To the Editor:

Though I disagree with most of the views of Brad Salmen and Professor Reedy, I want to say I support their right to express their opinions. I believe in free speech for everyone. I am sorry they feel uncomfortable in Macalester, so I would like to suggest a few places where their views might be more popular: the CIA, the Bush Administration, Bob Jones University, and the School of the Americas. They needn’t feel lonely in this world. However, I do think it’s important for diverse views to be present at Macalester, so I am glad they’re here.

I also want to comment on two of Professor Reedy’s points. I agree with him that regimes claiming to be communist murdered tens of millions in China, Russia, Cambodia, and other places, but it’s not true that there is no discussion of this in academia today. Plenty of books are published on the topic every year. It should be mentioned that several of the authors of the controversial Black Book of Communism, which Professor Reedy cites, have since said that the figure of 100,000,000, given in the book’s preface, is an exaggeration. Of course, doubts over the exact figures should not detract from the fact that these regimes were exceedingly brutal, and the Left should face up to that. Similarly, everyone should face up to the tens of millions killed under right-wing, capitalist, and colonial regimes, from the Belgian Congo to Suharto’s Indonesia to Nazi Germany.

In his second point, Professor Reedy does not mention that Romania and most of eastern Europe, are, for all practical purposes, living under a capitalist system, and that the areas he mentions are for the most part doing worse than in Communist days. Although many of the previous regimes were certainly oppressive, they did provide a social safety net that has now been taken away, in an attempt to establish a “free market.” Professor Reedy forgets that the modern capitalist system includes not only his “land of opportunity” but also most of the poor areas of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and now Eastern Europe. There are winners and losers in capitalism, and the former got rich at least partly by exploiting the latter through colonialism and other means. That is not just some liberal indoctrination I’ve received at Macalester; I do have my own will and mind. And you’ll find plenty of faculty here who will disagree with me.

Federico Helfgott ’03

To the Editor:

Feeling a little nostalgic today, I visited The Mac Weekly online. After reading the piece by Brad Salmen and finding so much to object to, I feel compelled to offer a few comments. In my experience at Macalester, those of a conservative bent always felt somewhat aggrieved by the prevailing ideologies on campus. It makes me wonder how much they actually knew about Macalester before they enrolled, but that’s another story altogether. It’s my feeling that perhaps conservatives would be taken a little more seriously if they were to exhibit some of the intellectual integrity they find so lacking in liberals.

First, in the spirit of “always remember to consider the source,” it is absurd to cite the Independent Women’s Forum as an objective source of information while implying that Ms. magazine is a biased one. The IWF is a small bastion of hard-right ideologues. Among its pet causes are abolishing Title IX and affirmative action. Its Board of Advisors has boasted such right-wing luminaries as Lynne Cheney (wife of vice president Dick Cheney) and Wendy Lee Gramm (wife of Phil Gramm, former Republican Senator from Tex.). Keynote speakers at their elite Washington, D.C. luncheons range the political spectrum from Clarence Thomas to Kenneth Starr. Additionally, IWF has garnered millions in funding from right-wing groups such as the Olin, Bradley, Scaife, and Carthage Foundations. As for the article in Reader’s Digest that shaped Mr. Salmen’s opinion of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case: Bless the whole Wallace family and Reader’s Digest itself, their scholarships paid the bulk of my tuition at Macalester. Nonetheless, Reader’s Digest is a right-wing rag dressed up with a few jokes and human interest stories. These people were still railing against the “communist menace” five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As for Mr. Salmen’s third point: I would encourage him to pick up a newspaper from Nov. 11. He might find an article describing a case where a black Philadelphia man was convicted for the racially motivated murders of three whites. Of additional interest is the case of Frank Roque, a white Arizona man who shot a Sikh in a spate of post September 11 anti-Arab hatred (He was ignorant of the fact that Sikhs are Indian rather than Arab, nor are they Muslims). Mr. Roque will be facing the death penalty if convicted. So, the fate of the white man doesn’t look so bleak after all, does it?

As for the case of Bjorn Lomborg, he has been a corporate and conservative darling ever since the publication of his book. Why we should trust the opinions of a social scientist, or, as I have heard him alternately describe as a statistician, as regards to environmental science I don’t really know. To believe Lomborg is to believe that the majority of the global scientific community is naive, ignorant, incompetent, or some combination thereof. In the world portrayed by Lomborg radical environmentalists wield extraordinary influence over the realms of regulatory and industrial policy. I don’t see it.

All told, I doubt Mr. Salmen’s classmates will be overly enriched for being endowed with his ideas and points of view. I am not at all surprised to hear that his reductionist arguments play poorly before an informed audience. To me, it just looks like “propaganda”, delivered with a hearty helping of hypocrisy, from the other side of the fence.

Joseph Ford ’92

To the Editor:

I’m responding to the slew of responses to Brad Salmen’s letter to the editor of Nov. 9, “Four things your Macalester professors will never tell you.” I have to say that I was impressed by some of the responses and disheartened by others.

I do not agree with what Mr. Salmen asserted in his column at all. The facts and figures that he quoted were just as biased and potentially doctored as anything he was speaking out against. This fact was quickly brought to the attention of the student body, in case they hadn’t already figured it out for themselves, by the responses of Mindy Gudmundson and Prof. Aldemaro Romero. Even the response of Prof. Jeremiah Reedy, which I do not agree with, opened the forum for more discussion and brought other ideas into the discussion.

However, I was quite disheartened when I read the response written by andré carrington. As I read through his open letter to Mr. Salmen, I was stunned by the seeming malice of Mr. carrington’s response. His response seemed more like an attempt to silence Mr. Salmen without trying to open dialogue. As he called Mr. Salmen “a racist” and other things, and accused him of promoting misogyny, slavery, and a fascist dictatorship, I couldn’t help but think that Mr. carrington was in part proving Mr. Salmen’s point and lowering himself to the same level that he accused Mr. Salmen of existing at.

When I grew up, calling someone a racist was a very serious charge and I resent Mr. carrington claiming that someone, who to my knowledge he does not know, is a racist. Mr. Salmen’s views may be ignorant, and biased, and possibly racist, but there is a huge difference between unconciously holding biased views and being an active racist.

The correct response to claims such as those of Mr. Salmen is to open the dialogue, support one’s assertions, and appeal to common sense and be constructive. Mr. carrington’s response was nothing more than an attack supported by the extremely one-sided views that Mr. Salmen asserted permeates this school’s milieu.

In the end, there is one point that I wish to convey to Mr. Salmen and Mr. carrington. We are lucky to all be at a school like Macalester, where these views can exist, and should be able to be expressed in dialogue. I didn’t agree with what either gentleman wrote, but I am glad that they, as well as myself, can express our views. Mr. Salmen should remind himself that this school may be extremely liberal, but he was still provided with a forum to express his views, and Mr. carrington should remember that despite the imperfections of our society, he was still entitled to a forum as well.

The only way to make sure that all voices at our school are heard is to engage them with mature and rational discussion, not with one-sided demeaning attacks.

Jonathan Beland ’02

To the Editor:

Religion: The very word bears scowls and grunts from many students in the Macalester community. As a religious person I have been asked such questions as, “If you’re religious how can you be open-minded?” I know many Macalester students who view organized religion as an evil “brain-sucking” bureaucracy. Marx tried to banish it and Freud wrote in The Future of an Illusion (1927) that faith was a form of mental disorder, a disorder that he predicted humanity would outgrow. Although these beliefs aren’t held by everyone, organized religion is frowned upon by many of the people I’ve come across.

I would like to post a reply to all those who think that the churches are still evil, corrupt, organizations. A 1972 study found that people not attending church were four times as likely to commit suicide then people who go to church regularly (Journal of Chronic Disease, p. 25, 1972). Lack of church attendance has been found to be the single best predictor of suicide rates, better even than unemployment. A survey of nearly 14,000 youths showed a direct relationship between substance abuse problems, and religious commitment (Journal of Religion and Health 24, no. 3 1985). The most conservative religious youths were shown to abuse the least. Several studies have shown that high levels of religious commitment correlate with greater ability to cope with stress, less stress, and lower levels of depression (American Journal of Psychiatry 147 no. 6 1990: 758-760).

So as David B. Larson, a former National Institute of Health psychiatrist, asked: If there was a new health treatment that helped reduce the rate of teenage suicide, prevent drug abuse, and improve treatment for depression, one would think every physician in the country would be scrambling to try it. You may have critics who say it is ‘harmful,” even though research shows it to be effective more than 80 percent of the time. I am not advocating that everyone becomes religious or that it is a cure-all drug, but merely that people should show a little respect for it, instead of cheering at the fact that we “ignore God on a regular basis” (Princeton Review).

Luke Calhoun ’05