Letters to the Editor

Column disregarded abortion issues

To the Daily:

In her column this week, ("George W.'s history of execution,"10/24/00) Erin McQuinn once again manages to impress the reader with her scintillating grasp of the (apparently) obvious, and ignores the real facts of the case.

McQuinn states the Bush "hasn't even taken the time to possibly save an innocent life." Her concern is laudable - there is a chance that a person convicted of a violent crime and sentenced to death for it might be innocent. The odds of this happening are slim but existent.

Unfortunately, McQuinn ignores the odds on the other side. Under current law, more than one million innocent unborn babies are aborted every year, and Al Gore has not only vowed to help continue this bloodshed, he has promised to sign a bill which would increase government funding for the killings. In other words, Gore would ignore his chance to save thousands of definitely innocent lives.

We must look at the methods of killing used on both sides of the issue. The executions in the state of Texas are performed swiftly and painlessly, complying with the 8th Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment" mandates. In contrast, hundreds of almost-born babies are killed yearly in a process called partial-birth abortion, which is so brutal that I'm sure the Daily would not print a description of it.

Gore, like his predecessor, has committed to keeping this procedure legal. It sounds to me like he's much worse at paying attention to innocent lives than Bush. Wake up, McQuinn.

Arwen Thomas

Engineering first-year student

'U' admissions policy a cover for racist tactics

To the Daily:

The University's claim of diversity as a defense of their racist admissions policies is bogus. The corporate defenders are hypocritical in their defense of diversity. Not a single word has been mentioned of all-black or all-female colleges in the name of diversity, and none ever will.

The fact of the matter is that students graduating from Howard or Morehouse are no less capable of succeeding in diverse environments than those of the University.

What is unmentioned by the activists is the implied notion that only underrepresented minorities are diverse: This means all Asians and whites are not "diverse." The acceptance rate of Hispanics at this University is near 90 percent, blacks, nearly 75. Whites and Asians measure acceptance rates of only 34 percent and under 25 percent, respectively.

The University is playing diversity as a color-by-numbers game; and we are all the pawns, undergraduates and graduates alike.

In the name of diversity you have been exploited because of the color of your skin, and I know that I am not alone in my disgust with this issue. Are the lowest 20 percent of wage earners represented here? Of course not; diversity is measured only by the color of skin - absolutely nauseating logic from the "Leaders and the Best."

Race-based preferences are not meant to atone for discrimination in the case of the University, and the supporters of this idiocy are not noble persons for fighting the "oppressors."

Political correctness pervades the air and muffles the voices of the silent majority in this issue. History may be kinder to the memory of race-based preferences at this University than I am, but I believe that this dated, divisive and abhorrent practice makes fools of the students and administrators who believe in it, and creates anger and mistrust in those who do not.

Dave Hodge

LSA senior