LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Diversity not limited to race

To the Editor: Obviously, these are farcical examples, but they make a point. The definition of diversity and minority has been so wrapped up with race that we've lost the point. The point of diversity is to share different opinions and points of view. A female in a class otherwise full of men provides a different point of view. A white student in a class otherwise full of black students provides this diversity. A tall person in a conversation otherwise full of short people can provide diversity. The UMC does not deserve a spot on the UA or UC because, while it provides the important service of bringing together on-campus groups that have something in common, racial and ethnic minority, that is only one part of diversity. The members of these groups are students on campus just like the rest of us, and we all in some way or another belong to a minority group (English majors are a minority, so are football players). Why should we afford one group of minorities seats on the UA and UC when others, which provide just as much true diversity on our campus, are left out? Daniel Goldring College and Wharton '98 The Palestinian question To the Editor: This is in reference to Dave Crystal's column, "'Palestinian' heritage?," (DP, 3/21/96). For once, Crystal may actually draw some agreement from the rest of us. We, the "masses of this world who are too ignorant and shallow-minded to know the important details of Jewish history?." succumb in agreement to your most eloquent "Not So Crystal Clear" column. How could we be so ignorant as to think Palestine ever existed? I'm sure all these Palestinians just appeared out of thin air to add some controversy in the Middle East. Probably before the creation of Israel in 1948, these Palestinians just happened to be loitering around the area. But, we, the masses of ignorance, are not obliged to speculate. Especially after your recent decree. Oh yeah, we were also stupid to think that the Palestine Liberation Organization was peaceful. Just go into the occupied territories and most areas in Israel, and see who's carrying the Uzis and the handguns. When I saw no badges or military uniforms on these people, I would have speculated that they were Israeli settlers. As a member of the mass of ignorance, however, I wouldn't dare make that assumption. Crystal, I'm gonna keep this one short and sweet because I think you're a real waste of DP paper. But, in the interest of spreading my ignorance, I would encourage you to take a trip this summer to your homeland and tell me what you see. Tell me who gets jailed without proper trials. Tell me who gets hassled every single day at checkpoints just to get to work. And tell me whose houses get blown up by the Kahane terrorist organization. Well, I'm gonna give you a clue -- it isn't the Palestinians. Keep your day job. Sherief Hammad Wharton '99 To the Editor: After reading Dave Crystal's recent column on the historical basis for Palestinian self-determination ("'Palestinian' heritage?," DP, 3/21/96), I was struck by a thought. I have a friend from high school whose family tree includes Native American ancestry from the Manhattan tribe. He was immensely gratified to hear about Crystal's recently published column, especially when he learned that Crystal hails from Staten Island, N.Y. He said the Crystal family certainly has less of a historical claim to their Staten Island land than the Manhattan tribe does, a situation analogous to the one in Palestine. My friend also said that bearing this fact and Crystal's position in mind, he feels justified in repossessing Crystal's house. After all, what's fair is fair. I am also happy to note that Crystal refrained from being even the slightest bit ethnocentric in his column, as he has so eloquently urged the rest of the student body to be in previous pieces. The fact is that the region encompassed by modern Israel was first settled by peoples who emigrated outward from Mesopotamia. So if history was the determinate factor in ownership claims, Iraq should have control of the area. Obviously, the Hebrews were ousted from this land by outside forces, but this was not the first or last time that this occurred in the region. The wrongs done to the original Jewish settlers do not justify committing similar wrongs against the Palestinians. I know several people of Palestinian descent, who would dispute Crystal's claim that there is no Palestinian nation. When the complete history of the area is viewed, it is clear that the Palestinians and Israelites are seeking to return to the ancestral homeland that they both share. Compromise, not narrow-minded views of history, is needed to bring peace to the region. Chad Pimentel College '99 n To the Editor: In his column "'Palestinian' heritage?" (DP, 3/21/96), Dave Crystal proposes that the Palestinian Arabs have no claim to any Israeli territory. He bases this claim on the ever-popular "We were here first" argument. It is, shall we say, "crystal clear" that Crystal is not even vaguely familiar with our people's history. If he were, then he would no doubt recall that we Jews originally seized Israel -- then known as Canaan -- from the Canaanite people. I fully expect someone to start a "Canaanite Liberation Organization" any time now. There are many very good arguments in favor of Israel's existence; Crystal's is not one of them. Adam Zion College of General Studies '96