Letters

Letters to the Editor


Farm kids speak out
  In the piece titled "Old Profs Should Retire" in the Dec. 5 issue, a comment was made that I, along with many of my friends, are not impressed with. Sorry to disappoint you but not all farm kids are ignorant and we deserve to be in class just as much as anyone else. What exactly is your definition of ignorant? According to the dictionary, ignorant means "lacking knowledge or experience". What do we lack in knowledge or experience that city kids do not?
  I would also like to make a point that most of the city kids that do come out to the farm do not have a clue what an auger, baler or any other type of farm equipment is or know how it is used. Excuse me, but do not we live in a province that has farming as a primary occupation that brings in most of the province's money? If I recall correctly, we did the last time that I checked.

Steph Bank

Early retirement hurts students
  Up to this point in my university career, I have taken for granted that I can expect to have at least 2 or 3 good to excellent professors teaching me each semester. In light of an article in the Dec. 5, 1996 edition of the Carillon, I can see that this will no longer be the case at the univeristy of Regina.
  The article entitled ³Early retirement offered to profs² outlines a package the University administration is offering to some of the professors. This would allow for them to retire early, and, I assume, saving the university some money. But, there is a problem here that the administration obviously does not see. By offering an early retirement, the universtiy is losing some of the most valuable
sources of knowledge on campus. And on top of that, most of the professors probably will not be replaced.
  This problem is all ready being observed in faculties across the campus. In my own faculty alone, two professors have left in the past few years and neither have been replaced. This results in less diverse classes and classes being offered less frequently.
  In the long run, degrees may not be able to be finished in time and extra money is spent by students who cannot afford it. By offering 114 professors this package, not only are we losing wonderful professors, but we will not even get 114 back! Our classes will become larger. yet less diverse. It is funny that the administration proposed this only a week after they announced that they were ³thinking² about raising our tuition 40%. How can we as students let this happen. Why is the URSU not standing up for us like they are suppose to? Mark Taylor hit the nail on the head in his commentary in the same issue. He questions why we, the student body, are not reacting to these heinous proposals by the administration.
  It is time we do, not only to ensure the future of the U of R as a respectable institution, but to ensure our own futures.
Lisa Ritchie

Editorial cartoon not humorous
  I will not repeat that the "Carillon sucks" but I think that your Editor must be looking for "trouble" by printing cartoons like the one on page 6 [Vol. 39(13), 1996]. The article next to it is not in better taste. Insulting your Prof and the T.A. will not make your education any better.

Amr Henni

   By the way, I am a lab instructor and a graduate student.

Editorial found offensive
  This letter is in response to your Editorial of December 5, 1996 entitled Old Profs Should Retire.
  This may be the most superficial, thoughtless and ignorant piece of
writing that has ever appeared in the Carillon student newspaper. I am not amongst the 114 eligible for this retirement package. I would nevertheless urge the staff at the paper to apologize to these people as quickly as possible.

Howard Leeson
Political Science

Corruption test reprehensible
  This is a letter in complaint to the Corruption test that you had in the Dec. 5/96 issue of the Carillon.
  Articles such as the for mentioned show what is wrong with the student press in Canada presently. I remeber back to a time when filth such as that was never mentioned, especially in public where young and impressionable minds can view it.
  Is their something that is humourous about beastiality, drugs, and necrophilia? I do not think so! Just think how you would feel if one of your deceased relatives was subject to necrophilia, or how would you feel if some sicko commited beastiality with your family pet. Would you still think that it was funny? I sincerely doubt it.
  As far as I know a large part of the population at the university are not married therefore a majority of the questions should not apply to them. The problem is they do thanks to liberal publications such as yours.
  Sex is something that is beautiful and that should be shared by a married couple. Sex among unmarried people is disgusting and it should not be glorified! Your paper is basically telling the young people that sex is okay and that it should be shared with groups of people all to score high on a silly little test. You should be ashamed.

Patrick Brock