| OCR Text |
Show The Daily Utah Chronicle OPINION 6 The Daily UTah -- Chronicle Shawn Parker Bailey, Opinion Editor: editorchronicle.utah.edu Chronicle Editorial Dixie College Plan Is Suspicious concerns while putting legitimate educational needs into a subordinate position. The approach of these St. George business men is suspect, too. Knowing it may face opposition from the Board of Regents, it has gone straight to the Legislature. Without a close look, the bill in question seems to be nothing more than a proposal to change the name of Dixie College. The Regents should be consulted on any issue of this magnitude. Similarly, educators, students and alumni should also be consulted. If decisions about expanding junior college programs truly has the state's educational needs in mind, then it seems only logical that those people directly involved in the educational process should be at the forefront of the discussion. Finally, the Legislature and Regents have continually said that they are committed to keep the University of Utah as the state's flagship university. In keeping with this commitment, they should consider the impact that the funding of another four-yecollege would have on the other public schools of higher education. College has informed Legislature that it like to become a four-yecollege. While the desire to improve is always good, we're concerned the main motivation behind this desire is that a four-yecollege would allow St. to attract bigger busiGeorge nesses and a broader range of students. The financial strain is already being felt by Utah's other public higher education institutes. Supinstituporting another four-yetion would serve only to increase the strain on resources that are already scarce. Dixie supporters are attempting to ease the financial pain. They want to raise over $1 million dollars of private funds to institute the four-yeprograms. Editors noteplease see page 2 Although this does help, it only further illustrates that Dixie's for a clarification that applies to move is motivated by financial Tuesday's Chronicle Editorial. Dixie ar ar ar Wednesday, January 20, 1999 UDY HERE UUSSAHP CAM SUE KEHP THE House. ??? Letters to the editor ar ar WS To KNOW IF SUE PIVORCES HE Editor: Down With Overhead Projectors and Their Ills hate overhead projectors! They loom hauntingly at the front of every classroom and lecture hall on campus. I see them and the hatred within me just wells. They represent a I trend within the educational system I don't like. How many times have you been in the following situation? You find yourself in a classroom ready to learn and be enriched. You that have your notebook out, pencil poised, and attention focused on the professor. You're ready to absorb knowledge and participate in a see overhead page political perspectives Should English Be the Official Language of Utah? The English-onl- y movement that is debated in the Utah State is a movement that seeks to terminate the use of languages other than English by the government. For the average citizen, declaring English as the official language seems to be nothing more than a formality. However, there arc underlying implications of such a declaration that must be considered. If English were formally declared to be the language of our state, government organizations, including entities that arc merely regulated by state and local governments, would be prohibited g from issuing lish publications. Proponents of the legislation argue that English-onl- y legislation will benefit immigrants by encouraging individuals to learn English. English-onl- y legislation non-En- accomplish the objectives stated by its fails to proponents. Cost benefit analysis of the English-onlbill currently being considered clearly shows that support of such legislation would be detrimental to the citizens of Utah. English-onl- y legislation is a source of immediate and continued divisiveness for our state and its passage would bring no benesubstantial immediate or long-terfit. Declaring English as the official language of the state is unconstitutional, as found in the case ot Arizona. Such legislation is unconstitutional and unethical because it bars specific groups of citizens from having access to ihc political arena and government progran.s. to W'c cannot allow our government y m operate on the principle that you must be like me in order to participate. The principle of such legislation is harmful to the foundation of our governmental beliefs. Supporters will argue that benefits of the legislation will outweigh the high costs pointing to money that will be saved in printing costs by not printing in foreign languages. They are reluctant to mention however that the estimated amount that would be saved amounts to a mere $7,000. For what price are we willing to sell our integrity and fellow citizens? I hope that the principle of equal access will not be sold at any cost, but especially not for a mere $7,000. Arguments are made that in order for an individual to prosper in our society, they must become fluent in English. While these are valid arguments, they do not justify the action being considered. We must address the problem and provide an appropriate solution. Denying government access in non-Engli- multi-lingu- al ifflfflBHRH pMifc- 0 33203 SjMi &K2 isJiOsipiu iXiSKiHJ! m Brett Humphrey College Rupublicans S (BUSKS lan- guages will not encourage immigrants to learn English. With a price tag of $7,000, the State of Utah will be purchasing intolerance, exclusiveness and divisiveness. We must make our voices heard, letting our elected representative know that we demand real solutions for all citizens. If lawmakers are concerned with the ability of our speaking citizens, they services to must provide facilitate learning. We cannot allow any citizen to be denied the rights wc all enjoy. non-Engli- msm mm ilWTBKTtlttS w&i$imp w'it5m mmi,fissm& 7 |
