Columbus editorial incomplete
I'm not sure who wrote the "Move Over, Columbus" editorial in your Monday edition, but I'm going to say they have no idea what they're talking about. As a member of the Undergraduate Senate, I voted on the resolution, and what was in The Eagle can't be any further then the truth.
Firstly, the backers of the resolution, Julie Mills and Carrie Johnson, wished for Columbus Day to be struck from the University Academic Calendar. Only after a series of debates did Andrew Woods' amendment to feature both "holidays" on the same day become part of the resolution.
Next, I don't know where the writer of this editorial is getting their facts, but the only time I've heard anybody "recognize" Columbus Day as a low point in U.S. history was during the arguments for this resolution. As with a good handful of "solid and firm beliefs" at AU, these are only solid and firm at AU and really nowhere else in the United States. This resolution was taken from a bill introduced into the U.S. Congress, which was met with considerable failure. It never even got out of committee.
Thirdly, this editorial's writer said the SG showed "cultural consideration" towards Italian-Americans by not striking Columbus Day from the Calendar. Actually, the SG showed cultural consideration towards Indigenous Peoples/Native Americans/Indians by approving this resolution. There was never any chance of Columbus Day being struck. It was a main point of the resolution's sponsors, but to the SG it was laughable. In fact, Joe Vidulich walked out of the Senate, remarking how little students cared about the resolution. That's a pretty true statement, in my opinion, with the exception of a few activist students, of course.
Finally, it may be possible that the university will adopt this as a recognized day, but there will be no smear of Christopher Columbus by the university. It's not going to happen. Of course, there's going to be that small activist body that will be making noise when it turns out the reputation of Chris Columbus is still alive and well (and probably if any of those mentioned activists read this letter), but you can't please everyone, now, can you?
Happy Columbus Day.
David Carpenter
Senator, Class of 2010
School of Public Affairs
Column points to GOP's flaws
Do readers see the irony in Shane Carley's piece on Hillary Clinton? The young Republican hopes Hillary wins the primary ticket so a Republican candidate has a better chance to win executive office. In other words, the underlying assumption is that the Republican Party is lacking candidates that have generated as much attention as the New York senator.
Perhaps Mr. Carley failed to realize that there is stronger support behind the Democratic pool, while there is less satisfaction in the variety of Republicans. Put another way, voters believe there is a more versatile pool of candidates in the Democratic Party as opposed to the GOP. (Refer to The Washington Post's Iowa coverage in late August/early September.) What does that say about GOP candidates? Do they have to rely on Mr. Carley's logic, or are Republican voters worried about their Democratic opponents?
Kristopher Pengelly
Graduate student,
School of International Service
