Dear Editor:
The recent incident in which thirty-six Washington University custodians were forced to leave the U.S. on three days’ notice should certainly cause alarm. But ultimately, University workers like the terminated Nicaraguan custodians will only achieve job security and a living wage when they can organize, a difficult proposition given the administration’s unspoken stance on campus organizing.
The incident fits into a disturbing pattern of anti-labor behavior. Over the past several years, the University has filed legal briefs to prevent graduate workers from obtaining organizing rights (NLRB 2-RC-22082). University police have ejected union organizers from campus when they attempted to speak with food service employees (Student Life, 3/30/99). And the University retains subcontractors who have violated federal labor law when employees do try to organize (i.e. NLRB WL-933720).
Whether or not the Nicaraguan workers can return to campus, students and alumni must strongly insist that the University and its subcontractors follow practices consistent with the University’s ideals. The administration has a duty to ensure respect for the dignity and organizing rights of all campus workers, and likewise, it,s our duty to hold them to it.
Benjamin Looker
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2000
Religion, not policy
Dear Editor:
In his Nov. 12 letter to Student Life, Cameron Brown expresses his desire for religion to grace the pages of the newspaper, especially columns that have debated the merits of homosexuals’ participation in blood drives. To answer Mr. Brown’s question, “Where is God?” no one has cited divine authority in this particular debate because, quite frankly, it has no place.
Community blood organizations are in an even-less appropriate position than Mr. Brown to place moral judgments on those who wish to donate blood. Brown’s argument seems to be that since he finds homosexuality morally reprehensible, gays should be banned from giving blood. If we follow Brown’s reasoning, then, organizations that collect blood must also ban other sinners (adulterers, thieves, etc.) from donating as well. Pretty soon, no one will be left!
Mr. Brown does make a point-religion certainly plays an important role in the lives of many Americans (including some gays). But we must also not let religion masquerade as sound social policy. Blood organizations are not in the business of sanctioning morality, nor should they be.
Craig Pirner
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2004
Finally, a good article!
Dear Editor:
I am writing in regards to “An ode to the long-forgotten Bear’s Den of years past” by Ryan Pinkston. Finally, a quality article in Student Life, which is not only interesting and pertinent to campus issues, but is written in a funny and engaging style. The paper needs more articles like this to keep its readers happy. ÿArticles do not need to express extreme viewpoints, offending people to get readers. ÿPublish more like this. ÿIf that means that you need to print less often so you have fewer “filler articles” so be it. Student Life’s reputation and readership depends on it.
Eli Bilek
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2007
Brown is presumptuous
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to Cameron Brown’s Nov. 12 letter in Student Life. ÿMr. Brown wonders why articles published in this newspaper do not argue issues “from the most important angle,” referring to religion and morality. I would like to take this opportunity to point out to Mr. Brown that, while he claims to have a Christian faith, at least 40% of the students at Washington University are not Christian, and many of the students who are Christian do not necessarily share all of his beliefs.
Mr. Brown should consider that Christianity is a religion that has evolved continuously over its two thousand year history, and the beliefs central in one sect may be more peripheral in another. I find it presumptuous of Mr. Brown to assume that we all share his beliefs and are therefore choosing to “crush the moral light inside us” when we keep religious matters out of discussions and arguments over such things as whether or not gay men should be allowed to donate blood.
I absolutely do not share Mr. Brown’s beliefs regarding homosexuality, nor do I believe that my personal religious and moral beliefs should be brought into discussions of matters that are completely removed from those beliefs. ÿI may not follow the same set of beliefs as Mr. Brown, but I do not expect everyone else to follow my personal beliefs either. I believe that the same can be said of many students at this institution.
Amy Schwartz
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2006
Minnen offensive
Dear Editor:
I was deeply offended by Jess Minnen’s comment in response to CBS pulling the Reagan Miniseries in the Nov. 11 issue of Student Life. Minnen wrote, “Liberals: Yeah, we’re sorry the murderous homophobic prick has Alzheimer’s, too.” It is not only rude to slander a former president, but she also makes fun of the fact that Reagan has Alzheimer’s. Minnen uses the terms murderous, homophobic, and prick to describe Reagan and does not give any actual data to back her argument. She also makes it seem as if all liberals think in the same distorted way that she does. I don’t know if Minnen thinks it is appropriate to grossly insult a former President who is still alive, but it is definitely inappropriate for her to assume that all liberals agree with her. Regardless of how she feels about Reagan’s presidency, the way she wrote about him is downright offensive to those with any civility. I hope that future top ten lists will be presented in a more tasteful manner.
Anne Kristol
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2007
Flaws in article
Dear Editor:
After attending the College Democrats Candidate Forum on Nov. 10, I was greatly disturbed by the flaws and mischaracterizations that appeared in Sarah Ulrey’s Nov. 14 article about the event. I went to the panel discussions in search of a candidate to support, and found that contender in Jeff Smith. To me, Smith overwhelmingly out-performed his four competitors that partook in the series. That said, I was surprised by Ulrey’s skeptical classification of Smith as a “young upstart.” In fact, I was far more impressed by Smith’s background than I was by Joan Barry’s. Unfortunately, Ulrey failed to even mention Smith’s impressive bio, which includes his extensive work establishing a St. Louis charter school and his role as political director of Bill Bradley’s 2000 Iowa Caucus campaign. On the issues, Barry spoke in scripted platitudes, came across as nervously uninformed, and offered little by way of original ideas. On a number of occasions, after following Smith’s answers to students’ questions, all she could offer was “I agree with Jeff.”
As if these gaping holes were not enough, Ulrey misrepresented the stance of Smith on the subject of abortion rights by writing that “Both candidates claimed a pro-life stance.” Barry declared that she opposed a woman’s right to choose and Smith followed with “I’m pro-choice.” Apparently not, since Ulrey labeled both candidates as pro-life in her article. After reading the piece, I was confused. So, I later visited Jeff Smith’s campaign Web site and found the following: “I unequivocally support women’s right to exercise control over their bodies.”
Many people in this country vote for candidates solely based on their stance regarding social issues, such as abortion. That said, there is no room for careless journalism that misstates the position of a candidate to such a degree. Because of Sarah Ulrey’s neglectful account of the College Democrats forum, the WU community is misinformed about the candidates and the fundamental purpose of the event-to educate student-voters-has been undermined.
Aaron W. Gordon
Class of 2004
No science here
Dear Editor:
I was surprised and disappointed that Stephen Wolfram was invited to give an Assembly Lecture. He claims to have invented a new kind of science, which will put all former science in the shade, and has published (self-published, because no reputable publisher would touch it) a book about it. When you read this book, or listen to his lecture, you find lots of pretty pictures and grandiose claims, but no specifics. This “new kind of science” has been a decade in the making, but so far has accomplished exactly zero. Is there any “there” there? I think not.
Genuine science builds on the work of others. For example, Newton famously said that if he saw further it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Somehow, Wolfram doesn’t find it necessary to acknowledge any earlier work. Others who work in the same field (known as cellular automata) think this frankly dishonest.
Genuine science is specific. Newton discovered laws of mechanics and gravity, Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, etc., all solutions to very specific scientific problems. Wolfram simply peddles promises and tells everyone how wonderful he thinks he is.
These are the classic signs (even, the definition) of crackpot science. There are extravagant promises and boasts, but nothing specific one can put one’s hands on and examine. Why did we invite a crackpot?
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Banks wrong
Dear Editor:
The persistence with which Paul Banks harps on the “misogyny of Islam” is a depressing reminder of how the apparent victimization of “Oriental” women by their culture, religion, etc., has historically bolstered the Western/white/Christian sense of its civilizational superiority. The problems with this vision remain largely the same.
First, something as large and complex as the Muslim world cannot be boiled down to incidents that are shocking to most Muslims. Second, Islam cannot be boiled down to a few lines of text taken out of context, or to whether a government punished or ignored a particular act of violence. Scripture is not a monolithic and unproblematic focus of consensus, which might be used to identify what a religion “is” or “is not.” Only a fundamentalist, or an Orientalist, would see scripture in those terms.
Third, when governments in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (two very different political settings) have reacted leniently to violent attacks against women, the decisions have reflected political priorities as much as they have reflected “religion,” and the decisions have been controversial within those countries. Religions are not about scripture alone; they are also the constantly shifting products of shifting political circumstances.
Finally, how fortunate that we live in a society in which wife-beating, rape, child-abuse, the serial murder of women, and the refusal to elect women to the highest political office (unlike Indonesia, Turkey and Bangladesh, all “Muslim countries”) can all thrive without the sanction of religion.
Satadru Sen
Assistant Professor
History Department
Israel article wrong
Dear Editor:
Stud Life can’t get it right! I go to a top-ten school and I expect a student paper of that caliber. I read Stud Life habitually-each Monday, Wednesday and Friday- and in each issue I find countless errors and misinformation. On Friday Nov. 14, I was a victim of this poor journalism. When staff writer Adrienna Huffman contacted me for her story “U.S. Issues Israel Travel Warning,” I was happy to assist her. This past summer I worked for the Jerusalem Post- Israel’s premier English newspaper. Therefore I understand the frequency with which mistakes can occur. So, I asked Ms. Huffman to send me any quotes that she planned on using, which she did. I made numerous corrections. To my chagrin and amazement, the article used the exact, unedited quote as well as a specific quote I had asked Huffman to eliminate. In addition, for the second time, Stud Life has wrongly attributed the “it’s still safe to come” campaign to Washington University Solidarity for Israel. It is actually a private initiative by two students. Stud Life has a responsibility to report factual information and respect the wishes of its interviewees. Washington University students need to think twice before offering quotations for this newspaper until Stud Life can prove itself a credible source of information.
Sarah Katz
Arts & Sciences
Class of 2006