Writer's Depiction of CSSN Is Misleading and Irresponsible
To the Editor:
I have very serious concerns about the motivation of Alfred Zaragoza in his recent opinion piece on CSSN ("Threatening Free Speech," Feb. 20, 2002). I don't know from what perspective he hails, but either he knows nothing about CSSN--having had no contact with it and having done no research for his piece--or he is deliberately undermining democratic discourse on campus and the struggle for human rights. Is he a budding fascist or neo-Nazi that he could wish to suppress an arena set up for the purpose of discussion and action on human rights?
Having been a CSSN member for almost five years, I have not once come across any behavior on the part of the group that could be construed as hateful or repressive. Argument, debate, and disagreement with the points of view of others is not only appropriate but also necessary in a democratic community. Is protesting or speaking out against what you think is wrong repressive of the free speech of others? I think not. This is not to say that members of the group may not have acted inappropriately and with hatred, but this does not represent CSSN as a whole. The group cannot, nor does it seek to, control all the actions of individual members; crazy, destructive people join all groups, without said groups' approval.
In my experience CSSN has dedicated itself to fair, open, and constructive discourse, with the aim of building a movement to support the rights and dignity of all people. Zaragoza's comments couldn't be further from reflecting this reality, and through their distortion they undermine this vital work.
Emily Burkes-Nossiter, CC '01
Feb. 20, 2002
To the Editor:
As a member of CSSN, I find Alfred Zaragoza's opinion piece troubling for several reasons ("Threatening Free Speech," Feb. 20, 2002).
Zaragoza's depiction of CSSN as an "on-campus hate movement" ignores all of the many positive and widely supported contributions CSSN and its member organizations have made to this campus. The sexual misconduct policy, socially responsible investing, fair trade coffee, and anti-sweatshop statutes have all been implemented thanks to CSSN affiliated groups.
Most importantly, Zaragoza's allegation that CSSN is opposed to free speech is absolutely untrue. On many occasions CSSN and its member organizations have fought for freedom of speech and against censorship. Indeed, one group affiliated with CSSN is the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization whose very reason for existence is to protect and preserve the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
In regard to the Dinesh D'Souza event to which Zaragoza devotes much of his article, his allegations of our anti-free speech activities are, again, blatantly false. In the original email to CSSN announcing D'Souza's speech, dated Feb. 12, Ginger Gentile, CC '02, the president of CSSN, says, "I strongly feel that he has the right to speak." In fact, while I have not been actively involved in the planning of any response to D'Souza's speech, I have not heard a single CSSNer suggest that he should be silenced or prevented from speaking. That, however, does not necessarily mean that we will not hold a demonstration or in some other way respond to what D'Souza says. Let's not forget that this is a man who says that racism is a practical response to the inferiority of African-Americans--he should not be allowed to make such outrageous claims without being publicly and loudly contradicted.
Chrissy Fiorentini, CC '03
Feb. 20, 2002
To the Editor:
Alfred Zaragoza's opinion piece ("Threatening Free Speech," Feb. 20, 2002) is unsubstantiated and hypocritical. His main point is that CSSN will try to "shut down" D'Souza from speaking on Feb. 27. I am a member of CSSN, and I am unaware of any planned actions on the part of CSSN as a group to do so. Zaragoza's belief is unsubstantiated by fact.
Also, he interprets CSSN's actions as "secretive." As he noted, CSSN's listserve emails, of which he took advantage to write his opinion piece, are available to the public. But Zaragoza's interpretation of CSSN is faulty.
Furthermore, Zaragoza is a hypocrite; although he claims that CSSN silences speakers they do not like, he himself is trying preemptively to silence CSSN. CSSN does not hate freedom of speech; CSSN takes advantage of freedom of speech to voice opinions. Because of freedom of speech, Zaragoza can express an opinion as deluded, unsubstantiated, and hypocritical as that in "Threatening Free Speech," and I am free to expose him as an undeveloped thinker and irresponsible journalist.
Betty Shzu, CC '02
Feb. 21, 2002
Elimination of Bio Anthro Does Not Serve Student Needs
To the Editor:
You may or may not know that biological anthropology is being effectively eliminated from Columbia University. The issue as already been addressed twice in Spectator by Lynn Copes, CC '05 ("Physical Attraction," Feb. 7, 2002), and Ph.D. candidate Francys Subiaul ("Anthropology's Missing Links," Feb. 18, 2002). While I am an avid supporter of saving biological anthropology, my purpose for writing this letter is not to plug our cause but rather to address the larger issue at hand.
Whether or not the our demands are addressed by the University and because I am not so naive as to think that we will get all that we demand, I do hope that this fight for biological anthropology will incite every student to question the operation of his or her department. Every department is constantly changing: to meet budget limits, to remain competitive in this harsh academic market, but ideally to serve every student's needs.
The "phasing out" of the biological anthropology division warns us that we have to hold Columbia to its promise to look out for the best interest of the students and to provide us with the well-rounded education that we all pay for. One must never take Columbia for granted.
June Sung, CC '03
Feb. 21, 2002