Letters
to the editor
Drinking
age should remain 21
Re
“Right to serve, but not be served?”
Opinion, May 6: Concerning Janette Bennett’s
opinion article on the legal age of drinking
in the U.S., I think it’s important
to bring to light a couple of issues that
add to this argument. Although the responsibilities
one can acquire before the age of 21 are
numerous, and the comparisons to other countries’
laws concerning drinking are valid, consider
the following.
In
a good number of western European countries,
the legal drinking age is 16. However, this
normally includes “soft” alcoholic
beverages such as beer and wine only. Harder
liquor consumption is legal at the age of
18. Nevertheless, it is important to note
the cultural differences and safety issues
when comparing ages.
First
of all, the public transportation system
here in the U.S. is nothing like Europe’s.
In cities on the east coast, such as New
York and Boston, the subways are great.
Even in San Francisco one get to almost
anywhere they need to go. But in most of
the U.S., our public transportation is quite
limited, if existent at all. So the incidence
of drinking and driving car crashes, injuries,
and deaths is a lot lower over there than
it is here.
Next,
the chances of a 16-year-old driver in the
United States being involved in any automobile
collision is already virtually 100 percent.
This is because for every 16 year old that
does not have an occurrence, another will
get into two (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration).
If
we were to add the legalization of allowing
minors to drink on top of the car crash
statistics in relation to our weak public
transportation issue, it would be a formula
for disaster. And although I personally
think that the point about being old enough
to serve in the military should give us
the right to consume a simple beer is a
good one, it shouldn’t happen before
we revamp the transportation system here
in the states.
—
Jessica Post
women’s studies
Engineering
administrators are ignoring racism
Re
“Controversial mannequin removed after
complaints,” News, May 6: I read the
article about the black mannequin with the
noose around its neck and I was terrified.
There is simply is no useful academic purpose
for this figure. It’s been known to
be posted off and on for about a year. I
can’t comprehend that a state employee
would not see the significance of a noose,
especially around a black person’s
neck, but also that he would compare it
to an “Italian Neck-Tie.”
The
history of nooses with black people in America
is horrible enough, but to say it’s
the same thing as when Italian Mafia slits
someone’s throat and pulls their tongue
out the opening, that’s outright dementia.
Additionally, the statement by the chairman
of civil engineering that he “has
more important things to handle,”
is striking. What does he mean? Are there
people in civil engineering doing worst
things than this?
I
am very disappointed that the chairman of
the department would not have the common
sense to avoid this type of situation in
the first place by not allowing this behavior
to exist under his supervision. I can only
assume that he condones these actions and
has no knowledge of American history. As
a black women, I have seen similar attitudes
by other college of engineering administrators
firsthand.
Last
year, a fraudulent claim was made against
me by the chair of Computer Engineering
Computer Science. She tried to penalize
me simply because I complained about the
racially derogatory remarks her husband
made to my date, who is of middle eastern
decent, at our engineering student council
banquet. I truly hope that the dean holds
these people accountable and bring back
the standards for what is ethical, legal
and acceptable for a college learning environment.
In
my eyes, a black figure with a noose around
its neck is a symbol of American violence
and terror that has been committed against
people of color since this country’s
inception. We already have to fear terrorism
from abroad — we shouldn’t we
have to fear it here at our university.
—
Sophia Green
computer engineering
Armenians
select convenient facts
Melanie
Vartabedian’s article “History
supports claims of genocide” is another
repetition of baseless Armenian claims.
The truth is not in what she says, but in
what she doesn’t say. For example,
she will tell you that the Turkish government
carried out massacres and deportations
of Armenians, but she won’t tell you
that Armenians had formed armed revolutionary
groups bent on destroying everything Turkish in
order to expel Turks and establish a greater
Armenia on Turkish soil.
She
won’t tell you about the Hunchak bands
(established in 1887) and Dashnak bands
(established in 1890) and other groups who
used propaganda, agitation and terror, in
that order, and caused millions of Turks
to be killed, wounded, tortured, and/or
forced to flee their homes between 1890-1915.
She won’t tell you about the bloody
Armenian rebellions of Sassoon, Zeytun,
Adana, Van and dozens of other such Ottoman
cities between 1890 and 1915. She won’t
tell you about Armenian back stabbers who
switched uniforms during a time of war;
joined the invading enemy armies; and ruthlessly
slaughtered their fellow Ottoman citizens
of Turkish descent.
Please
note that The New York Times did not report
on massive Turkish suffering even with a
single line in all those war years; that’s
how anti-Turkish biased it was. Some 2.5
million Turkish dead, mostly at the hands
of Armenian revolutionaries, and not a single
word. And yet, we are asked to ignore them
and mourn 600,000 Armenian dead? I say why
not mourn them all? Isn’t that what
fairness and human decency requires? Why
all this Armenian hatred, divisiveness,
intimidation, harassment, aggressions, and
terrorism? Isn’t it about time we
all give peace a chance?
—
Isil Sumertas Rahmanian
President, Turkish Student Association
Poor
coverage
Being
one of the several hundred protestors who
attended the walkout last Thursday you can
imagine my surprise to discover that there
was not even an article describing the events
that took place, the reasons we were protesting,
or the fact that the locks to the resource
centers of many of the participating organizations
just happened to be changed during the rally.
I have been attending this school for almost
three years now and I have never seen the
49er take an outside opinion on anything
unless it was a letter to the editor that
some strong willed student was lucky enough
to have published.
The
reporting done by this newspaper is as fair
and balanced as the Fox News network. All
your writers are conservatives who only
seem to have time to bash liberals for causing
all the world’s problems. A campus
newspaper is not only responsible for reporting
the happenings on campus, but explaining
how they affect the 34,000 students who
attend this university, by only printing
a picture and telling what we are protesting,
and not why we are protesting it, you leave
us eligible to attacks that will say we
are simply complaining about having to pay
for our education, when that is not what
the protest was all about.
Also,
by leaving out pertinent information, like
the fact that the administration called
police forces and closed down Brotman Hall
during our protest, you deny students information
that might inspire them to believe that
we actually have a chance of winning this
fight, which we do.
But
we can only win if we can unite for a common
cause, and stand up as 34,000 students demanding
a change. If we all stand together and realize
the fact of what is happening we can make
the legislators understand that 34,000 votes
are far too many to risk losing. The campus
newspaper should be media for the students
to learn of the issues that affect their
campus thoroughly, not in snippets. I would
appreciate a more thorough job, considering
the amount of influence you have over this
campus. I don’t think that is too
much to ask.
—
Daniel Lopez
|
