Letters to the Editor

KKK should be allowed to hold rallies

To the Daily:

Though personally suspicious that the Klan "rallies" in Ann Arbor are meant as provocation exercises to give the KKK the conflict it needs for self promotion, I agree with Pete Donahoo's Tuesday letter about letting the KKK publicly demonstrate and even incite crowds in Ann Arbor ("Ann Arbor should not work to stop KKK from gathering").

Why haven't any of the opposition groups realized what a great opportunity it would be to get a temporary street vendor's license and sell pre-filled water (ketchup extra) balloons and fully loaded Super Squirters on KKK day?

Think of the effect of mustard or food dye on all those white sheets. The KKK wouldn't like it at all, yet selling condiments and balloons (even barbecue sauce in balloons; that's just packaging) must be at least as legal as rallying. It would also be much harder to make a case for assault or property destruction against someone throwing food or colored water than using a rock.

C'mon people, show some initiative here.

Rick Foster

University staff

How can we attain true diversity in the student body?

To the Daily:

It appears (based on letters submitted to The Michigan Daily) that there is no resistance to diversity at the University of Michigan, just as long as diversity does not include race.

Critics of affirmative action policies that include race argue that it is morally wrong to deny admission to white students who are more qualified as indicated by standardized test scores, grade point averages and so forth.

As long as "merit" is the only way to go in admissions, let's try on a truly fair and "diverse" admissions policy that allows:

a) admission of applicants who don't come from racially segregated schools;

b) admission of applicants who don't come from exclusively wealthy schools;

c) admission of applicants who have GPAs between 3.2 and 3.6 (not too high and not too low);

d) admission of applicants with SATs between 1150 and 1350 only (again, not too high and not too low;

e) 90 percent admission of in-state applicants or 100 percent in-state applicants only (keeps tuition affordable);

f) no more than 49 percent males (equivalent to overall population profile);

g) no greater than 51 percent females (equivalent to overall population profile);

h) equal weight for a "diversity plus" such as race or religion or gender or nationality (pick one);

i) one unequal weighed factor for the poorest in-state applicants (of any race) with the highest scores in the above ranges cited.

This seems to be the only way to quell the whining of in-state and out-of-state primarily wealthy, race-monotypic, gender-monotypic, income-monotypic, and phenotype-monotypic challenged critics of affirmative action. Did I forget moral-monotypic? Is this a fair admissions policy or what? At least as "fair" as the current admissions policy is to "underrepresented" racial minorities.

The truly successful know the economic value of diversity. Just ask Bill Gates or Donald Trump, neither of whom seem to have problems with the inclusion of racial minorities in their phenomenally successful lives.

Audrey Jackson

University alumna

Bicyclists must use common sense

To the Daily:

The article about bikes vs. pedestrians in the Nov. 4 edition of your Weekend, etc. supplement contains incorrect and possibly dangerous information about the traffic responsibilities of bicyclists. The article states that "According to traffic laws, bicyclists must abide by the same rules that are set forth for motor vehicles. They must ride with traffic."

This is correct. However, the added clarification which follows is incorrect: "in the United States that means the left side of the street, where they can see oncoming cars." In fact, bicyclists must ride on the right side of the street, with, rather than against traffic. As a publication from AAA Michigan states, motorists don't expect to see other vehicles going in the opposite direction from them.

This could lead to accidents. Please use common sense and ride with traffic - it could cause everyone a lot fewer problems.

Cheryl William

Engineering senior

Program offers opportunities to study in Japan

To the Daily:

This letter is a followup to Chris Leja's letter to the Daily on Nov. 9 ("Working abroad provides valuable experience"). I enjoyed reading Leja's letter about working abroad through programs like IAESTE, ICE and AIESEC.

I would like to point out that he omitted mentioning the Japan Technology Management Program. JTMP helps students to obtain paid engineering or business internships in Japan. In addition, the program also offers fellowships to study Japanese at the University of Michigan or in Japan.

I was a participant of an internship obtained through JTMP and a so benefitted from a language study fellowship. Designing part of an integrated circuit at Oki Electric in Tokyo for 8 months last year was a very intense and valuable experience.

Information about JTMP can be found at their website http://www.umich.edu/~umjtmp/.

Kirby Hong

University alumnus

Animals have the right to live without pain

To the Daily:

We would like to start by stating that we do not condone the recent activities of the Animal Liberation Front.

While we share their frustration with humans, and we know how difficult our chosen task of fighting for equal compassion for all living beings can be at times, we feel that every violent step forward is in fact a step backward.

We would also like to say that the merits, usefulness and necessity of many tax-money funded projects in "medical science," as well as the whole scope of medical research as it stands today can be debated.

In spite of this, we do not wish to start a Daily debate, much like last year between former president of the Michigan Animal Rights Society Allison Hess and several other University students.

We do want to point out a few disparities in the recent editorial "Threat Against Science."

The fact that animals were not given "rights" in the Constitution has no bearing against anything, except maybe social security.

I'll give the Daily that. One has to remember that the Constitution did not actually mean all people when it read "We the People."

It was meant to include rich, white, landowning men, not immigrants, slaves, women, political prisoners, etc. Does this mean that the only beings that are entitled to the "right" to a happy, healthy life are the ones that the Constitution is directed towards?

This is the "right" animal activists wish to extend to our fellow sentient, feeling animals, no matter their status on the "evolutionary ladder."

Yes, there is a difference between humans and non-human animals. Obviously non-human animals cannot be given the right to "vote" or to "bear arms," for example.

The difference between non-human animals and humans is that we humans literally hold their happiness and, more or less, their life in our hands.

In our view this goes far beyond "adopting a pet."

One would think that humans would naturally extend their greatest compassion to those beings who are under their mercy, but instead animal rights activists must fight to enlighten people who are ignorant or apathetic to the plight of non-human animals in all aspects of this society.

Kristie Stoick

LSA junior Rodolfo Palma LSA senior

11-11-99