Desire to ban book not a justified action

Within these lists were words like, "love," "happiness," "friend" and "diversity." But just because I could spell and define a word inside, outside, upside down and backwards didn't mean that I grasped the emotional and mental attachment to it.

I never understood a word until it meant something, anything, to my personal being. I know the meaning of "divorce," "death," "love" and "anxiety." But, I don't understand "nigger." I never will because I am white.

What I do understand is that banning a book that contains that word will not ban racism. A word is an expression of a feeling or belief. Take away the expression, and the feelings or beliefs will not go away. I'm sorry that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People wants to ban The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

I'm sorry that they can't see past one word into the world of a young boy whose focus is escape. When he says "nigger," he's not being derogatory toward anyone. He is a pre-adolescent who is living in the times. No one says that the times are right. "Nigger" was a common word then.

It still is. I rarely go a day without hearing one black person call another black person a nigger. Is that "insulting to African Americans?"

If so, don't put it on Twain's head. He was trying to make a point that a word doesn't matter. What matters is the heart involved, the context implied and the emotions portrayed.

I invite everyone to read this book. Focus not, for once, on that singular word which, I agree, can be derogatory. Look at the overall impact of the book. It is a celebration! A celebration of a young man taking a stand against an oppressive authority, for his rights, and the rights of his friend, Jim, to be free from abuse and enslavement.

After all, how derogatory is it when one friend declares, "All right, then, I'll go to hell," to save his black friend from becoming a slave again, if not lynched for running away?

Why ban a book like that because of one word?

Julie Brown
junior-English

University should not support Act 199

I am sick and tired of reading articles like "USG Absolut-ely in question about shirts" and "Act 199." Why is it that under 21 students at the University are expected to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?

We are not allowed to read about drinks in The Daily Collegian, and we are not allowed to wear shirts that depict Happy Valley as a drinking town, but it is OK for us to go back to our dorms and apartments and cheer on Budweiser's Louie the Lizard. As a side note, I just want University President Spanier to know that Happy Valley consists of more than just the University grounds, and whether he likes it or not the downtown area has bars where people engage in drinking.

In a society that expects its children to grow up fast and take on responsibility, stupid rules like Act 199 just undermine our intelligence. Other countries' youth, like France, laugh at America's youth because we must be kept innocent. Maybe Spanier and the rest of the administration should stop worrying about petty advertising problems, and start worrying more about problems that concern the majority of the students.

The administration might even want to become more in touch with the student population, instead of just making decisions based on the ideals of conservative alumni who donate money to build classroom buildings with their names on them.

Nicole Reichel
sophomore-recreation and park management