Letters to the Editor

Republican regent candidates threaten 'U' stability

To the Daily:

Ever since his appointment as President in 1996, a clear majority of the University Board of Regents has supported Lee Bollinger and backed the various policy initiatives proposed by him. But the election on November 7th could result in substantial change to the balance of forces within the Board.

Although few in the University community know it - in large part because President Bollinger has wisely chosen not to discuss it in public - there is credible evidence that a minority of regents is in fundamental disagreement with his policies and, indeed, would prefer to engineer his departure from the presidency. One regent even boasted recently that if Republicans take control of the Board this November, President Bollinger would be forced from office.

This would be both sad and profoundly damaging to the University. Sad because before and during my service on the Board, most regents were able to set aside partisan or ideological differences and worked single mindedly for the benefit of the University. Damaging because pushing out a president out for essentially partisan reasons would politicize subsequent presidencies and damage the University's good reputation for fair minded and independent governance. Consider, moreover, the impact President Bollinger's untoward departure would have on the forthcoming Capital Campaign: Disastrous!

Two incumbent regents - Larry Deitch and Rebecca McGowan - are running for re-election this November. They have worked to maintain a stable climate of governance at the University and have resolutely supported President Bollinger and his policy initiatives. I urge voters to return them to office.

Phil Power

University regent, 1987-98

Masculinity does not equal bad boy behavior

To the Daily:

In her Oct. 19 column, "Boys: In need of attention or a beating?" Gina Hamadey confuses her personal opinion with fact when she boldly states, "But facts cannot be ignored: Masculinity also entails bullying and objectifying of women." Hamadey has an unhealthy view of masculinity.

The real problem is not masculinity itself, but rather that many young men these days have grown up with defunct, divorced or otherwise deficient fathers who have failed to instill in them what it means to be a man and how to treat the women in their life with honor and respect. The result is that their misguided brand of masculinity ends up involving the types of activities and conversations witnessed at your stereotypical fraternity house. But to define masculinity in general by this kind of behavior is simply irresponsible. Believe it or not, there are still masculine men out there who subscribe to a more noble idea of what it means to be a man. For those women who are sick of sexist, abusive men who bully and objectify women, I have a simple solution: Stop dating them.

Tim Maun

LSA senior

Bush should be pro-choice to claim he 'stands for women'

To the daily:

I am writing in response to last Thursday's article "The Final Stretch: Women stand up for Bush." While reading I was reminded of an experience I had while watching television during lunch with my Spanish host family this summer. The newscast touched upon the American political race (sadly, about which my European classmates knew more than my fellow citizens studying abroad) and ended with a shot of an overweight, white Abercrombie&Fitch-wearing girl holding up a sign that read "W. Stands for Women." I almost spit out my paella. George W. Bush opposes a woman's right to abortion in all cases but rape or incest, surely the hottest female issue out there.

The state of Texas has the lowest rate of women's health insurance. Maybe he improved it somewhat but he didn't do a good enough job. He opposed Texas' patient's bill of rights in 1995 (see www.bushwatch.com). I'm assuming the article wasn't trying to take political sides but it at least could have explained some of Laura and Barbara Bushs' arguments as to how Dubya stands for any women but rich honkeys like them. Someone please explain how he does.

Angelica Leone

LSA first-year student

Anti-affirmative action viewpoint is often silenced

To the daily:

Recently as I walked through campus, I was pleased for once to see a chalk drawing on the sidewalk concurring with one of my anti-racist views: "End racism at U of M, stop affirmative action."

However, later that same day I saw the same chalk drawing had been completely ruined. The stop was crossed out and 'defend' was written in its place.

That's a bunch of crap. Do people go walking around erasing chalk drawings those 'Affirmative Racism' zealots make? No. Do people go around ripping down all those 'Affirmative Racism 102' posters? No, they're still everywhere you look.

How would they like it if I went all around campus tearing down those signs? Wasting all their time and effort would be unfair. Yet they were quick to do it themselves. It's a shame people aren't allowed to be against 'Affirmative Racism' and display their views on campus like the zealots are.

Adam Wilson

Engineering junior

Bush's comment on Letterman show was racist

To the Daily:

It was a sad and vivid illustration of the state of racial understanding in our society when George W. Bush remarked, "the Arabs got us over a barrel," while on the David Letterman show last Thursday night and received laughs and applause for his comment.

Sadder still is the total lack of commentary by the media after the fact. If our oil came from Africa would it have been as easy for him to say, "The blacks got us over a barrel"?

The racism is inherent in both statements. By failing to even qualify his racism by region, Bush condemned Arabs Everywhere. Generalizing the behavior of a group of people based on their ethnicity is racist, and by doing just that Bush has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not worthy of the highest office in the land.

Matt Young

Film projection services staff