Letters to the Editor

Being politically correct has value

To the Daily:

Branden Sanz seems to have all the pat answers for what ails America ("Thoughts on Columbine and America's youth," 4/4/00). But I disagree with him concerning political correctness. The main problems I see with political correctness involves those who are constantly whining about political correctness. My observation is that they are people who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. They don't want to acknowledge that sometimes what they say and do is hurtful and harmful to others. They seem to think that everyone experiences the world the same way they do. They see no need to try to understand what life is like for others. They won't make the effort to reach out and bridge the gaps in our society.

There may be times when somebody might be a little too quick to complain about being the victim of this or that "ism." Although they may be wrong in the particular case, there probably is a history that gives them good reason to be sensitive. That will be the case until we address our social problems more completely and honestly. In the meantime please spare me the whining about political correctness.

Steven Hewlett

University alumnus

Horn's column was stereotypical

To the Daily:

In response to David Horn's column "Stars and stereotypes: Racism flies high in Carolina" (4/6/00), I must say that I am utterly disappointed with the Daily for allowing such stereotypes, hatred and ignorance to be put to print. At a University that is to dedicated to diversity and understanding of other cultures it amazes me how people can so freely say such horrible, false things about another group of people and it be accepted. Coming from Nashville, I constantly hear people say horrible things about the South as it has been stereotyped up here to be the Dukes of Hazzard. It utterly disgusts me that a community supposedly so open and receptive to people of all backgrounds can discuss "a good old fashioned hillbilly ass-kicking" without some kind of moral dilemma.

I am aware that the South's past hasn't been the greatest and I don't think the Confederate Flag should be atop the South Carolina state Capitol, but do not pigeon-hole all Southerners as racists, conservatives, traditionalist, or Christian Fundamentalist. I am none of the above and I am deeply offended that being from Tennessee I am viewed as so. People at this "multicultural" university need to realize how hypocritical they are when they say that Southerners are ignorant.

Jennifer Zorko

LSA sophomore

'Oil and Water' editorial was flawed

To the Daily:

In the editorial "Oil and Water" (4/4/00), the Daily mentioned the current proposal in the U.S. Senate to roll back the federal energy tax on gasoline in an effort to spur growth and cut transportation costs. This proposal has a major hole that, even most conservatives would agree, subsidizes OPEC on the backs of working Americans.

Think about it this way: OPEC cuts production of oil. Costs per barrel go up. Gasoline prices in America rise. American lawmakers propose cutting American taxes so more Americans will buy gasoline. More Americans purchase gasoline and the country as a whole continues buying oil at the same rate from OPEC. The U.S. Government loses billions of dollars in tax revenue.

Does anyone else see the end result? The only entity losing money in this scheme is the Government. OPEC continues raking in money, because it will do so regardless of our internal tax policies (unless they make gasoline prices inhibitive). And taxpayers, the ones supposedly benefitting from all this, save about 50 cents each time they fill up. For even the biggest gas-guzzling vehicles available, this might save the average driver two to three bucks a month.

Am I incorrect in thinking that even our most conservative lawmakers would be incensed to know that Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is proposing what amounts to a subsidy of OPEC?

Of course, then there are the programs that would likely get cut with less tax revenue in the government. Let's see ... welfare, farm subsidies and education, to name a likely few.

It's time Americans started paying attention to what's happening out in Washington, DC, and thought about what is really going on when Lott says "tax cuts." It's not all it seems.

Luke Klipp

LSA senior

Alternative fuels could help

To the Daily:

I congratulate the Daily on the editorial "Oil and Water" (4/4/00). We seem to be at the mercy of the oil producing countries. At the same time our farmers get federal subsidies to leave fields unplanted or sell some crops at low prices. Alcohol as a fuel, either by itself or in "gasahol" could help. Unfortunately, most such past efforts have themselves competed with the major oil companies. Perhaps we could encourage the oil companies to get into this business and develop alcohol fuels rather than to look on them as competitors. After all, they already have the distributions systems, tanks, pipelines, etc. Perhaps if it were "Standard Fuels" rather than "Standard Oil" such alternative, renewable fuels could help our motorists, our farmers, and our oil companies.

Kenneth Stoffers

Dentistry clinical assistant prof.

SCC fights campus racism

To the Daily:

The Daily's editorial "Michigamua: Privileged tower space is unfair" (4/6/00) really strikes a raw chord with me and many other students throughout the University. The concerns so bravely raised by the Students of Color Coalition have nothing to do with the issue of freedom of speech. The attempt to make this issue about First Amendment rights, or to try and keep the focus of attention on allocation of space, is a convenient decoy employed by the University's administration to draw attention away from the real issue - institutionalized racism. Undoubtedly, a discussion about the virtues of free speech, as opposed to an open and honest dialogue about racism, is more palatable to the apathetic members of this campus community; limiting discussion to the allocation of University space, I imagine, makes the unconscionable actions of Michigamua more acceptable to those who benefit from power and privilege; confining conversation to issues of First Amendment rights, I'm sure, placates those who are ignorant to the hurt that Michigamua's culturally derisive traditions have caused to America's indigenous people. So ... bravo to the administration! Thus far you have been successful in deceiving the easily duped.

But from those of us who refuse to be duped, we will not relent. The University and its administration must quit ignoring and dodging the real issue of institutional racism! The University and its administration must sever all ties with Michigamua! The University and its administration must assert itself as being more concerned about respect and justice for its students of color than with the money raised by Michigamua alumni! The University must take a stand and show some moral strength! Until it does, concerned students on campus will not let this issue rest!

But, to the author of the editorial, you're right - ignorant people have the right to spew out all the ignorance they want. You're right, Michigamua has the right to spit in the face of Native American students and make a mockery of Native American history and traditions. And you're right, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. But when this speech disenfranchises, limits access and resources, creates an unsafe environment, treads on one's culture, mocks religious traditions, mocks ancestry, mocks heritage, and mocks the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, then it becomes unacceptable! Just as the Arian Brotherhood, the Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and any other group that promotes ethnic and cultural oppression would not be allowed to exist within this public University (let alone be endorsed as is Michigamua), Michigamua and its culturally offensive traditions and heritage must not be allowed to exist either.

Cameron Shultz

School of social work