Letters to the Editor

'U' denied admission to 'deserving' students

To the Daily:

In all of the controversy surrounding the lawsuit filed against the University, I think everyone is forgetting the most important aspect of the suit: Two very deserving people were denied admission to the University because of the conscious effort of admissions to represent "diverse areas."

Clearly there is a need for affirmative action. There are a great number of minorities that simply are not given an equal opportunity in the work force, in education and in other aspects of life as well. Affirmative action has done its job in giving those minorities a chance, but to what extent should it be extended? Should the University give priority to "lesser" students because they are of minority groups? Affirmative action was set up to create a more equal nation, giving opportunities to minorities who otherwise could not get those opportunities due to racism. Equality is what its main driving force was, and still should be today. But denying anyone admission because of their racial background is not promoting equality even if it is within the quota system promoted by affirmative action. It is contradicting equality by pointing out the irrelevant.

It is true that the University is a very diverse place. The people that are here should be proud to be a part of one of the most prestigious universities in the nation. What of Patrick Hamacher and Jennifer Gratz, who, under questionable admissions policies, were denied the ability to attend the University? Should they feel proud to have been considered but denied because they do not fit a quota? Clearly, things need to be changed one way or another. Admissions should not be based on ethnicity but on merit. If someone is intellectually ready and deserving to attend the University, then they should be allowed to attend, whether that person be black, white or otherwise.

Eric Conn
LSA sophomore

BAMN contradicts diversity efforts

To the Daily:

I have been reading about the upcoming lawsuit against the University's admissions policy with interest. I support affirmative action. However, the one voice in this whole dialogue who I completely disagree with is pro-affirmative action, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary. Whether the name is merely a scare tactic or real violence is impending on anyone who holds an opinion against affirmative action, I am irked.

I understand that this issue may mean a lot to members of BAMN, but there are two sides to an argument. Maybe it's time they take a step back and look at the big picture. They fight for affirmative action because it promotes diversity. What is diversity? It is more than just skin color. A diverse campus, such as ours, should strive for diversity of backgrounds, appearances and ideas. This is the contradiction of BAMN. Anyone who claims to be "diverse" does not threaten violence against supporters of an idea which he or she does not like. If members of BAMN are representative of this campus, the attempt for true diversity is failing.

Kirk Meulen
Engineering senior

Editorial mistreated important debate

To the Daily:

I feel very deeply that the debate over affirmative action must be a serious one, as it is likely to be the most important topic of public discussion here at the University over the next year. As such, I was appalled a the atrocious journalistic quality of the Daily's recent piece ("Under attack," 10/16/97).

First off, legislators were referred to as "legislatures." But much more importantly, a little later in the piece, the second half of a sentence appeared to have been left on the editing room floor. That sentence, as printed, reads, "In that decision, the court ruled that although affirmative action may among many factors in hiring and admissions decisions." The apparent omission of the conclusion of that thought not only resulted in poor grammar, but also served to eliminate the most salient point of the court's decision in the Bakke case.

To quote Justice Powell's decision in the case, "While the goal of achieving a diverse student body is sufficiently compelling to justify consideration of race in admissions decision under some circumstances, petitioner's special admissions program, which forecloses consideration to persons like respondent, is unnecessary to the achievement of this compelling goal and therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause."

Although the Bakke case is most remembered for legitimizing the use of race in University admissions "under some circumstances," it also prohibited its use as a factor under most circumstances. It is in that interpretation that the lawsuit against the University rests - to delete it from the Daily's half-hearted summary of the case was at best negligent and at worst prejudicial.

I sincerely hope the Daily treats the debate over affirmative action with more care in the future.

David Burden
Engineering junior

Swastika is a 'symbol of truth'

To the Daily:

Ryan Hudson's letter "Swastika has a 'hideous connotation" (10/15/97), has hit home in a very disrespectful way. Hudson's remark that "(Hindus) should be grateful it (swastika) was only a mere part of the symbolism of their tradition that the Nazis stole from them," basically implies that Hindu culture, one of the most ancient, spiritual, and tolerant cultures in the world, could be rooted out of human existence based on the actions of a few ignorant individuals. Hudson's implication is an affront to not only Hindu culture, but to all cultures and religions of the world. By believing that an individual would rid themselves of their faith due to the intolerant manipulative actions of others, Hudson underestimates reverence people have for their traditions and culture.

Second, Hudson's implication shows that he confuses the distinction between a symbol and the underlying beliefs behind that symbol. Hudson writes, "Any merit the swastika ever had was washed away by the innocent blood of 12 million undesireables." A set of analogies can adequately demonstrate that such a contention is both disrespectful and illogical.

Hudson fails to distinguish between a symbol and the meaning behind of this symbol. In the examples above, we must recognize that it is the individual action that is evil in each case; it does not reflect on the symbol itself, be it a flag or religious symbol. Symbols are quite simply mental representations of our ideas. These ideas can be good or bad. When I think of the swastika, I see it as a symbol of truth and harmony as intended in the ancient Vedic scriptures. I am also, as Hudson is, very saddened by the fact that this symbol was manipulated by intolerant individuals to serve their own purposes. However, Hudson has chosen to view the symbol of the swastika solely in its manipulated form as evil, and might I add exactly as the way the perpetrators of the Holocaust would have desired. The evil of their actions is remembered rather than the purity of the original symbol of the swastika and its important underlying message.

I feel that we stand at a crossroads. We must decide how to address hatred against people of distinct religions, races, sexual orientations, etc. We could take a passive and reactive response that will likely be unable to unify the campus community and possibly disrespect others. Or we could take a pro-active approach to these issues and imbue into others a sense of openness, tolerance, and goodness. Hitler had the audacity to turn an ancient Hindu symbol around. I can only hope that we have the courage to turn it back around to its original intent.

Anand Parekh
Medical School first-year student

10-24-97