Letters to the Editor

SOLE protesters ignore middle class students' needs

To the Daily:

Okay, so apparently now Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality is upset that the University replaced 58 cafeteria workers with cheaper laborers despite the fact that the original employees were all offered equal or greater paying jobs in different departments in the University. So, am I right in assuming that SOLE has now become an expert organization in both health care and cafeteria management? I do not understand how this organization can devote countless hours to such an unimportant matters, especially when they know nothing about the organizations they attack. This latest complaint just shows that the group will protest anything simply for the sake of protest, without thinking about what they are doing.

A better example of this is their efforts to end Nike's sweatshop labor practices. Not only did they fail to end Nike's actions, but they made matters much worse for the University. Instead of receiving $24 million from Nike, the Athletic Department now has to pay an additional $3 million!

Thanks a lot for looking out for us blue collar families. I can't really say that I am surprised though. While blindly bashing globalization is the "in" thing to do and while you might be able to brag to your friends that you "worked" in a factory for (gasp) a month, you ignore the difficulties that many working class students face on this campus. I mean sure caring about "trailer trash" from places like Jackson, Flint and Taylor is not as "hip" as defending the sweatshop-nation-of-the-week, but should that matter?

Rather than invading offices and screaming at those who oppose you, while covering your ears at the voice of reason, why not try to objectively learn about the institution you are about to bash? Furthermore, please try to put reason over emotion when you act, and fully explore the consequences of your actions. I mean, it might not be as fun, or "radical," and you might get mocked by your other "activist" friends, but if you truly cared about workers' rights, then that should not be an issue.

Christos Michalakis

LSA junior

'U' affirmative action policies don't include women

To the Daily:

I am writing to express my disappointment in the Daily's running of Scott Newell's opinions on affirmative action ("Affirmative action deserves support," 10/2/00). Newell's letter displays his ignorance not only of the affirmative action lawsuits brought against the University, but also of the University's admissions policies in general.

Newell states that he supports the University in its fight against the lawsuits because, "without affirmative action, a great many of the teachers on this campus simply would not be here." Newell obviously has not been paying attention to the lawsuits, as they involve affirmative action admissions policies, not hiring processes as Newell implies. Newell blindly charges on to state, "Without affirmative action, if you are female, you wouldn't be here either."

Before Newell chooses to make dastardly and insulting statements such as this one, he might be interested in viewing the University's admissions policy as revised in 1997. To summarize for Newell's benefit, the University's current policy is a "scorecard" which assigns points based on GPA, quality of high school, difficulty of curriculum, test scores, geography, legacy, essay, personal achievement, leadership and service and a category entitled "miscellaneous," which includes socioeconomic disadvantage, under-represented racial/ethnic minority, men in nursing, scholarship-athlete and Provost's discretion. Gender is not a consideration in the admissions process.

While Newell's enthusiasm for supporting affirmative action may be admirable, his lack of consideration for factual information certainly casts a pallor on the character of his argument. I fail to understand why the Daily would even consider printing such a clearly uninformed, un-insightful and reasonless viewpoint such as Newell's.

Carrie Lapham

University staff