Letters to the Editor

Daily's coverage of debate was misleading

To the Daily:

The March 19 Daily article on Ward Connerly's speech at the Michigan League seriously misrepresented the events that occurred ("Connerly met with debate, high emotion"). The implication of the article's second paragraph is that Connerly was unable to fully express himself because supporters of affirmative action were present and actually made up the majority of the audience. But as the article later said, Connerly spoke for only 10 minutes, and within this time period, he gave what appeared to be a complete speech. In other words, he was not forced to stop speaking and answer questions but rather completed his speech and moved on to the previously announced question-and-answer period.

Of course, to even say that Connerly answered questions might be going a bit far as his "responses" rarely consisted of more than glib insults and warm historical fuzzies about the United States that bore no relation to actual history. (My favorite was that the United States has not traditionally tolerated unfair treatment based on race. What about slavery or the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II?) Perhaps the most important question raised but not addressed by Connerly was why he is more interested in eliminating programs that benefit people of color and women than he is in fighting the tremendous income and wealth differentials that exist between white males and others in this country?

The comments made by state Sen. David Jaye (R-Macomb) in the article were also very interesting. In saying that opponents of affirmative action should have been allowed to speak, Jaye conveniently ignores the fact that all were allowed to wait in line for a chance to ask questions and that Connerly left the podium before any of his supporters could address him. The only attempt to provide "preferences" to people because of their political beliefs was when the event's moderator attempted to call upon a speaker from the crowd (who was obviously a supporter of Connerly). To his credit, Connerly decided to keep with the announced format, but anyone who was there could see that he only did because of an outpouring of protest against the moderator's undemocratic suggestion. Some, of course, called this rude and a violation of freedom of speech, but in reality, it was simply the only action that supporters of affirmative action could take in order to force Connerly and his ilk to play by the rules which they themselves set up.

It should have been clear to anyone who attended the forum that Connerly was unable to intellectually defend his positions and that the supporters of affirmative action could and did defend theirs in an articulate and intelligent manner. Unfortunately, the Daily and other media sources completely ignored this and decided to portray Connerly as the victim of an unruly mob unwilling to listen to him. Supporters of affirmative action such as myself did listen to Connerly and did not hear a single argument from him that he was willing to defend intellectually. Instead, all we heard were attacks on affirmative action, one of the few programs ever that has attempted to remedy the inequalities based on gender and race that have and continue to exist in this country.

Micah Holmquist
LSA sophomore

Day of action opponents' reasoning is 'empty'

To the Daily:

In the days following the National Day of Action, I have noticed a number of letters to the Daily condemning the collective action for various empty reasons. There seems to be two types of disgruntled students, though they probably are very like-minded: those who felt the protesters brief disruption of classes in Angell Hall was rude and inappropriate, and those elitist anti-affirmative action students who disparage the protest itself - often referring to vocal affirmative action supporters as "racists," if you can believe that one.

To the former: I'm sorry you briefly had to open your eyes and ears to the sights and sounds of social struggle. Of course you would much rather remain in your narrow little world, where everyone's biggest problem is where they are going for spring break. But you see, that is what protest is all about. We are letting comfortable people like you know that the status quo is not providing for everyone. There are thousands of students across this country with bigger problems, like whether they will have an opportunity to receive a real education.

To those who were outright against the protest, those who honestly believe affirmative action is discrimination, I have a question: Why are you so silent, so invisible? Those in support of affirmative action are angry, invigorated and willing to sacrifice a day of class to come together in protest. You are claiming that the entire white race is being viciously discriminated against - quite a claim - but not one demonstration, never any student activism. Why is that? Maybe it is because - as deep down we all know - your arguments are without substance and are shameful defenses of an inequitable status quo.

Isa Kasoga
LSA first-year student

Affirmative action fosters bigotry

To the Daily:

The recent uproar over the issue of affirmative action at U of M and colleges across the country has raised some important issues that must be addressed in our country. Proponents of affirmative action do right to point out that inequality still exists between races in our country. But it is important for everyone to remember that the purpose of any civil rights movement should be to bring equality of rights and unity to the people. This concept seems to have been largely ignored on campus recently.

First, proponents of affirmative action have decided that inequality at other levels in society should be solved not by eliminating the inequality (for example, by giving equal government funding to all public education institutions) but by creating a separate inequality at another level that will balance out the original problem. This seems a bit like complaining that one side of the room is dirty and then throwing garbage all over the other side to even it out. Judgements on the basis of race do not eliminate but perpetuate racial discrimination. Inequality does not beget equality.

Second, a great deal of divisive language has been used of late. This is the same sort of language that implants the seed of racism in the heads of little kids that will become full-blown bigotry when they are adults. Calling anyone who is against affirmative action a racist or a resegregationist is pure propaganda.

Any movement of this type should attempt to blur the lines between race so that we can forget this childish notion of "I am this color, you are that color" and move on. Instead, the current affirmative action movement on campuses across the United States has served only to create a larger gap between people of different races. How can we expect our children to grow up believing that all people are simply people, regardless of what they look like, if we ourselves are constantly arguing over who's music this is, who's language that is, who can go in what lounge, or who has exactly the correct number of people in which college. Unless we forget this ludicrous notion of brotherhood with people of "our own kind," we will do nothing but create an entirely new generation of politically correct, closet bigots. The answer is not to make a million meticulous decisions based on race but to stop pretending that the differences between us are anything more than cultural differences that we perpetuate by our own ignorant decision-making.

Timothy Courtois
LSA first-year student

03-26-98