Letters to the editor

Homophobic slogan

To the Editor:

While walking home from class last week, I glanced down at the chalked ground and read, "Vote Jake Lyssy not a â?¦," and I had to ask myself: Didn't I read a similar slogan last fall when Lyssy's slogan was, "Vote Jake Lyssy -- not a sissy"? And then didn't I read an apology from Lyssy for his ignorant and insensitive jab at the LGBTQ community? Yes, I did. Has Lyssy so soon forgotten the impact of his words? Because I sure haven't. Words like "sissy" and "fag" are the words people hear before they are violently assaulted for their sexual orientation. These homophobic, hateful words keep people closeted, alone and living as second-rate citizens.

I am disgusted that after Lyssy learned about the impact of his language and then apologized to the community for his mistake he chose to imply the slogan again. In doing so, he has made a mockery of the brave people that came forward and spoke out against his homophobic language in the fall. Members of the LGBTQ community walk around this so-called "safe space" where we claim "inclusive excellence" and instead are confronted with Lyssy's AS-approved homophobic chalkings.

When Lyssy made this mistake the first time I forgave him, but this time I think it's appropriate and important to recognize his insensitivity and ignorance.

Mairead Burke

Communication '07

Duke accuser deserves punishment

The Duke lacrosse case began when a stripper told authorities that three lacrosse team members forced her into a bathroom, assaulted and raped her. She claimed that the boys were racist and threatened her with sodomy.

The three players were arrested and imprisoned while Duke professors, students and civil rights activists marched in support of the victim, bearing signs that read, "Castrate them!" The lacrosse coach was fired and the season cancelled. The three players experienced a living hell for 395 days, accruing legal bills of $1 million each.

Despite all this, Chris Cavagnaro claims in the April 19 issue of The Santa Clara that the most tragic aspect of the case was that "it subjected the alleged victim to the same amount of media scrutiny and character assassinations as the suspects."

How can this be? Rape shield laws prohibit any publication of a rape accuser's name, making any public scrutiny impossible. These same laws make the fact that the accuser is a stripper and escort by trade inadmissible in court. In contrast to this level of protection, the names of the three accused were plastered all over the mass media within days.

Cavagnaro also writes that the entire case was based upon "unfounded sexual assault charges." If the original charges were unfounded, then that makes the alleged victim a false accuser. She ruined these boys' lives, wasted taxpayer money and made evident the furiously anti-male environment in which we live.

Our system of law states that one is innocent until proven guilty, yet the three players were dogged by a rabid prosecutor and forced to prove their innocence in the face of a country that had already convicted them.

Mike Nifong is indeed a villain and should be disbarred for his misconduct. However, the true villain of this story is the woman who brought forth the original charges and started the sordid affair. The accuser faces no punishment for her behavior, when in fact she should be named, shamed and sentenced to the same amount of prison time that the accused would have received. In this case, 25 years to life.

Alex Bradley

English '07

Coke users misguided

In response to "Santa Clara's underground coke scene," the real argument against using coke in this article doesn't come from the dramatic and tragic stories of coke users or from the ridiculous pictures with $100 bills and Access cards strategically placed among rocks of cocaine. The real argument comes from the immature and, quite frankly, asinine comments made by the alleged underground coke ring members. Basically every comment made by "Lindsay" contradicts itself. Take this comment for example:

"As much as people don't want to admit it, we're at the age to be ridiculous. Our behavior is risky. We live on the edge because danger sparks people's interest. You think, 'Oh my God, I have no idea how this is gonna feel.'"

If you rely on coke to have a good time, it isn't because you're at the age to be ridiculous. If so, why aren't all Santa Clara students cutting up lines with their Access cards between classes?

It clearly means you're not happy with your own life and need something artificial to make you feel better.

Unfortunately, the feelings from coke are all fake -- the happiness, the rush, the confidence, the satisfaction with yourself and your life and everyone in it, the closeness you feel with other people, the friends you have, the entire experience -- it's all fake. Your best times are based off a chemical, and in reality they mean nothing to your supposed friends. If you really need E to feel close to your friends, maybe they're not your real friends in the first place.

Kathleen Flach

Psychology '08