Response to reacist incidences
Several recent incidents of hateful graffiti and vandalism, directed at specific groups of individuals, are appalling and antithetical to the values of an academic institution. These incidents should be condemned broadly by members of our community.
Free inquiry, and therefore speech, is essential to our core values and purposes. This is true whether the inquiry involves sensitive, controversial, or even painful topics and issues for members of the community (or broader world). But the purpose of such free inquiry and speech is to add to our intellectual understanding of complex issues.
As leaders of an institution dedicated to intellectual pursuits and understanding, we also maintain our own free speech rights to condemn incidents such as have occurred on our campus, that under no possible pretense add to that intellectual pursuit ? and we do so in the strongest possible terms.
These actions are an expression of unreasoned hatred, which tears at the community values that this university also holds dear. It is important that all members of our campus community join us in making it unmistakably clear that this destructive venom has no place in our academic institution.
? Thomas JacksonPresident of the University
? Charles Phelps Provost
Faculty statement on intolerance
The Faculty of the College affirms that diversity, pluralism, and respect for difference are fundamental values in our community. Learning cannot advance in an atmosphere of prejudice or intimidation. All members of our community ? regardless of culture, religion, gender, or sexual orientation ? are entitled to learn and work in an environment of civility, dignity, fairness, and mutual respect.
As a faculty, we condemn recent events on campus that exhibit bigotry, insensitivity to life, and hostility toward people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
These malevolent behaviors and attitudes undermine our collective work and have no place in our community of learning.
As scholars, we encourage one another ? and as teachers we encourage our students ? to reject these expressions of intolerance and work together to build the kind of open community that makes authentic learning possible.
We cannot afford to be indifferent. We must speak out against these deplorable expressions. We must expect better of ourselves and of one another make.
? Thomas leBlancDean of the FacultyOn Behalf of the Deans of the College, Steering Committee and Faculty Council
Administrative responce needed
Following the reading of the Faculty Council statement, during our anthropology senior seminar, we the students are appalled by the lack of consideration, action and utter silence on the part of President Jackson regarding the ongoing acts of hatred. These acts most recently include the use of the term “nigger,” the drawing of a swastika and “KKK” on the blackboard of a classroom in Morey Hall.
An attack on even one member of the university community is an attack on all of us. We perceive the silence on the part of the President as condoning these ignorant acts. The administration made a concentrated effort to address an isolated incident of animal abuse and we are embarrassed that the same respect is not put forth on issues dealing with our own students and faculty. We demand that President Jackson give attention, that is long overdue, to the problems of hatred and violence on this campus.
? Clare HeathClass of 2002
Everyone has a right to hate
I read the opinion piece from the Feb. 21 CT Online, entitled “Personalized Hate.” I wanted to congratulate you on a well reasoned piece with a good point to make.
I also would like to point out an omission ? everyone has a right to hate other people. This is too often missed in condemnations of hate.
I agree with you that education is the best way to fight hate which is usually begotten from lack of understanding and often poverty. I just always worry, especially in the context of politically correct campuses, that tolerance is used as an excuse to stifle divergent opinions. In the United States we have enshrined the idea that everyone is entitled to express their opinions, no matter how odious they are.
This is also why I so applaud your reminder to people to voice their opposition to hate ? the free expression of ideas will always help.
To quote Tom Leherer, a 1960s musical comedian and math professor at Harvard and UC Santa Cruz, “I’m sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.”
? John hutzlerClass of 1991
ITS article unfair and unfactual
The Feb. 21 article entitled “ITS Employee complaints center around scheduling difficulties” was a very ignorant and unfairly written article and promotes bad work ethics.
There are many problems with the way that this article was written.
Only the views of the peple directly harmed by this incident were expressed. Was there even an attempt to interview anyone else that was present at the scheduling meeting? There were 40 other people who witnessed this incident. The person that was blatantly being held responsible wasn’t even represented nor justified. This is very unfair on the part of the article and the people directly accusing one person without hearing or caring to hear what he or she had to say.
These views presented were also very biased in that the only three people voiced in the article are close friends and two are even roommates. Obviously, this only depicts an extremely one-sided point of view.
There is a lot of improper misstatement of facts. For one, the student employees did not arrive just a few seconds late. We all knew when they announced that the clock in CLARC showed 3:05 p.m. and that they were shutting the door otherwise we would not be able to start the process of going through the large number of people that were present and ready to sign up for hours.
Secondly, the meeting only lasted 45 minutes, as the people in the room know because they were let out after that time period. Thirdly, the point that argued that all previous scheduling meetings were “very open and informal” does not apply because the previous ones were completely held in a different context as well as surrounding.
Fourthly, there were many e-mails sent that stated they had to be there or they wouldn’t get any hours for the semester.
Every employee is rehired by semester anyway, so it’s not like they had been fired. They would just be reconsidered next semester with everyone else ? that is, if they show up on time.
Finally, the fact that this article was printed over such a small occurrence and was blown up to a whole other proportion ? to the extent that it was downright accusing a person of mis-management and not follow-ing orders is definitely the wrong way to go about proposing change.
? Tamia PervezClass of 2005
