Jordan River Forum

Reinflating diversity The Feb. 24 editorial "Deflating diversity," misconstrues the point of all the efforts the University in general and the Division of Academic Support and Diversity in particular have been making to enrich the culture and demographic makeup of this campus. Additionally, the editorial uses the "1 for Diversity" banners as a point of ridicule, without realizing that the banners herald the campus' acknowledgement of artists and art by people of color, as a lesson learned from the difficult Benton mural protest episode of two winters ago. No one is trying to "sell IU as a haven for small pockets of ethnic people." That's insulting to me personally and to every member of the large and -- yes, diverse -- staff of the division of Academic Support and Diversity as well as to our partners across the campus in Enrollment Services, Student Life, and the academic units. Our whole vision is of a campus that embraces all peoples and all beliefs and that is not segregated into pockets. It is true that we all have work to do to make it more of a habit to "step out of our comfort zones," as the editorial notes, but if anything, the diversity efforts on campus have enhanced, not detracted, from the mixing of races and cultures on this campus. You might be tired of hearing the word "diversity," but I can assure you that black, brown and red people have been tired for a long time of hearing about the things they aren't allowed to do, the places they can't go, and the dreams they can't achieve. I'm pleased that times have changed so that anyone and everyone can aspire to achieve greatness in this country, and I'm sorry that for the editorial writers of the IDS, there seems to be a problem in understanding that "diversity" is all about those aspirations and those possibilities. By the way, the banners themselves were made for the university by a diverse group of students in the School of Fine Arts, working together on a project that transcended individual agendas and that contributes to the life of the campus. Sincerely,

Racism is no cure for racism On Feb. 24, the IDS ran a paid political opinion ad by David Horowitz (page 7) over the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. As I read the editorial I was of course stunned by his poor grasp on the history of the area and on the current reality. But more importantly it raised in my mind a larger question: Why must racism be answered with racism? Horowitz's editorial tells the story of growing racism amongst Middle Eastern nations and the American Left against Jews and then credits it to the Arabs' "pathological hatred." To make such a statement and declare an entire race to be by nature more hateful, more morally deficient is as racist as anything I have ever heard in my life. Not to mention that he even refuses to acknowledge the identity of Palestinians. Horowitz's oversimplified view of the Middle East conflict gives no guide to us as students of how to judge the racial conflicts of today and the future. Instead it is a warning that first, racism begets racism; and secondly, that racism is the product of simplistic ways of thinking. I'm sure a man with the money for a half-page ad could afford to travel to Israel (hostel $12, falafel $3-4) and Palestine (hostel $5, falafel $2), and learn what is being thought by whom and why. As a student, I afforded such a trip myself, and it was very useful in overcoming simplistic, racist ways of thinking. I suggest to Mr. Horowitz to do the same. IDS perpetuates racism through ads After reading the Horowitz "political advertisement," I have come to realize the staff of the IDS just cannot or does not want to learn. Let me only say in regards to the "ad" that it is this kind of pure racism that leads people to being anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, and, yes, anti-Semitic. I hope anybody reading such lies has enough common sense to see through them and realize that Horowitz is not representing anybody but his own hate group. The IDS however, has a bigger problem. One would think that only a few years after publishing another of Horowitz's slants, its staff would have intelligence or good will enough to refuse to print such trash. Apparently, such hopes are held in vain. Money seems to speak louder than integrity, common sense, sensibility or responsibility towards the community. I could not decide whether it is plain ignorance or actual ill-will that lets the IDS print such racist slants in its pages in the first place; now that it has printed them for a second time, reluctantly, I begin to tend towards the latter. As obviously the IDS is not ready to learn, I call upon the University administration to speak out and rethink the concept of a student newspaper that prints hate advertisements and insults the community it is supposed to serve. I am truly ashamed to attend a school whose newspaper tends to publish racist advertisements, whoever pays for them. Political ad hit crucial issue I commend the IDS for publishing David Horowitz's paid political opinion advertisement ("The Middle East War is not about a Palestinian State or Palestinian Land," Feb. 24). The advertisement addressed the crucial issue of incitement by Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority against Jews, Americans and Western culture. There is absolutely no excuse for encouraging children to become martyrs and commit acts of terrorism. Until the Arab states and the Palestinian Authority halt all public incitement, there will be no peace in the Middle East. As Horowitz wrote, Americans and Israelis are allies in the war against terrorism, which is why support for Israel (the only democracy in the region and one of the United States' most reliable friends) is so important. Business school stereotypes fall short In response to the opinion piece "Business for non-majors" published on Feb. 18, I would like to congratulate the author on such a poignant, well-written article. I found myself agreeing with many of the finer points, yet questioning the desired effect. Much to my surprise, as I read the article, I began to find myself placed not in one, two or even three groups, but five different cliques! As a direct admit, senior honors student, Greek member, finance major and former accounting major, I was amazed to find myself positioned at the intersection of each clique's various attributes, reflecting the proposed utilitarian essence of my existence. Personally, I often question some of the prevailing attitudes and happenings over on 10th Street. One event in particular comes to mind. Upon leaving class one evening, I stumbled upon a group of 20 young students, silently filing down the hall, with one hand of each placed on the shoulder in front of them. Eerily enough, it reminded me of what I imagine the Bataan death march was similar to. Yet, in defense of my school, it serves its purpose very well: educating future business leaders and subsequently placing them in good, if perhaps slightly conforming, jobs upon graduation. Just witness the almighty placement office and the hordes of students left trembling in its wake. There are quite a few bright, humble students who choose to study business because the topic is of interest to them. Representing a small but growing minority, these students accept the inherent cultural peculiarities within the business school, remaining because they are able to detach their field of study from their personal lives, a skill I fear the author may be lacking. While entertaining and occasionally witty, the opinion is hypocritical. Needless stereotyping of an individual's major, school or saloon of choice discredits the merits of the argument and pointlessly perpetuates the dogged infighting and petty jealousies our campus has become accustomed to. Someday the author will secure employment (gasp), and find that we are not defined by what we do, but rather by what we do not do. Valuable service, meager pay As a graduate student here at IU whose sole means of employment comes from a graduate assistantship appointment, I was quite disheartened to read Chris Pummer's take on the "transitional" nature of college assistants ("AIs make list of most underpaid positions," Feb. 17). As GAs, AIs, and whatever other two-letter combination one cares to throw at us, we perform invaluable services for the University. College administrators rationalize not hiring the requisite number of professors to cover the large number of courses offered by paying graduate students a small fraction of what professors can demand to do the same amount of work. Many of us here at IU make considerably less than the $12,665 figure quoted in the article, and that is before we pay for fees and books, which can drop our take-home pay to below $9000! After getting a doctorate, there is certainly no guarantee that AIs will "move on" to tenure-track professorships; the fact is there are far more graduate students in the world than university faculty positions. The tasks that AIs here at IU perform are no doubt very "valuable" and quite "loathsome," but sadly, we are paid worse than most AIs across the country. Remember that as you take your midterms. Planned Parenthood spreads confusion Last wednesday, Betty Cockrum voiced Planned Parenthood's opposition of the FDA's choice to delay the approval of a form of emergency contraception for over-the-counter use. She made the point that "emergency contraception is ... a critical tool in preventing unintended pregnancy." Ms. Cockrum's statement is not necessarily true. The FDA defines the beginning of a pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman's uterus. Emergency contraception prevents this implantation, but it does not necessarily prevent conception. Please understand my point: whether or not the zygote has been implanted in the woman's uterine lining is immaterial. The question is, and has always been, "When does life begin?" I humbly submit that life begins at conception, and it must be protected from that point on. I hope that the FDA's delay of OTC morning after pills becomes permanent. Mercury issue needs attention I would like to thank the IDS, especially Obaid Khawaja, the Nation and World Editor; and Dallas Moorhead, writer of the Feb. 13th article "Heat rises on mercury issue." I want to thank you for calling attention to this important issue, and remind students that there are still a few weeks remaining in the public comment period for the EPA's proposed mercury ruling. It is not too late to submit postcards and letters to the EPA administrator, letting them know you want limits on mercury pollution. Also, a public comment hearing will be held in Chicago next week, and that would be a great forum in which to present your views on the proposed ruling. Though mercury may not be affecting student health, as the article mentioned, it is vital that fetuses and small children not be exposed to this toxin. Sadly, already one in six women of childbearing age has too much mercury in their bloodstream. Please join us in protecting future generations by letting the EPA know you will not stand for more mercury pollution. Go to www.inpirg.org to learn more and send a comment to the EPA.