Letters to the Editor

Affirmative action hurts participants

This letter is in response to the letter to the editor by Kizzy Frey on Feb. 25. Affirmative action is unfair, unconstitutional and in fact hurts those it was intended to help. By granting admission to a university or offering a job to people unqualified to receive this on their own merits and simply because they are minority is detrimental to those people. Penn State accepts people on the basis that they will be able to succeed at this university. A minority student Penn State would judge, under normal circumstances, to not be able to succeed here but is granted admission through affirmative action, will have a more difficult time handling the classes and will have to work much harder. Some students can handle this, but a large percentage cannot, which is an effect of affirmative action most people do not realize.

I was extremely disturbed after reading Kizzy Frey’s comments on affirmative action at Penn State. I must say that Frey is right in at least one respect -- racial and sexual prejudice is not dead in Happy Valley. But if giving preference to minority applicants because of this is Penn State’s way to try to gain equality, then we just took a giant step backward.

It is ironic that the given title of her letter was "Affirmative action provides opportunities," because by giving a minority preference, you are taking that opportunity away from someone else. I know that I am here because of my own merits, not because of a quota, and I don’t understand how a person can be comfortable thinking that they may not have been accepted into University Park without preference due to gender or race. Frey is not likely the only person who got a "bum deal" in school and is definitely not the only to have the "misfortune of taking the SAT," which is one of the only ways a college can hope to assess your academic abilities.

We do need the law to protect minority and women’s rights. We also need the law to protect the rights of the majority. Preference toward either group is still unwarranted preference. And before this is realized by Penn State and the rest of the country, I don’t see what is so affirmative about affirmative action.

Lori Baker
junior–mechanical engineering

I find Wendy Lynn Mill’s letter to the editor justifying the theft of food from the HUB eateries appalling and deserving of a response. Stealing food from the HUB eateries, or any business, is wrong. Period. I was a Penn State undergraduate for five years and understand the financial strains of college life. However, anyone who can justify the unlawful theft of a product from its rightful owners undermines the very tenets of liberty and justice from which our society is based.

The sandwich you see in the display case did not come free to Penn State’s Housing and Food Services. HFS does not own a magic sandwich tree that bears free food on demand. As a result, the HUB eateries is entitled to charge patrons for the food items available. HFS sets prices to cover its expenses and earn a reasonable profit while maintaining broad market appeal to its customers.

If you find the food offerings too expensive, don’t buy them. Just as a business may charge what they feel is appropriate, you have the freedom to spend your money wherever you want. I do not buy Mill’s argument that students have no alternative to the HUB eateries. Who says you have to schedule classes so that you only have a 20-minute lunch break? Who says you can’t pack a lunch or something to hold you over until you get some free time to eat? Who says the HUB is the only convenient place to eat on campus?

Brian E. Gabel
Class of 1997

This is in response to the opinion column by Mark Schoneveld. Although he says that he does not want to argue how we should relax immigration regulations, he appears to favor complete, or nearly complete, open borders. Apparently he does not realize how totally impractical that would be.

There are probably at least 3 billion people in the world who are economically depressed and would like to immigrate to the United States, if they could. Mexico alone has increased in population by about sixfold in the past 60 years from about 19 million in 1939 to presently at least 15 million, counting those in Mexico plus those who have come to the United States. If they continue to reproduce at this rate, the number of Mexicans and people of Mexican descent 60 years from now will be about 700 million, which is more than two and one half times our present population.

With open borders we would be completely swamped by Mexicans alone. Instead we should control our borders and Mexico, as well as most of the Third World countries, should learn to control their populations. We can provide information and help to them in this, as well as in other matters.

Douglas Sampson
professor emeritus, astronomy and astrophysics