To the Daily:
I am writing in response to Elissa Edelstein ("OSU came through for 'U' fans,"4/8/98). Edelstein should not have portrayed herself as a representative of the U of M Club of Greater Boston's leadership. Furthermore, she should have accumulated all of the facts before writing her letter.
To set the record straight, the limited number of tickets to the final four that were allocated to the University were used by the Athletic Department and in sales to season ticket holders. Unfortunately, the Alumni Association was unable to acquire any tickets for its members or alumni clubs. We did, in fact, work hard to attempt to secure tickets for the members of the club, but our efforts proved futile when dealing with the great demand in the city of Boston.
I was happy to hear that an Ohio State University alum, who also happens to be a friend of the club, was not only able to secure tickets to the final four, but also willing to share four of them with our club. Now that's good sportsmanship! What I find disappointing with Edelstein's comments is her lack of knowledge regarding the situation and her willingness to openly criticize the Alumni Association, who diligently tried to secure tickets for the club. Furthermore, Edelstein would not have been given access to the ticket that she received had she not been a member of the club. Her comment that club membership did not help her in this situation is false.
I have spoken with the president of the U of M Club of Greater Boston, and he has assured me that although they are disappointed that no tickets were available, Edelstein's comments do not reflect the opinions of the club.
There are 165 officially recognized U of M alumni clubs and contacts around the world who strive to work in their local communities to bring alumni together and represent the University. The Alumni Association is proud of these groups, and works hard to support each one!
Jeffrey Schoenherr
University alumnus Manager, Legislative Advocacy and Alumni Clubs, University Alumni Association
To the Daily:
As an organizer of the Media Stereotypes Student Panel, I want to express regret. I advertised, as with all the events last week, that this event will be in observance of the President's Initiative on Race. The night before the event, I learned that the initiative neglected to include Native Americans.
Two of the panelists of Native American descent read statements at the onset of the panel describing why they could not participate. It was completely legitimate, and I admire their decisions. But as students on this campus, we must be making a similar decision. Do we really want to participate in a program designed to increase racial awareness when it is exclusive to certain groups? No one should deny the centrality of Native American history on the foundation of this country. As one of the panelists said, U of M was built on land formerly held by the group not embraced by the White House.
This is why I regret "observing" the initiative. I do apologize to the Native American community for recognizing and using the initiative for the backdrop of the event.
The other issue I need to discuss is that of Israel's 50th anniversary celebration. As cake is being passed out in the fishbowl and people commemorate the anniversary of one of our nation's staunchest allies, we should be aware that the history of Israel is draped in blood.
The continued oppression of the Palestinian people, the illegal occupation and settlements of land belonging to Palestinians (as United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair recently proclaimed), and the murderous policies executed by Israel must all be considered amid cake, lectures and dance shows. The state of Israel came with a price. That price was the lives and livelihood of the Palestinian people.
Will Youmans
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
I was extremely disgusted by the comments of Sandy Norton and others in reference to the tragedy in Jonesboro, Ark. ("Vigil focuses on violence," 4/8/98). I think the comments and the vigil stooped to the basest self-servitude and attention grabbing. Norton is quoted as saying, "... this was just another example of men gunning down women because they were not getting what they want."
Hello! Sandy, these boys were age 13 or younger. Age, and some would say maturity, as opposed to the presence of a penis, is the primary determinant of being a man or child. To suggest this was some sort of "men gunning down women" issue, you must be ignoring the fact that these little "men" were raised by parents. Before anyone gets me wrong, I also think children killing anyone is a horiffic act. But if we are going to hold a vigil, I think we should hold a vigil about the failures of society and yes, the parents of these boys. Let's not forget that most women around the country routinely claim credit for being the "real" parent of children in this country.
Let's not turn every tragedy into a publicity stunt for some race- or gender-based group's agenda. Let's remember the tragedy and lives lost. But let's not push male bashing and hating down to the level of children! I can assure you, bashing male children will not allow boys to grow to men that love and respect women anymore then bashing adult males will bring us any closer to equality or unity.
Carlos Hernandez Ford
Medical School
To the Daily:
In regard to the Daily's editorial "Admitted failure" (4/7/98), I would like first to applaud the Daily for finally coming out and taking a stand on such a divisive issue and then decry the Daily for completely missing the boat. One cannot participate in a debate about affirmative action without hearing that now-familiar buzzword, "diversity." My only question is this: Why? Why forced diversity? I was pleasantly surprised by the diversity of this campus when I first arrived, but I would hardly say that it is integral to my education. When I step into a lecture hall, I don't look around to see if the faces are mostly white, mostly black or a harmonious mixture, I look at the professor, because that is what I am here to do. What affirmative action proponents are fighting for is diversity simply for the sake of diversity, which is illogical and requires practices that are both immoral and illegal to implement.
First, a little background on the University's affirmative action policy: 20 points are awarded to a student belonging to an underrepresented minority, which is one-fifth of the total needed for automatic acceptance. Essentially, the color of the applicant's skin is quantitatively more important than SAT scores, essay and leadership combined. These figures appear in black and white in the University's admissions criteria.
So, it comes down to race. Let's discuss ...
What affirmative action supporters have failed to recognize is that there is a bottom line that simply cannot be defied, and that bottom line is, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Sound familiar? It should. It's first section of the 14th Amendment. The Constitution and its pursuant laws are, by definition, the supreme law of the land. One such pursuant law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, states, "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be ... subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Therefore, racial preferences in admissions, like the ones employed by our very own University are, that's right, unconstitutional. So before the affirmative action supporters waste too much time in court and too much money on lawyers, they might want to look that one up.
Avi Derrow
LSA sophomore
04-16-98
| Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |