Letters

Wednesday, April 15, 1998

Letters

Race not an issue

Environmental degradation is an equal-opportunity activity.
There is little question that whatever segment of society enjoys
economic dominance will be most likely to inflict environmental
damage. When, in due course, economic opportunity becomes a reality
without regard to race, ethnicity or country of origin, the
ever-increasing threat to the environment will remain numbers,
numbers, numbers. Thus it is a pity and disservice that Scott
Kurashige has chosen to present a measure currently before the
membership of the Sierra Club in the divisive terms of race
("Target racism to protect environment," April 13). The measure at
issue asserts that unbridled immigration is the major threat to
environmental protection and recommends that we return to a
long-held immigration quota of 250,000 persons per year in lieu of
the recently elevated quota of 1 million persons per year. Whereas
the lesser number anticipates a steady-state leveling off of
population within the United States, the latter value predicates an
ever-escalating population density. An immigration quota of 250,000
persons per year – with no invidious stipulations of race or
country of origin – is far from a ban on immigration.

Rather, it seeks to keep the country fit to live in, while the
Sierra Club and all others concerned with the economic and physical
health of the world continue to seek solutions for overpopulation
and environmental desecration wherever found.

George G. Laties

Professor of biology, emeritus

Noble aspirations, intents debased

In response to Stephanie Pfeffer’s article, "Frivolous lawsuits
exploit, repress sex" (April 7), I am left largely skeptical of her
reasoning. Pfeffer would have us believe that frivolous lawsuits
entail the sacrifice of "intellectual curiosity, healthy debate and
honesty" in favor of the "unnatural sanitation of the workplace,
school yard and even the local hangout."

Even Pfeffer’s red-flag topic choice cannot deter one from
finding this statement to be quite ludicrous. When did such noble
aspirations as intellectual curiosity, healthy debate and honesty
come to be associated with something as base as a sexual harassment
lawsuit, whether it be frivolous or not?

Furthermore, sexual harassment lawsuits – legality aside – do
not aim to needlessly sterilize our environment into a state of
repressive "unnatural sanitation." Rather, they strive to make our
environment all the more livable for the parties concerned or for
others who might somehow benefit. I recommend that in the future,
Pfeffer use such loaded language judiciously, especially when she
writes about such sensitive and debatable matters.

Amena Akmal

Third-year

Sociology