DT anarchy
In response to the nameless "Noted in Passing" author of "Greg Hamilton's Perception Problem," April 2: I'd like to inquire into the "sketchy ethics" of enforcing U.S. immigration laws. How deluded by the liberal media does one have to be to claim that enforcing the law is questionable ethics? The super-majority of Americans feel that illegal immigration is a problem that must be solved. Furthermore, I refute the assertion that opponents of open borders are xenophobes; they are realists. Twelve million to 20 million illegal immigrants are in our country. The law is impartial, and it has no hidden agenda. If it were simply enforced, then this would not be an issue. And as to the Border Patrol belittlement, I chide you for your insensitivity and outright ignorance. It seemed similar to the argument John Kerry made when he said, "Do well in school and you won't end up in Iraq." It implies that being employed to guard our border automatically makes you a moronic imbecile incapable of graduating from high school, much less college. Until next time, I'll patiently await another categorical denunciation of more public servants. After all, The Daily Texan loves to show us how unimportant the laws of the land and their enforcement really are.
Edward C. Oden IV Government sophomore YCT legislative director
Well that's nit-picking, isn't it?
I am annoyed with The Daily Texan that my letter was edited ("Stadium name a royal mess," The Firing Line, April 2).
My comment was that "Even The Daily Texan refers to it as the 'Darrell K Royal Memorial Stadium.'" Some editorial stooge revised that to read "Even The Daily Texan refers to it as the 'Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium.'" This revisionist editorialism changes the meaning of my commentary.
On March 18, and numerous times before, The Daily Texan referred to Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium as the "Darrell K Royal Memorial Stadium." While these instances are probably the result of poor copy editing, changing my letter is a violation of your editorial policy to edit comments "for brevity, clarity and liability." Your editing muddied the meaning of my comment (changed it, in fact) and increased the length of my letter.
Charles Tolliver UT Alum
Wright or wrong?
Two things concerning Daniel Earnest's April 3 column "Wright man for the Dems?":
First, Barack Obama is not the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Guilt by association is a fallacy.
Wright is not going to be the Democratic nominee. That's going to be Sen. Obama (apologies to Clinton supporters).
Second, whether or not you like Wright's choice of words does not detract from the context of his over-blown sermon. I.E., his quote was "God damn America, for killin' innocent people; God damn America for treating us citizens as less than human." Are those accusations of killing innocents and treating people as less than human accurate? Absolutely. America has a long, sad tradition of condemning minorities to slavery, ethnic cleansing, economic and business practices that were to the exclusion of minorities and government policies that specifically targeted minorities to keep them from voting and to relegate them to a second class citizenship. Racist white Americans lynched, beat and abused in every conceivable way, both physically and psychologically, minorities in this country. That is the context of Wright's comments - a black man who lived through the demeaning racial discrimination and crippling racist policies that were specifically designed to crush their spirits, economically render them inept and alienate them from participating in the democratic process. The question you should ask yourself is this: Does your God approve of treating minorities as "less than human"? Clearly, Wright's does not.
Kenneth Wills UT Alum
Wright or wrong? II
I would like to take this time to ask the editors why it is exactly that a Mr. Daniel Earnest is still allowed to write for The Daily Texan. I am certainly all for differing viewpoints, but the way Earnest expresses his own indicates immediately to the reader a failure to challenge the beliefs that his pastor, parents and elementary school teachers have been cramming into him his whole life. Is it the deluge of Firing Lines The Daily Texan gets every time he writes anything? It must be. The belief The Texan seems to hold here is that "any publicity is good publicity."
Daniel, I can tell by the way you write that the unchallengeable swagger in your words doesn't come from the intellectual prize of never being bested in a battle of beliefs, but instead from a long history of cognitive dissonance and simply refusing to listen to anything that goes against your indoctrination: that is to say, your parents' word. While I could rebuke you and tell you why you're wrong about Barack Obama, or challenge McCain's stance on whether condoms prevent the spread of STDs (he's sure he has one, but can't remember it), I know it'll fall on deaf ears and the other Firing Lines will do it better than I could. Instead, I'll just simply implore you to grow up and expand your world outside the one of your parents. See you on the other side, maybe.
Jaron Castilleja Psychology and Russian sophomore
A balanced curriculum for all
Jillian Sheridan argues for the inclusion of more fine arts and humanities in the curriculum of every student at UT ("A curriculum for students, not commodities," April 2). However, her column misses the importance of the natural sciences and mathematics. The lack of the classics in most technical programs is apparent, and efforts to incorporate them are well-founded. But to claim this as a failing without acknowledging the lack of mathematics and basic science in many of the liberal arts and other curricula ignores another problem with modern higher education.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle contributed not only to philosophy, but also to the scientific method, biology, physics and mathematics. Liberal arts programs have slowly drifted from these subjects at the same time that U.S. students are testing well below their counterparts worldwide in mathematics and science. It is equally appalling that a student can graduate with minimal understanding of mathematics if they have strong reading and writing abilities. The "real education" that is advocated must include the scientific method in addition to the critical thinking necessary in all programs.
Sheridan also fails to realize that the reason engineering, business and communication majors have become "high-demand products" is exactly because they have expanded their capability to think, and insinuating that these programs do not offer this ability is unfortunate. Implementation must be cautious, as failure creates an engineer with a lack of technical knowledge and still no appreciation of the humanities or fine arts.
Cooper Gill Mechanical engineering senior YCT member
Be the first to comment on this article!