Letters to the Editor

Daily ignored the spirit of 'U' pep band

To the Daily:
I am writing in response to the Daily's Feb. 20 Friday Focus, "What's wrong with Crisler Arena?" One of the comments was that "Superfan shouldn't have to organize every single cheer throughout the game all by himself - an active band could help."

Daily Sports Writer James Goldstein has obviously never even given half a glance toward the pep band during a game. The band constitutes some of the most enthusiastic fans at the stadium - constantly out of their chairs cheering the team on. As far as starting cheers, the Daily seems to have neglected the fact that the cheerleaders do that. Both groups do their best to be spirited, but it is difficult with the lack of participation from the crowd.

The Daily also commented that the band should be more involved like they are at Yost. This is very difficult to do since first, Yost is half the size of Crisler and second, the hockey band is more than twice the size of the basketball band. That would mean that the band would have to be four times as loud to make the same amount of noise. As it is, I have seen many members come out of games with close to no voice left. This is not a fair expectation to have.

Next time, the Daily should give it a little thought before it puts down one of the most spirited and involved organizations at the University.

Jill Reeder
LSA first-year student

Choose a 'different perspective'

To the Daily:
Life is an interesting thing. I read the Daily every day and I usually read the letters box. The letters often discuss current issues, views favoring affirmative action, dismissing affirmative action, regarding racial problems at the University or discrimination based on sexual orientation. I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to these issues. All too often, there is no one answer. But I will say one thing. Although these issues are an important part of many people's life, I spend very little time considering them. I see how important these issues are to people and I laugh. All too often, students hide behind these issues, this University, this town, alcohol, drugs, friends, school work and more of the same. Everyone tends to forget what it is that matters most.

As Dr. Gregory Shaltz, a good friend of mine, once taught me, my friends and my interactions with them are what is most important. I find that I do not have to hide behind anything when I am with them. So many people are hiding behind something. Too many people put on an alter ego for those that they interact with. It makes me sad. I am not trying to save the world - I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I would like to remind everyone that these issues and these alter egos are inhibiting and they are blinding. Sometimes, everyone should take a step back and look at everything from a different perspective. Stop and smell the roses if you will, and find out what it is that is most important.

So next time a discussion ensues about someone else's beliefs, their fashion sense or their lifestyle remember that most people find it easier to discuss other people's problems than their own. People think that by solving others' problems that are similar to their own they have in effect solved their own. This is not true, it is merely another way to avoid one's own problems. I am reminded of the quote, "If you want to save the world, try saving yourself." This may not be as heartless a comment as it seems. After all, how can you be happy with anyone else if you can't be happy with yourself?

Jonathan Zagel
Engineering sophomore

Papke should not deny racism's role

To the Daily:
In his Feb. 27 letter to the editor, "'U' policies do not solve underlying problems," Ronald Papke invites the University community to "begin the debate" on affirmative action. Although I am certain that such a debate has already begun, this letter takes him up on his passionate, if belated, invitation. While his letter is a rich source for a much lengthier response, I limit this one to four of the points Papke raises. First, even Papke must concede that he, like many of his fellow opponents of affirmative action, overstated his case against affirmative action by alluding to an illusory past. He finds it ironic that affirmative action has further "polariz(ed) the campus along racial lines" and "built the walls between races even higher." Compared to when? Certainly, he cannot mean a time prior to the Civil Rights Movement. If anyone needs any reminding, things were worse back then.

Second, to Papke's confident declaration that "higher education is not the place to solve societal ills," I urge the readers to ask themselves, "why not?" Why should universities arrogantly pretend to exist outside society and its ills? If they have long been one of the means by which societal inequalities - by class, race, gender, etc. - are reproduced, it only seems logical that universities must be targeted for progressive social change. Now if Papke earnestly seeks to expand the scope of our critical attention to include the vast racial inequities and "deterioration of (our) public schools," I am in total agreement.

Third, Papke is categorically mistaken if he believes that supporters of affirmative action advocate the "admission of a person who is not academically qualified over someone who is."

Fourth, rather than the "lower(-ing of) academic requirements for minorities," the real crux of the matter is whether the United States should acknowledge or deny the profound role that racism has played and continues to play in the lives of people of color.

Statistics showing differences in the average SAT scores, for example, seem to provide feeble bases for Papke's or anybody else's moral outrage.

Moon-Kie Jung
Rackham

Connerly lecture was poorly planned

To the Daily:
I wanted to see Ward Connerly's lecture, but I didn't get to. Neither did more than 100 other hopefuls who were mostly students. Police officers declared the room at capacity and refused to open the doors so that the unfortunate crowd could hear Connerly speak. A few TV news teams were allowed in, but no University students or community members were.

The Michigan League Ballroom was an inexcusably poor choice of venue for this widely advertised event. I cannot help but wonder whose lousy sense of public-event coordination is to blame for the hopelessly small venue. If it was a member of some student group having a first go at making arrangements for a visiting lecturer, then the asinine space deficit can be explained, though not excused.

But if any University agency or department had a hand in relegating Connerly's presentation to a room that was obviously too small, then there is a force at work far more sinister than poor planning.

Even more disappointing are reports that Connerly was screamed at and taunted by some badly-behaved students and faculty. I suppose it's predictable - though terribly sad - that young students with stronger voices than minds would revert to grade-school behavior. But certainly, the faculty has an obligation to uphold the dignity of this University - they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

So much for the marketplace of ideas for which these people claim to stand. They evidently tolerate diversity only to the degree that they aren't confronted with different people who have different viewpoints. Baffling, eh?

There is something grievously wrong with those who preach tolerance and yet actively refuse to tolerate views that differ from their own. Shame on the lot of you.

Daniel Stern
LSA junior

03-20-98