Letters to the Editor

I am writing in response to an article in last Friday's Daily Californian ("Professor Says Racism Is Still Alive in the United States," Feb. 18) which contained the following quote: "California might as well be its own universe. Outside California, the racial divisions are clear. America is more divided than ever."

This is the latest in a long line of Daily Cal quotes that all basically state, "Everyone outside of California makes vast stereotypical generalizations about people." The sad thing is that no one points out the irony of such statements.

Not only is the quote blatantly prejudiced, but it is also completely false.

I spent the first 22 years of my life primarily in the Midwest. In the last three years that I have lived in California, I have seen more people stamped, categorized and filed according to race than in the entire 22 years preceding it. And Californians act like they are the open-minded ones!

The Civil Rights Movement should be working toward a future in which the percentage of pigmentation in one's skin is of no more significance than the color of one's hair.

Instead, many Californians believe that making pigeonholes narrower and narrower is some warped form of progress.

People talk about "Black Culture" or "Hispanic Culture" or "White America" as if those phrases are tolerant instead of racist.

What about the white kid that grew up in the predominantly black neighborhood? Take a wild guess what kind of "culture" he displays. Try comparing a Hispanic person from New York with a Hispanic person from San Diego.

The ideals of the Civil Rights Movement state that we should look at the individual-his or her values, family situation, and societal position-instead of race. Yet, anytime someone makes a statement that even vaguely reflects this idea, he is pegged as racist or naive.

When did "colorblind" become a negative word? Just because it is a non-ideal world does not mean you should abandon your ideals.

Instead, celebrate diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of values because this irrational and unnecessary focus on skin color is shallow and racist.

Shannon Timpe

UC Berkeley graduate student

A City Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

As reported in the Daily Californian ("City Sues University Over Development Plan," Feb. 24) the City of Berkeley decided to sue UC to stop the university's 15-year Long Range Development Plan.

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates was quoted as saying that the university is a "valuable partner," but that the city just wants to "have an equal relationship" with the university. Berkeley has already dedicated $250,000 to legal fees in its battle against UC.

Having spent only two and a half years in Berkeley while attending graduate school, I am no expert on the city, but my time here leads me to believe that the city would be nothing but another dirty, mismanaged, traffic infested, mundane suburb without the university.

The city is hardly worthy of being an equal partner. In no other reality except the commercially, socially, and politically upside-down Berkeley would a city have the thanklessness to appropriate $250,000 towards the suing of its so-called "valuable partner."

What would Berkeley be without UC? Not a place where 30,000 of the brightest minds in the world would even consider passing through. A few people might still remain because they are the city's favorites: drug users, the homeless, socialists, uneducated gadflies and parking enforcement officers.

There would still be traffic, pollution, crime, overcrowding, and a host of other infrastructure problems. You'd still trip over heroin needles in People's Park, if you're not stabbed, yelled at, solicited, or stolen from on your way there.

It is unfortunate that UC is near-permanently located in Berkeley because we cannot get up and move to a friendlier city.

Bates and Berkeley are making a very grave mistake in battling UC every step of the way rather than embracing the university as a partner for a better, more modern Berkeley. UC Berkeley brings tens of millions of dollars in revenue-and priceless intellectual capital-to Berkeley, and yet the mayor insists on continually kicking us students in the stomach.

I suggest you let the mayor know that you don't appreciate that kind of partnership by boycotting all Berkeley businesses and government services. Emeryville and Oakland would die to have Berkeley students frequent their retailers, grocers, and libraries.

As an alternative to battling for parking, nearly running someone over, fighting with a homeless man, and paying homage to Bates, why not go somewhere you're actually appreciated?

Berkeley's approach to the university is offensive-let the mayor know.

Kristoffer Mayfield

UC Berkeley graduate student

Tags: