We offer this letter as a response to Dr. Milton Gordon’s e-mail requesting input into the Strategic Planning Summary sent out on March 9, 2010.

We write as students concerned with the present state and future direction of the university.

As students we are, of course, troubled by the rising costs of our education. However, we are even more disturbed about what we perceive to be imminent threats to the value and meaning of our education.

We believe that the cultivation of humanistic values, and with this also the intellectual development of critically-engaged, cosmopolitan individuals, is neither incidental to, nor merely a desirable aspect of, a university education. This is a core function of the university, and should be regarded as such.

We resent being referred to in planning documents simply as “consumers,” “clients,” or “human capital.” We are human beings, first and foremost, and should be educated as such.

We believe that a solid grounding in the liberal arts—in the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts—provides fundamental creative and critical-thinking skills to students across all disciplines, and all majors.

We fear that current proposals to discontinue the French, German, and Portuguese language programs, and with this also the classical guitar performance program, are merely the first steps towards a more systematic restructuring of the university, one in which the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts are further devalued and diminished.

We remind Cal State Fullerton’s strategic planners that, as students, we do not necessarily attend university simply to acquire professional “certificates and licenses,” or to enhance our career prospects, or to better position ourselves for a future in the workforce. We are not here to be programmed as machines designed solely for the generation and accumulation of wealth, personal or otherwise. We are not here to be trained simply as efficient or productive members of society.

We are here, instead, because we desire to become critically-engaged members of society. We are here to better inform ourselves about the world around us, and to question our beliefs, and broaden our worldviews. We are here, in short, because the university provides us with opportunities for personal growth and self-discovery, and for engagement in and with our society. Such pursuits have a social value that cannot be reduced to one-dimensional monetary considerations.

We recognize that we are living in troubled economic times, and that difficult choices must be made to sustain the university over the course of the next few years. We are concerned, however, that hasty, short-term cuts to various programs and services will have a permanent impact on the structure, reputation, and ultimately definition of our university. We fear that such cuts will serve to undermine the university’s fundamental mission to educate.

In light of these statements, we respectfully ask that the university’s strategic planners take the following points into consideration:

1. That course and program offerings in the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts are core to the definition of the university, and to the quality of its graduates. Any permanent cuts will, in our view, have a detrimental impact on the reputation of the university, and thus also on the value of our degrees.

2. That “timely graduation” is important, but only insofar as it does not compromise our ability to mature intellectually, and to grow as human beings. The university would be wise to take a more rigorous accounting of the external factors (such as the cost of living, child care costs, and the need to work), rather than just the internal factors, which might prevent us from graduating in a timely manner.

3. That it is crucial for the university to continue allocating resources to programs which are dedicated in full or in part to the “representation of minority and underrepresented groups.” The university must promote diversity, and resist the language and politics of social and cultural homogenization. It is in this light that we would encourage strategic planners to recognize modern language programs, study abroad programs, volunteer programs, and the campus women’s center as being core to the mission of the university, and not merely desirable.

4. That it is essential for the university to offer a “broad, high quality, and full array of programs,” and to support and promote the notion of learning for its own sake. This is the best way to foster pride in our university, and in ourselves.

5. That the research our professors do is not just valuable in and of itself, but is essential to the quality of our education. Their research translates into the classroom, where we are introduced to new, cutting-edge ideas, and to innovative methods and theories. More importantly, if the university desires both in the short and the long term to attract and retain motivated, engaged, and inspiring faculty with “regional, national, and international reputations,” it needs to support and facilitate their research, not only in spirit, but also with adequate facilities and funding opportunities.

6. That it would be in the interest of students and faculty alike to rethink the university’s reliance on under-paid part-time faculty. They deserve, at the very least, to have a voice in the strategic planning process (the explicit concerns and input of part-time faculty are shamefully absent from the Strategic Planning Summary issued by President Gordon’s office).

7. That it is not desirable to adopt pedagogical models that institutionalize online instruction as the principal or sole method for educating students. The physical presence of professors and students in the classroom is a more efficient, more engaging, and more effective way of educating us. Moreover, the skills required to respond to real-time, in-class discussions are invaluable, and are vital to cultivating effective thinkers and communicators.

8. That it is essential to commit to, and reinvest in, smaller classes, ones in which students are better able to engage with course content, and with each other. This is the best way to foster not only “instructional excellence,” but also a “vibrant” intellectual community.

9. That it is of particular importance to respond vigorously to accusations that the theoretical (and thus “unapplied”) work we do as university students is “esoteric,” and somehow divorced from “reality.” We ask, therefore, that any future strategic planning reject wholeheartedly the idea that our academic studies are confined simply to “the ivory tower,” and that our theoretical work has no relevance “to the larger community.” Instead of pandering to, and thus reinforcing, the prevalent anti-intellectual currents in contemporary society, the university needs to be at the forefront of a broader movement to reassert the value of learning and knowledge as a social, cultural, and moral “good,” and not just as an economic or technological necessity. If we are forced to sell ourselves as an institution of higher learning, then we should use the opportunity to emphasize and promote the important intellectual functions of the university.

We appreciate your consideration of this letter, and would be glad to offer further input into the university’s strategic planning.

Sincerely,

Jackie Bebawi, History

Rodrigo Calderon, College of the Arts

Samantha Guzzi, History

On behalf of Students for the Re-Humanization of Society and the University.

the.discussion1@gmail.com

This year’s flu season is the worst in many years, and young adults have been especially hard hit by the H1N1 flu.

Who is in the age group most likely to get H1N1?

People under 25.

Who gets so sick they need to be hospitalized?

Half of them are under 25.

And who is least likely to get a flu shot?

People under 25.

I am writing today to urge you to take H1N1 flu seriously, not just as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services who has read many scientific studies saying this is a young person’s pandemic, but also as a mother of two sons who not long ago were sitting exactly where you are today.

I know it’s easy to believe that the flu is something that only the very old or the very young need to worry about, that catching the flu is no big deal.

No flu should ever be dismissed as “just the flu.” The regular, seasonal flu is responsible for 36,000 deaths every year – mainly in people over 65.

But H1N1 mainly hits the young; and even though most cases are mild, some can be quite severe.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 540 children and teenagers have died from H1N1 flu since April, and we are only at the beginning of the official flu season. Some of them were perfectly healthy when they caught the flu.

So what can you do to protect yourself and people around you from the flu?

Get vaccinated. It’s the most effective way to prevent the flu. The H1N1 flu vaccine is made the same way as the seasonal flu vaccine, which has a decades-long safety track record, and it’s undergone more testing than other flu vaccines.

If you’re someone with a health condition like diabetes or asthma, the CDC says you should get vaccinated as soon as your community has vaccines available.

Other groups at high risk for serious complications include young children and pregnant women. Also, people who care for babies under 6 months, health care workers and emergency medical personnel should go to the head of the vaccination line.

In addition, many people do not realize that simply being younger than 25 also puts you in a priority group to receive the vaccine.

So look into getting vaccinated at school or when you go home for the holidays. Check out the Flu.gov flu vaccination locator to find the best place for you to go to get vaccinated quickly.

Stay home when you’re sick. If you do get the flu, there are things you should do to protect yourself and those around you.

College campuses – dormitories, classes, wherever a lot of people are indoors together – are places that any flu can spread. If you get sick, don’t go out and don’t invite visitors in.

If you live on campus but your home is not far away, consider going home until you’re well, to avoid spreading the flu. If you live too far to go home, check to see if your college has alternate housing for ill students.

Seek medical attention immediately if you have diabetes, asthma or some other medical condition and you notice flu-like symptoms.

You should also ask your health care provider about anti-viral medication. If you already have flu symptoms, antivirals have been very effective at keeping flu from getting worse.

Even if you don’t have a chronic illness, if you have symptoms, and they get worse – your fever spikes, you have difficulty breathing or you’re breathing too fast, if you have chest pain – call a doctor or other health provider right away.

Make it part of your daily routine to keep flu from spreading. The H1N1 vaccine may not have arrived in your area yet, so keep doing the simple things everyone does to keep germs in check: Wash your hands, cough and sneeze into your sleeve, not your hands, and disinfect surfaces like computer keyboards and countertops.

Go to Flu.gov and check out our self-evaluation link to help you understand if your symptoms are really serious.

There’s a flu locator for where vaccine will be in your community; tips on prevention, including videos that give you critical information you can use, even a section to help you know how to tell a flu fact from a myth on the Internet.

There are widgets, buttons, Public Service Announcements and a Facebook page, so you can spread H1N1 information – not the virus – to people you know.

In addition, we just released a new video featuring students, young people and others talking about why they chose to get vaccinated. You can also tell us why you got vaccinated by submitting your own video at YouTube.com/Group/TheFluAndYou.

No one knows whether this wave of H1N1 will get worse, taper off or be followed by another wave later in the season.

But we do know that preventing the flu depends on all of us, and everyone will be safer if each one of us is serious about preventing and reducing H1N1 flu.

- Kathleen Sebelius

Secretary of the Department of

Health and Human Services

A world-class education, essential for the success of yourself, your state and your nation, is slipping away from California’s social contract.

Since realizing the inevitable last fall, you’ve walked out, sat in and spoken up.

The outrage – real outrage – on UC, CSU and community college campuses is palpable. In fact, students’ reactions have received global media coverage. Of the massive protests last September, the UK Guardian wrote of the “shock” it sent throughout the capital.

So the die has been cast. The state of California has crossed the Rubicon. Sacramento wants your education back.

You’ve blamed the regents; suspicious of how readily they accepted the cuts and questioning of their compensation, you want answers. You’ve blamed the governor for heaping the fallout of California’s colossal dysfunction onto the shoulders of its children and for seeming aloof from the plight of California’s students. You’ve blamed the state legislature for doing its best to undermine your education and for allowing nearly every other function of the state to grind to a halt on its watch.

But something about these enemies doesn’t stick. The regents are only reacting to what’s coming down on them from the state capital, and their compensation alone doesn’t come close to closing the hole.

Even in good economic times, the Governor and the legislature only control a fraction of the budget. The rest is “locked in” by the spending priorities, restrictions by the political movements and bond measures of yesterday.

The legislature is a tempting target, but fees have increased during periods of Republican control and Democratic control, in both good economic times and bad. You have every reason to believe that you will continue to receive less education for more money no matter who wins what election where or when.

No, the fee hikes, the layoffs and the furloughs (like the IOUs, the prisons and the water) are bigger than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and they are certainly bigger than the regents. For this reason, you and your fellow students have been visibly frustrated trying to find the right target for your wrath, the most effective avenue for your collective action.

Should you look to Sacramento? Today, at this very moment, the Capital exists in a state of controlled-anarchy. Every lobbying firm and every interest group scavenges whatever it can from the public body; the feast has no strategy, no master plan and no guiding principle.

The beast has shown itself capable of devouring water systems, prison systems, roads, bridges and the social safety net, and now it’s hungry for the greatest university system in the history of our species. The monster cannot be tamed or captured, and its gluttony is ravaging us all.

Then it hits. The problem is Sacramento. Your enemy is Sacramento.

What do you do? When who controls the legislature or the governor’s mansion has largely ceased to matter and when the system and all its parts has become so fundamentally committed to destroying everything you love – from your parks to your health to your education – where do you turn? Do you tinker around the edges? No. You get a new system.

Last month, a coalition of advocacy groups called “Repair California” finalized and submitted two ballot measures to do just that, by calling for a California constitutional convention.

If the measures succeed at the ballot, we would be enabled to scrap the old system and build a new one, one that learns from other states and reflects the California of tomorrow. No other reform proposal offers such an opportunity, not even close.

I don’t know about you, but I refuse to accept the status quo and what it’s doing to us. It’s time for us to seize our future. California needs you. This movement needs you.

Visit RepairCalifornia.org

Adrian Covert

Member, Repair California

Proud CSU Alumnus

First of all, I hope that your stereotypical article is satire or some kind of joke since it is not only offending two states and many races but also giving a false illustration of life in California, Texas and the United States.

Secondly, you contradict yourself, thus, losing credibility. You state that you hate accents in America, yet later in your piece you state that you love the Texan accent, but isn’t that an American accent? You state that California is the only state that has fattening food, and people just wanted to get laid. Here’s a news flash: that is mostly everywhere in America unless you live on a farm.

Thirdly, you state that in Texas they are more polite and (that they) mean it. That can easily be explained by the way their culture is formed where they sound polite, but do not mean it. If that were the case, you can say the same about the British.

Fourthly, you state that California fashion is mostly boardshorts and wife beaters, not considering that California is one of the few states that has the most diversity not only ethnically, but also in trends, fashion and fads.

Lastly, you mention how in Texas they are not fond of Asians, well to be honest, it’s most nationalities, not just Asians. Then you move on to state that speech, customs, and how to blend into Texas, in this you stereotype Texans as drunken rednecks who love football and women who dress skanky.

Also, I believe there are many devoted football fans around America not just in Texas and plenty of drunkards everywhere around the world. Texas does have its unique style and deserves to be seen as its own, but California has its perks too.

Sincerely,

Miguel Moreira

Dear Editor,

It was interesting to read Iglesias’ and Paiz’s thoughts on this important issue. Some are quick to criticize PETA’s tactics but fail to acknowledge the victories that have been won for animals as a result. In PETA’s nearly 30 years, we have stopped car companies like General Motors from using live animals in crash tests, convinced retailers from Tommy Hilfiger to Forever 21 to ban fur from their lines, and achieved countless other successes that have spared millions of animals from a lifetime of abuse.

PETA’s purpose is to stop animal suffering, and we use all available opportunities to reach millions of people with powerful messages. We have found that people pay more attention to our more outlandish actions, and we consider the public’s attention to be extremely important. Part of our job is to grab people’s attention and initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and of course, action. The situation is critical for billions of animals, and our goal is to make the public think about the issues.

We often use stunts and controversial ad campaigns to get the word out about animal abuse, because sadly, the media usually do not consider the facts alone “interesting” enough to cover. Colorful and controversial gimmicks, on the other hand, consistently grab headlines, bringing the animal rights message to audiences around the country and, often, the world.

Thankfully, as a result of efforts by compassionate people around the world, it’s never been easier to cut cruelty out of our lives.

Sincerely,

Ryan Huling

College Campaign Coordinator, peta2.com

In recent months, we have spent a lot of time and effort educating ourselves on what has been happening in the state of California with regards to the California State University budget deficit and the effects it has had on students.

On July 21, 2009 the Associated Students Inc. executive staff attended the CSU Board of Trustees meeting where the 10 percent fee increase was passed, leading to a grand total of 32 percent since last semester.

At this meeting, ASI Chief Governmental Officer Gregory Washington spoke against the fee increase on behalf of all CSUF students. Since last November, we have been on 25 legislative visits in an attempt to gain more funding for higher education.

In the past couple of weeks, we have been working with University Administration to regain library hours and we are pleased to state that we have been successful in our conversations. In the next two weeks, the library will extend its hours of operation to 7:45 a.m. – 10:30 p.m.

We also hosted “Pizza with the Presidents,” which allowed students access to top University administrators; “State of the State,” where we offered a panel discussion about issues in California and how students can become a part of the solution; and a couple of ASI Cookouts, where students have been able to meet and ask questions of their student representatives.

In addition, we are offering more student services in the Titan Student Union in our effort to increase access to study rooms, computers, printing and photocopying.

We also developed an advocacy plan that includes increased emphasis on voter registration and an outreach campaign to the decision makers of California supported with information from our “Vent Tent” and “Get the Picture” activities.

“Vent Tent” provides students with the opportunity to state how the budget cuts have affected them and what they want to see happen in California’s future. These personal testimonials are documented on film and the footage will be complied and sent to state legislators.

“Get the Picture” asks students to write on a whiteboard how the budget cuts have affected them, then they take a photograph next to the whiteboard.

A compilation of all of the photographs will be sent to state legislators in December before the budget deliberations begin.

This advocacy outreach campaign will help in our cause to make higher education a priority for all legislators.

We encourage all students who wish to participate in our advocacy efforts to contact the ASI Executive Office. We encourage students to volunteer in order to spread valuable information to as many students as possible and we encourage all students to join ASI in the fight for the future of higher education.

– ASI Executive Staff

It is truly upsetting to me to see this article in print written by the Opinion editor, someone who should remain objective as an individual involved with the on-campus press.

Although in the article Jeremiah Magan states that the Daily Titan is attempting to report the actions of the students and teachers as “objectively as possible,” it certainly seems to me that by writing this piece and in part trashing the students that were a part of the protest, the Daily Titan, in particular the Opinion editor, Magan, is not remaining objective.

In concern with the Internet, it is a person’s right to remain anonymous when posting. As for the students involved with the protest, each and every one of them felt strongly enough about the cause to show his/her face around the entire campus, essentially outing him/herself as a person involved with a movement to resist budget cuts and tuition hikes.

As far as I am concerned, being able to stand up for a cause and publicly show your face is an extremely brave action.

Many people at the protest joined the cause only after seeing other students taking action and fighting against the cuts.

How can one expect someone to give his/her name in connection to a movement of which he/she literally just joined? In any case, what is the point in being able to name individuals?

This is a movement, and it is about the entire group of students and teachers, not individuals or leaders, simply because most people are used to seeing movements and systems rise through leadership and the organization of a small group that trickles down to a much larger one.

There is much to be afraid of. The administration and certain student groups have proven once again that they are unwilling to do everything in their power to stand up for students. As a result, students have taken it upon themselves to fight for their own rights and those of teachers, especially part-time teachers and those without tenure.

These students will ask the questions that others thus far have failed to ask.

In regards to teachers, many teachers do not have a direct say in what goes on in regards to their jobs and the university, and these non-tenured teachers are unable to protest or give their names because their jobs are directly in jeopardy.

I certainly expect that the students’ actions are going to upset many members of the administration and I hope that it will continue to grow into a group that is able to have enough power to upset a large part of the California legislature.

Although I am willing to put my name out there, many people are not, and it is not my place, nor is it anyone else’s place, to condemn them and discredit their statements or the power of the movement simply because names are not given.

I invite everyone to come see for themselves who these students are and what they believe in when they are brave enough to come out and be a part of the next event.

– Lauren Vondacek

Upon attending the student “meeting” in which we were to discuss our concerns on what is happening to our education, I found myself disillusioned by the students and the faculty, as they continued to voice their concerns.

Education has always been argued, by people past and present, as a service which all are entitled to. Yet, on this day where students finally decided to take action, we have decided to take action against ourselves. Why do we continue to perpetuate the same old belief, even when the old belief has failed? If we continue on this course, we will only allow for future failings.

We’re told that the faculty’s struggles are aligned with ours, but is this the truth? What is true is the fact that losing faculty yields a loss of classes; however, the faculty’s concerns are not for us but for themselves. Jobs are on the line, and since they are talking of their jobs, they must analyze their concerns and voice their opinions through the lens of the business world. They will be the ones to be able to speak of budget cuts and the financial aspects of the business of education.

But we, as students, are not in the business of education. So, why do we accept faculty explanations and take on the same struggle?

We are no more a part of the business as a tree is a part of the timber industry. Students are viewed as a commodity, and, as a commodity, we are assumed to be a part of the process between the state and the university. As students, we cannot, and should not approach education as a business, doing so allows for the business aspect to knock us off track and results in the loss of ourselves and the loss of our humanity.

It is as people that we believe in education and believe it belongs to everyone equally, regardless of race and social standing.

Or do we as a people, really believe that higher education belongs only to those who can afford it?

If it is the former, as I suspect many if not all believe, then why do we continue to treat education as a business?

Continuing to charge for education will result in the splitting of people on the social level between those capable of buying their education and those unable.

It is here that this fundamental flaw sticks out like a splinter in the foot, prohibiting progress until it finally stops. The beliefs we have of education and the beliefs we have of society conflict with one another.

The question now becomes obvious and inspires in us a certain sense of fear and joy because now we can finally look at our society and ask ourselves: What do we do?

– Nicholas Williams

I love this school as much as you. I want to see it become an institution that becomes well respected throughout the world. I invite you to share in this vision: thousands of students standing up for Cal State Fullerton and sharing in their pride for the institution that gives them hope.

The students who you represent are getting their classes cut in half, their favorite professors fired, and their graduation dates delayed. Your administration is showing reluctance to take a stand.

When I look at ASI’s leadership, I see many content individuals who care far more about their resumé boost and clique than actually making a difference.

I give you over $100 a year, and you give me grilled cheese sandwiches. What purpose does that serve when we might not be able to graduate? What purpose does that ever serve? Your token gestures are helping no one. Screaming “Your executive staff” makes me nauseous. If you truly wish to instill Titan pride, you need to take a stand for the students. If we do not come, it is our fault, but if you do not try, it is yours.

The time for empty discourse is over. You need to help organize a movement. It needs to be inspirational, it needs to be grassroots and it needs to throw ASI’s conventional wisdom to the wind. You should be out there every day begging for help. You need to criticize the school bureaucracy, state legislators, federal legislators and the policies they create that cripple our age group. You need to register us to vote. You need to petition us. You need to organize marches, sit-ins and with other schools – you need to empower your constituents!

Student movements are a way to unite the student body. Great institutions are famous for their leadership and standing up for higher education. You represent 37,000 students, and you have yet to put one protest together? No one wanted these tuition hikes, enrollment deductions and furlough days. Yet, I don’t see anyone in your administration sweating.

I value my education, and I do not want to spend my entire career justifying that CSUF was a good institution. You were elected to this position, now either lead or step aside.

People are out there organizing without you; they are willing to do the things you have not. They will fight for our education. They will petition, they will protest and they will dissent. I will be with them, will you?

I believe you have the capability of enabling and legitimizing this movement if you take it seriously.

Either take a stand for the students, or resign and let someone with a concrete plan lead us.

Sincerely,

Nick Nevins

I write to you today in response to the article titled “Smokers Segregated” printed in volume 85, issue 9 of the Daily Titan. I cannot help but be alarmed at the implications that these decisions have raised. As a second year student at Cal State Fullerton, I am not a smoker and have looked with disdain upon smokers who do not follow current regulations. However, I feel that the university has far from done anything productive to combat the situation.

My concern is not only directed at the specifics of the situation, but also for the way society treats smokers in general. I believe that this situation is a perfect illustration to demonstrate my opinions. It is my belief that the way society handles smokers – and hence the way CSUF has decided to handle its smokers – is completely demeaning and only helps to elevate the situation. Taking out the context of smoking, the only thing accomplished by enforcing the proposed regulations is a heightened policing of a specific portion of society.

I feel that this is not only counter-productive, but morally unacceptable. I am well aware of the health hazards that second-hand smoke has on the non-smoking populace, but if the basis for shepherding smokers – people – to specifically isolated areas in which they are allowed to smoke, is the health and well-being of others, then why does society not point with the same condemnation at say, people with communicable diseases?

If a person is infected with influenza, does that mean that that individual must stay in a booth until the sickness is passed? Should that person be forced not to exhale while in the immediate vicinity of healthy, non-infected people? Maybe if you have the flu, you shouldn’t be allowed to ride the elevator. Well, you can’t smoke in an elevator, so why the double standard?

Many would counter my argument by saying that smoking is a habit. People who are sick are not subject to the same rules as smokers because they have no bearing on their own physical condition if it falls outside the norm of being a healthy, non-infected human being. This seems to me, discriminatory. Essentially, what these same people are saying is that, their concern for the well-being and health of others is only contingent with the fact that smoking is a force of habit, not a force out of our control.

Ultimately what this means is that people are making a judgment – one that is completely disconnected from health issues – on smokers, and using this judgment as justification for unfair regulations. I find this morally repugnant and absolutely unacceptable.

Why is it that society must cherry-pick a specific portion of people to criticize and control? I do not see anyone complaining about those who drive huge trucks and SUVs, products that still fall within the choices made in deference to human preference, that are well known for their relative inefficiency in comparison to other vehicles, and that at a most fleeting glimpse reveal that they produce more toxic fumes in five minutes than smokers can in a day. Why is a prisoner’s arm still swabbed with alcohol before lethal injection? Do you mean to say that in American society, prisoners are depicted as still being treated humanely in the face of execution, but it is acceptable for smokers to be herded around like sheep simply because they have unhealthy habits?

What exactly is the moral high ground the anti-smokers stand on that they can single out smoking as the only health risk out of an uncountable milieu that deserves to be restricted?

It would be a wonderful world indeed, if smokers – by their own volition – eyed the non-smokers around them, and held off on the cigarette until the area was clear. Of course, this perspective is unrealistic at best, but I think that as an educational institution, the only solution the university offers to combat the smoking problem is preposterous.

Why not have the same people who are so outspoken against smoking hold a seminar or develop programs to educate the smokers on smoking and the risks they pose, instead of throwing arbitrary restrictions as a substitute to a real, educational solution?

Convince a mind to think like your own, and you have an ally. I’m sure that in the face of developing lung cancer, most people would think twice before lighting up a cigarette. Why is our only solution a hostile one? If smokers are already not in compliance with the current regulations, then I can find absolutely no logical reason why imposing even more regulations would make them more likely to comply.

- Warner Paau

CSUF computer animation and English major

Thank you for taking the time to publish the recent 50th Anniversary Issue of the Daily Titan.

It’s a great accomplishment for the current staff and it will be appreciated by all who have been associated with this newspaper. Instructors Clanin, Brody and Fellow provide valuable insight with their entries and looking at past issues to see names of my colleagues was a lot of fun.

They say newspapers are dying but it’s obvious that the Daily Titan spirit is as strong as ever. Again, thank you.

- Ali Dorri

Daily Titan staff, fall 2004.

*The story appears today on pg. 1 as “Senate solicits accountability”

Dear Editor,

The headline of this article, “If passed, new bill could obstruct CSU private foundations’ funds” is without any justification or explanation contained in the body of the article. Contrary to the headline, the piece goes on at length about making campus auxiliary organizations more transparent and accountable to the public. According to CSU’s own budget documents, nearly 20 percent of their funding is contained within auxiliary organizations, and the CSU administration seems content on keeping that funding from public scrutiny.

The bill, SB 218, would do nothing to “obstruct” private funds as the CSU administration has argued. When such a claim was made in the 2001 court case mentioned above, the court concluded such arguments were speculative and were inadmissible without proper evidence. At the very least, I would hope the Daily Titan would at least explain the basis for such a headline so it can be easily refuted.

- Eduardo Martinez, Legislative Director

Senator Leland Yee

Re: Forget the commuters, parking sucks for residents too, Daily Titan August 31, 2009

Lot J, next to the Ruby Gerontology Center, has not been used to its capacity so far this semester, mainly because our semester begins on September 14, 2009. We appreciate your dilemma, as we have over 800 members and, as you have noticed, we have less than 80

parking spaces. Many of us carpool or park in Lot G. We share your frustrations because after 25 years on campus, our lot has been eaten away to what you see today.

Also, as a safety note and a courtesy, we would appreciate it if pedestrian trafffic be limited to the sidewalk – not on the road like a heard of range animals.

Thank you,

Jerry Pollack

12-year OLLI-CSUF Member

Published: Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Updated: Wednesday, October 1, 2008

I am very concerned about safety on this campus. I walk to and from Lot G and the main campus on a daily basis and am constantly trying to avoid bike riders and skateboarders who ignore the rule about which lane to use.

These lanes must be marked more clearly!

It is also my understanding that skateboarding is not allowed on campus, yet this does not seem to be enforced. I wonder who is responsible for this?

A year ago there was a terrible accident involving a faculty member who was hit by a bike rider who never stopped to help her. It will be getting dark soon with the time change, making this program more urgent than ever. I trust that these oversights can be remedied before anyone else is injured.

Senator Feinstein’s symbolic attempt to curtail Bush Jr. will be met the same way all Democratic measures are in a Republican majority government.

Whether or not politicians realize that, and whether or not they decide to do something is largely irrelevant. In the American two party system, with an executive branch that answers to no one (except during election year, and then only so far back as public memory recalls) the office of the president has been vested with more power than is necessary for someone who isn’t voted in by the people.

The system is begging for federal reform, on a scale that would limit the executive branch, require a popular majority for its election, and place more power in the senate and House of Representatives.

Further more, Bush and his axis of evil should be put on international trial for indirectly causing the death of a hundred-thousand plus human lives.