To the editor:
As I was browsing through the Thursday's edition of The Daily Cougar's comics, I was outraged and deeply offended by the comic entitled "America Farm" by Brian Keith Giovannini, which depicted a white employer interviewing a minority applicant which appeared to be black. The comic implied that since affirmative action is still being enforced in numerous parts of the country, that the minority applicant need not have the necessary qualifications required for the job, but in fact the only prerequisite needed for affirmative action- abiding jobs is the color of one's skin. This implication merely displays the ignorance of the author and people who think in the same manner. The technique of most authors is to research a topic if one is not strongly endowed with the correct knowledge concerning the subject being addressed, and it is quite obvious that Mr. Giovannini has not the faintest idea of what affirmative action is all about.
Affirmative action laws clearly state that a minority will have the same opportunity for a position that his non-minority counterpart, despite the color of their skin or gender. In order for a non-minority to be hired on the basis of their skin would imply that the employer is trying to fill a quota. Affirmative action laws and quotas are not one and the same, and therefore it is ridiculous to associate the two in any form. Nowhere in any affirmative action law does it state that if two applicants are equally qualified for the same position that the position should awarded to the minority. This is not the reason for this law. The laws are intended to even the scale of fairness by putting an employer in a position to consciously be objective, no matter what kind of upbringing was present. Up until very recently, large firms and corporations across America were predominately headed by white males. Does it not strike you as being odd that minorities of race and gender were not equally represented in these firms, considering both groups make up a strikingly large percentage of this country? Even our own United States military's promotion techniques were investigated by various departments in our government because a very minute number of minorities held prestigious titles or high-ranking positions -- not because they were not qualified or hadn't put in enough years; it was because of their race and gender. These disturbing and other negative results were nationally broadcasted on 60 Minutes only a couple of months ago. This highly accredited and reputable program has always been complimented on accurately displaying the problems that plague our supposedly equal opportunity society. The Constitution calls for equality for all, and affirmative action laws were put into effect because employers chose to ignore this seemingly obvious act of human courtesy. Affirmative action is the chance for minorities to receive the same opportunity for an interview to hold a position that ten years ago would be otherwise unheard of.
I believe anyone who can complain about affirmative action laws to be hypercritical, because while one race or gender were being treated unjust, the other races and gender were profiting. Now that the odds are becoming more evenly weighed, someone wants to stand up and complain reverse racism. My question is to you and all others like you is: How can you make a bold stand against affirmative action now, when you and others chose to support unfair hiring practices before? Where were your words of wisdom when people of different ethnicity were struggling to rise up just to be shoved back down once more? Where were your cute little comics when the children of these applicants were starving to death because no paycheck means no food? Have you ever heard of the phrase, If not part of the solution you must be part of the problem? Now that there is some hope for the oppressed, you want to scream and yell "unfair." My advice to you is don't be discouraged if no one hears your pleas at first; eventually someone will take notice. You have to be patient, persistent, and sacrifice a little. In time you will rise to take your throne among true leaders and kings in America's history. Don't worry, I don't think Martin will mind sharing sharing his throne.
To the editor:
Silly Stephanie Peöa -- tricks are for kids. And being that the majority of us would like to consider ourselves adults, why are you toying with us?
I'm specifically referring to your claim that you are not a homophobe -- that you "for one am not afraid of homosexuals or how they live." But is this really the case? Upon reading your Sept. 15 column I've concluded that it is not. Not only are you afraid, Stephanie, but you're threatened.
It isn't necessarily the physical presence of homosexuals that scares you, but their ideological one. Their lifestyle is in direct opposition to what your "God" dictates as morally acceptable behavior. (Please take careful note of the quotation marks; they serve to remind you that not everyone subscribes to your convictions.) Observing members of your society actively choosing to reject the Bible's teachings and engage in "sinful" acts distresses you. Why these individuals are so unconcerned about the repercussions their actions will supposedly yield is something you can't comprehend.
It's really very simple: Your realities are different. Whereas you've testified that your life's basis is rooted in the Bible, not everyone could do or would want to do the same. Whereas you regard homosexuality as a sin, others do not. As a result, you assert that homosexuals "are calling the Lord Jesus Christ a liar." This is utterly false. You can't make judgments of individuals who aren't operating in the same reality as you. You don't accept this, I know. If you did, you wouldn't continue to spew forth your Christ-centric opinions on the "dissenters."
You mention that Jesus "demands a change" from us. Take a look in the mirror, Stephanie: Your precious Word of God sounds awfully like WORDS OF HATE.
Mindy Ann Terence
Sophomore/Sociology and Anthropology