LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: A 'Preposterous' Column

To the Editor: I'll start at the beginning. U.S. law guarantees that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This has nothing to do with whether the accused is innocent or not, as this is a fact determined at the crime scene. Stating the obvious, even when the obvious has not been legally established yet, does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. Blake's reference to Evan's belief in O.J.'s guilt as "dumb," given the evidence against him and the apparent desperation of the defense (i.e. ridiculous alibis, crackpot witnesses, etc.) is dumber than dumb. But that's not all. In the very next paragraph, Blake makes a statement so blatantly racist that it should get him in at least as much trouble as the "water buffalo" guy. If I, a white male, were to refer to, say, my roommate (who is black) as one of the only intelligent black people I knew (and in print no less!), I would be run off campus faster than O.J. in his Bronco. Blake goes on to bring up a totally irrelevant issue: the Susan Smith case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the O.J. defense team claiming that their "witness" saw several white males fleeing the scene? But no one has mentioned this being a racial issue. If anything, it's more so. Here goes. Given the racial makeup of South Carolina, I'd venture to say that the area in which the Smith case transpired is close to a 50-50 white-black ratio. Given these demographics, the fact (underlying causes are a whole different column) that blacks statistically commit a greater share of violent crimes in this country than their share of the population (look at any prison, ask any cop), and the fact that Smith had an overwhelming (life or death) interest in formulating a plausible story, it only made sense for her to make up a description closest to the statistical reality of crime in America. It wasn't a racial thing, and neither is the O.J. case. Blake states: "Why didn't Smith's family?say these things while they were?looking for this black aberration?" What was she supposed to say? "He was black, about 5'11", wearing blue jeans and a hooded sweatshirt?and by the way, it's not a racial thing." Even Susan Smith isn't this dumb. Finally, Blake quotes a Life Magazine survey (if the majority thinks it, it's gotta be true, right? T.V. has taught us well!) saying that 48 percent of whites think blacks are treated equally while 71 percent of blacks believe they are treated unequally. Granted, there are racist judges and juries out there (look at the Rodney King case), but the O.J. jury has 9 blacks on it out of 12 jurors! If anything, they're more likely to acquit him despite evidence of guilt than a white jury would be to convict him despite evidence of innocence. I mean, most white people don't want to believe O.J. is guilty, but the evidence speaks for itself. And Blake ends the whole thing with a threat of violence. Way to debunk some stereotypes! Lee Revell College '98 n To the Editor: What Ian Blake failed to mention when he cited statistics stating that 33% of those executed since 1976 were black (while blacks only constitute 12% of the general population) was that blacks commit capital crimes at a higher rate than whites. It would then follow that if blacks commit capital crimes at a higher rate than whites, then blacks would be executed at a higher rate than whites. Patrick J. O'Leary College '96