Dear Editor:
We attended the September 11 Memorial last Thursday and were saddened, but for the wrong reasons. During the hour long service, the words “New York” were mentioned twice, “World Trade Centers” mentioned once, and there was no mention of airplanes, the Pentagon, deaths, or mourning. During our moment of silence we were told to “breathe and smile,” not to remember and honor those who were killed. We were told to look within ourselves and find our own inner peace, rather than to sympathize with those who lost loved ones.
After only two years, has America forgotten how devastated and hurt we were by the attacks? Or is it only that the Washington University campus is trying to be politically correct, and in the process ignoring the real issue?
Nicole Neuman and Diana Schonfeld
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2006
Chilean 9/11 also affects Americans
Dear Editor:
As a student studying abroad this semester, Student Life is an entertaining source of information as to what is happening back in St. Louis. Perhaps I notice the coverage of Sept. 11 more because I study Spanish and am currently living in Santiago, Chile, but I think it is interesting how Americans (or should I say North Americans) focus on the events that transpired two years ago, painful and important though those events were.
For those who may not be aware of the fact, Sept. 11, 2003 marks the 30-year anniversary of Chile’s coup d’etat that brought Augusto Pinochet Ugarte to power. Pinochet’s rule extended over a period of 17 years and is famous outside of Chile for its human rights abuses. Thousands of Chileans were detained and disappeared, tortured and often brutally killed. Chilean citizens were involuntarily forced into exile if they had not already fled. Even exile did not always guarantee physical safety; the secret police of Pinochet often sought out and assassinated Chileans in exile.
Those who remained within Chile were subject to an authoritarian state that imposed curfews and other restrictions in the name of saving the country from socialism. Vestiges of authoritarianism remain. To enter a concert in tribute to the Socialist President Allende last weekend I had to pass through no fewer than three checkpoints manned by armed police officers, and I almost got run over by a horse. This obsession with security comes from an obsession with an “internal enemy.”
We can learn a great deal from Chilean history; the enemy was everywhere: in the grandmother next door, the grocery store clerk, and especially in the university student. In seeing the enemy in everyone, the ideals of freedom and liberty were compromised in a frantic cry for safety. Are we so quick to give up our rights and freedom for that same battle cry?
To preserve our culture and freedoms, it is imperative that we recall not only the events of two years ago but also those of 1973. The history of Chile and of other nations that have been subject to dictatorship teach us to value freedom in its many forms. In the tradition of artists, authors, and freedom-advocates everywhere, remembering the Chilean tragedy is another way of saying “nunca m s.”
Katherine Karr
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2005
Episcopolian community is inclusive
Dear Editor:
I was concerned by Craig Pirner’s article addressing the way gay and lesbian people are spoken about in the Episcopal Church, on campus, and in our society. Craig mentioned an Episcopal church close to campus whose rector declared with poorly-timed and inappropriate humor that while his church is a “place where everyone could encounter Jesus Christ in an accepting and supportive environment,” it will not bless same-sex unions.
While I wholeheartedly agree with everything Craig wrote, I want to make sure that those readers who were discouraged, disappointed or appalled by this rector’s declaration know that there is another community of Episcopalians on campus that truly understands and actively employs the fundamentals of unconditional love. Episcopal Campus Ministry is a group of undergraduate and graduate students that worships together several times a week and offers numerous opportunities for study, discussion and service. While we cannot claim that we are all of one opinion on the issues concerning gay and lesbian people and the church, we can assure you that we talk openly and lovingly and care for one another as children of God and brothers and sisters in Christ.
Hopie Wells
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2004
The dangers of multilateralism
Dear Editor:
Brian Lichter’s letter of Sept. 12 touts the benefits of multilateralism, particularly under the umbrella of the U.N. I must take exception to his view that, “the way to preserve this [U.S.] power is through multilateralism.” I consider such a view not only strange, but dangerous too.
Multilateralism explicitly subordinates U.S. foreign policy decisions to not just the whims of masses, but to the whims of foreign masses which have no vested interest in the success of the U.S. As Americans we ought to be asking any advocate of multilateralism, Should we subject our international goals to BBC polls?
I am not opposed to the recruitment and maintenance of allies; I view international allies the same way I view other attendees at a frat party: the more the merrier (until the beer runs out). What I do dispute is the idea that every U.S. action should be multilateral. Neither multi- nor unilateralism is an appropriate standard by which to judge our actions.
The correct course of action is to determine what is in our best interest and to pursue that, regardless of whether or not that action is popular with other nations. Although “do the right thing” may sound too simplistic a maxim to guide foreign policy, surely it must trump “do the popular thing.”
My point is that we ought to be ready to take any action we deem necessary regardless of opposition from French Social Democrat MPs or Sudanese tribal leaders. There is no rational reason to expect that each and every foreign policy goal which is in our interest will also be in the interest of one or more other countries. If our objectives are in line with the goals of other countries, then we can work with them to mutual benefit; if not, to hell with other countries. It is the duty of the American president to convince the American people, and no others, to support those actions he deems in our national interests; multilateralism renders national interest subservient to the views of a global mob, and should be rejected.
Scott Flaherty
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2004
Editors should have checked facts in card access column
Dear Editor:
Mr. Wolfish and the editors in charge might point their attention to any number of previous Student Life articles on card access, such as the op-ed a year ago this week (Sept. 13, 2002) that I wrote entitled “With freedom and access for all.” They bear a striking resemblance to each other, right down to the computer theft analogy. But that’s not the point-I couldn’t care less. An even more applicable headline would be Nov. 11, 2002’s lead article entitled “Residents granted unlimited card access,” with the first paragraph stating:
“Starting on Monday, students living on the South 40 will be able to use their ID cards to get into Small Group Housing, and vice versa, so that residents will be able to access all on-campus living spaces managed by the Office of Residential Life.”
Seeing as the latter article was the lead story not even a year ago, editors, if not Mr. Wolfish, might have caught this.
So check your facts. Indeed, no evil Res-Life plot exists. Mr. Wolfish’s “house” that he speaks of is likely his fraternity house, and we can safely assume that he was led astray in his thinking because students in Greek-managed housing don’t get access to all the ResLife-managed housing, and vice versa. While Mr. Wolfish may have an excuse for misleading himself, the editors of Student Life certainly do not.
Brian Eufinger
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2004