Letters to the Editor

King Hussein had impact on

students' lives

To the Daily:

The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee Executive Board would like to extend its condolences to the Jordanian students on campus for their loss of King Hussein this week. In the midst of all of the media attention surrounding the King's death, this should be a time of reflection for Jordanians and non-Jordanians alike.

King Hussein's reign was marked by many bold decisions, drawing both praise and controversy. Regardless of what one may think of King Hussein's leadership, it is important to remember that he had an undeniable impact on Middle East politics and the lives of the Jordanian people. His legacy leaves us with much to contemplate as the new Jordanian leadership comes to power.

Bisan Salhi

LSA senior President UM-ADC

Affirmative action policies should be changed

Fortunately, due to recent Supreme Court decisions and university law suits, many University students have eagerly come forward to voice either their unwavering support of, or extreme opposition to, affirmative action.

I use the term "fortunately" because it's always valuable to learn something about the diverse ideology of the people that you're around all year. Unfortunately, however, something disturbing strikes me about most of the affirmative action literature and speakers that I've encountered on this campus. Many people who regularly address the topic of affirmative action in their articles and speeches seem to neglect the opposing view's good points entirely.

It seems to me that affirmative action, at least the way it's applied in most institutions, is wrong. University admissions policies clearly favor some applicants over others solely on the basis of skin color, and in doing so commit an injustice against non-minority students. By encouraging these policies, we are advocating a form of racism. However, despite these views, I am very much opposed to simply abolishing the institution of affirmative action.

This is because while our current application of affirmative action is wrong, it would be more wrong to ban its institution altogether.

Affirmative action currently harms some non-minority students, but removing it would cause a greater degree of harm, as it would prove detrimental to not only minority students, but to society as a whole.

Banning affirmative action means a dramatic decline in minority enrollment in most universities, which in turn means University students will have less exposure to and less awareness of differing racial groups. In this type of atmosphere, in which students would have little direct experience to offset untrue dehumanizing stereotypes about minorities, pervasive racist attitudes would likely flourish. And some of history's greatest moral atrocities should enlighten us as to the possible outcomes of these attitudes.

So it seems that there are problems with our current application of affirmative action, but there are also problems with simply removing those policies. So instead of ignoring one problem in favor of the other, I suggest we search for solutions that address both problems.

One article from a popular journal, for example, suggested that the main disparity between minority and non-minority students was in their SAT and ACT scores. The article stated that according to recent studies, those test scores do not effectively predict the performance of students in college, and they provide even less insight into the potential occupational success of a student. The article advocated either abolishing those test scores altogether, or placing considerably less weight on them as factors in the college admissions process.

Perhaps if admissions committees placed more emphasis on other factors such as leadership positions, volunteer efforts or other aspects of an applicant's background that indicate motivation and a dedication to excellence, there would likely be less of a need - and maybe no need at all - for affirmative action. Obviously, this suggestion may not be feasible for admissions officers, but it's definitely a start to addressing both sides of the affirmative action controversy.

Monique Wonderly

LSA senior

Reasons Notre Dame did not join the Big Ten

To the Daily:

So Notre Dame has declined an invitation to enter the Big Ten. Originally, I was a big supporter of the Irish joining the best collegiate football conference in the country. However, my opinions have since changed.

Call it bitterness if you must; I simply call it "wising up." The reasons given for Notre Dame remaining independent in football were based on three core characteristics - Catholic, private and independent.

I do not feel that these are the true reasons as to why Notre Dame will not become the newest team in the Big Ten.

I now give you the five true reasons that the Irish shied away from joining the Big Ten:

5. Fear of a possible schedule including Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan State.

4. A clause in the contract stated that in order to join the Big Ten, Notre Dame first has to ban that stupid dancing leprechaun from all football games.

3. In the Big Ten, skirts (or "kilts" as the Irish call them) are reserved for female students only.

2. As an independent, their fight song remains tops among independent schools. In the Big Ten, it would be second fiddle to "The Victors."

1. No one wants to be the red-headed little brother in a family with 11 older, stronger brothers.

(Note: I myself am a red-headed Catholic)

Christopher Zann

LSA sophomore

Gun manufacturer lawsuits are 'flawed'

To the Daily:

I am writing in response to the Daily's Feb. 9 editorial "Obstruction of justice." The logic behind suing gun makers is flawed. There is no possible way that a manufacturer of a product can be held liable for its use by others. Ford Motor Company would now be liable for every incident of road rage. Why not make car manufacturers pay for accidents? Why not make Louisville Slugger pay for every assault with a bat?

Reality is that gun manufacturers are not as large as tobacco corporations and these law suits intend to destroy all domestic manufacturers of firearms with legal fees and large settlements.

Second, the Daily failed to mention the benefits of firearms to society. It was stated that $3 billion is spent on medical costs due to firearms. According to Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, in the 31 states that allow concealed handguns, violent crime is less likely to occur. This reduction in violent crime saves at least $6.214 billion in those states. The $3 billion is more than off set.

Also, it was stated that 34,000 deaths occur annually from firearms, yet about half of that number are suicides. Suicides are tragic, but it is misleading to throw that number in with violent crime.

All corporations deserve immunity from lawsuits like this. The next step will be suits on owners of stolen cars because they allowed their car to be stolen and used in a high speed chase. These lawsuits go after the wrong party. Maybe the entire nation of China should be sued - for inventing gun powder.

Joseph Lukas

LSA junior

02-12-99