Letters to the Editor

Korean War massacre accounts lack credibility

To the Daily:

I am writing in response to Charlie Reyner's letter on the "massacre" of Korean civilians in the opening days of the Korean War ("Good and bad are not clear concepts in war," 10/12/99).

The "slaughter" that he writes so emotionally about has been reported by troops that viewed the encounter from a distance, and with few exceptions were not even involved in the incident. The troops who were involved in the shooting reported that they were under sporadic fire, and saw muzzle flashes from under the bridge. They returned fire, and there were a total of around 25 casualties, some of whom were indeed civilians, but some of whom were soldiers dressed as refugees. It was troops over a quarter mile away who reported seeing "hundreds" of bodies under the bridge.

This was not the action of hardened butchers consumed with "pure hatred and the feeling of power," but rather 19 and 20 year old kids who had been in Korea for less than two weeks. They weren't trying to fulfill some fantasy of power, but rather were trying to stay alive. From the trenches of WWI to the deserts of the Persian Gulf, and all of the wars in between, young men and women have been putting their lives on the line for their country, and for those of us at home. Take pride in your country and these brave young people Reyner, and thank those soldiers, don't ridicule them.

Jason Bourne

LSA junior

Affirmative action checks American 'aristocracy'

To the Daily:

After many contributions to the always disputatious arena that is the Daily's editorial page, I thought that I had retired. However, all the whining and bitching on the part of the "deserving" students at the University about affirmative action has forced me to once again take up the cause of enlightening America's privileged little brats. Let me begin by providing the basic mentality of an affirmative action opponent: Those admitted under the racially influenced aspects of affirmative action policies do not deserve to be at the University, but those admitted without the aid of those policies - or if the affirmative action did not include race - are deserving.

You claim that the United States is a meritocracy. You tell us to look to the 14th Amendment. I tell you to look to your nation's history. Are you deserving because you were born in an affluent family? Are you deserving because your school district benefited from a generous property tax base? Are you deserving because you could afford a test prep? If you answer "yes" to these questions, then you probably support an aristocracy, not a meritocracy.

Being so deserving of your place at this fine institution, I am sure most of you are familiar with your nation's long tradition of discrimination. You may not care, but you are aware of it. There was a time when prestigious universities did exactly what you are advocating; they catered exclusively to the nation's aristocracy. This aristocracy being determined not only by class, but also by race ... and you thought that race only became a factor in admissions after 1964. Universities like Michigan have decided that they want to extend the opportunity of a world-class education beyond the highest bidder. What is wrong with that? Don't blame under-represented - often times disadvantaged - socioeconomic groups because your nation has a shameful, racist history. Blame those that came before you, those that created the social injustices our generation must contend with.

Isa Kasoga

LSA junior

Withdrawing government funding is not censorship

To the Daily:

The hypocrisy of the Daily editorial board is unbelievable. Last month, you violently attacked the Second Amendment, but now, in a blatant act of self-interest, attempt to defend the First ("What is art?" 10/12/99). Luckily for your readers, however, the attempt falls far short of coherent.

The museum in question is funded by the government. The directors receive their salaries from the government, not some private foundation. It is the right of the government to decide what it will or will not fund. Is it a First Amendment violation if PBS airs a special on art and does not include every artist and type of art in history? Of course not. The Equal Time law was struck down by the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration. If the government decides not to financially support an institution, it is not censorship. It is censorship only when the government prohibits the free exhibition of this "art" in a privately funded arena. The First Amendment is not an issue here, only the ignorance of the Daily's editorial board. I hope that in the future you actually research your editorials before printing them.

Michael Blaine

LSA junior

Collapsing in Frieze Building should be investigated

To the Daily:

In the 'Crime Notes' section, I read that a person collapsed in the Frieze Building ("Student collapses in Frieze Building" 10/12/99). Incidentally, I was in the Frieze Building for a Communications course in the Fall of 1998 where one of my peers collapsed during class. She did suffer injuries as a result. The fact that two people collapsed in the building may be a coincidence; however, I think it would be wise for building inspectors to evaluate the safety of the Frieze Building. Perhaps there is a carbon monoxide leak. I, too, have felt drowsy in the Frieze Building, especially on the Second Floor. While opening the windows may remedy the situation, it is only a temporary solution for a permanent problem. I hope action is taking to prevent future collapses.

Kathy Loesberg

University Alumnus

'American standards' are not above criticism

To the Daily:

Mark Powers rushes to judgement ("Offensive art should not be funded," 10/13/99) and clearly believes that he speaks on behalf of American society. He argues that "the so-called artwork in question [the Sensations exhibit] is not 'potentially offensive,' it is offensive." Powers offers only his enlightened opinion as proof to the objective offensiveness of the exhibit, "I think that just about every person living in America would agree that this artwork is well below (society's standards)." Though I live in America, I find the art gutsy and thought provoking. I wonder if Powers will react with "utter shock and disbelief" when he realizes that in a land of 273,000,000 individuals there is more than one opinion.

Powers points out that public funding allows "the artist to make a mockery of American society." Great! Are Americans above mockery? Often our paid politicians are the greatest culprits in making a farce of this society. Shall we revoke their funding? The public does that by voting a politician out of office; the public can remove the "Sensations" exhibit by not paying the $10 entrance fee. Apparently American society, like Powers's opinion, occupies a holy ground above censure.

Powers, you can dictate my taste in art as well as you can dictate my taste in ice cream. Until I say otherwise, I can speak for myself. You don't represent my beliefs, nor that of "just about every person living in America." The greatest mockery of American society is the opinion that you represent: that American standards are beyond reproach.

Zack Schram

LSA senior

10-15-99