|
|
|
Patriots
As a long-ago graduate of Berkeley’s College of Commerce (as the business school was then known), I was particularly interested to read Dean Tom Campbell’s comments on the controversial USA Patriot Act in the December issue (“Patriot vs. Patriot”). I was pleased with his response--a low-key but forceful defense of the necessity to preserve individual freedom and, most significantly, his courage and willingness to take critical personal action to defend that freedom. His statements validate the University’s judgment in bringing him to Berkeley and give me confidence in his ability to lead the business school during turbulent times.
Harold Furst ’39 El Cerrito
In “Patriot vs. Patriot,” I read: “Like Campbell, many Berkeley faculty members are particularly alarmed about the Patriot Act’s potential impact on academic freedom and on individual rights to read, speak, and publish without fear.” Are these the same faculty members who made Berkeley famous for its intolerance when it comes to speakers allowed or not allowed to speak on the campus? The same hypocrites who advocate free speech as long as it fits their agenda? Publish without fear! How many don’t dare publish because they would be run out of town? One can only chuckle when thinking of those poor faculty members alarmed by the Patriot Act.
George Naniche Moraga
You have now joined numerous other publications in publishing extensive arguments--pro and con--regarding the controversial Patriot Act. But what about the fact that the act sunsets at the end of December 2005? Rather than debating the act, wouldn’t it be more fruitful to debate what should or should be the law after 2005? We live in a world where terrorism is a reality; where are we willing to draw the line? That’s the question that should be debated and needs to be answered in the next year.
E. Floyd Kvamme ’59 Saratoga
White houses Concerning a comment made by David Colton ’68, MBA ’72 about the co-ops (“Letters to the Editor,” December), a few points. As a former co-oper myself, I knew non-African Americans who lived at the African-American theme house, straight co-opers who lived at Oscar Wilde, and, as my girlfriend lived at Hoyt, I practically lived at a “women-only” house. The two female-only houses in the Berkeley co-op remain. So why no male-only houses? That’s easily answered: There were. Why do they no longer exist? Surprisingly, it wasn’t because anyone protested their existence. It was merely due to their tremendous unpopularity.
David Peterson ’03 San Diego
I am a white, middle-aged man who is not offended in the slightest by the co-ops offering theme houses on a non-discriminatory basis. To the extent that these houses contribute to providing a comfort level allowing minority students to thrive in what might well be an otherwise alienating experience for them, they render an important service.
I’d like to respectfully suggest to Mr. Colton, by the way, that although the co-ops have not in fact offered housing that, while officially open to all, is dedicated to a “white male” theme, students interested in such houses can easily find them, primarily south of Bancroft and east of Telegraph. They’re called fraternities.
Stephen Ross ’76, Boalt ’79 Champaign, Illinois
Science and truth The letter by Dr. Richard Samuelson (December) is a perfect illustration of how the workings of science are misunderstood by non-scientists. He poses the question, “Isn’t science supposed to be a way of finding the truth?” In the broadest sense, the answer to his question is “No.” The goal of science is to provide understanding. Truth resides in the realm of the philosopher.
Science is a matter of trying to ascertain and accumulate facts. Any questions that involve the Creator (e.g., does he exist? What does he do? How does he do it?) cannot be answered by any experiment that humans are in a position to perform. Questions and answers about the Creator are a matter of faith.
Therefore, going back to the statement by Professor Kevin Padian--“whether the universe is intelligently designed by a creator may or may not be true is not a scientific question”--he is exactly correct.
Jeffrey D. Harris ’71, Ph.D. ’78 Lancaster
The in-law Your fawning, obsequious, and finally servile profile of [Alumnus of the Year] Warren Hellman (“Finance, philanthropy, and fun,” December) fails to mention that he is the father-in-law of UC’s president [Robert Dynes]. Shame on you.
L. Johns ’64 San Francisco
|

|