For example, in an introductory linguistics course, Carlos Hernandez could have learned why his letter ("English over Ebonics," 1/22/97) was based on a misunderstanding. Although the political reasons for wanting to officially recognize Ebonics are various, the empirical fact remains: Ebonics is not just "poor grammar" or "sloppy English." It is as structured, syntactically and semantically, as the kind of English he was taught in high school.
You can say things correctly or incorrectly in Ebonics; there are particular instances in which it is appropriate to use the infinitive form "to be" and particular instance in which is it not; and there are grammatical rules. These are not "normativ e" rules - they are not taught as such in schools.
But they are elements of the structure of the way the language is used. If you don't believe me, try visiting a neighborhood (there are several in Detroit) where a form of Ebonics is the primary means of communication, and speak "sloppy English" to people - and see what kind of reaction you get.
The idea that Ebonics is simply "sloppy" English is as misinformed as the notion that African Americans "can't learn proper English." Of course, no one ever suggested that - that is also based on misinformation on Hernandez's part. In fact, the edu cational agenda is to make use of Ebonics in teaching "proper English" -much in the same way that Spanish is used when teaching English as a second language to native Spanish speakers.
Greg Stevens
Rackham
In their most recent protest (disrupting the City Council meeting beyond the point of productiveness), they are fighting for a homeless shelter. Curtin claims that decent housing is a right, not a privilege. Nowhere in any government document or the Bill of Rights does it give these rights. Last time I checked the First Amendment, it didn't say that we have the right to freedom of press, freedom of religion and the right to housing.
Maybe if NWROC took a logical approach to the situation, things could be cleared up. Suppose if the City Council did build another shelter as NWROC has "demanded" they do. It would cost more money coming from tax dollars and quite possibly won't sol ve the problem. Now, let's say that the armory was turned into a condo unit. This would lead to an increase of revenue to the city, which equates into more tax dollars. Then, with this new money, the City Council could afford to build another shelte r without laying the burden onto the citizens and students at the University.
The University should be concerned with NWROC's tactics. They have taken passionate ideals for their causes, but seem more concerned about stirring up trouble and garnering press coverage. Curtin states that NWROC's goal is to build a militant civil rights movement. Hasn't the recent Martin Luther King Jr. holiday taught us anything different?
NWROC has continued to complain and take radical approaches to protest. However, they refuse to listen to solutions, and they won't accept any compromises. It is nearly impossible to negotiate with a group unwilling to listen. I call for the Daily a nd the University to stop treating NWROC as legitimate fighters for civil rights and instead to treat them as the militant radicals they are.
David Taub
LSA first-year student
To address her first comment, the Review is not a forum for "bonehead" Republicans. While the message is indeed moderately conservative and libertarian in ideology, the Review staff has published many features and essays by self-proclaimed Democrats , as seen in our pre-election issue.
And as for the comment about not being able to make it at the Daily, I would like to remind Hutchins that two of our current writers, Matt Buckley and Maureen Sirhal, are both former members of the Daily. Furthermore, Weekend, etc. editor Greg Parke r and columnist Dean Bakopoulos, who are probably the best thing that has ever happened to the Daily since Tom Hayden, were both part of the Review editorial staff. I don't think you can realistically call Dean a "bonehead Republican," do you?
And finally, to address the comment about not being "able to get another issue out for six months," our every-third-week publishing schedule works the way it does because the Review staff is committed to publishing a paper written by students intend ing to provide a more thoughtful, alternative viewpoint. I suppose if we pulled the majority of our news stories off of the Associated Press wire and had our paper printed at The Ann Arbor News, we might be able to turn out an issue more.
However, I think many on this campus much rather appreciate the actual analytical and in-depth coverage of a wide range of issues done by alternative campus papers like the Review and the Michigan Independent over the watered-down, processed stories that comprise so much of the Daily. Geoff Brown's comments speak for themselves, but not for the rest of the Review staff.
Evan Knott
LSA sophomore, Campus Affairs editor, The Michigan Review
However, in my senior year, I woke to a world of arts. Art programs at most high schools have been losing funding every year. With this focus on math and science, we forget that other programs lose their focus.
Even English classes in high school have a methodical life to them. Instead of spending four years learning to become a proficient writer, I spent it analyzing symbols, looking for methapors and trying to understand syntax. Analyzing literature has nothing to do with real life, but it is a scientific approach to an art and so it is stressed.
Not every member of this society has a left-brained focus; many in fact are right-brained. It is quite obvious that these individuals and the arts in general are the ones hurt when we make math and science our priority.
Patrick Elkin
LSA first-year student