Letters to the Editor

Diversity policies have no impact on whites

Regarding: 'Rejected applicant alleges bias against Asians' (Monday, Nov. 13, 2006):

Speaking as an Asian-American, part of me wants to tell Jian Li to stop whining but part of me also feels that he has a very compelling point. It's nice to see that we welcome diversity on the Princeton campus. We may be missing the larger point, however. Li's case comes off a bit like a "we have higher test scores" argument. Yes, that may be the quantitative evidence he has. But I don't think the point of the Princeton study was simply to show that Asian-Americans have higher scores. It also shows that diversity policies have virtually no impact on whites (the vast majority), while they unambiguously hurt Asian-Americans. In other words, it seems that the costs of diversity are falling primarily on one ethnic group. It's reasonable to tax everyone to help a disadvantaged minority, but the question should be: do we want to tax one minority, which by and large also suffers from discrimination, for the betterment of another? Diversity is clearly a positive thing, but isn't there a better way to pursue it?

Kent Kim '09

Republicans need to correct their priorities

Regarding 'BU club offers scholarship for whites' (Monday, Nov. 27, 2006):

Alexander Maugeri '07 said that "We're not a society that should be in the business of preferring one minority over another or the minority over the majority."

But, as we all know well, American schools exist in a state of de facto racial segregation from preschool onward. Inner-city schools, composed primarily of minority students, have fewer resources than wealthy suburban school districts.

If Republicans have their hearts set on eliminating affirmative action, they should work toward equal educational opportunities for every American child. That doesn't mean adding more standardized tests, Bush fans. Republicans cry about the repeal of the Bush tax cuts while inner-city schools don't have enough books. Get your priorities straight. When we finally have an equal public school system, then we can consider the Republicans' complaint.

Sara Viola '08

Column assumes that leftist positions are obviously correct

Regarding 'The Jesus Camp Syndrome' (Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006):

Rob Madole '10 seems to understand the problem of assuming that you are the smartest person in the room, at least when that person isn't him. While admitting that the left needs to stop "treating its adversaries like half-wits," however, his column seems to assume that leftist positions are infallible and obviously correct and the only challenge is to convince our poor conservative friends of this. While I personally agree with his assessment of anti-evolutionist arguments as being little more than nonscientific hokum, I think that other issues demand more critical thought about what is the right policy stance. On issues such as populist skepticism of free trade, the expansion of the federal government and many other issues regarding the proper role of government intervention, it is not so obvious which policies are correct. In short, it is not enough to treat your political adversaries like they are not idiots; you should really believe it, too.

Adam Litterman '07