Dear Editor:
I was surprised to see that the Daily made no mention of the Q&A session from the recent symposium on colorblindness ("Expert condemns court's colorblindness ruling," Feb. 7). Although the entire panel was monolithic in its opposition to treating individuals by their character instead of their race (as exemplified by the comment made by affirmative action officer Kahris White-McLaughlin that she "agree[d] with everything everyone's said"), I did use the question and answer period to voice objection to the discriminatory practices advocated by the panelists.
My first question was directed toward the event moderator, Sabina Vaught, questioning why she only selected panelists who wholeheartedly agreed with one another to discuss this very controversial and divisive topic. Before she could respond, however, Mr. Lopez interrupted, lashing out that my question was only "right-wing" rhetoric and deserved no reply.
I proceeded to ask Lopez why he insisted on pigeon-holing all critics of affirmative action as racists who are opposed to school integration. Before ceding the microphone to the other questioners, I also questioned whether the various Democrats and black activists who also advocated a color-blind society were, as Lopez proposed, bigots who wanted to return to an age of segregation. Once again, however, Lopez refused to respond, labeling my questioning of his stereotypes as another "right-wing strategy."
I urge Daily readers to pick up the next issue of The Primary Source, coming out on Wednesday of this week, to hear the conservative position on the merits of colorblindness and meritocracy itself.
Policies affecting race relations and education need to be honestly discussed - there is no room for demagoguery and fear-mongering.
Matthew Gardner-SchusterClass of 2008Editor Emeritus, The Primary Source
Dear Editor:
I'm really disappointed with Daniel Halper's recent op-ed condemning "Pathways" and interfaith dialogue in general. I do agree that Islamism/Islamist Radicalism must be reigned in, and that moderate Islam is highly preferable to violent extremism. However, to say that we "are talking with the wrong people" is to spout more of the Bush rhetoric that we do not talk with those with whom we disagree or find reprehensible.
Quite to the contrary, in talking to those we find reprehensible, radical and even evil, we come closer to solving many of the great issues that plague our world. Separation and censorship, even for the most radical supporters of anti-Americanism and violence, is not the way to go - particularly not in the setting of a university, where open and honest dialogue is among its most cherished functions. A lack of communication will only make things worse.
Jason YeagerClass of 2009
