E-mail
Print
Letters to the editor
By Post Staff
Smoking causes mingling
I was appalled to read an article last week telling of a smoking ban in the UWM Union, the epicenter of social gatherings on campus. This smoking ban is just another unnecessary obstacle that affects the unity within the student body.
I can already see the division around campus. Fewer students are mingling with each other, and crowds that used to fill the Union are spread out, lacking the natural camaraderie that was once there.
This leads to a social barrier created between those who lack the nicotine addiction and the rest of the student body, who are alienated to the point of smoking in their cars, around corners and, when totally desperate, in bathrooms. There is too much discrimination in and around Milwaukee to begin targeting another group of people.
Another victim of this smoking ban is the businesses located in the Union. The Gasthaus and 8th Note are both showing dramatic losses in their revenues since this ban came into effect. Neither of these businesses wanted a smoking ban, and I am sure of this because if they did, they would have implemented one themselves.
Another unfortunate thing about their struggles is that these are the two prime places to meet people on campus. Alcohol and caffeine are both excellent catalysts for producing conversation.
Cigarettes also promote socializing amongst peers. A nicotine addict’s mind is relaxed when smoking a cigarette, hence making him/her able to socialize in a more comfortable manner. Don’t you wonder why so many people smoke in bars? They smoke to calm their nerves.
The market demands what the people want. If people do not like the smoke in bars, restaurants or coffee houses, they can simply choose not to patronize them. And when there is a large enough demand for a smoke-free establishment, someone will fill the need. Basic laissez-faire economics.
Ultimately, the decision to light up is a personal one. No one can stop you from smoking, even if that means not being able to exercise your freedom while patronizing an establishment.
Evan Pack
Nonsmoking UWM alumni
Where were students the rest of the year?
I see two pages of newsprint abruptly and appropriately exercising the freedom of the university community to critique freely expressed ideas. Miss Wiesend is sufficiently admonished.
You didn’t write when 10,000 of my student dollars disappeared. You didn’t write when my tuition increased this year. You didn't write about neighbor's complaints about East Side student residents.
It takes afterthought editorials to prompt dissent? Please, Miss Editor, tell me more poorly conceived editorials are on the way.
Aaron Matter
Language not fixed
While there were several smart and careful responses to the Nov. 27 editorial “Let me conversate with you,” we thought it appropriate to respond from our perspective as writing teachers in the First-Year Composition Program at UWM.
We don’t see English, or any language, as fixed; we see languages as modes of communication that are living and always in a state of formation. Devon Wiesend’s criticism and outrage directed to students’ use of “conversate” indicates that she subscribes to a limited view of Standard English.
We think, however, that practices of Standard English can often be used as tools of oppression — that these practices work toward racist, sexist, classist and many other discriminatory ends.
While Wiesend uses the term “uneducated” to refer to the users of the word “conversate,” we might instead look at this use of language as innovative, and perhaps enlivened, by the speaker’s (or writer’s) own life experiences. And in fact, to use the term “uneducated” assumes that the university education of which Wiesend claims to be so proud is accessible to individuals across lines of class, race, geographic location, etc.
Additionally, we might consider why individuals marked as “uneducated” are so openly shamed or deemed “lesser than” those of us who are privileged in ways that enable us to purchase a formal academic education.
Wiesend writes that she is “embarrassed” for her university, but we are embarrassed that Wiesend, a UWM Post writer, does not seem to account for intersections between diversity and language use on our campus. We would encourage Wiesend and readers of the UWM Post alike to foster a responsible view of language, one that is not fixed, rigidly narrow and exclusive, and one that is not used for discriminatory ends.
Michael T. MacDonald
Shereen Inayatulla
Piece targeted minority students
As soon as Devon Marie Weisend’s editorial (“Let me conversate with you”) caught attention on the same day as the multicultural organizations gathered to have a potluck, most of our time was used to discuss how we felt about the article.
I didn’t get a chance to voice my opinion during the potluck but that didn’t mean I didn’t have anything to say. There are people who would agree to being bothered by the misuse of words. I correct people all the time but I do not insult anyone’s intelligence while at it.
It was hurtful to many who read the article and instantly felt attacked.
As a student leader, I have spent most of my college years promoting awareness and have worked twice as hard trying to prove that I can be successful. Yes, we are taught in school to write and speak correctly but when we are in casual situations, we speak what we have learned at home and what makes us feel comfortable.
It was wrong to use MPS as an example of uneducated students and using “loud and obnoxious” to describe those who misuse the word “conversate.” Let’s be frank, when you pointed out how much you hated hearing the word “conversate,” you imagined loud and obnoxious minority groups or even a group in particular.
You should have known how this would have affected the UWM minority community. You have no right to tell us how to behave or represent UWM because we are the very diversity that makes UWM a thriving educational institution.
All I have to say is that maybe you should get to know some of these people in the Union, on the bus and then maybe you can be better educated on the use of words.
I’m not writing to attack you but your ignorance has led me here. I can’t tell you how to feel or not to speak your mind but please consider being more educated about language before you try to “conversate” with us.
Chong Yang
Asian Student Advancement president
Editorial shows racism still exists
Recently it has become apparent, on both national and local levels, that racism is still prevalent in our society.
After Devon Marie Wiesend’s racist editorial (“Let me conversate with you”) and Michael Richard’s racist outburst, we have to ask ourselves, where do these things come from?
They say they don’t know, they didn’t mean it and they are sorry as if we are to believe it was some out-of-body experience that just was not them. Wiesend’s apology was pointless and shameless.
When these incidences occur, I think it is of the utmost importance that they are critically reflected upon and addressed. Wiesend’s apology is a defense essay and it is appalling that she takes a position such that she does not understand how race could be attached to her editorial.
I recently attended an Angela Davis presentation where they distributed bumper stickers that read “Think racism is over? Think again.” How appropriate that after a couple of weeks, racism is so plainly exhibited.
If we ever want to see racism eliminated, which probably won’t happen in any of our lifetimes, we need to admit it exists and talk about it. I think it would be fair to say that we all have prejudices (all this means is that we pre-judge people, things, situations based on experiences and what we already know or think we know).
On an individual level we need to talk about these things and make sure that any prejudices we might have do not dictate our actions and, more importantly, that we do not pass these on to our children!
We can start by holding people fully accountable for their racist “out-of-body experiences” and not accepting watered-down apologies and claims that “I’m not a racist.”
I am reminded of a saying “whatever is in you will come out.” Why don’t people stop acting like everything is all good and face their prejudices and racist ideas or tendencies and dismantle them internally.
I don’t mean to condemn Wiesend, or anyone else for that matter, who might hold certain prejudices or racist beliefs, consciously or not. I believe that the only honorable way to address this issue is to confront these things within one’s self.
Due to the severity of the issue and the large amount of people who are profoundly affected, I urge the UWM Post to do a series of critical editorials dealing with racism in place of Wiesend’s sex talk articles in order to show that racism will not be tolerated and, more importantly, that they are committed to social justice on this campus!
James Sokolowski
UWM student
Reaction to editorial too one-sided
I was surprised to see the barrage of inflammatory letters to Devon Marie Wiesend's tirade about the word "conversate."
The word "editorial" is, by nature and definition, an opinion. Misuse of the English language, no matter what race or culture, does make peole sound unintelligent.
I wholeheartedly believe that she had no idea that she could potentially offend people who read into her article as racist. Even if a reader had a problem with the content of that specific article, it was not an invitation for a free-for-all bashing of Wiesend.
If you can't handle a sex column, maybe you should attend a more stifling school that doesn't print a sex column or believe in freedom of speech.
Personally, I love her style of writing because it's unabashedly honest and brings up topics that are a part of real life. I look forward to reading her articles in the future, and I hope she doesn't squelch her style on the basis of a few squares.
Josie Phillips
I am one of those kids
You didn’t offend my race, you offended my culture (“Let me conversate with you”).
I come from a very diverse area of Milwaukee dominated by Latinos, but also including many African Americans, Caucasians and South East Asians. I view all these cultures as integral pieces of a puzzle which makes up the inner city culture.
My culture was directly insulted by the opinion piece. Know this: We being students who view ourselves as valuable products of the MPS system will not accept being categorized as inner city trash.
I understand that you wish you could turn back time, but “Let me conversate with you” is an ideology of frustration we all must acknowledge and discuss in order to create a constructive relationship among all cultures. It reflects the attitude that stimulates divisiveness between the inner-city residents and surrounding areas.
You write, “It is incredibly embarrassing that people know that these kids go to UWM. No wonder residents of the east side dislike UWM students for the most part.” (“These kids” was the reference used earlier to describe former MPS students.)
Negative perceptions such as the ones explained in “Let me conversate with you” do not exclude my culture as I also often here of a dislike for those of your culture. Frustration toward another’s culture consumes all of us at some time.
Being pragmatic about the issue, the negative connotations associated with being a product of MPS is a burden we deal with constantly.
UWM students originating from the Milwaukee Public Schools system confront this continuously, be it in our classes, the Union or the Post. Don’t interpret my statement as a “Boohoo, I got followed at footlocker because I am a minority”; however, it must be highlighted that the prevalence of ignorant, arrogant, culturally insensitive attitudes manifest the hostility and hierarchal beliefs that cloud our very own campus’s culture.
Devon, I ask you not to take the entire backlash personally, and would also like to thank you for so candidly illustrating the climate fellow M.PS grads and I face on campus.
I represent the student org Loyalty Equals Brotherhood, which was present during the multicultural pot luck last week. We heavily discussed issues such as this opinion piece, but also many other aspects of our M.P.S educated, multicolored and intelligent, inner-city culture.
Fernando Orozco
Loyalty Equals Brotherhood president, proud graduate of MPS
If racism were an animal
If racism at UWM was an animal, we as the UWM Latino Student Union feel that Devon Wiesend’s recent article titled “Let me conversate with you” is only its ugly snout.
With teeth and jaws that cut and rip at the sense of belonging that many students of color at the university already struggle to feel, Wiesend’s article is only a bark from a larger animal that lurks in the halls, classrooms, committee meetings and personal interactions at UW-Milwaukee.
Both Wiesend and the UWM Post should be blamed for the inherently racist lack of sensitivity and understanding that was exemplified by publishing an article specifically attacking black students and students who have graduated from Milwaukee Public Schools.
Everyday, students of color at UWM are subjected to bites and scratches from the beast that is racism. Daily we bear misguided lectures from professors, ignorant classroom comments from fellow students, and offensive personal interactions on campus that leave us questioning whether administrators, professors and fellow students actually feel that we as African American, American Indian, Asian and Latino students are welcome at the university.
But again, all of these insults, including Wiesend’s recent UWM Post article, come only from the mouth of the repulsive animal that is racism at UWM.
The real animal
If Wiesend and the UWM Post editors are only the mouth of racism, then who or what feeds this animal? Who is the body and who is the brain?
The Latino Student Union believes that anyone who wishes to seriously challenge racism on this campus and in this community should ask these questions.
As an organization that has been on campus for more than 13 years, we are confident not only that the body and brain of racism on campus can be identified but that campus media and other organizations such as the UWM Post should take their role seriously by investigating and exposing them.
We would like to propose for a campus-wide discussion that people like Sheldon Lubar, the philanthropist who donated $10 million to the School of Business that now bears his name, are the body of racism at UWM.
For those who are unfamiliar with his work, Lubar was previously an active board member of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the most wealthy ultra-right-wing conservative foundation in the United States of America.
The Bradley Foundation headquarters are located on Milwaukee’s East Side and has played major roles in various social programs that use people of color as the guinea pigs in ultra-conservative social experiments. The Bradley Foundation has funded programs such as Wisconsin Works (W-2), School Choice and projects such as the book “The Bell Curve,” which argued that black students are genetically inferior to white students, causing them to perform poorly in school.
The Bradley Foundation also funds the Center for Individual Rights and the National Association of Scholars, two organizations that proposed anti-affirmative action measures in California, Texas and Michigan, resulting in extreme declines in access to higher education for students of color in those states.
Since his historic donation, we believe Lubar has been given unprecedented access to not only the workings of the School of Business, but also to the university through his role as chairman of Chancellor Carlos Santiago’s $300 million fund-raising campaign.
We believe that positioning such people in positions of prestige at UWM make them the body of the animal that is racism. These positions grant people who not only speak but effectively act upon racist positions and social programs to slither, crawl and shuffle through the administrative board and committee meetings at UWM’s highest levels. With a strong body, racism can move easily through UWM.
But if people like Lubar are the body of racism, who is the brain?
We believe that the brain of racism, not only in Wisconsin, but nationally, are people like Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Institute. Do not let the name fool you: former regent of the University of California System of universities, Ward Connerly successfully eliminated university access programs for students of color in California, Washington, Florida and Michigan.
Not only is Connerly also funded by Sheldon Lubar’s alma mater the Bradley Foundation, but he is coming to work with the University of Wisconsin System’s Committee on Affirmative Action this month.
People like Ward Connerly are the brains behind the entire operation that allows ignorant opinions like Wiesend’s to not only exist, but thrive at universities in the United States. Articles like Wiesend’s only reinforce Ward Connerly, Sheldon Lubar and others’ notion that urban youth are, in fact, “illiterate inner-city trash” that do not deserve access to universities like UWM.
So, the Latino Student Union does hope that Wiesend engages in more conversation with those she hurt and offended so deeply. We hope that she not only uses her mistake as a learning opportunity, but as a way to begin to join in the struggle to better our communities, state and nation by supporting equal opportunity and fair representation in our nation’s universities.
We also hope that students, faculty and administrators on campus will not attack the animal of racism with only a slap in the mouth. We implore all members of the campus community to examine the body and brain of racism, and to assist us in banishing it forever from our campus and our city.
The UWM Latino Student Union
> Comments