To the Editor:

It seems yet again the majority has attempted to trample the rights of the minority. In this case, the minority appears to be four girls heading a club with limited funding. The majority appears to be four of the largest student groups at UM, four groups representing immense resources, including, but not limited to, actual UM-funded offices.

COISO, FEC, SpectrUM and UBS all blockaded the Breezeway Wednesday in protest to a small student group, Advocates for Conservative Thought [ACT]. ACT, it turns out, had planned to carry out a bake sale to protest affirmative action. Asians and whites would be charged more per cookie than blacks and other minorities. Personally, I find such a bake sale offensive. Then again, I suspect ACT would say that proves their point. While I recognize the metaphor inherent in ACT’s bake sale, that affirmative action is just as racist as their bake sale, I didn’t see the metaphor in that of the protestors. The head of UBS said, “More people show up when you give out free stuff.” I guess free cupcakes count for arguments nowadays.

Yet why did the four groups protest Wednesday, when the bake sale occurred Friday? According to UBS, a member of one of the four groups had joined ACT with the express purpose of keeping tabs on this group, leading protesters to believe the bake sale would occur Wednesday. Having also spoken with one of the presidents of ACT, this form of espionage makes me wonder how small a minority ACT really is. It would be doubly ironic if half the conservative group were actually composed of these “sleeper agents.” According to ACT, the Friday bake sale was scheduled for Wednesday, but a lack of volunteers killed the idea. I wonder…

Do I agree with ACT? Not really. Still, their free speech is their free speech. Do I agree with COISO, FEC, SpectrUM and UBS? Maybe on an ideological level, but then again, their clear disdain for a minority party in this interchange indicates a level of hypocrisy that might have me rethinking my political stance.

Name Withheld By Request

It seems 14-year-old Michael Hernandez will be charged as an adult, seeing as how the amoral little tyke has given no real motive for the murder of Jamie Gough. I actually like the fact that he didn’t try to justify himself. I mean, how do you rationalize the urge to stab your friendly acquaintance with a serrated knife? But read the headlines carefully, and you will be told that he was a nerdy, picked-on kid suffering from low self-esteem. Before you know it, he will be the victim, not the corpse.
We’ve been hearing all this since Columbine, yet things have actually gotten worse. Why? Personally, I think everyone has the situation all wrong. These aren’t cases of low self-esteem, but of extremely high ones.
As a nation, we’re obsessed with self-esteem. From the moment they’re born we’re telling kids that they’re special, unique, beautiful, and intelligent and that everyone loves them. And it’s not even their family; television is inundated with pastel-colored critters baby-talking and crooning the same message.
Then the poor kids hit school, and for the first time step out of the rose-colored bubbles built for them. That’s when they learn that, for some strange reason, other kids don’t automatically love them. So we tell them the great lie: it’s not you, it’s the other kids – just be yourself and let them get to know you.
Then they get older and stop being cute altogether. That’s when they start to understand that – wait a minute – they’re not the best at everything. Hell, chances are they are not even the best at anything. But they’re told not to worry; all they need to do is work hard enough and they can still be the best.
Along comes high school, and you know what? Few care to know them, and even if they do, some still don’t like them. Hey, Bobby, guess what – it is you. And for many, no matter how hard they work, there are still kids who do things better and with less effort. Around this time is when they start to feel that society owes them their due.
Think about it: murder is not an act of low self-esteem, but the ultimate act of entitlement. To take someone’s life away you have to truly believe you’re worth more than them, that what you want comes before what anyone else wants, and really, only your opinion matters. I’m sure no one ever bothered to ask the victim what he wanted.
Life has always been hard. Once upon a time we taught kids that when life sucked you dealt with it and moved on, but now it’s even taboo for them to know that there are people out there who have a talent and they don’t. We reward them for not failing miserably, and if they do, we reward them for trying. We tell them that life owes them everything they want, and then we act surprised when they try to collect.
Endre Enyedy can be contacted at e.enyedy@umiami.com.

Now that this year’s Student Government elections are behind us, I thought it might be appropriate to give out some awards to the various candidates I competed against for president.

The “Nicest Man on Earth” award goes to Vance Aloupis. Having been involved in a number of political campaigns for elected office over the last decade, it’s very rare to find candidates competing for the same position who are so friendly with each other. Five candidates were all polite and professional, but Vance was by far the nicest. Of all the candidates, he was the only one who said everything I said almost exactly as I said it… which should give you some idea whom I favor in the runoff.

The “Bravest Man” award goes to Joshua Arcurio. I thought he made a lot of good points, but like myself it seems he had little chance of winning. To have stood up anyway deserves a salute, and since he and I had about the same number of people supporting us, let me be the first to do so. But dude – you need to get rid of those birth-control glasses. They just scream “VW Microbus.”

The “Starbucks Coffee Handiest Right-Hand Man” award goes to Billy Bludgus, who ran on the significance of being President Sadowski’s “right-hand” man. I’m not really sure why he claimed the Starbucks Coffee idea was his, but I think it’s a bad idea, whoever came up with it. Seriously, though, I found Billy to be the consummate professional and enjoyed talking with him. I can understand why he’s risen as high as he has.

The “Revolution for No Reason” award goes to Chris Clark. I’m not sure what we were supposed to be revolting from… perhaps bad peppermints. To his credit he ran an honorable campaign and didn’t resort to any mudslinging, in or out of court.

The “Angriest Man in the World” award goes to Don Donelson. He’s really pissed that UM isn’t Harvard! Although he should be arrested for raiding Newt Gingrich’s intellectual wardrobe, I found his platform to be extensive, well thought-out and, most importantly, fresh. His promises were not the standard ones and he made excellent points… although I did see him spit once or twice.

Winning the “Most Indignant Man in the World” award is our very own SG Senate Speaker Carlos Echeverri. Donelson may have been angry, but Carlos was barely able to contain what appeared to be utter contempt that the rest of us had the unmitigated gall to think we measured up to his overwhelmingly nebulous accomplishments. When he retires, maybe he can write a book of his own on how it’s infinitely easier to get elected president when you try to get all your opponents disqualified over nickel and dime, Mickey Mouse bullshit. Of course now he’ll have to add the chapter on how it didn’t work! Ha ha ha ha ha! Coming in third is just as much of a loss as coming in seventh, except it cost him a lot more. And it’s a lot funnier.

The “Most Fun to get Drunk and Party With” award goes to Peter Maki. Everybody parks, everybody wins! Excelsior! Plus he ran an honorable and dignified campaign.

And finally, for me, I get “The Grand Old Man” award, ’cause I’m way older than all of you. What can I say? It’s my awards ceremony.

It was an honor, gentlemen.

Scott Wacholtz can be contacted at s.wacholtz@umiami.edu.

To the Editor:

I am a member of the University of Miami Honor Council and enjoy reading this paper. The problem is, every once in a while you guys seem to get some things wrong, and this week’s cartoon, while amusing and thoughtful, seems to be one of those times. I would call myself a pretty liberal guy; hey, I hate George W. Bush as much as the next guy (I’ve read Al Franken), but, there was no College Republican evil cake plot to take over the UM’s voting populace, though evil cake does seem up Bush’s alley.

The event described in the cartoon was in fact an Honor Council event. We cut a cake and had a raffle to promote an Honor Council Video design contest and to spread the message of academic integrity. The day was designated as an “AI Day” and the Council had been tabling throughout the school. We had not reserved the space on “The Rock,” and they had. They were nice enough to allow us to steal some glory and hold our raffle off to the side of their table; hence the confusion. The College Republicans were actually rather generous about it, which goes to show that even conservatives can be nice.

These opinions are my own of course and the Honor Council is not affiliated with any political party, but I can say that the cake was, in fact, very good.

Sincerely,

Ashvin Reddy (Senior)

To the Editor:

As many of you may know, an Affirmative Action Bake Sale was held by Advocates for Conservative Thought on Friday; in this type of bake sale people of different races are sold the same product for different prices. The purpose of this activity is to display that affirmative action is a discriminatory policy that actually promotes inequality and racism.

To opponents that voiced their opinions to ACT during the bake sale: ACT sent out literature conveying the conservative viewpoint on affirmative action to members who volunteered to work the bake sale (so they could be aware of the general conservative position on the issue) and had no intention of distributing it during the sale. The piece wasn’t written by ACT but by a conservative author. One particular issue that has been brought up and misconstrued is the part of the author’s argument referring to the Special Olympics. In this statement the author is addressing the question of how affirmative action hurts African Americans, “Affirmative Action conveys the message to society that ‘this group is incapable of making it on its own merits.’ Racial preferences are a sort of Special Olympics for African Americans. Such preferences devalue black achievement, and they intensify doubt about black capacity.” This quote doesn’t convey the message that African Americans need special help, but rather it promotes the opposite: that African Americans can succeed based on their own qualifications.

ACT feels the bake sale promoted diversity of thought and an open dialogue about an important issue that deserves attention. ACT supports Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream that people in our nation will someday “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Sincerely,

Advocates for Conservative Thought

After our last few issues of what some considered harsh criticism of the presidential elections on campus, we are now ready to congratulate the undergraduate student body for their strong showing at the polls in the UC Breezeway.

The elections last week showed a new trend: voting has increased. This year, a total of 1,957 students voted in the spring elections. This is up from 1,047 in 2003, 1,225 in 2002 and 666 in 2001. Granted, this is not a massive turnout – it’s still only about 20 percent of the undergraduate population. Still, it’s encouraging, particularly in a national election year when UM will play a prominent role in hosting the first presidential debate.

Of course, this is not to say that this year’s elections were in any way ideal: No one ran for the positions of School of Music, Commuter North or Commuter South senators. Yet we will refrain from bashing these schools any further and simply hope that they will do better for themselves in the future.

Now, what was it about this year’s election that made students come out to vote?

Because there were so many candidates – and a sense of fierce competition among some of them – public relations played a much larger role than in previous elections. Candidates spent more time in retail campaigning: personally handing out flyers, shaking hands and meeting students.

No one can deny that bombarding campus with neon-colored shirts and paper cut-causing palm cards was somewhat annoying, but it definitely raised awareness about the elections; there was no way to avoid them. Future candidates should try to reach out to the students like these candidates did – minus the sleazy tactics mentioned in previous editorials, of course.

Perhaps the most important effect of these heavily contested elections was to spark an interest in debate and political action around our usually uninterested campus, as evidenced by the affirmative action controversy last week. Keeping this kind of energy and discussion on campus will be the real challenge for the student body after the recent heat dies down.

That said, elections are not over.

The runoff elections taking place this week for the offices of president, vice-president and treasurer are more important than the ones held last week, since these will decide the most powerful positions on the SG Executive Board.

Students will now be forced to vote for the better of two candidates and not just for their friends. Votes will not be diluted among a pool of eight candidates, so every vote will be significant and hold more weight.

Vote for the best candidate. Vote for the candidate who shook your hand. Vote for the person who smiled at you in the elevator. Whatever you vote for, go out and vote!

Please don’t make us swallow our words.