Ervin scholarships are discriminatory

Dear Editor:

Someone please explain to me how the Ervin Scholarships are not discrimination?ÿ Without a doubt, they discriminate. And I do mean discrimination.ÿI’m tired of people saying reverse-discrimination.ÿWhites discriminate against blacks and blacks discriminate against whites; blacks do not reverse-discriminate.

So again, someone tell me-without ‘ands,’ ‘ifs,’ and ‘buts’-why the Ervin Scholarships are not discriminative? One of the biggest arguments going around campus is that the “Ervin Scholarships were somewhat discriminatory, but… they foster a black community.” Well, I don’t buy that for a second.ÿ I have fostered a great community with my floor mates (an interracial one, at that) without the help of a special scholarship.

Another phrase echoing throughout campus is “diversity.” I hate that word. What exactly does it mean?ÿIs it something that someone can create or invent? People say, “Without the Ervin scholarships the campus will lose its diversity.” Since when did diversity only come on the form of blacks? If the administration desired to build a truly diverse student body wouldn’t they try to attract students from different parts of the country? People of different religions?ÿPeople that talk differently? Maybe the admissions committee does try to attract these people, but they sure don’t have special scholarships for them.ÿSo if true diversity is the goal, why not a scholarship for students from southern states only, or a scholarship reserved for Christians? On campus these two groups are definite minorities, but there are no scholarships in place to help change that.

Finally, I have to ask, “What is ‘equal’ about the Ervin Scholarships?” Nothing.ÿ Look at it.ÿWith the Ervin Scholarships black students have more chances than white students to earn Washington University scholarships. To me, that’s anything but equal.

To the administration: Job well done.ÿYou did the right thing.

David Garvin
Class of 2006

Woolf’s article about Weir’s speech misleading

Dear Editor:

I’m very disappointed after reading Richard Woolf’s provocative article on Allison Weir’s Israel-Palestine speech. Given his propensity for distorting facts, it’s incredibly unfortunate that Woolf is a graduate history student.
Woolf claims that Weir attempted to legitimize suicide bombings in her speech.ÿ He also claims that she characterized these bombings as helpful for the Palestinian people. I attended Weir’s speech, and I got no such impression. In fact, Woolf’s article seems purposefully misleading, no matter where you may stand on Israel-Palestine issues.

If there was one thing that Ms. Weir repeated-over and over-it was the fact that she did not condone suicide bombings.ÿI’ll say that again, because when discussing Palestinian issues, it always bears repeating.ÿMs. Weir did not condone suicide bombings. She repeatedly referred to every life lost in conflict as “tragic,” including the deaths of Israeli children at the hands of suicide bombers.

It’s unfortunate that Woolf can’t debate Israel-Palestine issues on his own -without distortions and slander. Allison Weir’s simple desire to discuss Palestinian issues does not make her a terrorist sympathizer, just as Woolf’s discussion of Israeli issues does not make him a supporter of the murders of Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall by Israeli troops. It’s unfortunate that any desire to see another side of this issue is characterized as extremist. But Woolf’s focus upon Israel as a victim is extreme also. And it does not help his position to distort facts in opinion columns.ÿ

Rose Kowalski
Class of 2004

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, April 12th, 2004 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.