In response to the Weekly Staff Editorial published on Thursday Sept.14.

We are all Americans, we all feel for the losses on Sept. 11. The impact that the films “United 93” and “World Trade Center” provides however varies on how each individual person has been affected by that day.

Some people were hit harder because they lost loved ones. This doesn’t take away from the fact that we are all sharing the same tragedy, and we all feel for the people that lost their lives on that day.

However, the opinion that filmmakers are making these films merely to “Serve Hollywood’s own pretentious ‘artistic Academy Award winning-seeking agenda” is completely offensive to every party that had a part in making these films.

As hard as it is to believe, there are millions of filmmakers out there that make films for the sheer love of the art.

The idea may seem bogus, but there are filmmakers out there that don’t constantly base all their filmic decisions on how much money is involved, or how much of a “cash-cow” a picture can become.

The films are made without sensitivity because they are trying to be as accurate as they can be. The filmmakers are reenacting a period in time that was horrible and extremely tragic, and the members of the audience knew this going into the theatre.

Every single person that saw either of those movies willingly made the decision to watch the disturbing images they were to be presented with. You made a request to the filmmakers to “[Not] try to be a hero yourself; this isn’t your story.” In saying that, you are absolutely right.

This story doesn’t belong to the filmmakers, but to all of us. These films were made as a testament to all the individuals that lost their lives that day, and to blame the filmmakers for “exploiting” these events is callous and unjust.

-Brandon Selter film major, CTVA Sophomore

In response to “Rights of an American include equal education,” published on Sept. 20.

You (Jessyca Dewey) state that “bright and driven” children in urban schools didn’t have good parents or teachers, and slept in uncomfortable situations but you fail to mention that students in suburban schools may also face these issues.

While some schools may have better supplies and more highly paid teachers they also have good and bad parents, good and bad teachers and uncomfortable situations.

We get out of education what we put into it. A “bright and driven” student of any ethnicity and financial background will find a way to further themselves.

The diverse CSUN campus is proof of this.

By utilizing the abundant financial aide opportunities available to them many of my classmates have overcome socioeconomic hardships.

Some of these friends come from neighborhoods where the population is predominately hispanic others predominately African

American neighborhoods all of them come from families dealing with economic hardship, one even supported herself for two years.

Your statement that a students from urban schools would not have the opportunity to succeed “even if they had the IQ of Einstein” is ridiculous, the idea that students from these situations should not be expected to succeed is not only ignorant but limiting.

This is not to say that our school systems do notneed improvement, indeed our inner city schools are suffering when it comes to supplies and teacher salaries but gifted students have scholarships, financial aide, grants, and loans available to them.

So, while I agree that the system needs some work let’s not assume that students are incapable of overcoming less than stellar situations – give our youth some credit.

-Mary Thornton, deaf studies major, freshman

In response to the article published on Sept. 13 – “Student fees explained.”

Let me give a little insight as to why there are two categories – tuition and fees.

When I was a new college student at UCSB, back in 1965, there was no tuition at any of the state universities or colleges (at that time, CSUN was San Fernando Valley State College.)

Fees were about $250 per year at the UC campuses, less at the state colleges. Ronald Reagan was elected governor and one of the first things he did was to institute tuition at the state universities and colleges.

A group of faculty and students from UCSB caravanned to Sacramento for a march on the capitol in protest. We stayed overnight in the homes of UC Davis faculty.

The next morning we peacefully marched on the capitol, the girls dressed in dresses and the guys in slacks and dress shirts. (my, that’s a long time ago.)

That same afternoon, Berkeley students (“hippies” with their long hair and love beads) marched on the capitol, also protesting the possible loss of free education. That night on the news, there was no mention of the UCSB/ UCDavis march, but quite a diatribe about the Berkeley students – “Why would we want to give those hippies a free education, when they don’t intend to be contributing members of society?”

That was the beginning of tuition in California and the end of my trusting anything I see or read in the news.

-Nancy Turney, Community Senior Services Director