Letters to the Editor

Students, not drivers, are responsible for tardiness

To the Daily:
I have very little sympathy for any student who complains about the bus system and that it might be the cause of their tardiness ("Students gripe about bus delays," 10/8/97). I've experienced the same problem myself.

However, rather than trying to pin the blame on the bus system, I decided to blame myself. What was my solution? I left for my exams and classes earlier. It is a very easy concept. All it takes is setting the alarm clock to go off a touch earlier. Et voila, no more tardiness. Not only do I arrive to class and my exams on time, but I also enjoy a comfortable bus ride, having beaten the rest of the crowds who still do as I once did.

As for the bus drivers, they do their best to get the students where they need to go in as timely a manner as possible. Many a time I have ridden a bus whose driver insisted on going through red lights and blowing past pedestrians as they unsuccessfully try to cross the street - at a pedestrian crossing, mind you. So, is it truly the driver's fault for the student's tardiness? Or is it the student's fault for the student's tardiness? I think the answer is clearly the latter. Stop griping, children. (By the way, why is there a Clinton-Gore sticker on the driver's seat in the article's accompanying photo? Has the University suddenly decided to support liberal politicians? Gasp! Maybe we should blame the drivers, after all.)

Charles Cruce
LSA senior

'U' grounds crew actions were unjust

To the Daily:
While walking outside of the MLB on Monday afternoon, I could not avoid the rather numerous and candid chalkings for queer unity and National Coming Out Day. But what became even more blatant was the blue van filled with a huge water supply connected to a powerful water spray, which a groundskeeper used purposefully to wash off the chalkings.

In my four years here at this "diverse" University, I have never witnessed such an act of utter ignorance and injustice. I have yet to see the University spend one lick of its time or money getting rid of chalkings done by the Pre-Med Club, KSA, AAA or the College Republicans. Whatever nonsense that DPS, faculty or the administration used as an excuse, the community cannot escape the fact that the University consciously rid themselves of the "gay" voices, while keeping intact - for five days - the chalkings done by the Vietnamese Student Association for an art exhibit. I cannot see how we expect the student body to be tolerant and educated on controversial issues when the administrative body sets this kind of example.

Regardless of your skin color, religion, sex or sexual orientation, this act should offend you as much as it offends me as a student and as a person of values and humanity. If the University decides to wash off chalkings, they should do it for all chalkings. But if VSA chalks in front of Rackham, Angell Hall and the UGLi (to name just a few) and no one does anything about it for five days, it is only fair and just that all student groups receive the same treatment. What is more frightening is how this intolerance will be brushed aside and not become a prominent issue because of people's unwillingness to stand up and speak out for what is right.

I can unequivocally state that this act has lessened my respect for the University as an institution of higher learning. If the University student body does not feel that all students and all student organizations should be given an equal sense of respect and dignity, then I feel no one has the right to say that we are "the leaders and the best."

Khoa Huu Nguyen
VSA Vice President
LSA senior

American society is not colorblind

To the Daily:
I would like to respond to the attacks on affirmative action that have been leveled by two of the Daily's readers over the past few days ("Affirmative action is 'un-American,'" 9/29/97 and "Affirmative action is no longer 'useful,'" 10/6/97). These attacks on affirmative action are revealing of both a lack of understanding of the purpose of affirmative action policies and a naivete about the current state of race relations in the United States.

As the cliche goes, affirmative action does seek to "level the playing field." The idea here is not, as David Jordan argues, to imply that certain groups are inferior - it is just the opposite. "Leveling the playing field" means changing the environment so that all individuals will have an equal chance. The assumption is that the environment does not afford equal opportunity to all and that we must change the environment so that equal opportunity becomes the rule.

One of the most popular arguments against affirmative action, and one voiced by both letter writers, is the notion that we must work to be a "colorblind" society. Proponents of this argument contend that affirmative action as a policy prevents this by emphasizing race as a legitimate criterion for making choices regarding job hiring and school admissions. It is time to be honest about this point - race has always been a criterion in these decisions. What affirmative action mandates is that minority racial status can no longer be a basis for rejection. Rather, it must be considered a basis for acceptance and admission. To assert that we are a colorblind society, or even that we are approaching such a state, is just downright silly. To claim, as Jordan does, that "today, there are enough enlightened individuals to ensure that everyone has a fair chance" is to deny the reality that confronts us every day. Race is still a defining feature of American society. One need only refer to the O.J. Simpson trial or the Rodney King debacle to realize this.

At times, I have felt quite ambivalent about affirmative action policies and speculated about how they might have personally affected me and placed me at a disadvantage. This ambivalence, however, does not lead me to conclude that we must discard the policy. Few will argue that affirmative action is a perfect solution; rather, it is an imperfect solution for an admittedly imperfect society.

Ben Gorvine
Rackham

Explanation of editorial cartoons?

To the Daily:
On Oct. 1, I opened up the Daily to the editorial page in order to read the editorial cartoon. The first thing I saw was a picture of Bob Dylan with Jimi Hendrix's haircut. Standing on his arm was a man wearing a tie saying "Yeah ... Yeah ... Blowing in the wind! Yeah ... Yeah ..." The caption read "Pope John Paul Ringo." While it was quite obvious to me why this cartoon was side-splittingly hilarious, perhaps some of your slower readers would benefit from an explanation of the intricacies of this panel.

Also, for the sake of the "comically impaired," do you think you could print an explanation of the Sept. 17 strip? You know, the screamingly self-explanatory one which featured a bald man talking on a cellular phone saying, "That's right, lower interest rates," as his secretary says "Uh ... Mr. Greenspan, your tie was little more expensive than I thought." Of course, I know why a man bearing absolutely no resemblance to Alan Greenspan being told about the price of his tie is as simple to understand as the Sept. 3 comic featuring a man with six arms and an elongated sea anemone growing out of his head exclaiming "Good Morning!" Good morning, indeed!

Perhaps this man is having such a good morning because he just read the Sept. 25 Kuniyuki cartoon that features an old man who rocks in his chair for four panels, is asked "What are you waiting for old timer?" and responds "Things to change," as a sun with the numbers 8 and 4 written on it rises above a horizon labeled "Field of Dreams." Please help ensure that I am not the only reader whose mornings have been made good by these simple yet effective cartoons.

Anthony Zaret
RC junior

10-10-97