This letter is in reference to a piece entitled \Bush's focus lost in space,"" which ran on Jan. 21, 2004. You have plenty of criticism about the plan, but nothing to suggest an alternative.
First of all, spending billions on a space program means jobs for Americans. Not McDonald's jobs, jobs that deal with science and technology produce lots of ideas, that drive the economy. So, I think it is pretty childish to assume anyone reading your column is going to believe that spending money on a space program is to ""make America all powerful."" Have you been living in a cave since Sept. 11'Nobody believes that line anymore, come up with something better.
How about we need to feed the poor hungry masses... that is always better. Ironically though, it is not possible to provide for every man woman and child a home on this planet, the resources wouldn't permit it.
If we expanded into space, and developed the technology to harness its resources, money would become unimportant with that kind of technology base.??Power, food resources would be limitless.
It isn't a pipe dream either, the Universe is well... a pretty big place. In fact, we could move everyone off the earth, and declare it a park. Or, we can bury our heads in the sand and wait for the resources to run out and fight more wars over energy and eventually food, clean water, etc.
Gregory C. Carter
UW-Madison freshman
Nitin Julka makes it profoundly clear that he has a very low opinion of his fellow students in his article titled ""Exchange rate drops in marketplace of ideas"" [Jan. 21, 2004]. He says that the political digressions of a few professors on campus contribute to what he perceives as a one sidedness in the political discussion on campus.??
Any ""one-sidedness"" is simply a mix of one's perception and ones stance on the issues. There are many political groups on campus, and yes, if you average them all together or lump certain ones as a group you get a profoundly left-wing feeling but that creates an equally strong backlash of right wingers and neither extreme truly represents the average student who would rather be drunk and watching the Simpsons than dressed as WisPIRG's fish outside the union.??
Six poorly-referenced incidents hardly constitute a ""serious threat to universities around the country by the continual violation of these principles of academic freedom.""??
Universities may uninvite speakers whenever they see fit, even if those reasons come from what Anne Neal or Nitin Julka may call a ""fringe student group"" who may actually have had a good point despite being a minority.??Professors can organize whatever ""teach-ins"" they want outside of class. And professors may assign whatever subject, even if controversial, if it applies to the class.
These are the requirements given by Nitin Julka and the University of Wisconsin, and the incidents involving the teach-ins and the ""Why George Bush Is A War Criminal"" essay both would be acceptable under them.?? We don't know all the facts about the student who failed and David Horowitz is hardly a reliable source. His writings are obviously more politically charged and intolerant than Julka's article and all the ""offenses"" in it.??
I don't know what kind of horrible professors Julka has been subjected to but I believe they must be the exception on campus. My professors have always given all sides to any academic issue, not just the two most extreme, because they were more interested in turning me into a scientist than promoting any political goals they may have had. The ability to see through another's opinions and rhetoric to the issue at hand is one of the first skills we are supposed to learn in college.
Limiting freedom of speech will never increase academic freedom. And promoting only that speech that is politically neutral will leave us with a world like that in ""Farenheit 451"" and Julka and I??with no forum to disagree.??
David J. Eagan
UW-Madison senior
