To the Daily:
How could a self-declared "true advocate" of civil rights like Dustin Lee claims to be say the things he did in his letter ("Affirmative action detrimental to 'U'" 10/11/99)? Knowing now that one has to feel rather strongly about his or her opinions in order to air them in the Daily, I am amazed that a so-called defender of "equal rights and opportunities" for everyone could say such things. It appears that Lee has a very elementary view of what affirmative action truly means.
I do not agree completely with the ways affirmative action has been used here, but it is an essential institution to make this University the best it can possibly be. Unfortunately, affirmative action gets the reputation of only being a way to create racial diversity within the 'U' - when, in reality, it was established to help create an equal playing field for students who have not had the same luxuries as a student who went to a prestigious private high school where they were able to take five AP classes their senior year alone (not to mention four in their junior year as well).
First of all, you can't tell me that a talented artist, musician or athlete has any less of a right to be here than anyone else. Honing their specific talent has taken up more time and dedication than simply studying for an econ exam. It is no wonder why their grades suffer, they put so much time into another aspect of the University. They may not be as academically qualified, but these different backgrounds enrich the University in other ways.
Maybe race is too much of an issue, when it should be a socio-economic issue. If affirmative action was in place 60 years ago, maybe it would be your relatives who were helped by the program; German, Irish and Chinese immigrants back then were in a similar place as blacks and Latino/as are today. True affirmative action has little to do with racial diversity, it is merely a benefit.
Andrew Ladd
LSA first-year student
To the Daily:
Okay, what is with the cellular phone phenomenon? How many times have you been walking on campus and passed someone yacking away in the Diag? Are they having an important conversation, or just trying to look cool? Is it really necessary to skim through the numbers programmed into your phone in the middle of a lecture? Are you just trying to prove your studliness to the girl sitting next to you?
I can understand how cell phones can be useful as a safety precaution on a long road trip, but on the walk to the Union? And don't even tell me you are dropping a line to your buddy in West Quad to see what he is up to; there are campus phones everywhere!
Let me reassure you, if you think one of those things makes you look appealing, you are sadly mistaken. Most people passing you will roll their eyes in disgust. Next time, stop and think before you bring your phone to the CCRB for a work-out. Come on now - don't be that guy.
Emily Mulla
Nursing junior
To the Daily:
I am writing in response to the Daily's Oct. 6 editorial "The verdict is still out." Several of the Daily's blatantly biased assumptions must be brought to light.
First, the assumption that because the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the use of race as an admissions factor, there will be devastating effects on minorities applying to top schools in that district. Why? Is it because they do not have the numbers to get in without relying on their race as a crutch? This is as preposterous as it is insulting to all the minorities who attend the nation's top universities and thrive due to their hard work and intelligence.
Another assumption of the Daily's is that race seems to be the only assurance of diversity on campus. I guess the argument goes you can learn more from someone of a different color than from someone with different ideas with whom you happen to share pigment. It sounds to me like minorities are being typecast to fit a specific niche on campus - the provider of diversity. I thought affirmative action was supposed to erase the prejudices of race.
In this light, I wonder how "affirmative action would help dissolve the country's enormous monetary and racial gaps," as the Daily claims. I guess by bringing qualified students down and unqualified students up serves to somehow bring parity to the different classes of peoples. How does discriminating against a person serve to "dissolve" anything? Perhaps you should write that under the calculus of affirmative action two forms of discrimination turn out to equal equality. How profound, to correct one wrong another must rise up and take its place.
Rather than furthering discrimination, albeit against the majority, we should instead focus on making college an environment where merit matters, not race. Merit should decide who comes and who goes, not some vague notion of skin color as a proxy for "diversity." If you cannot get into Michigan based on merit, then why are you here and whose purpose does it serve?
Universities still have the tools to make the education process as diverse as possible. Essays on applications can take on more weight now that a box for race cannot be used to differentiate people. Is this not what affirmative action sought to create; a society based on merit where people are not punished or discriminated against because of the color of their skin?
We need to make it so all Americans have the opportunity of college regardless of their race. When this happens, you will see the racial gaps bridged, even the fissures blown wide by discriminatory affirmative action policies. Maybe then diversity will be recognized as the difference of ideas, not skin colors.
Tony Roehl
First year law student
To the Daily:
I read with utter shock and disbelief the Daily's misguided editorial regarding the refusal of funding to the Brooklyn Museum of Art "What is art?" (10/12/99). The so-called artwork in question is not "potentially offensive," it is offensive to this society. The officials who cut funding to the exhibit are not "imposing arbitrary moral standards," but are enforcing the standards of society. By allowing public funding for the display of this artwork, they would be allowing the artist to make a mockery of American society, at public expense.
Officials such as Mayor Rudy Giuliani were elected, in part, to uphold the standards of society. I think that just about every person living in America would agree that this artwork is well below those standards. He is justified, make that obligated, to uphold the standards of the society he was elected to represent. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say the government has to fund free speech - it merely says there is to be free speech. Maybe the Daily would like to go on record as contributing funds to the private display of artwork such as this; I sure don't want my tax dollars to.
Mark Powers
Business junior
To the Daily:
The hand chop did not start by copying Florida State University or copying the referee's hand signals. The credit all goes to one man: Gary Lewis, past director of the Michigan Marching Band. It all started in 1994, the first year "Temptation" was played in the stands. This was when the Marching Band stood in Section 25. Gary Lewis was conducting Temptation to the band by giving only the down beat with an open hand. The students saw this motion and quickly picked it up. Gary Lewis inadvertently created the "Temptation Taunt" (a.k.a. the hand chop). Temptation is played for a variety of situations - not only for first down or a great defensive move, but to encourage the fans to support our great football team.
Jennifer Roush Clyne
University alumnus J. Dylan Clyne Rackham
10-13-99
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |