LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Contradictions

To the Editor: Geoff Munger College '96 To the Editor: I am responding to Ford Prefect's letter to the editor ("Common Mistake," DP 1/26/95). I am very surprised that he sent such a letter, for it has been a long time since Mr. Prefect has been on Earth. The last I heard, he was flagging down a Vogon spaceship equipped only with a towel and a copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." I hope the next time he is on campus, he gives me a buzz. Zaphod Beeblebrox College '96 (This message has been brought to you by Maxim Jacobs.) To the Editor: This letter is in response to Alex Abell's letter stating that the Palestra is the "mecca of college basketball." Who needs to get a clue? It sure the hell isn't Manny! Have you never been to a Duke basketball game? Or perhaps you have never heard of a team called North Carolina? (They are nicknamed the Tar Heels.) You Ivy League losers need to find out what real college basketball is all about. Does Lou Roe and the other Minutemen ring a bell? Get a clue, a life, and a real basketball team. See ya at the Big Dance, baby! Eric VanHaaften Dental School '98 To the Editor: I found Mr. Teillon's column "Equality or Privilege" (DP, 1/25/95) to be so riddled with contradictory statements and groundless ideas as to be shameful. In the interest of saving space, I will only write the most glaringly obvious. In the article he writes (of the proposed legislation), "Neither the state of California nor any of its political subdivisions or agents shall use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group in the operation ?.." He then immediately goes on to say, "?Some individuals may decide race to be the central issue in an employment decision." If, as it appears, Mr. Teillon supports the proposed legislation, then he cannot, in any way (via freedom of choice or otherwise) support the discriminatory hiring practices he explains will result from such legislation. Since it is impractical, and financially prohibitive, for every hiring practice by public officials and their subsidiaries to be examined in detail (and checked for racial, sexual, or ethnic discrimination), it is necessary that an across-the-board policy be implemented which A) can be carried out, and B) can be checked. I maintain that affirmative action programs provide the most prudent method of insuring that discriminatory hiring practices are prevented. A color/gender/ethnicity-blind policy, as Mr. Teillon suggests, would inevitably lead to the discriminatory practices such legislation is intended to avoid. Perhaps more important is the underlying motivation for affirmative action programs. It is unreasonable to attempt to guide the affairs of an entire nation on the basis of a utopian, individual model. If, in a completely non-discriminatory hiring system, it turned out that individuals did not make their decisions on the basis of irrelevant criteria (race, gender, etc.) then we would have evidence that such a system is the best method of preventing these practices that we, at heart, find unacceptable in American society. But this is not the case, and the overwhelming tide of distant, as well as recent, history have shown that when left to their own devices, individuals tend to discriminate against women and minorities in their hiring practices. Now some of you may ask, isn't this their right? Why shouldn't an employer be allowed to hire whomever he/she chooses for whatever reasons he/she wants? This is an obscuring question. If only one employer and one employee were the entire situation, then there wouldn't be much of a problem. But when taken collectively, the sum of all hiring decisions, the results of being employed (and unemployment projected through generations), there are other factors that must come into play. Ultimately, it is wrong (did I say it? that most unwelcome phrase in this PC society?) to systematically discriminate against groups of Americans in effectively life-threatening areas (it's hard to live without a job). If you don't want women to come to your exclusive dinner party then fine, don't invite any. But dinner parties and sources of livelihood are quite different in their importance. And the same reasoning can not be applied to them. If most of the people believe that it's their right, then they need to be educated. Populism is incredibly short-sighted (which is likely why the founding fathers opted for a representative democracy) and subject to rhetorical manipulation much more than well-planned, carefully examined ideas. A government of over 250 million can not be governed by mob rule. Mr. Teillon, either come clean with the real reasons you are against affirmative action, or realize the brazen flaws in your previous reasoning and address them. Arnshea Clayton Engineering '96