Mailbox

E-mail and letters from our readers

By:

Posted: 12/5/08

Charging extra fee 'disgustingly greedy'

Everyone is hard-pressed for money during this economic downturn. The University is not the only institution feeling the pain. What about our parents and their businesses? What about the students and their jobs?

Charging $100 extra shows the University is more concerned with its well-being than that of the students. I think this act is atrocious, inexcusable and disgustingly greedy. Shame on you, Board of Regents.

JR McMILLAN
Senior, Atlanta
Ecology

SGA president should do his job

Mr. Connor McCarthy, it is time to tender your resignation.

Yes, you. You and all your associates on the Student Government Association. We did not elect you so you could beef up your résumé for law school applications. We did not elect you so you could toady to the administration.

We elected you - hired you, really - to act as our intermediary and advocate in the running of this school. You've failed to do your job, and I'm afraid we'll have to let you go. I was upset to hear of the fee increase, especially since the Board of Regents did not follow established procedures or solicit student opinion before doing this.

As I read the article, though, I felt assured I would read the outrage of those representatives I voted to speak for me.

Well, Mr. McCarthy? Where is the outrage? Where is the dramatic stand against the University? Where is the demand that the University treat its students with the common respect we deserve?

Oh, I know it's all been said before: SGA can only do so much. Maybe that's true. Maybe the SGA is only good for the small bureaucratic victories we've seen from it in the past. In that case, perhaps it is time for the SGA to dissolve until a more effective body can take its place. If the SGA will not fight to represent students, then it has no right to claim its position.

Demand accountability. Demand change. Show some outrage. Or do the honorable thing and go.

PHILLIP BRETTSCHNEIDER
Sophomore, Marietta
English and Anthropology

Models endure training, exercise

I was appalled at Jessica Brown's Wednesday column, "Fashion show supports negative body images." Not only was her negligent generalization of women in this particular occupation offensive, referring to models as "6-foot waifs," but she piqued anyone who has a career that requires physical precision.

Just because the majority of America obviates the healthy steps toward a relatively good physique, it isn't OK to abase a person with a balanced diet and an interest in aerobics. Furthermore, Brown defining prerequisites of a supermodel as "an exotic name and mental fragility" is preposterous and suggests the compendium of a jealous staff writer rather than an informed and well-researched journalist.

If Brown is going to negatively analyze supermodels, then I expect an article picking apart the Georgia football team's physical regiments and specified diet. Honestly, isn't a particular running back's body the equivalent to men as Victoria Secret's Angels are to women?

Just like our beloved football stars, supermodels must endure vigorous workouts and training in order to strut a runway lined with glitter in five-inch stilettos successfully and deny the sadistic satisfaction of people such as Brown yearning for model wipeout.

SAMANTHA JUNE SHELTON
Junior, Auburn
Management Information Systems