We are the lawThe article on proposed tuition increases at the Faculty of Law (Law & Disorder, Mar. 3) was a good introduction to both sides of the debate. Two other points should be considered:(1) Regarding accessibility, fewer first-year students applied for financial aid this year, despite a tuition increase from $12,000 to $14,000. Part of the reason for this is a 17 per cent decrease in enrolment by students from low and middle-income families, and a 22 per cent increase by those from upper-income families.(2) Regarding career choice, the study contains no data since 2000, when tuition was a fraction of what it is today. Even then, it concedes that the tuition increases from 1997 to 2000 produced a surge of graduates taking jobs on Bay Street and a corresponding decline in graduates working at smaller firms.Governing Council will discuss and vote on tuition increases on April 3. For the sake of those who won’t be able to afford law school in the future, we hope that it will take a close look at these numbers before approving anything so detrimental.Student Representatives, Faculty CouncilU of T Faculty of LawProposal too immodestRe: “An Immodest Proposal,” Mar 3Many thanks to Mr. Hutchinson, whose clear logic has greatly elucidated the ethics of abortion. Although many are probably outraged by his proposal, it is today not an unpopular bio-ethical position (e.g. Princeton’s Peter Singer).What or who is to say that killing an infant ought to be prohibited when killing a fetus that “is by all measurements human” is morally acceptable? By the same logic, why not kill children when they are burdensome? Or adults? Or, the elderly, who are a great burden to our medical system and economy? Indeed, the logic is flawless.However, I am led to a different position by this argument. The conclusions are clearly ridiculous, yet the argument is sound. Thus, the error must lie in the premise: that abortion is morally permissible.Daniel SantoroIt takes a nation of millions…I am a first year student of Afro-Caribbean decent, and an adamant reader of your paper. It has been recognized among the many campuses and in the various Alumni Associations that your coverage of Black History Month was inadequate and insulting. What compounds this disheartening reality is that coverage you did give to Black History Month portrayed individuals of Afro-Caribbean decent as fire-breathers, and brightly coloured dancers. Is this all that we are? Is this all that Black History Month means to The Varsity and its Editorial staff?In no way am I insinuating that the current Varsity staff is intentionally systemically racist. It is just a fact that for the past 30 years The Varsity constantly appears culturally biased. Whether this can be witnessed through the persistent inadequate coverage of diversity issues, or in the lack of positive press donated to internationally recognized events such as Black History Month. The Varsity for the past three decades seems to be falling severely short as the representing voice of all U of T students. It would strongly be appreciated by both the current Afro-Caribbean community and that of the past 30 years, if The Varsity would devote a stronger effort to more culturally positive press coverage. And just not continue the perpetuation of Afro-Caribbean individuals being nothing more than singers, dancers, fire breathers, and vibrantly displayed spectacles for the amusement of the reading community. The Afro-Caribbean community hopes that you will accept this reality with responsible hearts and not just hope it folds away like Varsity administrations of decades past.Brett L. CumberbatchAll talk and no “affirmative” actionRe: “Law school study bends the rules,” Mar. 6Maybe at the very least U of T should consider two different law school tuition fees—one for corporate law seeking students, and another for the very minute minority who seek to serve the interests of the greater public and in general that of human rights. Don’t forget higher tuition fees affect not only law students, but also everyone in our society. We are supposed to be equal before the law, but as we all know, justice does come with a price tag. In the case of higher tuition fees, this will eventually one way or another mean not only a higher price tag for justice, but more importantly, a price tag that only a select minority can afford to exercise.Roger SousaProtest and surviveRe: “Sack SAC,” Mar 3This letter is in rebuttal to the piece by Andrew Zerzan in the Monday, March 3 edition of The Varsity. Zerzan’s criticism of SAC’s legitimacy and funding were timely and insightful, however his generalizations and conservative gibberish were not. Zerzan cites incidences such as U of T protesters getting support from SAC to attend last spring’s Summit of the Americas and the “W. Bush is a cunt” rhetoric as “an embarrassment not only to U of T, but to all of Canada in general.”I ask Zerzan to re-think these issues in historical context. In the 1960’s women burned their bras on campuses for equal rights between the sexes. During the Vietnam War students all over North America protested. U of T is rich in both multiculturalism and liberal thought. As a student who attended the Feb. 15 Peace March in Toronto, I was shocked and irritated to read his article. We, as students in 2003, are going to be tomorrow’s educated decision-makers. We must be aggressively critical of American capitalism, the unjust Israeli occupation and genocide of Palestinians and most importantly we must be critical of the republic rhetoric that Zerzan’s article was infused with.Rachel HamiltonDitch the rat-wheelRe: “UTM guinea pig for fuel cell,” Mar 6While it certainly is heartening to see the university reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, your reporting presents fuel cells as an environmental panacea. It is not. Your article mentioned only the outputs of the system: hot water “and a little bit of carbon dioxide.” Even if hot water did not kill fish when it discharged into lakes, and even if carbon dioxide did not contribute to global warming, not only the outputs but the inputs to this system must be considered.The system, is fuelled by hydrogen and oxygen. The production of hydrogen itself requires electricity, and if this electricity is supplied by coal-fired generators, all we have done is shifted the source of pollution from one place to another, with no net gain. The batteries are constructed from lanthanum manganate and nickel-zirconia, and there will be some environmental costs to making these things. When the power plants get old they presumably will be dumped in land-fill somewhere. I don’t doubt fuel cell technology to be an improvement on everything else, but if you don’t report the smaller but still significant environmental costs, you create the impression that there is a quick technical fix for the planet’s problems. That, it seems to me, is a fatal delusion.Nick Jefferson-Lenskyj

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter