Dear Editor:
Should Hispanics interact only with other Hispanics? Should African-Americans interact only with other African-Americans? Should whites only interact with other whites?
Of course not. The mere thought of creating pre-orientation programs on a racial or ethnic basis (“University evades pressure to abolish minority-only programs,” Sept. 17) is ridiculous. The ill-conceived notion behind the organization of these proposed programs is that an incoming student is somehow better off if he or she only deals with people from his or her exact same background. Aside from my initial discomfort of splitting up incoming freshmen (or transfers) based on their ancestral background, I worry what will happen if multiple “minority-only” pre-orientation programs are created. Will their funding and events be comparable? Separate but equal? Imagine the uproar if the Slavic program receives more funding than the Scandinavian.
Besides this highly potential controversy, think about the basic underpinnings for creating these groups. Ethnically divided orientation programs imply that a group has something unique to contribute. Well, then, why bar students from different backgrounds from this pool of talent, culture and originality? As Eric Wolfish pointed out in his editorial on how fraternity members are not given access to on-campus buildings (“Student card access system needs improvement”), we are strongest as a whole; divide us, and we all suffer. Melanie Osborne, Assistant Director of the Orientation Office said, “Pre-orientation programs address special interests, not certain groups of people.”
Keep pre-orientation programs interest-based. Do not allow Washington University to slip into the backwards thinking that will allow administrators to batch people together based on their race, creed, or national origin.
Diego Chojkier
Class of 2005
News brief was timely
Dear Editor:
In one of your recent editions there was a small article in “the WUrld” section regarding layoffs at American Airlines and the resulting cancellation of some of the November flights out of St. Louis. ÿThis prompted me to check our son’s reservations for Thanksgiving vacation. ÿHis flights had indeed been cancelled. ÿWe had not been contacted by the airlines and, though they had put him on alternative flights, the times were very inconvenient. By my calling the airlines this early, I was able to change his reservations to times that fit better with our family’s schedule (and his classes). ÿThank you for the timely article. ÿWe are enjoying reading Student Life.
Sherrie Frachtman
Parent
Permit prices too high
Dear Editor:
My name is Bri Kneisley. ÿI am a new transfer student at Washington University. As a single mother of a 6-year-old, there is no place on campus that will accomodate us, even if I could afford it. ÿSo, obviously, I live off-campus, approximately three miles away. While this isn’t a huge distance, it is too far to walk.
I recently purchased a parking permit for the outrageous price of $345. ÿI was prepared to be ripped off at $60-$80 per semester but did not know the price until I was in the transportation office. ÿNot realizing that I had any alternatives to buying a parking permit, and not realizing that getting a permit would still not guarantee me even a decent parking spot, I bought it.
Last week my car broke down. ÿI don’t have the money to fix it because I spent $345 on a parking permit. ÿPretty ironic, huh?
Bri Kneisley
Class of 2005
Anthropology
Redden is misinformed
Dear Editor:
ÿ I applaud Student Life for renaming its opinion page “Forum,” helping define the difference between “news” and personal views. However, in Shawn Redden’s recent piece (“Friedman, terrorism’s apologist,” 9/17/2003), the lines between fact, opinion and disinformation are sadly blurred.
To boldly assert that “Whenever Thomas Friedman speaks, he lies,” requires far more knowledge of Friedman’s statements than I have. Yet I have grave doubts that Redden has actually investigated the truth or untruth of every single comment that Friedman may have made. Indeed, Redden sounds more like a demagogue than a scholar.
More specifically, Redden claims that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was found by Israel’s Kahan Commission to bear “personal responsibility” in the Christian massacre of Muslims in Lebanon, a statement not buttressed by fact. In fact, after Time Magazine printed a similar allegation, Sharon sued them for making false and defamatory statements-and won!
Mr. Redden, I certainly respect your right to have an opinion, ignorant or knowledgeable as it may be; however, it seems that the facts are causing you trouble.
Rabbi Hershey Novak
Chabad Jewish Student Organization