A sense of sacrifice from UW president

I for one am terribly impressed by University of Washington President Mark Emmert's shared sense of sacrifice ["Emmert gets new perks, no pay raise," page one, Sept. 4] as the UW has made deep cuts in its budget, including eliminating its swim team as well as increasing tuition by 14 percent.

If leaders lead by example, may we all be so lucky!

-- Patrick Burns, Seattle

Can I be Emmert's driver?

I think you printed the story about the University of Washington's benefits for its president, Mark Emmert, just to raise the blood pressure of folks like me.

I will be so sorry if Emmert is unable to live on his $906,500 per year, plus change he receives in cash and stock for sitting on various boards. As far as I'm concerned, all of this is a disgrace. How much do people really need?

Of course, this salary is nothing at all compared to the corporate titans' compensation. My point is, however, how much is enough? Where does it stop?

Since I have been out of a job since October, perhaps I could sign on as Emmert's driver. I wonder how much it would pay ...

-- Kathleen Collins, Bellevue

Boeing built by region, owes much in return

Editor, The Times:

Those Boeing officials who are considering manufacturing the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina should study the company's history.

It was the natural resources of the Pacific Northwest out of which Boeing was created and built. Early on, it was the spruce forests of Oregon and Washington. Then it was the region's abundant and low-cost water power that generated the large amount of electricity needed to make aluminum when that became the basic material in airplane manufacture.

Throughout, it was the local intellectual, educational and governmental infrastructure, largely paid for by Washington taxpayers, that trained and nurtured a work force capable of designing and manufacturing great airplanes. South Carolina cannot take credit for any of this. Boeing, having capitalized on these resources, owes something in return.

-- Fred Granata, Lake Oswego, Ore.

Union members need to be team members

When will Everett's Mayor Ray Stephanson and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union understand why Boeing is seeking permits for a 787 Dreamliner final-assembly plant in South Carolina? ["Boeing expansion: permits not required," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 28.]

Boeing doesn't want to deal with striking union members. IAM members are being lead down a dark path with no future. IAM's leaders are relics from the past, and their strong-arm tactics are tiresome.

Consider these things: Boeing's nonunion employees look for ways to improve processes to stay competitive, you're encouraged to do the bare minimum; a company needs team members working toward a common goal, you're labeled as adversarial antagonists by the public; Boeing is in business to make money for everyone's benefit, not be held for ransom losing billions of dollars in revenue and forcing customers to look elsewhere while you're on strike; the list goes on.

Boeing doesn't want volatile workers on their payroll and neither would you. Boeing doesn't have to negotiate with the IAM anymore, they'll just move away. IAM members have a chance to think for themselves and do what's right for Boeing, its entire work force, its customers and suppliers.

Be team members and change for the better.

-- Conrad Rupp, Renton

Boeing going elsewhere doesn't produce results

I think the point has been proven that Boeing aircraft manufacturing must not move from the Seattle area. See what is happening when other parts of the nation and world try to build parts for the new Dreamliner 787? Wrinkles in the fuselage? Come on.

It looks like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union strike didn't have much to do with the delay of first delivery, although I hope the union and Boeing can work out a deal to avoid such hassles in the future.

Keeping it all here will build the best airplanes available.

-- Douglas Mays, Seattle

State employees get cuts while foreigners get free tuition

Why does the state feel it is so beneficial to give tuition breaks to foreign professionals, their spouses and children? I am an employee at the University of Washington, and my wife and I receive a tuition exemption.

My children -- who are now at and close to college age -- don't receive any tuition break. They're the future of this country and deserve that break. As an employee, it is beyond my financial means to send my children to the UW, though I would like to. There is no exemption even at the community-college level.

I was born in this country. I live and work here. I pay my taxes. Foreigners go to work at Microsoft and Amazon (who seem to have a state representative or two in their back pocket) and receive preferential treatment.

What do state employees get? A 5 percent to 10 percent wage cut, a governor who denies us a fair contract, not even community-college tuition for our children and treatment as second-class citizens at a so-called "world-class" institution.

It seems to me that foreign professionals are being treated better than American blue-collar workers.

-- Phillip R. Salvador, Shoreline

Isn't giving jobs to best candidate at capitalism's core?

Kathleen E. Bukoskey sees no benefit ["Let's not give our jobs away," Opinion, Northwest Voices, July 2] from 12 visa programs that bring foreigners, including teachers, to the U.S. to study and work.

Consider this: A typical high-school student in Europe is multilingual and already knows calculus. Exchange teachers from the U.S. find themselves deficient to teach at the same level in Europe, where students' math skills exceed theirs. At a respected American university, a foreign instructor may get better results from students than a local professor who wrote the textbook, and Asian students are the only ones to be found in its libraries and laboratories on weekends. American high-tech companies, starving for talent, establish research centers in Canada, Japan and China to foster competition and creativity.

It's funny how some people who advocate capitalism run to the government for help when competition, capitalism's core, bites them in a tender spot. Even funnier is that they blame immigration for our loss of jobs, while at the same time, other countries worry about emigration of talent, or "brain drain."

Most of our problem is homegrown. Greedy corporate executives knowingly employ illegal, low-skilled workers to avoid paying decent wages, and xenophobic government policies send foreign university graduates back to their country of origin, leaving disproportionate numbers of low-skilled natives who are too proud or lazy to apply for menial jobs and highly educated con-artists who become greedy corporate executives.

-- James Bruner, Oak Harbor

Robert Gates a poor choice for commencement speaker

As a parent of a graduating senior, I found the University of Washington's choice of Defense Secretary Robert Gates as commencement speaker ["Secretary Gates urges life of public service," NWSunday, June 14] one that failed students and their families.

These students deserve congratulations, encouragement and articulation of the hope for a better world, yet they received a speaker involved in one of our country's most tragic self-created debacles, one that has incurred a crushing human toll.

This objection is not castigating an official for guilt by association, or a case of "character assassination" as Gates might imply. As defense secretary, Gates shares responsibility for U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan since taking the position in 2006. Despite the current administration's stated intentions to end the war in Iraq, the U.S. maintains a strong troop presence and permanent military bases that undermine Iraq's stability.

The call to public service is laudable. Equally important would be recognition of the economic and human devastation created by our Middle East ventures. With the economy tanked and UW tuition skyrocketing, our multibillion-dollar war investments come at the expense of the graduates who sat before the defense secretary, their families and prospects for a future that might include peace.

-- Nancy Dickeman, Seattle

Superb coach and man

In 1960-61, I was chairman of the University of Washington Finance & Budget Committee, which (among other things) supervised intercollegiate athletics. In spring 1961, we voted unanimously to raise Jim Owens' salary to $25,000 a year, reflecting his outstanding achievements.

I met with President Charles Odegaard (who had veto power over this); he approved the new salary, but added "that's pretty high, so tell Jim not to expect too much in the way of raises in the next few years." How things have changed!

Jim not only was a superb coach, but also an outstanding gentleman.

-- Dr. Vincent Jolivet, Bothell

Chris Joseph Taylor / The Seattle Times

Washington wide receiver D'Andre Goodwin dives for some extra yards as he is tackled by a Washington State player during the first half of last year's Apple Cup at Martin Stadium.

Consider impact on fans with limited assets

Editor, The Times:

Ryan Blethen's commentary on moving the Apple Cup to Qwest Field was right on ["Apple Cup not about a 'Qwest' for money," Opinion, editorial notebook, April 21].

My only addition would be to add the impact to hundreds, if not thousands, of loyal Coug fans in the Palouse who, if they had limited financial or physical assets, would never see another Apple Cup if unable to travel to Seattle in the winter.

-- Ed Hall, Bellevue

Other options to fund Husky renovation?

For months I have read and listened to countless WSU alumni object to the concept of allowing the city of Seattle to raise tax money for the renovation of Husky Stadium. Imagine my shock, then, when I read unabashed Coug fan and Seattle Times heir Ryan Blethen's editorial notebook opposing moving the Apple Cup to Qwest Field, a move that would generate $4 million a year for the two schools from a private source.

Since the concept of using private-party money to help fund the infrastructure costs of an otherwise entirely self-sustaining Husky athletic program is apparently unappealing to Blethen, what legitimate option does he support?

Does Blethen favor using state-generated tax dollars to renovate Husky Stadium, as was done for WSU's Bohler addition, the Hollingberry renovation or countless other athletic projects on WSU's campus?

Or does he support a long-term athletic subsidy for UW, such as the $1-2 million used to prop up WSU athletics each year for at least the past 20 years?

Or does Blethen favor using locally generated funds, as has been suggested by the task force examining the acute need for renovating Husky Stadium?

The only thing clear after reading this particular editorial notebook is that the allegiance of our one remaining print newspaper continues to be anti-UW and pro-WSU. Yes, the Blethen family are "proud Cougs" and yes, The Seattle Times is a not-so-neutral newspaper.

-- Howard Mawhinney, Bellevue

All for money and beer

I believe that Husky Stadium and Qwest Field are about the same size. Unless ticket prices rise astronomically, the "gate" should be about the same. It doesn't seem like TV revenues would be any more than before.

Husky Stadium is the more beautiful setting. The only difference that I can see is beer and concessions. An extra million each, just because beer could be served? Any other plausible explanations?

-- Steven J. Albright, Seattle

University of Washington offers a clarification

Thank you for your coverage of recent changes to the University of Washington's foreign-language requirement ["Foreign languages take higher-education hit," Local News, March 13], and for your editorial support for the importance of foreign-language study ["Speaking to the world," Opinion, March 17]. I am writing to clarify several points.
]
Undergraduates with three or more years of a foreign language in high school will now meet the UW's language-proficiency requirement without having to pass a test. We hope this change will encourage more students to take a third year of high-school language. Many high schools have welcomed this change for that reason.

This change does not lessen the importance of language study. Rather, it provides an additional way for students to meet our requirement. The UW's admissions requirement (two years of high-school language study) remains unchanged. Students who took only two years of high-school language must take and pass a proficiency exam, or take first-year language classes at the UW.

We made this change based on solid national data from the University of Oregon, which shows that students with three years of high-school foreign language achieve the same levels of proficiency as students who complete one year of college language. This change does not "water down" our requirement. It allows us to focus our resources on advanced language instruction and on less-commonly-taught languages, such as Chinese, Arabic and Urdu, rather than first-year Spanish and French.

It is also important to note that we have not cut the foreign-language departments' budgets more heavily than other parts of the College of Arts and Sciences. In these financially challenging times, our priority across the university is to minimize, as much as we can, the impact of the state's budget cuts on our students' education. This change in how we assess foreign-language proficiency is a responsible way to do that. We will continue to teach first-year classes in more than 50 different languages, including Spanish and French, and to emphasize the importance of language study to the future of our state and region.

-- Robert Stacey, University of Washington Divisional Dean of Arts and Humanities, College of Arts and Sciences, Seattle

Pay cuts should come first

Wow, the university system is in a financial crisis and is talking about job cuts ["UW braces for 600 layoffs," Local News, Feb. 10]. What bothers me most is the University of Washington gave itself a huge pay raise a year or two ago and there was not one mention of pay cuts to try and reduce the number of job cuts.

Why is it that the president of the university makes enough money to support two to three families and doesn't want to make a sacrifice to help others in need?

UW claimed the pay raise was necessary to get the best people for the job. How many times have we heard this same rhetoric from presidents of corporations?

The university is just as guilty as Wall Street for fostering the belief that it is OK if you can justify it. When does it stop? When will people wake up and realize it is not OK?

Cutting jobs is not the answer when pay cuts can be made and people can keep their jobs.

-- Jeff Gibbon, Seattle

Making an athletic exception

I must admit I am really in shock about what I read in your paper concerning University of Washington layoffs in this time of stimulus packages and economic debt.

On the front page of the Local News section in the Feb. 10 paper, the headline reads: "UW preparing for 600 layoffs."

Then, on the front page of the Sports section, there is an article about the UW's new offensive-line coordinator leaving for the Oakland Raiders, even though he was offered, and I am sure accepted, a $350,000 per year salary.

So here we are: Athletic coaches making enough to give five workers a decent wage and the UW laying off employees.

What ever happened to education? Those being laid off may not be instructors or professors, but I am sure their work adds to the experience of a UW education.

I think maybe our new president and elected officials ought to start looking at college coaches' wages and put a cap on them as they did the CEOs.

-- Jack Schultz, Bellevue

In keeping with classless society

I was terribly pleased to read of the University of Washington s decision to forgo the haughty, regal names of the mascots of yesteryear and, instead, select a more egalitarian moniker for their new malamute: Dubs ["Dubs is the name," Husky Football Blog, Feb. 10].

The selection of this trailer park, chic name is really in keeping with the classless society the new ruling party is introducing in this country, so kudos to the UW for their prescience.

How appropriate was it that the new peasant pup's first official act was to urinate on the field? I look forward to many years of seeing Dubs urinate in public, stumble around drunk, belch, shotgun beer and similar activities that would have been received with a frown if done by King Chinook or Regent Denali, but now can be greeted with maximum delight and aplomb.

In the spirit of this, and in lieu of my Tyee Club contribution, I plan to make an in-kind donation of Skoal this year.

Rah Rah, Washington!

-- Lloyd Saint-Claire, Ojai, Calif.

On their own

It is absolutely disgusting that the University of Washington is lobbying for tax funds to pay for any part of a new Husky Stadium ["Huskies may use Qwest Field in 2010," local news, Jan. 12].

As the Seahawks have already given permission to use Qwest Field in the future, there is no reason to rebuild an on-campus stadium until the UW can pay for it all by itself.

In these trying times, the majority of the population is struggling and won't be getting a bail out. If UW educators are supposedly building the leaders of our future, they are setting a bad example by asking for and expecting a handout for this unnecessary stadium.

-- Ted Calvert, Seattle

The last thing we need is a cultural whitewash

I was incensed in many ways when I read Nick Perry's article about the furor over a University of Washington Daily opinion piece decrying gay unions ["UW newspaper column sparks campus controversy," News, Dec. 5].

I support The Daily and its editor -- not because they made good choices, but because I am appalled that well meaning student groups, rather than attacking the column or its author, John Fay, have reacted by calling for an apology and "sensitivity training."

The Daily was doing exactly what it should be doing: presenting reality, and the reality is there are a lot of hateful loudmouths out there. A call for increased sensitivity is a cultural whitewash -- taking reality and filing down all the sharp edges until it no longer hurts us.

If history is any guide, 40 years from now, gay marriage will be a non-issue even to conservatives, and people like Fay will change the subject when anyone mentions the bigoted column they once wrote for the college paper.

How will students of that time ever understand the cultural struggles of ours? Not by reading the archives of a paper whose staff had to undergo sensitivity training. If our goal is to change the ugliness in our world, inserting layers of padding between ourselves and the ugliness seems to be a poor strategy.

-- Eric Jones, Seattle