In Wednesday's issue, Nathan Arnold discussed his disappointment of the UW-Madison community's response to the \Day of Silence"" to advocate gay and lesbian rights. While Nathan does articulate many valid points, he begins to mire himself in hypocrisy. Mr. Arnold's tone blindly and passionately labels everyone who is not 100 percent supportive of issues such as same-sex marriage as homophobes and mentions U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., as being hateful toward the homosexual community.
Mr. Arnold does have a point: Yes, we live in a democratic, pluralistic society, and we should be open and willing to understand different viewpoints and lifestyles, such as homosexuality. But what Mr. Arnold fails to recognize, as President Bush stated, is that freedom is a two-way street. You may disagree with what religious advocates may say, but this is America, and they are entitled to say whatever they wish to say. So yes, this is a society where you can be openly homophobic, just as you can be openly gay. Many people may not agree with, or understand homosexuality, but they should keep an ear open to Mr. Arnold's views, even if they wish to reject it. As such, Mr. Arnold may display a visceral hatred towards Sen. Santorum-who argued not against homosexuality, but advocated that there are bounds to privacy-but should also keep open to all views. A democracy such as ours should not be about personal attack and ignorance, but enlightenment from debate. So Nathan, please, coming fom a Republican, listen to all sides.
Vineet Sudame
UW-Madison sophomore
On Tuesday, I attended the joint hearing before a Senate and Assembly committee concerning the future of WisconsinEye, a proposed state-level C-SPAN that aims to broadcast state legislative proceedings. This direct access to the public would give insight to the actual proceedings of the legislature, expose their childish partisan antics and finally hold members of both bodies more accountable for their actions.
There was a good public showing at this event and after three separate announcements of 10-minute delays, role was finally taken 30 minutes late. From here, Rep. Stephen Freese, R-Dodgeville, immediately motioned for a closed-door private session, and had a quick second from Rep. Daniel Vrakes, R-Delafield.??After opposing pleas from the minority of Democrats on the panel, the group successfully voted to dismiss the public's presence.
Without knowing when the doors would open back up, most people, including myself, could not afford to wait around all afternoon.??This strong-arm tactic used to silence public input and divert potential scrutiny is completely appalling. And in this instance, is quite ironic, considering the topic at hand was concerning expanding the public's access to government proceedings.
The way this legislature is conducting itself and their approach to handling public presence and input is ridiculous.??What do they have to hide? The public has a right to know what goes on in the body that governs them. Their closed door meetings and behind the scenes negotiations hurts the entire constituency and the people of Wisconsin need to do something about it.
??
Tony Klemme
UW-Madison graduate
It is beginning to appear that the TA strike is going too far. Now as students we are being asked to not attend our classes on Tuesday and Wednesday to support them. If this strike is not supposed to affect us, then why are we being asked to partake in it?
With finals around the corner, lost class time will be detrimental to our final grades (assuming of course they ever get turned in). It is time that we mobilize ourselves as students and cross the picket lines on Tuesday and Wednesday to receive the education that we are paying for. If the TAs really care about our education, they should not prevent us from entering our classes and should not be encouraging us to skip class in the first place.
Although the TAs have some legitimate concerns about their healthcare and salaries, they need to find a better approach to addressing them rather than trying to intimidate us into not going to class. Some people will just skip class as an excuse, and others will because they are scared about how the TAs and supporters will treat them as they are trying to enter class.
Our attendance says nothing about our actual support for the issue. It is time for us as students to stand up for ourselves, not be intimidated and cross the picket lines next week and hope that this situation will eventually be resolved on its own.
Micaela Frudden
UW-Madison freshman
Anyone who would suggest that one race is superior to another is wrong. All the races of the world deserve political, social and material equality. However, to suggest science should ignore race is ridiculous and dangerous to the point of being racist.'?
The Monday, April 19 article, ""Race holds little importance in genetics, biology,"" if taken to its logical conclusion, would suggest that researchers should not consider race in health studies. If that were true, researchers would not have to bother to conduct studies that included racially diverse samples.
The article is scientifically flawed. It is true that the 0.1 percent variation among humans is responsible for all variations in humans. Yet humans vary significantly. Genetics are not absolutely deterministic. Genes encode for tendency. Instead, the individual is the result of an incredibly complex interaction between genetic tendency and environment. Trying to understand that interaction means that researchers have to consider environment and genetics.
It is true that there is no basis in genetics to say where one race begins and another ends. The categories of race-black, white, brown, etc.-are genetically arbitrary. But if the characteristics that have traditionally been defined as race were really random, we would have never had a social concept of race. Two people categorized as white would have a child who appears Asian, or any other race, as often as they have a child who appears white. Characteristics that define social racial categories have a genetic basis.
And race is certainly socially significant. The reality is that particular racial categories tend to be grouped together socially and geographically. They still tend to marry and reproduce with people of the same race.
Significant correlations exist between risks of certain diseases and social racial categories. To adopt a color-blind approach to health research will be dangerous. I suspect researchers will leave out historically oppressed races much more often than the majority. And that is racist.
Mark Maciolek
UW-Madison law student
