Letters to the Editor

Students Should Rethink Some Big Game Traditions

On Nov. 22, 2003, the Cal Bears and Stanford Cardinals will play the 106th annual Big Game at Stanford Stadium. Big Game is a tradition-laden event, and our spirited rivalry has become one of the most storied in all of collegiate football.

We ask that students do their part in maintaining Big Game as an enjoyable experience for all. Unfortunately, some of the Big Games held in the past several years have been diminished by the behavior of a few people. Their actions have sullied this tradition, resulting in property damage and injuries.

Such behavior is unfortunate and demeans the strong athletic and academic heritage Cal and Stanford share.

We ask that all members of our respective communities refrain from engaging in mean-spirited "pranks," excessive drinking and other activities that may draw law enforcement, security personnel and resources away from responding to more pressing matters. Please discourage it among others.

Those attending the Big Game, who include families with small children and elderly alumni, should not have to fear for their safety.

Let's instead again create a Big Game culture based on lively competition, team loyalty and fun.

Be assured that fans who engage in incidents of field trespass, physical assault and/or property damage will be ejected from the stadium. Students found responsible for these types of activities will face disciplinary action at their respective institutions; such action may include suspension or dismissal.

Please respect more than a century of Big Game tradition and celebrate your school spirit, pride and sportsmanship in a safe, positive and friendly manner. Enjoy the game!

Robert Berdahl and John Hennessy

UC Berkeley chancellor and Stanford University president

Parking on Campus Supported by Its Own Infrastructure

Faith Stein's column regarding the Parking Replacement Policy ("Prey for Parking," Nov. 12) and the letter from my colleague Christine Shaff in Facilities Services ("Parking Costs Rarely Dig Into Students' Pockets, Nov. 14), failed to mention that Parking and Transportation, like Residential and Student Services, is also a non-state funded business operation on the campus.

Like Housing and Athletics, Parking is supported from the funds collected from users.

The campus has recognized the importance of its parking and transportation infrastructure through the Parking Replacement Policy by ensuring that a valuable asset is replaced when it is removed and utilized for other purposes.

Recently, when parking development removed student athletic facilities that met campus needs, Parking and Transportation bore the responsibility for providing funds to address the loss.

Not all parking lots removed for residence halls have been student parking areas.

Housing and parking are both elements of planned access to the Berkeley campus that while related in some ways, also meet distinct and discreet needs.

Nadesan Permaul

Director of Transportation, UC Berkeley

Personal Preference Does Not Indicate Racism

The personal preferences that columnist Mehammed Mack described in his recent column ("Personal Hell, Part II," Nov. 17) should not be tied to racism in any way. To do so would be a rash oversimplification of the real situation. Tastes should never be seen as racist or wrong in any way.

Because a particular person doesn't enjoy the taste of steak, does not inherently mean that this person hates stake or resents steak in some way or another. It only means that they don't like the flavor of steak!

I'm not trying to compare human beings with steaks, but rather the mechanism by which a human being comes to take pleasure in one thing over another.

If Asians do not receive ratings as high as blonde-haired white girls, it does not mean that the voters are racist. All it means is that the voting

population prefers blonde-white girls to Asians.

While these results don't fit my own personal tastes, I would never let the idiotic notion even slip into my head that racism directly causes the disparities between races' ratings. The day that an individuals tastes in beauty become a target of racist finger-pointing would be a low day in our society.

Racism means that an individual thinks his race is superior to others. While a simple mind may attempt to build a connection between "superiority" and "more beautiful," I'm sure you're able to see that this connection is one so feeble that its only substance lies in the inherent weakness of language to effectively express a thought. As your fellow Berkeley student, I'd like to see you reflect more on the true meaning of racism before throwing such an ugly word around our community.

Scott Bunton

via e-mail

Tags: