I came to Washington University a completely different person than I am today. I was not particularly political then, though my background in history naturally predisposed me to some interest in politics. But two things-the Internet and global events-changed my life forever.
Two recent decisions made by the administration here at Washington University – their spineless emaciation of the Ervin Scholarship program and their inhumane refusal to take seriously immigrant workers’ appeal for a living wage – underscore the truism that, far from being an arcane relic of American history, white supremacy is still alive in America’s citadels of power.
This letter is in response to the Student Life article on Friday and the decision of the University to remove the race-based criterion from the Ervin Scholarship Program. I take great offense to the claim of the Center for Equal Opportunity’s (CEO) claim that this is a “win-win situation” for the University and its students.
A little more than a week ago, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered a terrorist attack on Sheikh Yassin, an unarmed, deaf, half-blind, crippled, 67-year-old paraplegic leaving his mosque in a wheelchair. Three others were killed in the attack; at least 15 more were wounded.
Last week Tara Sinclair and Art Carden responded to an earlier column of mine by defending the ‘profoundly benevolent’ effects of the ‘free market’ on ‘civilized society.’ In the column to which they responded, I wrote that the ‘free market’ is “an invention of the rich used to justify the unprecedented exploitation of land, people and resources.
Progressives on this campus, commit this quote to memory: “We need to add 40,000 troops – the equivalent of two divisions – to the American military in order to meet our responsibilities elsewhere, especially in the urgent global war on terror. In my first 100 days as President, I will move to increase the size of our Armed Forces.”
I remember being stunned when I heard that Ann Coulter was part of this spring’s Assembly Series. I don’t know what sort of vetting process the university uses before accepting speakers, and I don’t know how much money they gave her, but surely, I thought, they could do better! But I’ve reconsidered.
Last week, I suggested that to balance the budget, the government should reverse tax cuts that gave people like Bill Gates $80 million or eliminate corporate welfare instead of gutting Medicare and social security. Perhaps my tone was a little too forceful, but based on some e-mails I received one may have thought that I advised killing live babies on national TV: I’m a ‘bigot,’ a ‘fiscal rapist’ and a ‘robber.
I could only laugh as I read Michael Bowers excoriate Democratic candidates who talk about restoring fiscal sanity to the White House. In his column on Wednesday, he calls it “demagoguery” when the candidates “mention the necessity of reducing the deficit and restoring fiscal responsibility to Washington.
Before this summer, I’d never heard the word ‘unelectable.’ You won’t find it in the dictionary; I don’t remember hearing it in 2000 when a goofy, Alfred E. Newman-like character with a scandalous past of drunken driving, cocaine abuse, and military desertion ran for office.