LETTERS: 10-20-09

by Staff

SDSU diversity will suffer with admissions changes
Sarah Grieco wrote that SDSU’s changes in admission policy are “necessary, not to mention positive,” in her column “Good call, Weber” on Sept. 29. While I agree that changes are necessary, I respectfully dissent from her adamant stance that the changes will prove to be positive. The measures taken by President Weber and his administration will damage one of SDSU’s redeeming qualities: student body diversity.

According to SDSU’s NewsCenter, in Fall 2004, only 27% of our first-time freshmen were local, and 39.1% were students of color, whereas in Fall 2007, 38.6% were local and 44.9% were students of color and in Fall 2008, 54% were local and 49.3% were students of color. This fall, 50.5% are students of color. By cutting access to local students, SDSU’s diversity will surely take a hit.

The diversity of SDSU’s student body provides students a tremendous opportunity to live, interact and learn with and from a student population that is representative of the increasingly globalized market and workforce.

Ms. Grieco stated that such changes will bring about “more equality within the student body.” Surely, such a point could be valid if we could just make the following assumptions: that every high school and their respective faculties are equal, that grade inflation / deflation does not exist, that every student comes from the same socioeconomic background, and that equality is sufficiently ensured by GPA and SAT scores.

Furthermore, she goes on to state that the approved changes are “good for everyone except those not willing to work hard to get an education.” I am disappointed that a fellow Aztec can have such a shallow point of view.

8212;Rex Brown Jr.,
management senior

AB 656 false hope
In response to Sarah Kovash’s article “New option for funding crisis” on Oct. 13: Assemblymember Alberto Torrico was here on campus last week campaigning for his miracle bill that will close the gap in the higher education budget and not cost Californians a penny. That is as long as you are not an oil company nor do you work for one or buy any of their products like gasoline. His proposed legislation, AB 656, will tax oil companies to the tune of $1 billion in order to close the gap in the CSU, UC and community college budgets. And like any good business, (they) will just take a hit in their profit rather than raising prices right? Wrong.

Torrico’s solution: to legislate oil companies can’t raise the price of gasoline, is impractical. Telling oil companies that they are going to have to cough up $1 billion more in taxes without making up that money somewhere doesn’t make sense. The fact is that there will be a loophole in the legislation that will mean in the long run the average Californian will pay for the oil tax whenever we have to go gas up at the pump. Don’t hide the tax, put it out there and raise the funds through the sales tax.

Allow the people of California see what we are really going to be charged rather than hiding it in an oil tax, which will be passed on (to) the consumer. Sir, face up to the behemoth you’ve helped create in the form of the California State government. Don’t keep thinking that AB 656 will save the education system without any costs to the people of California. Stop living in the fantasyland of AB 656 and face the fact that a tax on the oil companies of California will not solve the budget crisis, nor fix the situation we are in without putting $1 billion of tax indirectly on the people of the Golden State.

8212;Michael Kemmer,
international business freshman