LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Crystal's claims draw ire

To the Editor: Crystal braces his argument on his attack against "social construction" of race and Professor McDaniel on his statement that "biogenetics irrefutably proves that there are three broad racial groupings within the human race." According to Crystal, the three groups are Caucasoids, Negroids and Mongoloids. However, there have never been race distinctions from a biogenetic point of view except in the rare instances like Nazi Germany, when scientists tried to validate their government's racist stance on allegedly objective scientific grounds of racial superiority. Secondly, I was extremely offended that Crystal would slander Professor McDaniel simply because McDaniel failed to address the inequities suffered by Amerindian and Aztec slaves in his sociology class. Crystal seemed to have been saying that in his opinion, Amerindians were treated more brutally by Spanish conquistadors, so the professor should have spent more time on the subject. Crystal is a freshman and may not yet understand how higher institutions of learning function. He should understand that professors have the discretion to teach the topics of their choice and generally emphasize topics in class in which they specialize or in which they have done academic research. However, if that were all, I would not have taken the trouble to have written this letter. What was especially incendiary was the fact that? Crystal proceeded to state that this course would be appropriate at a major African American institution of higher learning, Howard University. To further claim that Howard teaches "Farrakhanism" is completely outlandish, inconsiderate and ignorant. Crystal seems to feel that institutions like Howard promote racial bigotry and antagonism. To clear up the present negative state of race relations, Crystal should start with himself and possibly should have been more tolerant of African-American views on race relations and paid more attention in McDaniel's class. C.K. Lee Law '97 n To the Editor: Though his column is entitled Crystal Clear, Dave Crystal's perception of race as a social construct is actually quite muddled ("Social construction," DP, 2/1/96). What is even more disturbing is his attempt to "take the initiative in doing history justice." What he proceeds to do is more of an injustice than anything else. I find it horrifying that Crystal takes a stab at rating the enslavement of various racial and ethnic groups. He argues that Amerindian and Aztec slaves were subjected to more "exploitation, deprivation and slaughter" than were African American slaves. Slavery is slavery, and no type of human ownership is better than another. To trivialize the centuries of black enslavement in America is far worse than any trivializing of race Professor McDaniel may have done in Crystal's sociology class last semester. I suggest that Crystal do more research if he ever reattempts giving a history lesson to the Penn community. Whites did not always buy slaves from North African slave traders, not every sociology class endorses affirmative action and everyone at Howard University is not a fan of Farrakhan. Creating an offensive and falsified piece of writing is Crystal's only accomplishment thus far. I hope to see more facts and less fury in his next column. Rachel Skerritt College '99 Athletes defend Graham To the editor: I am writing in response to Nick Hut's sports column ("Graham did Penn a favor by leaving," DP, 2/1/96), or should I say attack, on Nat Graham. Hut was not fair to Graham in writing his commentary. I did not see one quote from Graham in the article, so I am assuming that Hut did not talk to him before writing it, getting his side of the story about why he decided to leave the team. Granted, maybe Graham was not putting up great numbers, but can that be entirely blamed on Graham not being as tenacious as Eric Moore? Did Hut take time to think that perhaps Graham was in the wrong system for his talents? And if there is any doubt, Graham is a very talented player. I find it strange that the day after Donald Moxley scores 21 points and Paul Romanczuk scores 18, the thing that the DP focuses its attention on is how great things are now that Graham has left the team. If a player falls out of love with the game of basketball, does that give some reporter from the DP the right to bash him, because he does not seem as intense as Ira Bowman? I don't think so, and for that reason I feel that Hut owes Graham an apology. I have one more question before I end this letter: If Hut stops writing for the DP, will anyone really notice he is gone? Likely answer: No. Ask Hut how it would feel to see that written about him. Mark Fabish College '97 n To the Editor: As a friend, roommate and teammate of Nat Graham, I take offense at Nick Hut's column "Graham did Penn a favor by leaving" (DP, 2/1/96). In my opinion, it is perhaps the worst piece of journalism I have ever come across. Hut has not been at every practice and game for the last two-and-a-half years. He is in no position to judge Graham as a person or a player. To question Graham's work ethic, desire and intensity, without spending time with him or knowing what he has gone through, is irresponsible journalism. I have been playing basketball since I was five years old, have three Ivy League Championship rings, and have played in three NCAA Tournaments. So as senior co-captain of a well-respected basketball team, I think I am a little more qualified to judge a player's ability and intensity than a sports writer for a college newspaper. And in my (albeit biased) opinion, Graham was, and still is, a very talented basketball player, who gave his all every time he stepped on the floor, whether it was practice or a game. Graham was in the starting lineup when he decided to hang up his jersey. You don't get to be a starter at the Division I level by chance. You have to earn it through daily performance and through hard work. To say that we are better off as a team without one of our better players is absurd. Hut may feel as if the Quakers are better off without Graham, and he is entitled to that opinion. My teammates and I know how valuable Graham was to our team. If Hut were to ask any of us for our thoughts on the matter, he would have found that exactly NONE of us would have agreed with him. Tim Krug College '96