Being able to communicate with each other is quite a leap from "homogeneity." Encouraging all residents to learn to speak English does not equate to condoning intolerance of other languages or cultures.
My mother came to this country with very poor English skills. While my father went to work, my mother's job was to watch television to strengthen her language skills. I firmly believe that this has contributed a great deal to the quality of life my brothers and I now have. Does this mean that we have forgotten our cultural heritage?
Absolutely not. I am proud of my Chinese heritage and my family's ability to use the English language to share it with other Americans is a wonderful thing. Those who think cultural identity and pride are defined by language need to look deeper.
Diversity is a beautiful thing, but so is communication. Without a common language to unite us, we risk becoming no more than separate groups contained and confined in various compartments of society. We have so many divisive issues at hand already, how can we ever hope to understand each other if we can't understand each other? We need to be able to communicate on the surface before we can ever hope to communicate on a deeper level.
Language is a powerful tool, too powerful to go unused in our fight to reach common ground. We must empower, not shelter. Whether this law is the answer is not clear to me, but empowerment is never a bad thing and I am unconvinced the Daily underst ands this.
Amy Y. Liu
LSA junior
I was shocked at the downright rude comments that surfaced. It was made explicitly clear that Smith-Lindall is hardly a Phish "phan," but the ill-mannered and petulant avowals about Mike Gordon's performance abilities were beyond inappropriate for a n otherwise satisfactory review. I didn't read the article to see a multi-talented, dedicated and experienced musician verbally slaughtered.
Despite my growing ire over reading about Mike Gordon's supposed "unschooled vocals and blandly plodding bass line" and "meandering bass solo that bogged down whatever energy had been created" I "plodded" my way through the remainder of the review t o find nothing but glowing comments for every other performer at the festival. I re-read the introductory paragraphs and again found only honey-dripping comments suffused throughout. The only askew remarks in the entirety of the article were within the Drop Caps paragraph and they certainly weren't directed at the other, non-Phish members of the band. In fact, the other band members, in their two words of glory granted by the author, were shown to possess "skilled musicianship," but this was o nly when Mike Gordon stepped aside.
It was insinuated that Gordon performed poorly, dragged the Drop Caps down, and was not "schooled" enough to play at this festival, leaving the reader to conclude that it was Gordon's fault that the band "tried to groove but did not succeed."
The goal of this article seemed to be to sing the praises of the festival and to illustrate what a "diverse and entertaining evening" it was. Aside from the one negative paragraph, it did just that.
While I see a concert review as a means of covering an event in both fact and opinion, I find it very unprofessional for a writer to put in his or her own personal dislikes in such an extreme and derogatory fashion. If the intent of the writer was t o cover "an outstanding evening of performances," perhaps Smith-Lindall could have put less energy into making Mike Gordon look incompetent and more energy into promoting the Drop Caps, who were clearly left in the dust to make room for personal rep ugnance directed at Mike Gordon.
In the future, I would suggest that Smith-Lindall keep his opinions at an appropriate, professional level. Had the writer left out his individual biases, a commendable article would have emanated instead of a childish display of overbearing opiniona tion.
I think most readers care to read more about the performance than how anti-Phish the writer is. I feel it would be in everyone's best interest for the author to keep that in mind the next time he feels the need to throw in his own two cents to expre ss unnecessary and unrequested opinions, especially when addressing such a large audience of "phans" here at the University.
Krista Schmidt
LSA first-year student
You say, "running a school district is a local issue and should remain a local issue." Well, in countries where the schools are better, running the schools is not a local issue, but a provincial or even a national issue. Our schools would be better and our school system would be fairer and more democratic if the system were more centrally organized. The idea that each local school district has to fashion its own curriculum, for example, is absurd. Children need the same educational opportunit ies regardless of where they live.
Engler's proposal is not the final answer. Similar state takeovers in New Jersey have resulted in only modest improvements. Children are still forced to attend the schools of the district they live in, while the state does not have the power to prev ent the best and most experienced teachers from gravitating to the more affluent school districts. But it is a step in the right direction.
David Sirkin
Medical School
To the Daily:
Keep The Michigan Daily pages online and with enhancements to your website.
Since I have become a complete computer nerd, for the first time in many years I have kept up with my alma mater. The Daily Online informs, presents information in a readable and computer-friendly manner. I enjoy reading it.
Keep it up !
Jeff Jarrett
University alumnus