As a picketing member of the Teaching Assistants' Association, I feel it necessary to address two concerns I have with the strike.
The first is its message. The message of striking for \free health care"" is one that does not help the cause. Since all other taxpayers are forced to contribute to their own healthcare plans, we win no sympathy from the tax paying public that is already footing the bill for our tuition. Even our democratic governor concedes that there is no political capital in such a cause. By striking for ""free health care"" we have effectively alienated ourselves from a Republican-dominated legislature (that ultimately must pass any contract) as well as our Democratic state leadership. A more effective message would be one that emphasizes the fact that we are striking against pay cuts and the long-term deterioration of our university. Third-rate pay attracts third-rate talent. It begs the question, are we becoming a third-rate university?
I also take issue with the ""want-to-be proletarian"" aspect of the strike. The dynamics of production and organized manual labor do not directly apply to our knowledge-based industry. When TAs walked out this week, no scabs were hired; however, some of the chanting, songs, and signs unfairly branded undergraduates as such. The verbal abuse many students had to endure on Tuesday is deplorable for a cause that claims it is acting in the best interest of the students.
I apologize to the undergraduate community and beg the TAA to reconsider its message.
TA, German department
The illusion that TAs stand behind students was exposed during this week's strike. By using intimidation tactics against students who went to class, picketers showed that many have no concern for undergrads. Verbally abusing students and attempting to physically block off entrances has cost the TAA much of its undergrad support. The demonstrations lacked credibility as picketers appeared to cause disturbance for the sake of disturbance. This is not apartheid. This is not segregation. This is a $9 per month health care premium that most Americans with full-time jobs could only dream of. Who's winning this dispute? The answer isn't clear, but it's very clear who's losing: students. While TAs and professors alike break their contractual obligations, we don't see one cent of our tuition refunded.
I considered asking that my name be withheld from this letter. Given the vicious attacks I faced for simply showing up to class, I don't know that I can trust all my TAs to grade objectively if they read it. I refuse to live in fear, however, and I'll sign this letter proudly. If my grades suffer as a result, so be it. Eventually this dispute will end, and we'll receive the grades and education we paid for. The tragic lasting impact of this situation is that we as students will be unable to respect all of our teachers as individuals with integrity and honor.
UW-Madison sophomore
[This letter is in response to Eric Kleefeld's article entitled ""Alderman's behavior completely unacceptable,"" which ran April 29.]
I completely agree with you about the smoking ban. In fact, I commented to some of my online political friends that your column last week was one of the best ones I have ever seen. I also agree with you that what King did was completely unacceptable. But this article is a flagrant abuse of your job and duty as a journalist. Using an opinion column to get back at King for being a prick would also constitute being a prick yourself.
In addition, you said that King's threat was toothless, and I quote, ""In all seriousness, he couldn't even do that if he wanted to. One angry city councilman cannot ruin a journalist's professional prospects.""
So, if I read you correctly, this would mean that even if King did go and call all the people at this place where you're interning, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. I happen to agree with you! Politicians get pissed at journalists and vice versa. There's nothing new or bad about that. You're not going to be denied a job simply because you raised the hairs of some local politician in one of your columns. That's what journalists are supposed to do!
But journalists are not supposed to use their column as a place to pick a bone about a personal encounter and conflict. I ask you: whose behavior is unacceptable here? Because it's not just King's.
UW-Madison freshman
What a disappointment campus media was Wednesday night.??The first story in The Daily Cardinal was about how many kegs students can have during the Mifflin Street Block Party.??But there was not even a blurb about the UW Diversity Education Program's forum on the marginalization of LGBT people-of-color in our community.
It was apparently more important to The Daily Cardinal to make sure students got updated on drinking and the latest Jennifer Garner movie instead of shedding light on the marginalization of LGBT people-of-color on our campus.
When will the campus media focus on breaking down the systems of discrimination instead of building up the stereotypes of campus life (i.e. drinking till you drop)?
This problem isn't just going to go away.??But apparently The Daily Cardinal thinks discrimination of gay or lesbians and/or people-of-color can just be ignored.
UW-Madison Freshman
Perhaps Ms. Sprang's intention was to provoke thought about the conflicts both in Iraq and Afghanistan.??However, she needs to be able to back up her arguments with some basic knowledge of the situation.??Pat Tillman was killed while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, an operation in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime.??One hundred and 10 service members have been killed in this campaign. Operation Iraqi Freedom's purpose is to remove Saddam Hussein's government and bring democracy to Iraq's people.To date, 724 people have died in this theater.
These are two separate missions, both with a goal of combating terrorism and spreading democracy.?? According to our young journalist, a more important job for these young men and women would be to play ""a game that (keeps) us sane."" Is football more important than protecting the nation? As a soldier myself, I can say that none of those people joined with the intention ""to lose one's life voluntarily,"" but instead had the idea that they might one day have to go to far away places and put themselves in harm's way to protect our way of life.
Finally, who has discredited Pat Tillman's achievements? Certainly not anyone who can see that he had the courage to put others' needs before his own. Any ""morale and spirit he instilled playing football is vastly overshadowed by his deeds as a soldier. The questions that Jessica asks are all good ones, but I doubt that she has the necessary knowledge or maturity to be able to debate seriously about them.
UW-Madison sophomore
