August 26, 2008 OPINION
The Paisano
Opinion
5 5
April 29, 2014
{The Paisano} Editorial Editor-in-Chief: Matthew Duarte
Assistant to the Editor: Brittney Lopez
Managing Editor: J. Corey Franco
Managing Assistants: Edidiong Adiakpan Hector Torres
News Editor: Sarah Gibbens
News Assistant: Lorenzo Garcia
Arts Editor:
Jennifer Alejos
Arts Assistants: Kristen Carreon Beth Marshall
Sports Editor: Jakob Lopez
Sports Assistant: Jonathon Garza
Web Editor:
Michael Turnini
Web Assistant: Rebecca Conejo
Special Issues Editor: Erin Boren
Special Issues Assistant: Jade Cuevas
Business Manager: Jenelle Duff
Senior Copy Editor: Beth Marshall
Photo Editor:
Rafael Gutierrez
Photo Assistant: Marcus Connolly Brittney Davila
Graphic Design Assistant: Daryl Smith
{Staff Writers} Alejandra Barazza, Taylor Bird, Patrick Martinez, Rafael Mendoza, Mario Nava, Paulina Rivero-Borrell, Gibson Hull, Mohamed Ahmed
{Staff Photographers}
Matthew Trevino, Vicente Cardenas
{Contributing Writers} Christina Acosta, Kelsey Moreno, Matthew Tavares, Brittney Davila, Jillian Price, Jane Powers, Therese Quinto, Rohit Chandan, Kate Kramer, Acacia Nawrocik-Madrid, Lizzette Rocha, Crystal Poenisch, Diego Ramirez
{Contributing Photographers} Scott Cochran, Katherine Kish, Craig Garrison, Cynthia Hurtado
{Interns} Erica Gonzalez, Paul McIntier, Tania Khan, Amelia Reyes, Kristen Carreon, Kevin Femmel, Brittney Lopez {Ads Manager} Kevyn Kirven
{Advisor}
Diane Abdo
{Advisory Board}
Steven Kellman, Mansour El-Kikhia, Jack Himelblau, Sandy Norman, Stefanie Arias The Paisano is published by the Paisano Educational Trust, a non-profit, tax exempt, educational organization. The Paisano is operated by members of the Student Newspaper Association, a registered student organization. The Paisano is NOT sponsored, financed or endorsed by UTSA. New issues are published every Tuesday during the fall and spring semesters, excluding holidays and exam periods. All revenues are generated through advertising and donations. Advertising inquiries and donations should be directed towards:
14526 Roadrunner Way Suite 101 San Antonio, TX 78249 Phone: (210)-690-9301
All the money goes to the dogs
Puppy love or money pit? The UTSA Student Health Services’ latest initiative to spread puppy love and decrease student stress is sadly another promise that leaves student’s tails wagging for more constructive progress. On Tuesday, April 29, UTSA Student Health Services will be holding a Stress Down Day from 3-6 p.m. at the Paseo. The project, which was originally called the “Puppy Zone,” will feature a few fuzzy canines in a fenced area for students to pet and adore. Now using trained Therapy Dogs instead of young-
er puppies, the project has been on the table since last spring. Maybe it’s time to put this program on pause and focus on worthy student projects. The Student Government Association (SGA) was originally linked to the project, but it was continued in collaboration with the UTSA Student Health Services. Since its conception, very little has been done to publicize the event, even after a year of planning. At the beginning of the spring semester, the SGA’s agenda aimed to improve campus Wi-Fi, transportation, and
to switch up dining availability. As the semester is coming to a close, it is not hard to believe that these ideas have turned into wishful thinking. Some projects have been put on hold, others have been proven infeasible and many have been dropped for one reason or another. The speed at which the university makes progress on these projects needs to match the speed at which student needs arise. Students should expect more from their government associations and should demand that their needs be taken seri-
“University of California,” the phone operator on the other end of the line greeted UCLA Chancellor Franklin Murphy. UCLA had come a long way towards distinguishing itself as a top-tier university, independent in its own right from the flagship campus in Berkeley (then simply known as “The University of California”). Yet, resistance towards its development was common among the UC Regents. Many believed that Berkeley should stand head and shoulders above the other UC schools, including UCLA. “Is this Berkeley?” the chancellor asked, to which the operator responded “No.” “Well who have I gotten to?” he inquired. “UCLA.” “Why didn’t you say ‘UCLA’?” “Oh,” the operator paused, “we’re instructed to say ‘University of California’.” Taken aback, Chancellor Murphy made a point of it to instruct all
phone operators to say “UCLA” from then on. Murphy knew then what UTSA has just recently discovered: forming a unique identity is crucial for a university’s success. If UCLA was to continue to brand itself part of the University of California, it would merely be seen as a branch of the more powerful Berkeley. When it was created in 1969, UTSA was simply viewed by the UT Regents as a satellite of UT Austin, intended to serve the local community much like UCLA in its early years. In fact, it was only two years before UTSA’s founding that UT Austin was officially titled “The University of Texas,” a nickname it retains to this day. There are many similarities between the development experienced by the University of California, Los Angeles and what lies ahead for the Univer-
sity of Texas at San Antonio. Taken at face value, both universities couldn’t be more different. UCLA is a bustling hub of research activity, a reflection of the prestigious University of California System. UTSA, on the other hand, is young and vying for national recognition. Yet, both grew up under the auspices of a powerful flagship institution: the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Texas at Austin, respectively. President Romo made a comparison between the development of the UC System and UTSA in an interview with the Texas Tribune last year - citing all the esteemed public schools that are now in California, such as UCLA, UC San Diego and UC Irvine, among others. Both UTSA and UCLA had to fight fiercely for serious recognition from system regents. In fact, it wasn’t until 1993 that UTSA and other “satellite” Texas schools successfully convinced the Texas Legislature to adequately fund public univer-
Letter to the Editor
Commentary
Affirmative action solves nothing Given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding a state’s right to ban the use of race with regards to university admissions, it may be time to revisit the conversation regarding the reasoning behind “affirmative action.” While the ruling on April 23 upheld the rights of voters to limit or eliminate the use of affirmative action on technical grounds, the fact of the matter is that affirmative action is a construct of a bygone era. While it was instrumental in bringing a measure of equality to an educational system that was separate, but most definitely not equal, that educational system is long dead and the tools that were used to bring about its demise no longer have a place in today’s world. Nowadays, the main argument for affirmative action is not fairness and equality, but diversity in schools and in the workplace. This is an important and drastic shift. It means that we are no longer fighting injustices: rather, those who promote affirmative action are doing so to reach or maintain certain quotas that have been dictated to them, quotas that have no merit or grounding in the skills or abilities of those who are being judged by them. This is harmful, both to groups that are “protected” by this policy and to those who are aren’t. For example, it is quite easy to assume that minority students who attended prestigious schools did not gain the opportunity based on their merits, and merely got in because they
ticked off the right race/ethnicity checkbox that was deemed “underrepresented” by whatever university they attended. These questions will haunt the students in and out of the educational environment. And these questions are hardly fair for those who indeed deserve the prestige afforded them, but whose accomplishments will be in question too, because no one will know whether they’ve earned their lot in life or were granted it by diktat. On the other hand, there are those students who worked hard and went above and beyond the call of duty, only to find themselves placed behind less qualified candidates who were only granted their place in line due to the color of their skin instead of the content of their character. This is as fair now as it was in the 1960s, though now we call it “affirmative” and switched around who gets in and who is left out. None of this is to say that there are not serious issues of class and inequality that need to be addressed. All of this is to say that it is not the role of an anonymous admissions counselor to simply accept a student due to that person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status, in the same way that it is not the role of said admissions counselor to deny anyone based on their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status. The issues that need to be fixed are not merely racial, they are socio-economic, and they are structural, and they cannot be fixed with outdated policies such as affirmative action. Hector Torres Managing Assistant
ously. Although student input into SGA’s activities could be described as lukewarm at best, the purpose of these organizations is to represent the student body in a way that can make a positive difference. Perhaps students would be less stressed if their tuition money were not being used to support seemingly frivolous events such as this one. It appears that more serious issues will be pushed aside for another semester — or better yet moved on to the agenda of another organization to pick up the pieces. It’s a fact that most students
would prefer a better variety of food choices on campus, and there remains a demand for more efficient transportation and Wi-Fi. These problems have persisted despite semesters spent discussing them. If the Student Government Association cannot take these issues seriously then how do they expect the student body to take them seriously? It’s time to give students a break and get these problems fixed. After all, all problems cannot be solved with puppies.
Comic
I’ll just sit here. By Chris Breakell
sities in the area. Prior to that, UT Austin was the only gem in the eyes of the legislature. To continue reading visit www.paisano-online.com
Danny Khalil is a graduating senior at UTSA who will be attending the LBJ School of Public Affairs at UT Austin this fall to study education policy.
Commentary
Democracy inaction American author Isaac Asimov o n c e noted in a 1980 Newsweek column that there existed a cult of ignorance in the United States. He went on to state, “(This) strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” While Asimov pulled no punches here, his words should serve not to enrage American voters, but to remind them of the weight of their responsibility. Participation is not the only ingredient necessary for a successful democracy. A voter with no understanding of the impact of his or her choices, simply going through the motions in order to affirm his or her notion of civic engagement. is the equivalent of finding your next home with a dart board and a map. Informed participation is a facet of American democracy that has become dangerously scarce. Texas’ March primaries exemplified the sort of disastrous disconnect that occurs when informed choices elude voter participation. According to the Texas Tribune, primary results reflected that “Republicans who touted their stance against abortion — even when the offices they sought had little to do with the issue — saw strong primary
night returns.” The Republican primary for agricultural commissioner was taken by former state Rep. Sid Miller. Miller noted on his campaign website endorsements ,which included Texas Right to Life and Ted Nugent. On the other hand, one of his opponents, J. Allen Carnes, a farmer, had the endorsement of 14 agricultural trade associations — including the Texas Farm Bureau — but won just 13 percent of the vote. As history has shown, the Texas Republican primaries are equivalent to the general election and when voters fail to recognize candidates’ qualifications there is a big problem with the system. The Texas Farm Bureau, which endorsed Carnes and happens to be one of the state’s largest and most powerful agricultural lobbying organizations, will not endorse a candidate for agriculture commissioner in May’s runoff election. It is a fallacy to assume — as many politicians do — that American voters are inherently informed and equipped to make the right choices. It seems that the increasing accessibility of information has not been able to assuage the growing incidence of voter ignorance. Ilya Somin of George Mason University School of Law noted to The Washington Post that “during the Cold War in 1964, only 38 percent of Americans knew the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO. In 2003, about 70 percent was unaware of enactment of the prescription drug entitlement, then the largest welfare-state expan-
sion since Medicare (1965). In a 2006 Zogby poll, only 42 percent could name the three branches of the federal government.” With the Texas primary runoff elections on the horizon for next month, voters will have another opportunity to exercise their right to vote. It is vital to the success of the democratic process that Americans start seeing this not only as a right but also a responsibility. According to a Gallup poll releaed earlier this month, as of April 2014, 83 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. In April 1974, the disapproval rating was at 47 percent. When a company consistently hires unqualified and unproductive employees, the blame eventually falls squarely on the shoulders of the HR department. That said, the HR department for the state and federal government in the American democracy is and always has been the American voters. Recognizing the reality of American ignorance is the first step to refuting those who would undermine its validity. Winston Churchill is alleged to have said that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Perhaps instead of dismissing this sort of dissent, it is time the responsibility for ineffective politicians is shouldered by those who put them there. J. Corey Franco Managing Editor