'Majority' describes power, not numbers

I would like to define what a majority and minority mean in the social context for Kevin Gardner (column, Feb. 25).

He repeatedly uses these terms in his analysis of how the University and our society discriminate against "straight white males" and how society holds a double-standard against them.

He seems to think that majority and minority are words that indicate numbers.

When you're talking about how many people like ice cream, you'd be talking about a majority of people. However, this use of the word does not transfer over to when you are talking about whites being a majority in our society.

Literally, it is true that there are more so-called "white" people in America today, but the word "majority" means something more here. It is about POWER.

When you talk about slavery or women's oppression, it is very clear what power means. "Whites" are not a numeric majority in states like South Carolina and Mississippi, but before (and well after) the Civil War, their control of the African-American numeric majority was powerful.

The "whites" were the majority! They oppressed the "blacks" to an inhuman degree. Also, women are not a minority in numbers, but obviously do not hold as much power as men in this country.

Gardner wants to know why he is not able to be "proud of being white, straight or male?" It is because he already has a voice without speaking. He will never have to speak up to be heard. He has the advantage. He is part of the majority. He has power behind how people see him, as the "straight, white male."

I would not tell him that he doesn't still have his rights, but why can't he let the minority, those without power, have a voice?

He thinks that because Penn State does not endorse a club to give strength to heterosexuals, his rights are infringed compared to those of the students in the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Student Alliance.

He has the power inherently, by being straight, to be straight and not worry. He said that "anything bad the minorities want to say about the majority is okay, but not vice-versa."

I do not condone ill-speak of any kind, but when someone with POWER says something demeaning to someone without power, it means so much more. It is not simply the words that are spoken. It's what's behind the words: the power.

He said that he "can't believe the only way minorities can rise up is by pushing the majority down." Yet that is the very definition of what equality means! It is bringing power up to an equal level for all.

He said that "any group that forms to be pro-majority will be seen as anti-minority, no matter what it says." But once again, that is the very defining factor behind being in a majority. Keeping your majority is keeping someone else in the minority. Being in the majority is having power over someone else.

I'm sorry that we need to classify the difference between people. I think that it's sad that people still cannot see other people for who they are and not by their color or their sex. But until everyone can, until the majority is a group of people that does not regard these things as important, there will continue to be turmoil and tension.

Gardner, forget that you are a "straight, white male." I am a so-called "straight, white male," but I do not want to be part of a group that is proud of being so.

I am part of the human race, not the "white" race. There are no colors! "Races" are in the mind, they do not exist. But let those that you have classified as "black" speak out against their oppression, for they have been oppressed!!

Until we are all equal -- when color of skin does not matter any longer -- the minority will continue to fight for their equality among the majority.

And if and when most people are equal, those classifications will cease to exist.

Mark Schoneveld
sophomore-history

Comparison of great cities impossible

This is in response to Ken Hesser's column "Philly vs. Pittsburgh: the final showdown begins" (column, Feb. 26). I was eating lunch Wednesday when I came across this debacle. Needless to say, I enjoyed my burger twice, once on the way down and a second time on its way back up.

Let's begin with your food comparison, with which I happen to agree. My area of focus is not debating the two tastes, but to question who took you on a tour of Pittsburgh?

Practically anyone who has any knowledge about Pittsburgh will verify that the food of choice is a Primanti Bros. sandwich. I guess I'll let you slide on that one, but the portion of the article which turned my face green was the comparison of Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr vs. Eric Lindros and John LeClair.

Being a devoted hockey fan, I'll give props to LeClair, who is always hardworking and has paid his due in the National Hockey League. That leaves "Sir Eric," who has yet to win a Stanley Cup, unless you count the one last year by the Avalanche. This was a direct result from the refusal of Lindros to start his career in a new town, learn a different language and begin his career with the worst team in the league.

Wait a minute. If I'm not mistaken, the young French Canadian wearing the #66 did exactly that and won two Stanley Cups along with countless NHL awards while defeating cancer. I call for a revote: Lemieux/Jagr drop Lindros/LeClair like Peter McKneely.

The third topic of question lies in your Rusted Root vs. Hooters comparison. I think you misspelled Hooters -- it's "Who"ters, as in, "no one has ever heard of them."

Meanwhile, Rusted Root maintains an enjoyable show and consistent popularity. They have played respectable concerts and have moved on from the high school scene.

In conclusion, I agree with a few of your comparisons: the Philly cheesesteak will always be a gem, and Rocky is an all-time classic.

The two cities are each full of qualities making them diverse and impossible to compare.

Be proud of your city, even if it's a small town no one's ever heard of, like, for instance my own -- Renfrew, Pa.

Amberson Bauer
junior-economics