Sex and Sensibility
Dear Editor:
For the most part, I have nothing but respect and admiration for The Eagle's staff. Writing is difficult, and anyone that has the guts to put their work out week after week for the entire student body is undeniably brave. However, this does not mean that everyone who has the courage to write a column should.
In particular, I am referring to the column "Sex and Sensibility" by Allison Weil. I vaguely remember the column being fairly good a year or so ago, so I was shocked at its poor quality when I started reading it again this semester. It is hands down the most useless column published in The Eagle. Sometimes I question whether or not the "advice" Ms. Weil is giving the student body is plagiarized from a fortune cookie.
The main message from last week's column was "you can't go searching for love," a piece of unoriginal advice I remember hearing from a wide range of sources, starting with my mother and ending with "Saved by the Bell."
Even if by chance Ms. Weil writes about an issue that I can relate to, such as reconnecting with one's siblings from the Feb. 26 issue, instead of feeling compelled to pick up the phone and call my brother, I was only motivated to write this letter.
Hopefully, The Eagle will one day realize that it should hire columnists that offer true insights, rather than dishing out cliches.
Adrienne Capkovic
Junior CAS
More on gay marriage
Dear Editor:
"If You're going to San Francisco" written by Heather Blandford makes many claims without foundation. She claims that the issue is not discrimination, that the issue is democracy; she is wrong.
When a group of people seeks to deny another group of people their rights or treats them with inequality, based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or any other affiliation, that is bias, that is discrimination, that is persecution. To say that discrimination was not the issue is similar to saying that the civil rights movement did involve race.
I fail to understand how an amendment that ensures systematic discrimination protects democracy. Furthermore, Blandford seems to believe that civil disobedience is undemocratic. I say that it is democracy that allows us to practice civil disobedience and that it is only the brave few, who choose to fight for their rights not with violence, but with civil disobedience.
Ghandi Martin Luther King Jr. both practiced civil disobedience, both champions of democracy. Democracy can be a wonderful thing; however, in the shadows of democratic rhetoric lays the risk of the tyranny of the majority. Our founders in their wisdom knew this and provided provision in our government, in our Constitution to protect minority rights.
This is the reason why judges are not elected. The courts are our last line of defense against the tyrannical rule not only of one but of many. Those in San Francisco call upon the courts to protect them from the tyranny of the majority. Those in San Francisco, are daring to say that an unjust law is no law at all; they are saying that they will not stand for injustice and for that we should thank them.
It is a dark day in American history as our questionably elected president seeks to amend the Constitution to insert bias and hate. Blandford is right when she says that a constitutional amendment is drastic but she is wrong in assuming that this amendment will in some way prevent or stop the "moral fabric" of America from being torn.
The moral fabric of America is woven not with religious dogma, bias or hate, but with tolerance, acceptance and understanding. Blandford can say what she wants about gay marriage, her hate speech will show its true colors, but I ask that she not tarnish democracy and use it as her cover. The "we" in "we the people" includes gays and lesbians.
Hoang A. Lam
Prospective graduate student
