Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

ASA clarifies tuition stance

In response to Monday’s article titled: “ASA pushes 3% tuition increase,” I would like to clarify some of the information in the article. The Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) is not advocating for a tuition increase. ASA believes that higher education should be affordable and accessible. Fundamentally, tuition should not increase more than what Arizona families can afford.

Higher education in Arizona should not be funded by increases in tuition, but instead should be funded by the state. Year after year, the presidents of the three state universities have pushed for hikes in tuition; here at ASU Tempe, tuition has increased 119 percent for resident undergraduates in just the past six years! Yet students are still faced with issues like lack of academic advising and poor classroom space.

Tuition should not increase, but if it does, we as students deserve to know where our tuition money is going. We believe in truth in tuition.

Michael Slugocki

Board chair, ASA

Same-sex marriage debate continues

(In response to Ray Ceo’s Nov. 7 column “Prop. 102 doesn’t end with marriage”)

Marriage should only be between a man and a woman, that’s what I say. According to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Web site, more than 1.1 million voted for Prop. 102.

So, to say that 1.1 million discriminated is just blind stupidity. You may not like the proposition, but until you have “evidence” that the 1.1 million committed “blatant” discrimination, you should just stick to just simple opinions you “like” or “dislike,” rather than baseless ignorant accusations.

Shame on ASU for publishing this.

William Chenausky

ASU alumnus

With all the time he spent away from writing his column, you would think Ray Ceo Jr. would write something worthwhile upon his return to The State Press.

I am offended that because of how I voted on Proposition 102, Ray somehow thinks I hate him. Attention, Ray: I don’t even know you. You ask for us to be tolerant, but before we’ve even met, you assume I hate you. Huh?

Ray, you tried to use deception and fear tactics in your article. Guess what? You tried that in your No on 102 campaign, and that didn’t work. I would hope you would be smart enough to learn from such mistakes.

The campaign against Proposition 102 said they “trusted the people.” The citizens of California, Florida and Arizona have decided that marriage should stay between one man and one woman.

The people have spoken. Apparently, Ray wasn’t listening.

Brett Urig


I recently read Ray Ceo’s column concerning the passing of Proposition 102.

Ray, I just wanted to express my gratitude to you for composing a very well-written, bold and effective column. I agree with you completely; it saddens me deeply that this proposition passed and that our state and country has come to this point.

On that note, as a straight male (and I speak for a plethora of my peers, as well), I would like to express that I do not hate you or any of the LGBTQ community whatsoever. To keep this concise, I would simply like to encourage you to make issues affecting homosexuals a common theme in your future journalism. I honestly believe that awareness is the first step toward progress.

In his victory speech, President-elect Barack Obama spoke of 106-year-old Ann Nixon Cooper, who was born a single generation after slavery. She witnessed first-hand an unimaginable number of historic events and progressive moments toward equality. Yes, equal rights for homosexuals has a long way to go, but it will happen.

Let’s keep working toward that goal and keep up the great columns. Thanks again.

Brian Shedlock


Having felt as if the LGBTQ community was on a roll for so long, seeing that the three anti-gay marriage propositions were passed a few days ago was one of the more sobering and even depressing aspects of the election

I fully believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized in the U.S.; I see no reason for such incessant inequality. Mind you, I’m starting small, because I understand that realistically it will be decades before some countries step up to let people like me tie the knot. Having experienced being gay, I sometimes felt tempted to ask those I know with skepticisms or disagreements with gay marriage: “Does that mean you never want me to get married?”

To me, it is more than just an objective equal-rights issue; it’s a personal one. While I respect that people come from different backgrounds and religions, I encourage those in dissent to think: What if your best friend in the entire world told you they were gay tomorrow? Would you disown them? Would you think of them differently? Would you wish against their desires to, say, marry someday? What would you think of this person, this amazing person whom you clearly love and probably have spent a good portion of your time with?

While your feelings may range from utter shock to discomfort to full support, they are still the same person they have always been, they just might have a different preference. I don’t believe I need to tell the world that not all gays are perverts and not every gay person looks at everyone of the same gender in a sexual manner; it should be common sense and is not the big issue right now. But, again, the choice is the dissenter’s: If their gay best friend wants to get married someday, will they be happy? Will they even be there? Will they be supportive, if anything?

Everyone deserves the opportunity to be with the love of his or her life, and to not be treated like a second-class citizen when doing so. Sexual orientation shouldn’t make a difference in how we view others or dictate their lives. The only real difference is whom we choose to love.

Haley O’Bryan


Constitutional comeback

(In response to Kenneth Otton’s Nov. 6 letter, “Dem fools”)

I want to answer one of the letter writer’s rhetorical questions: “May I ask what he is going to fix?” I practiced law for 25 years before retiring to become a graduate student at ASU. My answer to him and many others who have written similar letters to editors I have read in papers around the country is the same: Obama can and will reinstitute the rule of law that we should all cherish and that is in tatters thanks to the Bush regime. The rule of law means, first and foremost, no more imperial presidency.

The rule of law requires that due process and a fair and legal trial be accorded the criminal defendants who have so long languished in the offshore camp in Guantanamo, Cuba. It demands that no prisoner of any stripe may be exported to countries like Egypt, Yemen, Syria and parts of the former Soviet Union for secret and brutal torture, as was Canadian citizen Maher Arar. (That, in fact, is a felony under federal law. Look it up.)

The rule of law means that making war in the absence of an imminent and credible threat of attack is not just wrong, it is a crime. (Since WWII these have been defined in international law as “wars of aggression;” people were hanged for that at Nuremberg. You can look that one up, too.)

The rule of law means that a president cannot arrogate the power to issue search or wiretapping warrants without showing probable cause to a judge.

The rule of law means using presidential signing statements for their intended purposes rather than as a way to declare a refusal to comply with laws passed by Congress.

The rule of law is what separates us from tyrannies. Ben Franklin famously said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The Constitution’s back in force. Cherish it.

Carl A. Schuh

Graduate student

Continue supporting student journalism and donate to The State Press today.

Subscribe to Pressing Matters



This website uses cookies to make your experience better and easier. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.