Letters to the Editor

In the name of political correctness, staff editorial over-reacts to campaign flyers

To the Editor:

I am troubled by the April 27 staff editorial “Not in the Clear.” It is unjust because “two Asian girls at the same time” is not in any way explicitly sexually suggestive. While the flyer could be understood in a sexual sense, rules on the content of flyers are only functional if the content is unambiguously a sexual suggestion. Any flyer, with any wording, can be “sexually suggestive” to some outlier on campus. The fact is, as we stand today, we will have two Asian girls on our class of 2010 board at the same time. Furthermore, no basis is provided for why the content is racist or sexist.
Arguing that the Clear Party broke a campaign rule is one thing, but by demanding an apology, the editorial attacks the party’s freedom of expression. They were portraying themselves, so if the material is sexist or racist, they are only undermining themselves. For example, I would have every right to call myself a fat, lazy Indian—this would be very stupid of me in a campaign, but not racist by any stretch because I describe only myself.

It is disconcerting that Spectator would so enthusiastically seek to curb freedom of expression to appease everyone in the name of political correctness. Well, I’m not appeased—I’m frustrated and intimidated by this censure. From soliciting opinions on campus, it seems I’m not the only one.

Sudeep Moniz, SEAS ’10
April 28, 2009

Earth Institute: where one can learn how to make a difference in environmental sustainability

To the Editor:

Emily Rose Jordan, CC ’09, had an important point to make in her April 23 op-ed “Let’s commence a no-paper tradition”— many of us are worried about the state of the planet, but also convinced there’s nothing any one person can do that will make a difference. I am the director of the Center for the Study of Science and Religion at Columbia. I am often taken for one of those people who think there is an either-or choice to be made here. Actually, my Center exists for precisely the reason Jordan has so well articulated. My colleagues and I have come to understand that some of the most important problems we face—as we define such problems, they are the ones that threaten all lives on Earth including ours if we fail to act to ameliorate them—require both the insights of many religions and the insights of many sciences. I hope Spectator readers will take this thought from Jordan’s op-ed—the Earth Institute here is a place from which a single person can learn how best to make the biggest difference in ameliorating the risks to our planet, and for those whose motivations include their religion, the CSSR is the place from which to learn more about the Earth Institute. For instance, this Sunday and Monday, the CSSR will bring together scholars, scientists, and religious figures from around the world for Common Ground: Science and Religion in Dialogue for a Sustainable Future. I hope readers with an interest to attend will write to me directly.

Robert Pollack
Professor of biological sciences and director, CSSR
pollack@columbia.edu
April 28, 2009

Article brings up important issue, but lacks depth of substance

To the Editor:

Discussing the issue of depression in the LGBTQ community is more than important—it’s necessary for positive social change. I worry, however, that the April 24 article “Adolescence tough for LGBTQ” classifies a group of people too generally, without acknowledging the depth of this issue.

While this article could have made very positive movement forward by focusing on the issues facing LGBTQ people and how they often lead to adolescent depression, it chose to focus simply on the idea that LGBTQ adolescents are often depressed. There is a fundamental difference between these two hooks, and I am concerned that this article failed to delve beneath the surface of this issue and into its underlying causes, intricacies, and nuances.
The stance of this piece causes readers to walk away thinking, “LGBTQ folks have a problem,” rather than, “society needs a change.” Furthermore, its generalizations suggest the possibility that LGBTQ people are inherently depressed as a result of who they are—an idea that is not only false, but also absolutely deleterious to their perception in society. Being gay is not depressing. Ignorant people are depressing. I worry that this was not clear in the article.
I encourage Spec to continue to write about this issue; I simply hope that authors in the future focus on the issue’s depth, rather than broadly discussing its existence.

Sam Preston, CC ’12
Incoming co-publicity chair, Columbia Queer Alliance
April 24, 2009
Opinions expressed in this letter are those of the author and not necessarily those of CQA

Column’s misrepresentation of Butler Library policies calls for clarification

To the Editor:

I am writing to respond to two issues MaryAlice Parks raised in her April 20 column, “10 reasons why I am not ready to give to Columbia.”

First, parents and other immediate family members are always welcome in Butler Library and other CU libraries. Just be sure to first visit the Library Information Office in 201 Butler Library with your family member(s) to obtain a guest pass. If a student with his or her parent(s) was turned away or given inaccurate information, we apologize for the confusion.

Second, books borrowed via Borrow Direct do contain barcodes, and all receipts and returns of books are tracked in the Borrow Direct system. Unfortunately, the current Borrow Direct software does not integrate with our local circulation system, so Borrow Direct books do not appear in your library account. A new system (to be implemented in the coming year) will allow us to check out Borrow Direct books to your local library account when you pick them up and will make it easier for you (and us!) to identify the books you’ve requested and picked up.

Francie Mrkich
Acting director of access services and head of delivery services, Butler Library
April 24, 2009

Latin diplomas would indicate equal status of General Studies students

To the Editor:

In the April 26 article “Edwards wins General Studies council presidency” announcing the election results for General Studies Student Council, Scott Jurkowski, vice president of policy-elect, was quoted as saying that the Latin diploma for GS students was a “lower priority”; however, president-elect Edwards claimed the GS was “closer than ever” to getting their degrees in Latin. Jurkowski goes on to identify access to Core Curriculum for GS students as a bigger goal.

As former project manager for some of the biggest Fortune 100 companies and as a GS student, I am bewildered as to the reasoning in not seeking the “low hanging fruit” on the branch in obtaining equality and having the GS degree be in Latin just like the SEAS and CC counterparts. After spending more out-of-pocket on average than any CC or SEAS student (we pay by the credit and get less aid), GS students should be entitled to have their degrees in Latin and not be singled out as a second-class citizen to the other undergraduate schools. GS students work just as hard, if not harder, in earning their grades and contributing to their seminar discussions. GS students pay just as much for student activity fees, even though many of us have families to feed or jobs that barely let us take a full-time class schedule, let alone get to a student event. After just surrendering my own executive position at an advertising agency to focus on the final stretch towards graduation, I see a statement of equality potentially being the best gift from Columbia this year. As a future (donating) alumnus, I would rather not be dismayed with a degree that was a departure from the traditions that make this institution so amazing. As seen in last year’s Iowa-to-White House Presidential race, long-term goals start with short-term “wins”; if the GSSC and the school cannot agree to have the degrees in Latin this year, I ask that they consider it retroactively when and if they do. Jurkowski’s goals of equalizing the Core for everyone are admirable, but equalizing the outcome for GS students in the past, present, and future through a Latin degree is just the “shot-heard-around-the-world” this campus needs.

Chuck Griffith, GS ’09
April 29, 2009