To send a Letter to the Editor, click here.
The Campus Press received over 600 Letters to the Editor. We have chosen a few here, and we will continue to publish them throughout the semester. These Letters have not been edited for grammar, style or punctuation.I just attended the lecture titled "Why We Want to Kill You" by Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem at CU. I am disgusted. They instilled hate and fear in everyone in that auditorium that was impressionable enough to believe them. All it was, was a message of hate. They provided no solutions, no positive outcomes or viewpoints, and most of all they did not answer the question we were all there to hear: Why do "they" want to kill us? They spoke only of atrocities that Palestinians committed against Israel and the US, but did not answer the questions: Why are there suicide bombers? Why does (part of) the Muslim world hate the West? Have we as a country done nothing to instigate this hatred? They praised Israel and the US, and told us we need to wake up and prepare ourselves for WWIII. They made it seem that all Muslims are inherently evil. They insulted the Muslim Student Union at CU. It was a disgrace. I studied Middle Eastern politics extensively in college and have traveled in Palestine and Jordan, and I met nobody but friendly and open-minded people, men and women. People that only want peace, like everyone else. I have many Muslim friends and they love this country more than most Americans. This is a time to bring sides together not divide them as Walid and Kamal are doing. We need to see the commonality in all people around the world. Walid and Kamal are a danger to our country, and it saddens me to see the direction this country is headed when people, like the young Republicans at CU who hosted the event, are in agreement with them. Read a history book, educate yourselves with real information, reach out to the Muslims in your community, they are good people!
The University of Colorado fraternity system has undergone some trying times in recent years. A series of scandals and tragic incidents have marred the frats in bad press ? overshadowing the diversity and dynamism of CU?s Greek System. This perception of fraternities has carried over to the student body; they have become alienated from the average student, due partially to this poor state of public relations. Greek Life is an active and dynamic part of CU, and one that has been condemned as a whole for the failings of individual fraternities. The Greeks have suffered dearly and require a level of PR with the university that is based on integrity, honesty, and transparency.
In the context of this 2008 UCSU Tri-Executive campaign, the issue of fraternity-university relations has been largely overlooked; the few times it has been addressed, the conversation has been misleading. Last week during the Tri-Executive debate, Chance Heath, candidate for the ONE Ticket and member of Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity, accused the DRIVE ticket of ?putting the interests of the fraternities over the interests of all the students.? Mr. Heath further articulated that his ticket would better serve the interests of all students.
A point of clarification must be made. Historically, Mr. Heath has supported fraternity interests above those of other students and campus groups. In spring of 2007, Mr. Heath, as a legislative representative, supported the Fair and Equal Access Bill ? a measure that in original form demanded the closure of the UMC, Rec Center, and Wardenburg, unless they agreed to recognize fraternities as an official student group. This designation was one that the fraternities relinquished when they broke from the university in 2004.
Chance Heath is now running for Tri-Executive under the notion that he will support the majority of students. Mr. Heath has touted his experience all campaign, and the record indicates that in his experience, he has taken a stand for special interest even if it is at the expense of the common interest.
It is for this reason that we feel it is necessary to bring this hypocrisy to light. The Solidarity Ticket believes an honest, transparent discourse is absolutely vital to this campaign ? the student body demands nothing less. Response to this argument has drawn exactly the childish response we expected. Drawing penises on our campaign materials; accusing us of supporting Bush; crossing out our chalkings; these instances all demonstrate that ONE lacks the maturity to represent our school.
It is our stand that UCSU represent the common interest of the CU student body ? not ONE interest, as Mr. Heath has done in the past. This is the belief of the Solidarity Ticket. We will no longer accept the majority of students being uninformed so that UCSU can play their games. We, Michael Mazzone; Brittany Rose Havey; and John Rineck, will work to represent all students, not just a small percentage of special interests. This is what we are committed to achieving.
SOLIDARITY
John Rineck, Mike Mazzone, Brit Havey
Dear Campus Press: I am an Alumni of CU Boulder and a current student of CU Denver; I am also half Japanese. While I believe very strongly in our Constitutional Rights and freedom of speech, I just read Max Karson's column in complete disbelief. Whether or not he was trying to be satirical or he meant it as a jest, his depiction of rounding up Asians was hauntingly familiar since not so long ago Japanese Americans (including my family) were rounded up and kept in horse stalls in internment camps so he must forgive us 'Asians' if we cannot understand his humor. For many people, not just minorities, we grow up feeling like we don't quite fit in. If we are minorities, we often attribute it to being part of a different race and not just the growing pains of trying to find our own identity. Growing up I struggled with this. I attributed my differences to my black hair and Asian features. I tried so hard to assimilate and was happy when people mistook me for any other ethnicity but Asian. But it was hard to hide my Asian heritage with my distinct Japanese last and middle name. Now as I am older, I cherish these things that make me different, and I am proud of my Japanese ancestry. I recognize that the feeling of not fitting in during my younger years was more the product of my shyness and my struggle to find my identity than it was about my race. I have not shared the experiences that Max alluded to and other than his description in his column, I do not know how his interactions with Asian people have gone. But rather than wage war (even a satirical one) against a group of people, or single people out based on their ethnicity, why not approach people with humanity and compassion? It is likely their struggles and differences are not too far off from your own. And yes, they may not reciprocate your goodwill or acts of kindness, but if these gestures become everyday occurrences and people start to feel more comfortable in their own skin (regardless of what color it is) then perhaps one day, we will choose to wage peace and not war.
Reply to Max Karson:I am a 52-year-old Japanese-American Professor of History at Front Range Community College, Boulder County Campus. My mother was born in Hawaii and father in Chicago, Illinois. All four of my grandparents were Japanese immigrants. As a point of clarification, I am unsure whether or not Max Karson's belief is that all Asians hate white people includes Asian Americans.I will state for myself, an Asian-American, I do not hate Max Karson. In fact I do not know Max Karson well enough to form any opinion as to whether or not I hate Max Karson or even whether Max Karson actually hates me. I will also state for the record that I know several Asians as to the best of my knowledge none of them know Max Karson well enough to hate him. As such, I categorically deny that all Asians hate Max Karson, white people in general, or any CU students in particular. I do not think that all white people are 'whitebread, tree loving sloths,' and I do not play racketball. I married an English, Italian/European mixed Caucasian, who is a biology major that loves both trees and sloths. I worked as an Attorney for seventeen years, and it is my firm opinion that Max Carson and the student newspaper should be protected by their First Amendment rights to free speech. I heartily disagree with those denizens of political correctness who attempt to stifle such conversations and discussions. Not only do I support Mr. Karson's right to publish his opinions in the news media, I believe that we as scholars should take this opportunity to publicly discuss the merits of his viewpoints. I teach using the Socratic Teaching Method, which I have adapted into the Discussion Packet Teaching Method. I have lessons that I use concerning ethnic prejudice against African, Jewish, women and Native Americans. I welcome the opportunity to come to CU and hold public discussions concerning the merits of Mr. Karson's thinking.As a former card-carrying member of the ACLU, I believe in Sunshine laws, full disclosure and free and open debate. I invite Skinheads, Ku Klux Klan members and racists of all creeds, colors and national origin to air their beliefs, so that other students can decide which position is more rational. I look upon Max Karson's articles to be teachable moments and I applaud the student newspaper for bringing these issues to my attention.
Dear editor, As a veteran journalist and top editor at news organizations, I support Mr. Karson's right to publish his column, titled 'If it's a war the Asians want â?¦.' But as an Asian-American man, I'm saddened that he so badly botched an opportunity to initiate a campus conversation about race and diversity in a more thoughtful, respectful way. Dude. What were you thinking? Imagine what the column could have been if he had spent more time and energy thinking about a constructive way of telling the story about racial tension on campus. Here's an idea, for what it's worth: Take four students to Starbucks, a pair at a time. Start with two friends (one white, one Asian). Then two strangers (one white, one Asian). Let them know what you want to talk to them about beforehand so they can explore their feelings. Buy them lattes and pastries, then put the issue on the table and let them discuss it. What do they say? What words do they use? How does each feel? What was their body language? Buy another round of lattes. Are they concerned? What's their solution, if any? What was left unsaid? Write your impressions after listening, but don't publish them. Not yet. Talk to other people who care about this issue. Is it getting better or worse? Why or why not? (For example: are student populations changing so there are more from various ethnic groups on campus today than before?) What effect, if any, does this have on campus or community life? With this swirling in your head, sit and write the first draft. Throw that one away and write another. Then sit with an editor. Discuss. Then write some more. Would the result have been a more constructive, powerful, honest way to explore the issue? Instead, in the pursuit of humor, Mr. Karson delivered worn stereotypes and caricatures to portray a diverse population of people who don't look like he does. The only thing missing was a reference to slanted eyes and buck teeth. Mr. Karson has now learned a very hard lesson. His attempt at humor wasn't funny to many people. Not even a little bit. Beyond the tone of his piece, Mr. Karson's first mistake was to portray Asians as a monolithic race of people. Asians in his world don't seem to have names or identities. They aren't depicted as real people with real histories and real concerns or even real voices. They are just "The Asian" or just 'Asians' who stare and utter one word responses in perfect English. 'Okay.' People of Asian heritage represent many countries and cultures, including our own. We have roots in big nations and little islands. We are recent immigrants and citizens for generations. We are native English speakers and those mastering English as a second language. This is as true for Asians as it is for every ethnic and racial group in America. For example, are all Hispanics or Latinos the same? Of course not. There are real differences between Spanish speakers from South America, Central America and Europe. In some ways, Asians are more diverse. We don't even share a common language. My almond-shaped eyes reveal my Japanese heritage, but as a middle-aged American born in this country, I share no more history with other Asians of my generation than Mr. Karson does with peers of his race or ethnicity. Mr. Karson's second mistake was either not seeking help or heeding advice to develop the column more fully. Arrogance? Cutting corners on deadline? Only he knows. The best columnists seek help to polish their ideas, not just language. Mr. Karson is a beginner. As such, he deserved the time and attention necessary to turn his raw emotions and idea into a thoughtful piece of work. Mr. Karson's editors let him and the CU community down by not challenging him to develop the offensive column idea more fully. The fact that it was not clearly labeled as commentary or a column is a red herring. What the community deserved was a better, more thoughtful column. Period. Great columns are journeys. They are a special and unique form of storytelling. The best are intimate and provocative. They are a close examination of an issue through those who have lived it. They feel like a conversation over coffee with a knowledgeable friend. Based only on the published piece I read, Mr. Karson doesn't understand this. A column appears to be a platform for his introspective rants. We have blogs and radio talk shows for that. In the end, Mr. Karson has a lot to answer for: The disrespectful tone of his piece, shallow logic and simplistic writing, offensive portrayals and what appears to be his unapologetic response to his work and its affect on readers. Is he a racist? Misguided, maybe. Unfeeling or uncaring, maybe. Irresponsible? You decide. But racist? Bigot? Despite his not-so-humorous statement -- "No more, Mr. Pretend-I'm-Not-Racist" - I don't believe he is one. At least I hope not. Extreme situations often lead to the greatest self discoveries. Let's hope for the sake of your campus community, and my industry, that Mr. Karson has learned a big lesson from this teacheable moment.
Max Karson's article "If it's war the Asian's want..." might be the most racist thing I've ever read about race relations on a college campus. If there is indeed "tension" between Asians and other races on the campus, his article has done nothing to alleviate it or bring helpful awareness to the problem. His wording about his "tolerance" and his own admittance of being "Mr. Pretend-I'm-Not-Racist" clearly indicates that it's not hate that's staring him in the face when he interacts with Asians - It's merely his own prejudices being projected onto their faces. An article stereotyping all Asians into one category and then planning a "war" attacking their souls is dangerous rhetoric and one that should never have been published. I don't even blame Max Karson - I blame this website, the students who allowed this to be published, and the faculty that oversee it. I demand a retraction, an apology, and some type of program to help those that have these strong feelings of resentment for an entire race. This is the most embarassing thing I've ever read in a college publication.
You are absolute trash mate. How you can publish that pathetic drivel is beyond me. Maybe they avoid communicating with white people because of all the racist (expletive) they endure throughout primary and highschool. Did you ever think about that? Typical (expletive) Yank trash. You're doing your Hollywood proud. Maybe that's why the Arabs blew up your two towers. I hope you die in a house fire.
Campus Press, stand up for your writer. CU, stand behind your paper. Journalism dean, for god's sake: Max Karson wrote an article in which (as he tends to do) he once again performed the stupid, ugly face of racism, and in a way that made it perfectly clear that's what he was doing: shining a harsh light on a campus climate that is less than wonderful. The fact that everyone's attention goes to Max (rather than to the racial discomfort among different groups that is silently enacted by CU students as they go about their daily lives) is not Max's fault, but the result of knee-jerk reactions by angry, defensive people and the local media who thrill to the latest CU scandal. Self-righteous outrage spreads like fascism. After the first flush of indignation, the righteously offended begin telling others they need to be "trained" to "think" in certain ways (as the Campus Press staff seems to have been ordered to do, and, unbelievably, agreed to! How very Cold War Russia). It seems startlingly obvious that Karson was not really calling for white people with butterfly nets (an image that makes racist behavior look idiotic, by the way- what's wrong with that?) to capture Asian students. No, he was putting a face on white privilege and giving a voice to the "unspeakable." Other possible responses to his piece besides "He can't write this!" and "What a horrible person he is!" and "Off with his head!" might have been, "Hey- let's talk about whether those attitudes actually still exist" (They do! They're just whispered as jokes among drunken frat boys, since it is apparently much better to mask the symptoms of racist ideas than it is to try to show that such ideas are still virulent). Or, another thoughtful response would be to ask, "Are there really unspoken tensions between Asian and non-Asian students at CU?" or "What could we all do to more effectively create inclusive communities?" That would be the pedagogical response, the critical thinking response, the response that any corps of journalists or educational institution worth their weight in paper should have considered. Not, "Kill the messenger!" and "Apologize!" but "Wow- perhaps we can take this opportunity to talk about how we deal with one another on this campus." Why wasn't there a calm, considered follow-up article on the experience of being Asian at CU? Why weren't there letters by students describing their own experiences with others on campus who are different from themselves, or discussing why it's so hard to talk about all this? Why didn't anyone think to frame this as an opportunity? By the way, if you take any satirical opinion piece seriously (such as the one about hating people's babies, which targets overweight women), you can pretty much find something to be upset about all the time. Hey, to save time and energy, perhaps all CU's student writers should be commanded to write only extremely tame, straightforward, dull, widely-acceptable cheerful or purely silly stories and columns. Then, no one will have to think about anything unpleasant, like white privilege and racism at CU, ever. Because evidently, the only possible response to the provocative stuff is hysteria.
I don't understand why Amy Herdy, the adviser is being attacked and asked to resign. Under the COLORADO STUDENT FREE EXPRESSION LAW, she could not have censored the article even if she wanted to because student editors have all the power. Section 5A of this law says: (5) (a) Student editors of school sponsored student publications shall be responsible for determining the news, opinion, and advertising content of their publications subject to the limitations of this section. It shall be the responsibility of the publications advisor of school-sponsored student publications within each school to supervise the production of such publications and to teach and encourage free and responsible expression and professional standards for English and journalism. Herdy could have discouraged the publication of these articles, but ultimately the responsibility and blame lies with the student editors. It is important you let your campus and readers at large know that Amy Herdy has done nothing wrong in this situation.
Dear CU Editorial Board, I read your piece titled "If it's war the Asians want" and just wanted to give my opinion. I was directed to your site by the Drudge Report and angryasianman.com which prefaced your article as racist. The first five times I read it I did think it was pretty racist. But I went back and read it for the sixth time and finally saw the humor in addition to the racism. After mulling over what the intent of the author was in writing this piece I realized that his intent did not matter. It is free speech after all. What struck me was how this author could mock race and the misunderstandings derived from racial bias from a pedestal, a "White" pedestal. It was as if this view were the only legitimate perspective to look at this "supposed" situation between an Asian and white students. That your editorial board gave permission for this piece to be published further legitimized this perspective. Last year the Daily Princetonian published a piece by a supposed Lian Ji mocking his allegations of bias against Princeton. It used pigdin English and was, in my opinion and to your credit, ten times more offensive than this piece. Some responses that I read yesterday pointed to the fact that a piece mocking African Americans would never been written. Similarly, if Lian Ji were an African American would a piece in ebonics been printed in the DP? I don't think so. Such a piece would have legitimized an unfair, untruthful, and just plain wrong view of African Americans. The point is that your editorial board actively decided to perpetuate numerous stereotypes, which are half truths to begin with, and brushed them off as free speech. You might argue that there is truth in stereotypes so what's the big deal? Really? Can you categorically say that all Asians are good at math, eat sushi, do not show emotion, use rice cookers, and eat mochi ice cream? Just retyping these stereotypes are painful. Not in a "Boohoo... you made me cry you (expletive)" painful, but in a "Man... you are an ignorant fool. Don't you realize that you're being an ignorant fool?" painful. What bothers me immensely is that institutions of higher learning, such as yours, should be breaking stereotypes and not perpetuating or creating new ones. In Princeton's case, the editorial board argued that by "using hyperbole and a string of stereotypes, we hoped to lampoon racism by showing it at its most outrageous." You, however, "apologize for any ambiguity of the satire that may have been construed." You don't even get it. There is no ambiguity in the satire. The ambiguity lies in the stereotypes and therein lies the racism. Princeton did a disservice to its readers and to America. You have done the same. Sadly, this piece and the various comments supporting this article is how people think about race in this country. We have so far to go.
I guess there has been a big stink about the Opinion article written by a Mr. Max Karson. I was sent the article by a friend of mine, who is about to complete his PhD at The Ohio State University. His study revolves around Bi-racial family identity. I myself am an English student with a focus on rhetoric and composition at Miami University Oxford. I must say that the editorial - the one about Asians - reads pretty badly. The writing is about "C-" quality writing. Isn't there an adult around there to run a quick edit on these pieces? Are all articles so poorly constructed? I can't imagine you'll have the time to answer my letter if there truly is a "big stink" about these things, but if you have the chance to read this letter you should consider the things I've outlines. Writing like this is bad. Even if it was funny, which it's not, and even if it wasn't thinly veiled, racist hate-speak, which it is....at least give the (expletive) writing a once-over, a little polish before it rolls out the front door. You aren't working at Steak and Shake, you're writing for your (expletive) campus newspaper, and you represent your state. That should be enough, but don't forget that you also represent yourself...and you're making your state, school, and self look like a blathering moron. So harden up, and try not to publish such a turd next time, because it's sad that I've spent five minutes of my day on this. And it's sad that without so much as a spellcheck, this silly little form-letter e-mail rates a better read than your Opinion piece. If making fun of bad writers was like knocking down buildings, I'd be (expletive) Godzilla!
While I understand that the article was satire, no satire should cross the boundary of describing a certain group of Americans with subhuman rhetoric. Netting those with Asian descent, hogtying them, and tickling them until they pee is beyond a bad joke. It's one thing to criticize or ridicule another group, or to use free speech as a means to constructively critique or examine a particular group's characteristics. It's another thing to publish comments that dehumanize them on a university newspaper. The people who work at this newspaper who allowed this to happen should be ashamed of themselves for the use of such bad judgment. Those who even today stand by its publication should put pride aside and re-examine whether or not they excercised the best judgment. This article, despite its satirical nature, can be considered hate speech by many, regardless of ethnicity. I am demanding that you remove Max Karson from his position as staff editor. That is the very least that you can do as responsible human beings.
This is not a letter to support Max, but rather a letter of support for the editors and staff of The Campus Press. I read Max's opinion piece before it became a "controversy" and I found it quite satirical. I am confused why my peers found it so offensive. This is college and we are all charged with confronting the status quo. I feel addressing stereotypes is the first step to overcome them. As a Hispanic "minority" I find it offensive that the CU prescribes a couple hours of "diversity training" and assumes that everything will be okay afterwards. I did not read any deliberate accusations that the average college student couldn't decipher between humor and racism. I wonder why UCSU has not ratified a resolution against Dave Chappell or Carlos Mancia? Please do not let them attack your journalistic integrity for the mere means of saving face.
Dear Editors: After reading the article recently published on "War on Asians" I was not surprised on how your editors reacted. Seeing how none of you have had a ting of racism directed towards you, you defense of not knowing how the minority students would react is a common "mistake". My suggestion is that next time you even have the slightest doubt as to how it will be received, don't print it.