Letters to the Editor

Study does not hide discrimination at 'U'

To the Daily:

I am writing in response to the Daily's story about the admissions lawsuits ("There is no white victim," 10/25/00). First, I question how Jennifer Gratz was not denied admission to the University based on her race. The study concludes that the University did not discriminate against Gratz because blacks did not represent the majority of students admitted with lower grades and test scores than Gratz. According to the study, of the 869 black applicants admitted, only 17 percent had higher test scores and grade point averages than Gratz, while 46 percent of the 2,292 white applicants admitted had higher test scores and grade point averages. As the study's own numbers clearly point out, race plays a large factor in admissions at the University. To claim that the admissions process treats people of every race fairly when 83 percent of admitted black students had lower test scores and grade point averages than Gratz, compared to only 54 percent of white students, is to ignore fact and common sense entirely.

Further, to claim that "(t)here is no white victim" because being black ranks a "distinct third" among admission factors misses the argument entirely. The fact that being any color is a factor in admissions is repugnant to the Constitution, as well as any notion of fairness or meritocracy. The plaintiff intervenor's own study shows that race is a significant factor in admissions, what further proof is needed to show that race based admissions factors is unfair? If the University gave preference to white students would anyone dare say that such a policy was fair to all? Why should the argument be any different because the University gives preferences to black students?

The study supports its conclusion that the University did not discriminate against Gratz with nothing more than specious logic couched in an obviously biased report. The district court will no doubt see this report for what it is; a blatant attempt to use subterfuge to pull the wool over the court's eyes and blind it to the true inequality of the University's policies. The court should ignore this flawed study and strike down the University's race conscious admissions policy. There is nothing constitutionally sound about the way this University discriminates when admitting students.

Anthony Roehl

Law student

Women have double standards too

To the Daily:

Regarding Cici Malin's letter ("Sanz's column 'sexist, rude and disrespectful,'" 10/27/00). While I don't agree with all of Malin's opinions, I find some do hold true. My particular beef is with his comment about beating around the bush.

In my years of experience interacting with the other gender, I have found that almost all women say that they want a kind, interesting, funny, considerate and compassionate person to have a relationship. Note the total lack of any physical description of the perfect boyfriend. I have also found that almost invariably these same women go out with a guy that has the personality of a potato chip, but sure looks straight out of GQ in his Calvin Kleins.

This is a double standard that women accuse men of possessing. What guy hasn't heard that all guys care about is the body of a woman? I just choose to dare and say that many women hold that same double standard. They (when I say they, I mean the women that have this double standard, not necessarily all women) say that they want an interesting, kind, etc. but they still look at a prospect's butt.

To all those women that do look for personality and compassion in a boyfriend, my hat is off to you. For anybody that falls into the other category, I'm just asking that you don't judge lest you be judged yourself.

Greg Buczynski

Engineering sophomore

A fetus could be a human being

To the Daily:

When talking about the issue of abortion, many pro-choice supporters often use the argument that it cannot be proven that the unborn baby or fetus is actually "alive." Well, I'd like to take a different approach to the issue and present the idea that just as it may not be able to be proven that the fetus is a living human being, it also cannot be proven that the fetus is not a living human being. So in stating this, with every abortion that takes place there is the possibility that an innocent human life is being put to death. It seems that if someone might possibly be taking the life of another human being they would not want to do it; they would not want to take the chance. So why would anyone have an abortion? The answer is simple: Selfishness.

When a woman decides to have an abortion, in essence she is saying that her comfort and convenience is more important than the baby's life. But who is to say that her life is any more important than the life of a baby? Surely no one can say with any certainty that, if in fact a fetus is a living human being, their life is any more or less important than anyone else's. And if anyone does go as far as to say that his or her life is any more important or valuable than another's, they are trudging on dangerous ground. For it was with that very justification that Hitler came to kill millions of innocent people.

The whole issue of a woman's right to choose plays a huge role in the issue of abortion. But just because a woman doesn't have the right to have an abortion does not mean that her right to choose has been taken away, even though her choices have been limited. The fact is that in most cases she has made the choice to have sex in the first place and therefore she should have to deal with the consequences. And I don't think that the woman is the only one who should have to deal with the consequences, either. I believe the man should also have to deal with the consequences of making the choice to have sex, and it should be legally enforced.

There are other issues that arise in the debate over abortion. One of them happens to be the case of abortion when rape or incest is involved. I have to admit this is a difficult situation. Even though I can see both sides of the issue, just because rape or incest was involved does not mean that the life inside the woman is any less valuable than any other baby. Nor does it mean that it is impossible for the baby to lead a good life. Adoption is always an option. There are many people who are not able to have babies of their own who would love to be able to adopt, regardless of where they came from. For what is one person's tragedy may be another person's blessing.

Nate Lee

Engineering senior

'U' should address underage drinking

To the Daily:

Thanks for publishing Jodie Kaufman's article ("Law change allows parental notification," 10/27/00). I think that drinking among University students particularly and Americans generally is an important problem of health as well as social aspects. The alcohol-related health, social and economic consequences extend far beyond the fact that misuse of alcohol accounts for approximately 100,000 deaths each year in the United States. Alcohol-related incidents increased from 451 to 673 between 1998 and 1999 at the University alone. There have been many cases of students dying after binge drinking. Many college students like to spend their weekend drinking. All these facts are stains on the University's life environment.

One of the most important things to prevent drinking among University students is health education to change their behavior. Social and family supports are also essential factors in our efforts to decrease the rate of drinking among students. For curbing underage drinking, it is necessary to notify students' parents on their second offense, as Duke University has begun to consider. The families should hold, in part, responsibility for their children's behaviors. This policy, combined with the current laws, will contribute to improving this gloomy drinking picture. Furthermore, the University should offer new alternative activities like those mentioned in the editorial "Sober alternative" (10/26/00).

Phung Tan Le

School of Public Health