Education is more important

Many have argued that those who achieve financial success in life have a social obligation to bequeath back to the people and places that aided them in their development. I couldn’t agree more. The University of Illinois has treated me very well during my five years of attendance. The formal education I received was of the highest caliber and has enabled me to pursue my professional goals to their fullest. The campus culture and activities nurtured me into an adult. My time here was, in part, made possible by alumni donations funding an academic scholarship. If anyone has a social obligation to give back to the University after graduation, I certainly do. And with honest earnest, I intended to do so once my finances allowed.

It is for this very reason that I feel refusing to donate to the University is the most appropriate method to protest the Chief’s forced retirement. My protest can continue long after campus fervor has quieted and long after I graduate. Every time a University representative requests a donation, it allows me an opportunity to politely inform the University that I will be happy to donate to this great institution once the Chief is restored as our symbol. Perhaps if dozens of other alumni follow a similar course of action (I expect them to do so), the University will reconsider its position.

Alumni donations are of chief concern to the Board of Trustees, President and Chancellor. A persistent decrease in alumni contributions should notify those with the power to restore the Chief that the Chief’s untimely demise has alienated a substantial portion of the alumni body and, in doing so, hurt the University. This boycott may not garner the attention of sit-ins nor rallies, but it can affect change.

Aaron F. “Augustine” Dubas

Graduate Student