Letters and Emails

Efforts for change admirable

I'D LIKE TO comment about the opinion piece by Justin Manger in last week's issue of The Santa Clara with my own naïve liberality. When I see students who wear anti-war slogans, and (horrors!) speak up loudly to voice their college liberalism, I am impressed and inspired, and under my breath, I ask God to bless them.

When you see something wrong, you should not look the other way, but instead question why and how you can change things; this is our religious duty (for religious folks) and our patriotic and civic duty as Americans. This is a great country, perhaps the best country in the world, but that does not mean we are beyond criticism, or that our leaders are not prone to human frailties. Whether efforts are successful or not in this world, God will surely reward those who attempted to right wrongs and to speak up against injustice.

Judy Anderson-Hamed,

Santa Clara staff member

Heritage inspires liberalism

THE ARTICLE ENTITLED "Naïve liberalism all too common in college" makes too many false assumptions. Manger rejects the beliefs of "bare-footed naïve liberals" because they themselves are financially well off and their superior social position makes it impossible for their opinions to carry any merit.

I, a liberal student, stand by those who Manger attacks not because of college education but because of the way I was raised. My parents were enslaved for four years during the Cambodian Holocaust in the 1970s until they fled to America where they have labored each day at factories so that their five children could go to college. Because of my parents, it's easy to sympathize with those who have little and easy to get angry at those who don't care about the state of their fellow humans and whose lifestyles merely reinforce such social inequality.

Manger also points out that liberals, who speak out against the wrong-doings of the leaders of their country, should be thankful rather than complain. But he seems to have forgotten the lessons taught by those who improved society like Martin Luther King, Jr., and seems to think that because a person resides in a country he cannot disagree with the actions of the country's leaders. He overlooks the important understanding that when problems are found within a nation, you don't run away from it but rather work within it to try to change it.

Manger seems to be the one who lacks "real-world perspective" and believes that just because we can't find a solution to the world's problems we should just let it be. So, I have thought deeply about his question and have come to the conclusion that the problems of humanity still exist because of people who don't care and hinder the progress of those who do.

LumOr Chet, anthropology, '03

Judge actions, not footwear

THE ONLY THING more naïve than stereotyping is thinking that you don't have to ability to change the world. The one thing you and the "naïve liberals" have in common is that you are both tired of hearing about the suffering that takes place around the world. But while you are judging people by their choice in footwear, these young adults are trying to live their lives responsibly, refusing to be complacent while at the same time raising awareness about issues and teaching us about things we would not otherwise be exposed to. The "complaints" of those you criticize are much more merit-worthy than your own.

Tom Forquer, communications, '04

Naïve liberals anything but

I DON'T KNOW how much research goes into the articles that are published in the Opinion section, but there were some obvious flaws in Justin Manger's article last week. First of all, there is only one person who never wears shoes in Benson. Though I'm fairly sure the article was not aimed at only this one person, the article, obviously unresearched, targets him only. Though Manger does not use names, the people targeted usually do wear shoes. The fact that they sometimes hazard to walk without them does not even pertain only to them. Many people don't wear shoes outside all the time.

And those anti-war slogans. If everyone I saw sporting those were part of this "naïve liberalism" why would there have been over 80 Santa Clara students at the anti-war protest in San Francisco? To call any of us better than naive in any world issue would be wrong. Neither side, pro nor anti war, has any great extent of experience with war.

This means that those pro-Republican, pro-Bush people, who also often speak up in class are as naïvely-conservative as the accused naïvely-liberal. And I apologize to say, but many of these "naïve liberals" that are alluded to in the article have more world experience than most of the population at this school. Manger brings up a valid point, which I don't completely disagree with. But his argument is flawed, bitter, condescending and makes both himself and the newspaper look bad.

Karen Dazols, English, '04