Your Turn Letters to the Editor

In response to Huszar’s recent opinion on the Virginia Tech shootings last week, I would like to say a few things.

First, I am usually a huge supporter of the fact that his column continually leaves the reader thinking and researching. We do not see eye to eye on many things, but his level of professionalism and ability to listen to other opinions has always been appreciated.

However, in Thursday’s issue, I believe that he went too far. In this particular issue, his opinion is to point fingers, to perhaps place his anger or sorrow on someone else’s conscience. The tragic events of Monday were events that could not have been foreseen.

Continually we are reminded that this was the first tragedy of its magnitude. So, how were the professionals supposed to prepare for something that had not yet been seen? May I ask, why must we point fingers? Do we believe that the officers and the administration at Virginia Tech really wanted these things to happen?

I think that there is too much pain and sorrow coming from this massacre to place blame and anger. Should we not come together and embrace one another? Everyone in the country is hurting, and it is proven by a Facebook group that represents over 300 schools saying “Today We Are All Hokies.” Here at VCU, “We Bleed Black and Gold, but cry Maroon and Orange,” so let us not allow the anger we have overwhelm our feelings for loss.

By placing blame we create large divides, and I would like to believe that the victims would not have wanted us to do so.

-William Moehl

I agree with Jessica Shook, who points out the double standard of what qualifies for racism in this country. How can people criticize Don Imus for being racist, while rap culture endlessly gets a free pass for doing the same? Why is it that militant Latino groups such as MEChA, whose motto translates to “For the race everything, outside the race, nothing,” have respected status on college campuses, while at the some time if a white group professed the same message, it would be banned?

If one is to condemn racism, condemn all racism. Otherwise you are guilty of the same.

-Bill Clausen

On the April 4 broadcast of the radio show “Imus in the Morning” on MSNBC and CBS radio, radio personality Don Imus made derogatory comments about the women’s basketball team at Rutgers University.

Imus described the women players as “nappy-headed hos.” There has been heated controversy sweeping the nation regarding his two-week suspension from MSNBC and CBS radio. Imus stated that he was not the originator of these terms because many in the black community use similar and even more degrading terms toward their own race.

This begs the question whether rap artists should be held accountable for the racist, sexist and misogynistic language that they use in their music.

Rap artists should not be excused for racist, degrading words. They, along with comedians, are excused on a daily basis due to a lack of gate keeping in various media. Radio and television are held to different standards. For example, those comedians and rap artists are normally censored when they appear on radio and television

Despite the double standards and inconsistencies, being a rap artist, comedian or a radio disc jockey shouldn’t excuse anyone from using derogatory language about a person’s race, sex, ethnicity or religion if it is meant to degrade them.

Some on our team believe that viewers should dictate the severity of Imus’ punishment. This would be effective because if ratings decrease, advertising will follow suit, thereby bringing an end to Imus’ show.

This situation opens a wider debate on what should or shouldn’t be allowed on television and radio. The publicity that this story continues to receive will ignite questions, debates and conversations about rights protected by the Constitution. Hate speech is currently protected by the Constitution because it has no specific definition. What some may consider hate speech, others may consider comedy or opinion.

Imus said that his comment, “they are some nappy-headed hos,” was sheer comedy, and he merely said it to compare two teams. He described the Tennessee team as pretty and the Rutgers’ as rough. Some viewers considered his remarks to be racial, while others considered it harmless due to his humor.

In the end, it comes down to the team’s reaction to the situation and his apology to the team. Since the Rutgers’ team was directly affected, they should be the ones to offer forgiveness.

-Ameesha Felton
-Emily Smith
-Eric Peters
-Dominique Hicks
-Duane Carter
-Rebecca Mitchell

Editor’s Note: Don Imus has been fired from his position since this letter was received.