We are writing in response to Greg Sutcliffe’s dismay at the student commencement speakers selection process for the December 2001 graduation ceremonies.

All students who indicated in EASI they were graduating this December received an e-mail informing them of the opportunity to speak at their commencement ceremony. Students were asked to submit a written application. A substantial portion of the application asked students to summarize their commencement speech in 150 words.

All applicants participated in a short interview with the officers. Each officer read through every application, including the speech summaries, a few times. Every applicant had worthy speech topics, so we didn’t feel we needed additional explanations.

Our main concerns revolved around speaking ability, ability to think on his/her feet and what the university and graduation meant to the applicant.

As a senior seeking a huge role with commencement, we felt an applicant should be able to answer relevant questions such as: “What would you leave as the senior class gift” and “Who would you like to see as the keynote speaker for the ceremony.” In addition, we felt asking what sort of advice an applicant would give a prospective freshman allowed each applicant the chance to reflect on his/her time here. Many applicants explained how they would like to include some of those reflections to freshmen in their speech.

The selection process was quite structured. Every candidate was interviewed the exact same way. After all interviews were completed, each class officer selected as many applicants as he/she desired to promote for discussion. Approximately one-third of candidates were eliminated. We deliberated and then eliminated another third. Each officer was then left with his/her top two choices. After a lengthy discussion, we decided since we were all impressed by one candidate and varied in opinions on other candidates, we would have that person speak.

We decided to immediately send out an e-mail, as applicants awaited results, and to be consistent with our actions the night before in announcing the speaker for the first ceremony.

All applicants were worthy choices and had outstanding speech topics; however, we could only select one speaker for each ceremony, so we needed to go with the strongest candidate. We can assure Sutcliffe that the selected speakers will not use commencement as an “arena to give a political viewpoint,” but as a wonderful opportunity to reflect on UW.

We continue to thank all applicants for their application and understanding.

Leif Jorgensen, Senior Class President

Adam Goldstein, Senior Class Vice-President

Wendy Riemann, Senior Class Secretary

This is my letter in response to Anna Gould’s article, “America Shows No Respect For the Unborn,” printed on Tuesday, December 4th.

While reading Anna Gould’s column, I couldn’t help but notice that she has managed to employ selective reading while making her argument. She claims that we do not respect life and cites a biology book as proof that life begins at conception to prove that we don’t respect the unborn. Only a few paragraphs later, she fails to consult the same biology book to define the status of the unborn. She refers to the unborn fetus or embryo as a child, which if you read the same biology book that she refers to earlier, will tell you that the fetus becomes a child when it is born, and not before that. The potential for life begins at conception.

In addition, I am offended at the concept that just because I support abortion and/or stem cell research in any manner, I have lost respect for life. I wholly respect life, and it is for that exact reason that I support both abortion and stem cell research.

Finally, I am proud to be pro-abortion (there, I said it; happy now?). In your attempt to criticize America for having no regard for human life, you forgot that America was founded on the principle of free choice. We are a democracy, and as much as I may disagree with your statements, I would defend to the death your right to say them.

David Krawczyk

UW junior

A few quick clarifications on some information from the article on the proposed University Health Services/Student Activity Center building:

1. The building project has only been approved for planning. That means that no money has been allocated to the project, although there is money in UHS reserves, if necessary. No money has been spent as of yet.

2. The goal of this building is not only to bring UHS services onto central campus, but to put UHS in a functional space AND create dedicated space for the hundreds of student organizations on campus.

3. What ASM & UHS are looking for from the UW is a ranking for the project as #1 on their list of building projects. Making this project the top priority from the UW gives us a good chance of high priority from UW System and, finally, the state.

4. Two-thirds of the building cost is coming from the students, which is an amazing investment. In order for this building to become a reality, though, we need the remaining one-third of the funding from the state (NOT the UW).

5. Bids from architectural and engineering firms have not been requested yet and, as such, are not in. Those will be requested as we move further into development of the building plan.

This has been a major part of ASM’s work for the past four years and will continue to be a top priority until the UHS/SAC building is opened, centrally located ON CAMPUS.

Jessica Miller

ASM Chair