Not simply reverse racism
Affirmative action as explained by Laura Ng (“Reverse Racism is still racism,” April 14, p. 4) is most definitely oversimplified. First off, let us remember that there is a little thing called the “legacy” clause. Further, let us remember that a large number of black, Latino and Native American parents, for example, could not offer such a “legacy” to their children because their generation did not have access to institutions of higher learning such as GW. Was that taken into account when this misleading piece was written? Obviously not.
The assumption that having a color-blind system of admissions is the way to go is quite naive. Face it. We are not all equal in America. Big surprise. A color-blind college admission system will inevitably favor white students because of their earlier educational advantages.
Finally, let’s not start this “if everyone else in the world can improve their societal standing, why can’t black people?” Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent – 245 years of slavery, 100 years of legalized discrimination and only 30 involving anything else. My purpose is not to change anyone’s mind but simply to remind people that affirmative action is not as simple as “reverse racism” and this issue deserves a bit more consideration than Ng’s opinion piece would suggest.
-Brandon K. Johnson, junior
Need better judgement
It was an amazing startle, so convincing that, before realizing that The Hatchet had a different banner, I was mesmerized by the front-page photo (montage) of University President Trachtenberg in a general’s uniform explaining the “incursion” into Foggy Bottom. However, (after seeing) the article below about GW changing its name to “Georgetown University” and the tremendous cost of changing the banners and signage, I caught onto the “fun-making” for April Fool’s day. It was hilarious, and sometimes naughty, as on page 22 (“How do you measure up?” March 31).
However, on other pages, the fun no longer was funny. It was distasteful, exceeding the bounds of decency and respect for women. The articles on page five (“Forum: Spit v. Swallow”) evoked shock and disgust in the highest degree, putting that page in the realm of pornography; it had no place in the spirit of poking fun at the establishment.
In this respect the argument for freedom of speech does not justify defacing a balanced attitude regarding a female student’s dignity. Showing the ability the writers had in creating a colorful issue for that week, they surely had the ability and good judgement in distinguishing between poking fun and filth.
-Laetitia Combrinck, Foggy Bottom resident
