Opinions: Letters to the editor

 published on Thursday, March 20, 2008

Unnecessary to punish illegal peers

(In response to Monday's column by T.J. Shope titled "Crow, ASU slapping state voters in face")

I am frightened of the trajectory immigration enforcement Arizona has taken in the past few years.

Some Arizonans shrilly cry, "Speak English" and "They're all uneducated," and then go on to prevent the same immigrants from attending English classes and obtaining in-state tuition (both by referendum). I find that T.J. Shope's column, which chastises the ASU Foundation for providing financial assistance (in the face of a xenophobic and discriminatory voter mandate) and ASU in general for helping to arrange for other nonprofit foundations to do the same, simply offer the same empty, shortsighted rhetoric. Punish the "illegals," the long-term consequences be damned.

I don't see any reason whatsoever why it is beneficial to Arizona to suspend support for committed students. Perhaps somebody can explain to me how making schooling more difficult to obtain helps anyone, or society in general, in the long run. Just in terms of lifetime tax contributions alone, Arizona probably reaps a massive benefit from almost anyone it educates in its colleges — documented or undocumented. I think it is a shame that Arizona voters and elected officials seem drawn to short term satisfaction (discrimination) as opposed to the real benefits that they might reap from immigrant integration — which grows as immigrants earn college degrees.

As an ASU alum, I support any and all efforts ASU can make to keep undocumented students enrolled. I was proud of the ASU Foundation for offering assistance in the first place. I now applaud the American Dream Fund Coalition for continuing the effort.

Elizabeth Venable
Alumni

Room for improvement

(In response to Monday's article by Daniel Newhauser titled "Jumps in room, meal plan costs for new freshmen")

Monday's article failed to provide the full story about the work of the Residence Hall Association.

The student leaders of the RHA have not let the meal plan and room rates issue fly under their radar. Since we returned for the spring semester, the RHA General Council, which contains elected representatives from each residence hall, has been consistently involved in advocating for the residents of ASU. Beginning with an initial presentation by Aramark in which they intended to raise the minimum required plan to $3,432 for incoming freshman, RHA has worked to secure two minimum required plans at a $1,995 annual total cost including the students' favorite all-M&G option.

RHA has also advocated to get the Aramark plans for next year to include guest swipe options, to-go and meal exchange options, expanded late-night dining on all areas of campus, as well as increasing the meal plan options from four to five plans available to freshman. To accomplish this, the General Council voted to not support the original Aramark plans and then only voted yes on the minimum required plans. This strong stance led to vital last-minute concessions being added to the plans immediately prior to the ABOR vote. With these additions, RHA felt comfortable supporting the plans.

Two years ago, the student leaders of both the Undergraduate Student Government and the RHA believed in the concept of the mandatory meal plans enough to place support behind them. We have not forgotten the issue and continues to try to make the mandatory meal-plan program as inclusive and student-friendly as a mandatory program can be. Without the hard work of these student representatives, incoming freshman might have faced far greater increases in their room and board rates.

Jane Christie
Director, Residence Hall Association