Although there were barely 50 words devoted to the issue of the amicus curiae brief issued by the university, in the Daily Californian from Sept. 3, there is a considerable amount to say regarding “race-conscious admissions.” Since 1996, it may be true that diversity has suffered on campus, but when I walk from class to class, the environment I see is quite diverse. Not only that, but everyone around me is qualified to be where they are, just as I am qualified to be where I am. There is no favoritism built into the system of admissions due to skin color or heritage.
The anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech has recently passed, and it is very relevant to this topic. As most people know, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged for the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Race-conscious admissions still judge applicants based on the color of their skin, even if it may be in a positive way. Affirmative action is called “positive discrimination” in the United Kingdom, only serving to underscore this point. It is still a form of discrimination, and such policies do no harm to anything but equality. True equality has no favorites.
— Maximilian Pitner, UC Berkeley student
The Sept. 2 editorial “Tackling crime in Berkeley” misses an obvious part of a “comprehensive approach” to criminals. It’s not more police that will solve the problem — it’s more police living in Berkeley. Just walking around their neighborhood deters crime.
I am a University of Minnesota landlord who rented to a Minneapolis Police Officer at half off the market price. Guess what? The local burglar moved after seeing this uniformed office walking out of my rental property.
— Paul Scheurer