was awesome!

They defined stem cell research into two types: adult (65 medical treatment successes), and embryonic (0 cures). They emphasized  how the amendment deceives voters because it attempts to re-define cloning by leading people to believe life begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus and not at conception.

Tarek told the volunteers that California has been working on embryonic stem cell research for the last 15 years and h as spent $6 billion and still no cure. “It doesn’t work,” said Tarek.

Jason spoke of his global travels and has seen many corruptive documents, but nothing like the deceptive language written in Amendment 2. This amendment will mandate taxpayers to pay for this research by enshrining this into our state constitution. But more horribly, how this Amendment 2 will exploit women, worse than abortion. Both men have stories of how they became to be Pro-Life advocates: one was a spared abortion, the other was the father of a child to whom the mother had a secretive abortion. These two young men were both emotional and passionate about getting out the truth after their own traumatic experiences.

They both had wonderful testimonies in their spiritual journeys defending the truth.

These out-of-town visitors have taken time out from their regular busy lives to promote culture of life, and to help us Missourians defeat Amendment 2. They believe that prayer,
penance, and action is what is needed to defeat this amendment. Evil happens when good people do nothing.

Wake up Missouri!

Sincerely,
Pat Baker

Supporters of stem cell research hope Missouri’s disabled voters will make their way to the polls on November 7th. If not, a flood of campaign cash may decide the nation’s closest Senate race.

As conservative columnist Robert Novak noted in a recent column: “Missouri polls show this race on the razor’s edge between Sen. Jim Talent (R) and state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D). Talent, however, has more than 15 times as much cash (emphasis added) in his own campaign account for the home stretch–$4.2 million to $250,000.”*

However, Missouri also has 889,917 voters with a disability**—21.4% of the voting public. Disabled folks like my paralyzed son Roman tend to vote Democratic, and overwhelmingly support stem cell research.

If wheelchair drivers turn out in substantial numbers, even a tidal wave of money won’t keep the anti-research Talent in power.

Thank you,

Don C. Reed Chair,
Californians for Cures

*Evans-Novak Political Report, October 18, 2006

**American Association of People with Disabilities, U.S. Census 2000.

As I watched the Fox News Channel most of the afternoon this Sept. 11 I eventually began to think about the fact that America is so divided today. And to be honest, it bothered the hell out of me. As all the pictures from five years ago flashed across the screen, a feeling of stupidity started to creep into my body. I thought to myself, “What ever happened to us Americans being united?” “Why can’t we Americans put aside our political, social and whatever other differences we may have, and just be Americans?”

Some people say the Bush Administration has caused this division. So what if you don’t support the Bush administrations policies. Does this mean that we should divide ourselves as American brothers and sisters under one great flag and create a war here in our homeland? What if we put aside these disagreements and decided to support our president and each other in this time of war? Would the possibility that the war on terror could end much quicker be in the cards? I am optimistic that it would. The rest of the world sees the polls splashed all over the television that this country is divided, and our enemies are only emboldened to fight the cause of freedom. We need to look at President Bush as an American president at this time, not a Republican president.

On my way home from class that afternoon, I was listening to 96.5 The Buzz and the disc jockey had an interesting story. He talked about how he was present in New York City on 9/11, and how after the attacks everybody was very loving and caring. People didn’t see each other as Republican or Democrat. They didn’t see each other as black, white, Jew, Christian, Muslim, or atheist. They only saw each other as Americans. Where has this attitude gone? We have become blind to our unifying nationality.

I am a conservative and constantly find myself screaming at the television when the likes of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton are on the screen bashing the president and his policies. But on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I thought about how those politicians are Americans just like me. We must unite right now, just as we did during the World Wars. America is at war, and there is no denying it. Even if we pulled out of the Middle East, the enemies of freedom would still attack us. It is an ideology of hate and anarchy that our enemies want the world to live by, not just succeed in driving America from the lands they inhabit. We didn’t ask for this war, it was given to us right on our front door step. Now we must do what ever it takes to win it. God Bless.

Brandon R. Boswell