Not all students created equal

While I agree with Ryan Johnson's central thesis of his Wednesday column "Low economic groups should be focus of diversity," I'd like to present another interpretation of his correlations between IQ and economics.

I realize this is nigh doublespeak-y blasphemy in the United States, but maybe the reason that some families have higher incomes is simply because at least one of the parents are genetically predisposed to have higher IQs, and hence land better-paying jobs (not necessarily an indicator of social value). Such a trait is more likely to be seen in children with at least one parent expressing it than children with neither parent expressing the high IQ trait.

That is, despite the fallacious suppositions of our public school system, maybe not all children are born a "tabula rasa," free to develop as they wish. Put simply, some kids are born to be great basketball players, some master mechanics and others philosophers, depending on their "wiring."

Sure, they can attempt whatever they will, but there will be degrees of success. Pretending that our intellectual traits are all socially evolved only further devalues some professions compared to others. At the same time, this perpetuates an educational institution that caters to the lowest common denominator of only one narrow facet of human potential.

Christopher Haney
environmental microbiology graduate student

Ignorance of voters apparent in Prop. 102

The obvious ignorance or misinterpretation on the part of the voters who opposed Proposition 102 is understandable, though disappointing. But the contrived misinformation printed in Laura Keslar's Tuesday column is profoundly disturbing. I would have expected more from someone purportedly being educated. She chooses Web site ideology over real economics and apparently never even read her voter's pamphlet.

She asks, "Why would Arizona businesses want to compete with someone they can't out-compete?" But the Arizona Small Business Association and many other business groups and chambers of commerce all supported Prop. 102 enthusiastically. Both Sen. John McCain and Gov. Janet Napolitano supported it enthusiastically. Both Republican and Democratic parties supported it unconditionally.

In this bitterly divisive political environment, we had a bit of bi-partisan cooperation and the voters rejected it! Way to go Arizona! The only argument against it in the pamphlet was from some guy worried about secret human genetic engineering. The failure of Prop. 102 will adversely affect me more than any likely policy implemented by Bush - or Kerry, had he been elected.

Because of the prospect of university support and ongoing involvement including investment, I thought that my project to develop an alternative "green" cement would be only a daunting challenge in geochemical thermodynamics. Now I realize that trying to educate people, including university students, can be far more difficult.

David Stone
soil, water and environmental science graduate student

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, not religious

I am sick and tired of all these conservative types crying about liberals denigrating and shaming their moral values and beliefs. It bears repeating that no democratic official of any sort has actually said that religion sucks or that we are going to marry you off to anybody! No one has said we will convert you into hedonist atheists! No one has implied that gays will marry in your favorite church! No one is saying that you have to watch! No one is threatening the institution of marriage at all! This is a civil rights issue. Civil unions ensure that any two people have the same rights and privileges that any other two people have in America.

What do conservatives mean anyway? If a happy married couple in Kansas sees some gay guys getting married, does that mean the hetero couple will immediately divorce and send their kids to foster homes? Besides, divorce rates are higher in "red" states than in the liberal "blue" states that voted for Kerry. In fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country, and they have gay civil unions! What does that tell you? Civil unions probably have no effect at all, yet conservatives seem to think Armageddon is coming. However, it does get people to the polls.

The Republicans used homophobia to great effect throughout the campaign. Republicans called Kentucky Democratic senate candidate Daniel Mongiardo "limp-wristed" and used the classic, "I'm not even sure the word 'man' applies to him." Who is more manly is a great debate to have in our advanced democracy, but still, it's a little nasty, isn't it? Did you hear any Democrat denigrate or belittle a Republican like that?

Carlos Chiquete
physics and mathematics senior

Work towards a more encompassing

I very much appreciated Mr. Berry's sardonic tone in his column from Monday's Wildcat. His column, "Queer eye for the 'values' guy," has led to a chain of highly charged reactions in which, it is my firm belief, there is too much finger-pointing taking place.

I am a conservative, Roman Catholic homosexual, Mr. Leake, and let me make it painfully clear: Your friendship is not something I would ever want to embrace! I don't believe I engage in sexual acts before you, therefore I don't need your approval via your friendship. Bedroom behaviors are, for the most part, private; respect that! The truth of the whole matter is we live in a world of stereotypes, and "rednecks," "homophobes," "gays" and even your "traditionalists" are ways of grouping people together.

The great part about this country is an individual's right to identify as a homosexual, a religious proponent, a redneck or even an "immoral extremist" as you, Mr. Leake, generalized. The list goes on and so will all of our lives. It's funny, homosexuals come in all forms such as parents, uncles, brothers, sisters and, yes, even our future sons and daughters. Maybe we can all stop working against each other and find a way to be a more encompassing society.

Gregory Robustelli
journalism sophomore

Civil unions

This letter is in response to the column, "Queer eye for the 'values' guy," and the subsequent responses by Cameron Moore, Seth Frantzman and Gabriel Leake. I would first like to applaud Brett Berry for his views of what our democracy should be according to the Constitution. People can have their opinions (that is what makes our country great in the first place), but the definition of equality should not be changed to mean what people want it to mean. The Constitution was written to protect people from religious persecution, which is why it explicitly states "separation of Church and State."

The response by Moore, which does contain some rash and generalized statements, is not all without justification. His response was out of frustration, which I understand, because not many people know what it feels like to have people hate them passionately based upon a prejudice and have their rights rejected since they are different from the majority. Sure, we may be angry about not being able to enter into a civil union with a person we love because of their sex/gender (and some of us don't care), but it does not mean we all have hatred and spite toward anyone who disagrees with us, as Frantzman implies.

And as for Leake's response, where to start? He wants liberals to leave the institution of marriage alone and not filth it up, yet he suggests that we should find someone of the opposite sex and get married in Sin City because that's traditional! Also, I don't believe in marriage. Marriage should be granted by a religious institution at its discretion and civil unions, which should not be denied based on gender/sex or sexual orientation, granted by the government. He thinks that we all have a problem with religious people, which is incorrect (I have several religious gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered friends). Personally, I don't care what religion (or none at all) people practice; I only have a problem when people set out to make it so that their beliefs are imposed upon me. And Gabriel, for your information, I don't sleep around with every guy I see (although it's not as if there are not straight people that sleep around), but I would never be your friend.

Chris Clingensmith
biochemistry and pre-computer science junior

Defeat the two-party system

I'm tired of hearing how Bush won because most of America is homophobic. The numbers that support that hypothesis are flimsy at best.

And let's not spend all our time talking about how Bush cheated in this election. Did he cheat? Sure he did. But what's ultimately more important is that several million people voted for him. He would have won this election without cheating, anyway.

Instead, let's look at the real reason Bush won: Kerry was a horrible candidate and all of us who put our beliefs aside to support him did so out of fear and stupidity. I know I did. I was and am still terrified of Bush. But the Democratic Party is not the solution to get rid of Bush. I've said this before but maybe you'll believe me now. Maybe I'll believe myself.

What progressives should have done was organize to defeat the two-party system. Everything was there: the money, the energy, the people. Instead, we progressives threw ourselves behind a lying, pro-war, pro-PATRIOT Act, pro-NAFTA candidate because we thought he was the best we could do. Progressives keep doing this, by the way, settling for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, etc. Occasionally one of them wins and then we say, "Well, we have to live with this one for the time being, but next time we'll get a better one." But that doesn't ever happen, does it?

So stop blaming middle America for being stupid. What's stupider is being duped over and over and over again by a party that is thoroughly appalling. Drop the needle, roll down your sleeve and just say no.

Rachel Wilson
law student

Leave ignorant hate mail out of paper

The letter, "Gays should leave marriage alone," in Wednesday's opinions section is malicious and doesn't belong in the school paper. I realize that this section is meant for students to freely express their views. But when opinion letters go from emotional to hateful and aggressive, it is no longer appropriate to print them.

"Can't traditionalists have one thing that is sacred without gays or liberals trying to filth it up?" the letter's author says, referencing gay marriage supporters. He then claims that the immoral extremists label everyone in opposition of gay marriage as "homophobes." Liberals and gays are filthy, immoral and quick to label and judge? The author should take a second look at himself before making such hateful, hypocritical accusations.

Coinciding with the gay and liberal bashing, the assumptions made in the letter are ridiculous. "Show me a conservative gay person who wants a civil union and doesn't go sleeping around with every guy he meets, and I'll welcome that person as my friend." "Abortions banned, gay marriage destroyed. The next four years are going to be great." OK, buddy. Enough with the doom and destruction bit. And here's a newsflash: Not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and they certainly don't all want an uncivil union. The only thing that's fair to assume with this information is their sexual orientation.

I am disappointed in the author of this letter. Instead of expressing his views with emotion and tactful criticism, he made aggressive attacks on many readers. Those comments are truly filthy, not gays or liberals. Keep ignorant hate letters out of the paper.

Audrey Harris
sociology junior