Letters to the editor
Front-page photo appalling
I thought I would let everyone who works at the Traveler know it is absolutely ridiculous that a man who wore a swastika made the front cover of your paper. I am completely appalled.
Do you even have any idea what that means and stands for? Not only was it of a man wearing a swastika, he also had the deaths head symbol and an S.S. patch on his vest. Are you kidding me? The editor of this poorly put-together paper should be absolutely embarrassed after the display you allowed to take place. You have contributed to the already growing ignorance about what took place during World War II. I would like an apology in the next issue of the Traveler; actually, no, I demand an apology. You should be extremely embarrassed.
Apology wanted for photo
My letter is regarding a photograph in Monday’s edition. Being a separate entity from the university, and as a voice of the students, you should be incredibly mindful of what you publish.
An article about the university reaching out to “diverse high school students” printed on the same page as a man wearing both a swastika emblem and the sign of the Ku Klux Klan is contradictory to our mission and vision, detrimental to our reputation, and misleading to others outside of our institution. Please explain how this is a university that values diversity but you print these types of images?
After a conversation with the managing editor, I learned this picture was a continuation from an article ran the previous Friday titled “Bikes, Blues & BBQ an Inconvenience,” which focused on things like unwanted noise and public intoxication; however, this man was not on a bike, nor did he appear drunk.
Do you now see the issue with this image? You are as reliable as the work you produce, but partial publications will only tarnish your credibility in our community.
This picture should have never been printed without an explanation. The caption you provided doesn’t justify the two symbols that represent hate, ignorance, and violence. You assumed individuals who saw this picture would have read the preceding article, but you cannot do this, because it leads to misconceptions.
We expect you to provide us with accurate information, but careless mistakes like this cause students like me to revoke that trust. I challenge you to address the reasoning behind this controversial picture and be professional enough to apologize for any misinterpretations that may have resulted from this incomplete publication. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.
Ban for health of non-smokers
I am writing in response to several letters about smoking ban in the Traveler. As I read these letters, I get more and more frustrated. It seems the focus of the “anti” anti-smoking camp is the right of the smoker. I agree everyone has certain “unalienable” rights. However, when one’s personal lifestyle choices harm others it becomes a serious issue.
To quote an Oct. 8 letter: “The public health advocates act like smokers are ignorant, so they are making this decision for our own and everyone else’s good.”
I can guarantee the reason the UA is banning smoking next year is not because it thinks smokers are ignorant to the effects of smoking; rather, the ban will go into effect because of the effects on non-smokers and the campus environment.
The Surgeon General’s report on second-hand smoke lists these effects: “2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.” “4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.” “5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” “6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.”
Therefore, the only plausible way to protect non-smokers is to ban smoking in public areas. To quote Mr. Gilbert’s letter again: “Where will their decision-making stop … low-fat only menus, or implants that give an electric shock every time we think of greasy food or cigarettes?” To put it bluntly, personal choices about diet do not give others lung cancer. These examples are invalid. When this bill was passed, the primary issue was not the health of smokers, it was the health of the non-smokers.