The term "homosexual" means "a person who is primarily attracted to persons of the same sex." As a bisexual woman who is involved with men more often than women, but remains deeply committed to queer activism, this term does not speak to me at all. Therefore, I explicitly reject the term "homosexual" in favor of "queer" or "LGBT" when talking about non-heterosexual people. Ironically, the Daily quoted me as saying I wanted more "non-homosexual" people to come to the sexual orientation panel - missing the fact that I myself am not homosexual, and neither were the bisexual audience members present.
Zack Raimi's column on the Kiss-In ("Kiss-In allows freedom of expression - and of affection," 2/13/97), while extremely supportive, also exclusively discussed homosexuality - for example, by referring to "the homosexual community" and its goals. < p> As one of the organizers of the Kiss-In, I feel strange coming across this reference to a community to which I do not belong and the assumption that the organizers of the Kiss-In are all homosexual. In fact, some of us aren't.
The term "queer community" or "LGBT community" more accurately reflects the composition of campus activist groups like Queer Unity Project.
Bisexuals have historically been excluded from both heterosexual and homosexual communities and are even told that we really "don't exist." This is beginning to change, but language needs to change as well in order for bisexuals to feel that our ex periences are validated.
I self-identify as a bisexual activist working within a queer community. The Daily needs to refrain from misquoting me and other bisexual students as talking about "homosexuality," a word with which we do not identify. The Daily and the wider Michi gan community needs to acknowledge our existence.
Neela Ghoshal
LSA/RC sophomore
To me, there is a bigger issue at hand than the actions that Probir took. During his term as MSA vice president, Probir has always made it known that his first goal is to assist the students and their organizations in any way he can. In this way, he has been more than just vice president, he hasn't been only involved in the day-to-day legislating of MSA. Probir has been a true voice of his constituents, always campaigning for more funding and assistance from MSA for student organizations.
True, a mistake was made, but it was made with good intentions: to help the students. Probir is not trying to hide his mistake, so there is no reason for this investigation to be happening.
The real issue is if MSA is doing what they are elected to do. They are there to assist the student body. The fault here is not in Probir's actions, but in the problem of how to prevent this from happening again. How can MSA correct the system so th at organizations can receive funding in the summer? This is what they should be concentrating on. MSA should be forming committees of student leaders to discuss this problem, not committees of investigation.
If MSA really wants to "right a wrong" as LSA Rep. Andy Schor was quoted as saying, then I urge MSA members to try to correct the funding system to better assist student groups. To Mr. Schor, righting a wrong means to correct the situation, not to t ry to see who you can punish. By faulting Probir for an action he took to defend the students and to assist an organization, we gain nothing.
MSA, I urge you to be true leaders, recognize that the fault lies in the system and to take a stand to correct it. Show us before the upcoming elections that you sit on MSA to be leaders not just to be politicians.
Tushar Sheth
Engineering junior
Elkins' heart seems to be in the right place. I would like to respond to some of his points and try to convince him that taking control of public schools away from local school boards would be a good thing.
Elkins says that people who have experience with failing schools will be able to improve them more easily than state government officials. Possibly. But the state government can bring in talented personnel who have either turned around failing schoo ls or who have at least had experience in schools that are not failing, so that they know what characterizes a successful school.
Elkins is skeptical that good teachers leave troubled school districts in our present system. Let me first say that I taught in an urban high school and I actually observed the migration patterns I described in my previous letter. Teachers are real people and they have many different motivations, altruism being but one. Money is a motivator, although when a teacher leaves a poorer district for a more wealthy one, money is generally much less of a factor than location and working conditions. Th ere are ways to justify leaving to yourself without feeling like a shameful deserter. When I was getting my teacher training, a master teacher instructor who taught in a nice suburban school told us, "If you find that the environment in the school you are in makes it impossible for you to teach and help children, then move out as soon as you can to a school where it is possible. That is what I did."
No, I do not think policemen and real estate agents are idiots. But I do think that the quantity and quality of academic training of the people running the schools will have an effect on the education the children will receive.
That brings us to the class thing. If we have families who for generations tend to fall in the same relative income bracket and do a similar kind of work, then we have classes. If we have whole towns where the people are predominantly of one class, then we not only have classes, but we have segregation by class.
The breakdown of classes begins with social mobility. Social mobility means that a child has a chance to end up doing a very different kind of work and having a different income level than his or her parents. Of course we have some social mobility. But we would have more if the educational opportunities for children were more uniform, which would be the case if we had a statewide school system instead of locally-controlled schools. There would also be less economic segregation, since the huge variation in the quality of local schools is one of the forces that causes affluent families to live together in exclusive communities.
Gov. John Engler's takeover proposal is a step in the right direction, albeit a very small step.
David Sirkin
Medical School