Tuesday, 4/15/97 Letters to the Editor
The line drawn I’m writing in response to Stanley L. Johnson
Jr.’s April 9 article. I’d like to say that I agree with Johnson’s
review and commend him for taking a stand against Todd Smith’s
thoughts. It is too often that people speak or write for diversity
("racial healing"), but do not try to fight for equality.
Individuals claim that they celebrate differences, yet mock those
who take a stand against something against the "norm." Smith
states, "for white people to now hand over some kind of financial
payment, or even apology, is ludicrous." Forgetting about
reparations, I’d like to ask Mr. Smith why an apology is
"ludicrous." Why would it be so difficult to say, "I’m sorry about
my forefathers’ actions, but I’m striving for a life that does not
involve that sort or any sort of discrimination." When you made
that comment you implied that you don’t care about the past because
it no longer applies to you. Yet, the past does apply to you and it
frightens me that you don’t realize that. The values that existed
hundreds of years ago have not disappeared. They are not as evident
but they still exist. And if you assume that African Americans ask
for reparations solely for monetary reasons, you are wrong. They
are also demanding respect that the United States of America has
yet to give them. So, what I am trying to say to Todd Smith or
others like him is, don’t claim that you seek equality, diversity
just because you think it is the "politically correct" thing to do.
Don’t say that you want equality if you are going to laugh at your
friend’s racist joke. And most certainly, do not claim that you
seek "racial healing" if you are going to write an article stating
that African Americans do not deserve reparations like every other
minority that has been wronged. Individuals are either for an
egalitarian society or they are not. There is no between, and
people need to think about which side they stand on. Miata Holmes
First year, political science/ women’s studies specialization True
dates This is in response to the seemingly unending ignorance
regarding the turn of the millennium. The first date in anno Domini
was January 1, Year ONE, not Year Zero. This means the new
millennium will begin January 1, 2001, not 2000. Yes, it’s cool
that it’s the year 2000, but would everybody, including "X-Files",
"Strange Days" and that horrible television show "Millennium"
please get it straight. Furthermore, decades and centuries work the
same way. So feel free to correct the other 200 million people who
are completely confused by a simple calendar. Kevin Schraven UCLA
alumnus, biochemistry