Those were the days\nIt would be refreshing to see reminders to those who pontificate upon inclusion and diaspora studies that racism is not wholly an issue for Caucasians to address, and that painting those of differing opinions upon the efficacy of inclusion as "Archie and Susie Bunkers" is a simplistic retort, unworthy of anyone who claims that liberal education sets one free from such assumptions.\nInclusive institutions thrive, and that's an easy result to chart. Yet it stuns to see that supposedly educated people still believe that the color of skin skews the views of others. I suppose that any backlash against obvious good and gain for all comes from just such insidious and institutionalized racism as evidenced in the commentary of the Diaspora Studies division.\nSuch divisive commentary, though, is quite typical of those who constantly and conveniently forget that -- horrors of the Middle Passage notwithstanding -- slavery was gleefully profitable not only for Europeans but for the despots of the African coastal kingdoms themselves. Gleefully practiced amongst themselves, perpetuated and exported. As always, its profits were exponentially increased by the mercantile societies of Europe, but it was never solely a white devil's idea that made hell so real for blacks.\nFrankly, studying the poetry of Phyllis Wheatley was a wonderful experience, but listening to the barely curtained hate speech of Affirmative Action babies is a bore. The fact that individual commentary paints institutions poorly is the real problem, and the idea that the illness of few is the influenza of society smacks of speech eugenics. \nLest the arbiters of who is racist and who is not take me as an apologist, I hasten to remind them I'm a white gay guy with AIDS, and that makes me everybody's helot. Therein should be satisfaction for any comparison of the oppressive effects of a non-inclusive world; I get no Bunker love.
Mark A. Price\nBloomington
'Sanctity' of marriage?\nI would like to compliment Hank Grimes on his Aug. 4 article ("High fences make good neighbors," IDS) because it brings up many interesting points with regard to recent decisions made by George W. Bush and the Pope. \nIn both of their dialogues, they refer to a "traditional family" and "sanctity of marriage" as main points against homosexual marriage. Mr. Grimes' information about divorce made me think about what a traditional family really is. Over half of the people I know are divorced, have divorced parents (as do I) and/or are on their third marriage or more. I personally see "traditional family" in today's terms as a couple who is divorced with many step-parents and siblings. It is a far cry from what Bush was implying: a lovely wife and husband with two children and a loving dog. \nI'd hate to burst the President's bubble, but "traditional" families are becoming fewer and far between. Even if someone would argue that a non-traditional gay family violates the "sanctity" of marriage, I would retort with this: look at the info in Mr. Grimes' article. There is an alarming trend of divorce. Is there even a "sanctity of marriage" anymore? \nIt is a shame that these major world leaders are openly discriminating against homosexuals, then use the Bible against them. During the Civil War, Southerners used the Bible to advocate slavery, and the North was not in the Civil War to stop slavery. The Bible also says to whore out your daughters, but I do not see fathers doing that. \nThe Bible is what you make of it and can say anything it is interpreted to mean. Please do not take this as "hetero-bashing," non-patriotic or anti-Catholic -- you'd be missing the point. The point is that there is no good reason to prohibit homosexuals from the same rights as everyone else.
Amanda L. Peterson\nSenior
