Reply to election results, racism

First off, we would like to thank Homer Lopez for his article in Friday’s Daily Campus. I feel an open dialogue is a key to getting the problem of “Special Interest” seats solved at our fine university. Unfortunately, your “clarifications” were not telling the whole story. You say the quotes I put in my article was “out of context,” yet I have three other people, independent of myself, who corroborated that you did, in fact, say those quotes in the context provided in my previous article.

You also say in your article that “the purpose of these seats is not a racial matter,” which, as you can tell, is completely false. I don’t understand how people who support these seats, such as yourself, can call these seats not racist, especially when you have to qualify as a person of a certain race to run for them. These seats also violate Article II, Section 4 of the Student Body Constitution. It states, “The SMU Student Senate shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, veteran status, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation.”

As you can tell, your statement that “Special Interest” seats are not racist is blatantly false. Also there are numerous institutions that do not have these “Special Interest” seats. These include, but are not limited to: Baylor, UT-Austin, Vanderbilt, Southwestern, TCU, the University of North Texas, Stephen F. Austin, Notre Dame and Pepperdine. All of these schools have realized that there is no need for such seats, but why not SMU?

The idea that minorities need their own seat to represent them is preposterous. As has been mentioned in my previous article, there were many seats in which no actual seat was contested. In fact, the School of Engineering only had three people apply to fill the five open seats. Even more proof that these seats are not needed are the election results. Numerous “minority” students won their respective races, including “African-American” Drew Washington, who won the student body secretary race. If that isn’t enough proof that these seats are unnecessary, why do these “minority-interest” groups and the SMU administration insist that these seats remain in place?

Through these special seats, the administration is basically calling minorities under-qualified candidates who need special help to obtain a sSnate seat. I can say that without a doubt that minorities are just as qualified to run for a normal seat as anyone and the idea otherwise is just further proof that system is racist. The administration needs to take a good long look in the mirror to see if what they are doing is really furthering minority causes. Is segregating minorities from the rest of the student body, as the “minority-interest” groups and the administration are doing through their support of these seats and their unwillingness to follow the law, really what will bring about true equality among the student body?

The administration’s and the Student Senate’s view on affirmative action and other racist policies placed under the guise of “diversity” is truly sad and disturbing. You cannot change years of racism be inserting another racist policy. SMU wishes to compare itself to such fine institutions such as Vanderbilt and Notre Dame, yet still uses such archaic policies like affirmative action that both those schools have dropped. This country was founded on principles such as “equality”, “liberty” and the idea that “all men are created equally.” With institutions such as ours still refusing to follow such ideals, we may never see the day where one race is not more equal than another.

Reply to election results, racism