"Right wing" not the same as bigotry

To the Daily:

In Jodi Masley"s viewpoint in Wednesday"s Daily ("Drop the Charges Against Ryan Hughes," 4/11/01), a viewpoint with which I fundamentally agree, Masley made some remarks that betray a profound confusion about the nature of American politics. Specifically, she uses the phrase "right wing" three different times in reference to the anti-gay protesters at the lesbian/gay Kiss-In. To refresh everyone"s memory:

"Hughes is accused of vandalism and assault for allegedly spray-painting the picket sign and the face of a far right-wing anti-gay bigot who openly advocates the assault and murder of lesbians and gay men."

"Apparently, (the Department of Public Safety) and the University administration believe that right wing advocates of genocide against lesbians and gay men are welcome on campus and must have their "free speech" rights protected at all costs."

"The University administration must not be the protector of violent, right-wing organizations."

I consider myself a member of the "right wing" I am a Republican. I am not a bigot. I am a supporter of the gay community and of gay rights. I see Masley"s specific mention of the alleged politics of the anti-gay bigots as an implication that their "right wing"-ness somehow makes them worse than they already are as if to say, "Well, a violent, bigoted, genocidal organization is bad, but a republican, violent, bigoted, genocidal organization is really bad." And of course, identifying that you believe that the bigots were Republicans serves simply to demonize good, intelligent members of America"s "right wing" such as myself (surely, a belief in small government cannot by any leap of logic or faith translate to a belief that "God hates fags"). This issue wouldn"t be so frustrating if I did not see examples of it every day in the University community.

In the three quotes above, if the phrase "right wing" is removed (as it should be, since I"ve demonstrated that the protesters" political affiliation is immaterial to their obvious bigotry), Masley"s statements would still carry the same weight. Masley is right, the University administration must not be the protector of violent organizations. And an anti-gay bigot is an anti-gay bigot, regardless of whom he voted for in the last election.

Consider, if you will, that the oppressive, communist, human-rights-abusing officials in the Chinese or Cuban governments could, by American political standards, be described as "extreme left wing." Now, imagine that in every newspaper article or editorial, those officials those very bad people were referred to consistently as "left wing" in addition to their other horrifying prefixes. Would that be fair? Or, more importantly, accurate?

I urge Masley to consider these issues in the future, instead of relying on catch phrases such as "right wing" to describe anything she deem repugnant.

Avram Derrow

LSA senior

Daily: Stop catering to certain groups

To the Daily:

In the time that I have spent at this University, there is no other group on campus that I can think of that has been afforded so much attention as BAMN. Tuesday, the Daily published yet another one of their rhetorically laced dribbles ("Bridging Diversity Gaps," 4/10/01).

Why does the Daily always publish these things? I save most of them, and looking back they all say the exact same thing, usually in the exact same words. Mass militant movement? Racist attitudes and decisions?

How often have we heard the phrase "Only a new militant, mass, integrated, youth-led civil rights movement can galvanize the forces needed to achieve this victory."? How many more times do we have to hear it?

In the last election, the Defend Affirmative Action Party received a few hundred votes more than the FRAT party a clear indication that their fringe ideas are losing what little toehold they already have on campus.

Yet more often than not, the Daily prints their pleas and cries in large areas that could be given to other groups that would like to be heard. When DAAP candidates were disqualified from the election, who published their complaints? Every time there is a major decision, who is heard? Two students in particular Jessica Curtin and Agnes Aleobua claim to be speaking for the campus (Channel 4 and The Detroit News actually said this once), but they really aren"t. They are speaking for a few students on campus who want it known that collectively, they can scream louder than the rest of us can. Obviously, I understand that the Daily is a bastion for liberal thought. Fighting this would be like banging one"s head against the wall. The unfortunate part is that the Daily makes itself a tool for specific groups on campus by allowing itself to be a medium for the dissemination of ideas that have been consciously discarded by the logical public.