Letters to the Editor

Diversity misreported in The Breeze

The April 29, 2004, printing of The Breeze was sloppy in reporting and editorializing JMU’s Centennial Scholarship Program initiative for increasing diversity. The house editorial reported JMU’s current ethnic population of 10 percent as "only three percent shy of the national census." The Breeze is confusing the national figure for African Americans, a category of race, with ethnicity. The 2000 Census reports ethnic minorities as making up 30 percent of our nation’s overall population. Projections for 2010 estimate that non-white minorities will make up 35 percent of the population. Therefore, JMU is nearly 25 percent shy of the national average for ethnic and racial diversity. Perhaps in this light, initiatives like the CSP can be re-examined as important first steps towards increasing diversity. Related, the front page summary of the Board of Visitors meeting stated that the 50 students granted Centennial Scholarships to attend JMU "were accepted to the university based on their socioeconomic status." This is incorrect. The students were accepted based on their high achievement. The CSP is just one new tool that JMU can now use to compete with other top-notch universities that are able to meet the needs of high-achieving minority applicants who might be unable to attend college due to limited financial support. The 2003-’04 school year was a good year toward increasing diversity and cultural awareness at JMU. Sloppy reporting only adds to the number of poor arguments made against these efforts to improve the quality of education and experience on our campus.

Marriage more than reproduction

The final issue of The Breeze last spring left us with a very poorly reasoned column article entitled "Gay marriage no benefit." I had to respond. JMU staff member Peter Calvert speaks of marriage’s main "responsibility" being to produce children. If marriage’s worth and legality required a couple’s ability to breed, then the elderly, barren women, sterile men and those choosing not to have children would be prohibited from marrying. Marriage means so much more than "baby factory." It means love and commitment — two hearts becoming one. The U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Legislating based on religion ­ more precisely its supposed condemnations of homosexuality — goes against that instruction. If we made laws based solely on Biblical law, then women legally would be subordinate to men, divorce would be illegal, ham would be prohibited and anyone caught performing any work on a Sunday would be executed. The real issue many people have with gays marrying has nothing to do with wanting to protect marriage and the family. Those people are protecting their prejudices. It reasons that if someone feels uncomfortable and threatened by homosexuality, then they likely will accept most any argument against gay marriage, no matter how flawed. We must stop tolerating gays and lesbians and start treating them as equal, worthwhile human beings. Perhaps then legalizing gay marriage will become something we must do instead of something we fear.

Tax reform needed

Mass confusion surrounds our tax code and is beginning to stimulate the debate to reform our tax system. Reform plans go from a minor overhaul of the income tax to completely abolishing it. The Fair Tax Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Congressman John Linder, R-Ga., Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., would remove the burden of the income tax and other federal income-based taxes. The Fair Tax Act would replace the current tax system with national consumption tax that will allow Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks, pensions and Social Security payments, dramatically reduce the cost of goods and services by 20 to 30 percent, allow families to save more for homeownership, education and retirement, as well as raise the same amount of money for the federal government and make American products more competitive overseas.