U of C guilt
It's way past time for University of Chicago students to abandon their guilt trip. The University is an elite, pricey educational institution. To be admitted, students need to be smart, and to remain, they need well-to-do parents, or a good aid package and/or work-study. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of any perks they are offeredsomeone is paying for them. The Red Line Shuttle, or any other instrument that increases student safety and mobility, should not be looked at something that divides students from community residentsthey are already divided. And the younger, unsophisticated students need some protection until they become street-wise.
In my meanderings around campus and at Doc Films, I notice that students tend to hang out in like packs: whites with whites, blacks with blacks, and Asians with Asians. Perhaps they should be brave and bold and bring home someone different to meet Mom and Dad. That would be a good step. Idealism may best be served by using one's education to help create a more equal system. Meanwhile, those who still feel overwhelming guilt that is not soothed by various volunteer activities may transfer to a not-so-elite, pricey university where they can obtain a good education, passing on the surplus tuition money to some less fortunate student. That'll be the day!
Margaret Poznak Mine
Hyde Park resident
I was appalled by the discretion of the editors in allowing the publication of "U of C Must Continue Tsunami Aid" (2/22/05). Although printed in the Viewpoints section of the paper, this article appears to be just a puff piece for Joshua Steinman and Dave Clayman, who are leading the skyscraper challenge. I'm sure that this event is a worthy fundraiser, but the article is just a two-column advertisement for their own project, and considering the headline, it doesn't even mention any other tsunami relief fundraisers on campus. (The upcoming Musical Chairs fundraiser comes to mind, and I'm sure there are others.) I'm not sure how much Maroon ad space goes for these days, but I think Steinman and Clayman just swindled you out of a bundle.
In my February 18 op-ed, I incorrectly stated that "Islamofascists saw successes in Kosovo." I had intended to say that Milosevicwho was not Islamic, and certainly not Islamofascisthad played on America's and NATO's dovishness and fought to remain in power. However, further research has cast substantial doubt on a crucial point: whether NATO ever threatened (or Milosevic ever perceived a threat from NATO) to oust Milosevic if he failed to capitulate; and, consequently, whether Milosevic succeeded in convincing NATO to reduce its demands. I regret the error.