LETTERS and E-MAILS

Workers' resolution not a failure

To the editor:

In response to last week's editorial regarding the ASSCU senate and facilities worker's resolution ["Careful decisions," Feb. 26], I believe I have a responsibility, and desire, as Senate Chair to commend the proactive efforts and overall excellence of this outstanding group of student body representatives.

Senate members have offered countless hours to support students, athletes, clubs, and workers, and continue to succeed in making the Santa Clara campus a community of informed, involved, and fulfilled individuals. I believe it is unfortunate that the editorial board of The Santa Clara has only chosen to recognize (what they deem) a failure on the part of Senate, even if Fr. Locatelli attended a recent Senate meeting, showing its high degree of reputability.

I support all people that work with Santa Clara, and while my opinion may be different from the majority of Senators in terms of passing the resolution too early, we are all respectful, mature individuals who realize that people have varying opinions on how to implement certain proceedings.

After they passed the resolution, I decided to do more research on the subject and offer additional information to Senate that I believe was important for them to understand. Still, over a week after they voted to support the resolution, Senators stand by their decision. This is no failure in my eyes.

I would like to thank Senators Amparo Cid, Michael Rhoads and Manuel Torres; Santa Clara Operations Manager, Joe Sugg, for his time and helpful information; and Santa Clara Community Action Program members Blair Thedinger and Jen BeVard for bringing the issue to Senate.

Andrea Barrack

Senate Chair

Associated Students

Personal freedom above gay marriage ban

To the editor:

I am writing in response to Rene Cardenas' article ["S.F. mayor's bold attempt at heroics unappreciated, illegal," Feb. 26] on San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom's recent order to wed homosexual couples. Mr. Cardenas is correct that Newsom's actions represent a violation of California law, but they have also brought attention to an important issue.

President Bush has recently given his support to a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. I won't even go into the hypocrisy of a party that claims to champion "states' rights" attempting to legislate this issue at the federal level. Bush's and most gay-marriage opponents' arguments generally fall under vague statements such as the "sanctity of marriage" or the "importance of marriage in society". What they fail to explain is what (if any) specific negative impact gay marriage will have on heterosexual marriage or society itself. When pressed, the same proponents of these arguments often claim that legally recognizing gay marriage will be destructive to the societal concept of family.

Aside from the lack of empirical evidence to support that theory, using "family harm" as criteria for making an activity unlawful at the federal level has dangerous legal implications as well. Using the same logic, adultery and divorce should be made federal crimes, since both actions are destructive to the family unit. Of course, the notion of outlawing adultery and divorce is ludicrous. Why? Because we are a nation whose top priority is personal freedom. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

As far as Mr. Cardenas' suggestion that Washington should "have the courage to pull its workers and cash" from San Francisco, perhaps Washington should also have the courage to watch $6 billion in annual revenue vanish as my fellow San Franciscans and I withhold our federal income tax dollars in response.

Bobby McCarthy

Marketing, '05

'Streetcar' offensive

To the editor:

I was recently accepted into a graduate program at Santa Clara. I decided to visit over the weekend from New York with a friend. On Friday, Feb. 27, we purchased tickets to see "A Street Car Named Desire," having forgotten the plot after so many years out of high school English when we read it.àà

At first, I must say, I have seen over a dozen Broadway plays, and the acting was phenomenal! However, my enjoyment was quickly taken when I saw "negro woman" as the stereotypical, racist depiction. The only black person in the play, she had to be fat; although she had very few words, she had to sing, and swish across stage like Aunt Jemima or Mammy from "Gone with the Wind." She had to be brutish, accompanied by a white man who stood aside while she roughed-up Blanche. More upsetting was the reaction from the audience. The audience found it so funny, and I could not understand why or whether they were very ignorant or just racist. I pictured a white woman in her place, and tried to imagine that the audience would find it as hysterical. It didn't work. I asked my friend if the original play had this "negro woman" in it. She couldn't remember. She's Caucasian, and I'm African-American. She admitted to me that she would not have thought it was racist without my pointing it out.

Even if the character is in the play the same way, perhaps those involved should recognize its offensiveness, and amend those scenes. I was accepted to Santa Clara and this was my first visit. I think the school is physically gorgeous, and I plan to attend. I have hopes, as an African-American woman, that Santa Clara is a place where I can feel invited to attend.

Tanika James

Great Neck, N.Y.