As I evaluate the controversy surrounding the bake sale by the Advocates for Conservative Thought, I love the fact that many people are missing the even bigger issues at hand. Given that the bake sale was in fact legal despite its racist nature, it was ethically wrong, especially if the participants are justifying their racist actions to protest the racist nature of affirmative action.

ACT and others may argue that they are making a particular statement about a particular policy, but in reality affirmative action is not a simple, one-dimensional issue.

The very existence of it stems from more than just reverse discrimination; it stems from the roots of prejudice that have plagued this country from the moment it was “settled.” Let’s say that affirmative action is unfair in the area of education – then you have to look at the underlying issues at hand. Is it fair that schools in impoverished neighborhoods don’t have the resources or funding to implement valuable programs while wealthier neighborhoods can afford to pump money into making their students? Where is the “fairness” in that?

Is it fair that, despite vouchers, many minorities are unable to afford the costs of a private education? Is it fair that, even if that minority makes it to college, they are still at a disadvantage because their initial education was unequal in the first place?

If you ask me, though segregation is legally abolished on racial terms, it sounds as though socio-economic separation makes it “okay” that some children in this country don’t receive a fair education because of their tax bracket.

I think it is ironic that we all run to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to support our beliefs for or against affirmative action. When Dr. King said he wished that all people be treated equally and not based on race, socio-economic backgrounds, religion, etc., he meant exactly that – total blindness to those differences. However, because this country is still so rooted in racism, whether some people are able to see it or not, there will always be a need to create “fairness,” even by programs that discriminate against the other groups. So we are left with the problem of both groups claiming “unfairness,” and no one is ever really satisfied.

In my ideal world race doesn’t exist, but as long as people see that it does exist and as long as the correlation between economics and race exists, unfortunately we will always try to find biased ways of trying to “equal it out.”

Marquita Bell can be contacted at m.bell3@umiami.edu.

“By portraying our views in a disrespectful manner, nothing positive can be accomplished.”

These were the concluding remarks of a letter to the editor written by members of COISO, SpectrUM and UBS which was published in last Friday’s Hurricane.

Yes, just as Black Awareness Month was concluding, conflict just happens to arise between these minority organizations and the Advocates for Conservative Thought. So what exactly happened?

On Feb. 25, members of ACT held an affirmative action bake sale in the UC Breezeway, selling baked goods at discounted rates to Hispanics and blacks while charging higher prices to Asians and whites. The purpose was to show how unfair affirmative action is because, said co-president Sarah Canale, “everyone should be judged, just like Martin Luther King, Jr. said, on the basis of their character and not the basis of the color of their skin.”

Touch, Sarah, but you entirely missed the context of King’s message. You see, it isn’t just being judged by your character for individual evaluation; it’s breaking the barrier and working together cooperatively with your fellow man – sitting together at the table of brotherhood. Oh, and the whole “affirmative action is like Special Olympics for black people” thing – well, that didn’t really help your case, either.

But this is where the leaders at COISO, UBS and SpectrUM went wrong as well.

Though it’s hard to critique the way these groups came together to combat ACT – they had students donate baked goods that they then redistributed for free with information on affirmative action, gave the leftovers to a homeless shelter and responded through media outlets such as this newspaper – the members of these organizations could have taken the higher road.

Upon hearing about the ACT bake sale, these groups decided that rather than contacting the opposition and attempting to stage an open forum debate for the student body (or even just their groups alone), they would transform the UC Breezeway, which stands as our school’s accepting marketplace of ideas, into a battle area for childish finger-pointing. The real problem is there was no real attempt at reaching out from either side. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but let’s be honest: you will get nothing accomplished arguing opposite sides of an issue if you don’t first come together and hear what the other half has to say. What these groups are doing is segregating themselves from one another.

The Reverend would be disappointed.

Ben Minkus can be contacted at b.minkus@umiami.edu.

My Fellow Students,

I never imagined that I would get caught up in the ordeal that has been this election. Twenty well-qualified candidates vied for SG offices, and with the increased numbers came more platforms and the highest voter turnout in years. Although it was a great forum for ideas and desires to better the school to be expressed, the mudslinging and drama that came along with the campaigning was definitely not expected, at least not by me.

One aspect of this election that many students forgot about was that we DO have to return to everyday life once this is over. There is no “Men In Black”-esque memory eraser that will clear our brains of the events of the past three weeks. The backbiting, turning in of elections violations, and spreading of vicious rumors will remain in our minds long after the new officers are inaugurated. Many have related this election to being “business”, but it was forgotten is that even in business, there are ethics.

Through these elections, a different side of many of the candidates was brought forth. Some student leaders have lost the respect of their peers through their attitudes and behavior, while others have definitely gained it. I commend everyone that kept their integrity and character in tact throughout this process.

Sometimes, though, keeping tabs on your own character and integrity was out of your hands. I personally became a victim of rumors – that I am “anti-Greek” and have been calling another candidate “racist.” Just to clarify: I have never said anything even remotely close to either one of those comments. Certain comments can be twisted and used against a person, and many of us were victims of this. I have always been extremely pro-diversity, which by no means implies that I dislike Greek organizations or think that others are racist. Rather than confronting me about these allegations, I was forced to find out from friends and random people asking me why I was saying hateful things about others. This perpetuated these ludicrous, baseless rumors.

I feel that candidates have had to endure hateful comments and actions in some manner, and I am extremely sorry that people have had to go through this. These rumors and hearsay can have adverse affects on our reputations and characters, which stick with us throughout the rest of our time in college and lives. It is upsetting that people’s reputations may leave this experience tarnished, but it is more upsetting that friendships will leave adversely affected.

Regardless of what the results are (this letter is being written Wednesday night), I sincerely hope that all of the candidates involved in this election take the positive from this situation and move on to make a difference at this University.

Sincerely,

Minal Ahson

Vice Presidential Candidate

To the Editor:

The following letter is for Don Donelson.

For the past weeks I’ve noticed that you have been constantly criticized for your ideas and for your fashion sense. You’ve been called an “ivy-league reject” that “should be arrested for raiding Newt Gingrich’s intellectual wardrobe.” I even heard someone mention that you have no presence (whatever that means), and that no one would take you seriously as president (not that any president is).

All these comments disgust me because your wardrobe and your ideas are not as bad as people make them out to be. You should be commended for caring about the future of our degrees. Also, you are kinda cute and, in my opinion, you dress very professionally. Whoever called you a Newt Gingrich dress-alike is jealous because he could never pull off looking as preppy or as elegant as you (Scott W. – don’t wear shorts – yuck).

I’m sure you would have made an excellent president, so don’t let any comments get to you. Just hold your head up high and smile (so no one will ever call you “angry”)!

Sincerely,

Your Secret Admirer

To the Editor:

I’m not involved in either side of the affirmative action debate, but as a reader I’m very disappointed in the journalistic integrity of this newspaper.

I see now that I was under the misconception that a university paper was supposed to be unbiased and show all sides of an issue. The reporting on the controversy over ACT’s affirmative action bake sale has been grossly biased towards the larger, and more vocal, groups. It seems as if this paper represents the opinions of COISO, FEC, UBS and SpectrUM, and wishes to paint ACT in a bad light. This seems highly unfair.

The only section of your paper that seemed to put this whole affair in its proper perspective wasn’t actually written by the paper’s staff: Tuesday’s letter to the editor by an unnamed reader. Sadly, though, this piece was pushed onto another page and separated from all other coverage of this event. This letter should have been placed better, or, in the best case scenario, been used by your writers as an example to follow on how to write their opinions without allowing it to color the tone of the story, as this may affect the views of the reader.

I wish a piece would be written on both the bake sale and the counter bake sale that would show both viewpoints as they are: not only as passionate, but also intelligent and justified.

Sincerely,

Nicole Treco (Sophomore)

Thank you, Advocates for Conservative Thought.

No, we aren’t taking a stance for or against affirmative action in thanking this group. We thank them for triggering an important debate on campus. Besides giving us plenty of news stories to cover, the affirmative action controversy has turned our infamously apolitical campus into a slightly more active, opinionated one. This is undoubtedly a good thing. As college students, we should be engaging in this type of debate for all kinds of issues, from those affecting our university to those changing the world.

College campuses are supposed to be the brainstorming grounds for new ideas. In the history of this country and countries around the world, major movements and protests began in college campuses (think the Vietnam anti-war movement in the ’60s and the anti-sweatshop protests in the ’90s). We are not calling for UM students to radicalize and revolt. After all, there’s no real reason to do so. We are calling, however, for greater student involvement in intellectually stimulating discussions on campus.

For much too long, UM students have lived up to their reputation of being laid-back, beach-loving, party-going football fans that, as a whole, are generally not very interested in serious debate.

Yet, this recent affirmative action controversy seems to be changing that. Students are coming together to voice their opinions, as evidenced by the newfound interest in attending ACT meetings and by the general meeting held Tuesday by COISO, UBS, FEC and SpectrUM, where more than 100 people – members and nonmembers alike – showed up to discuss the issue.

These discussions are taking place because students feel the need to defend their points of view on the subject of affirmative action. In doing so, they are also forced to acknowledge, whether they like it or not, that other points of view exist. By trying to understand these different perspectives, students gain further insight on any given issue.

Analyzing our beliefs, rules and programs periodically is absolutely necessary to keep up with changing values and changing times. If, in doing this analysis, we maintain the same position we had in the past, then we will do so knowing that we choose to think this way and don’t simply accept it as something imposed upon us. Likewise, if we change our position, it will be a conscious, justified choice.

Of course, not all the student body is involved in this debate yet. The next challenge will be getting students out of their secluded dorms and away from sunbathing in the IM fields to participate in the discussions. Perhaps more importantly, it will be a challenge to get commuter students who largely represent the minority students to make an effort to come back to campus or stay to participate in these meetings.

Is affirmative action obsolete? Is it unfair? Should we embrace it because it’s possible that we owe our campus’ enviable diversity to it? We don’t have any answers, but we’re glad someone’s asking the questions.