Letters to the Editor

Hip-hop is part of cultural identity

The opinions article on Jan. 22, "Gangsta rappers have gone too far," addresses only one very small portion of the complex cipher of hip-hop. In reality, the only reason that "gangsta" rap has emerged as a best seller is due to white suburbia's fascination with exploiting (and often attempting to mimic) the harsh, uncensored realities of the poverty-stricken, publicly ignored urban life.

Hip-hop is the platform for people to voice their frustrations, fears and anxieties. It has evolved as a powerful political agenda through which people are able to take a stance against the -isms that flourish in this capital of capitalistic greed.

The deaths of Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. are further proof that hip-hop is the microphone to voice the realities of the black man in America. Violence is directly related to the overall health of a person. Public health texts state that the components which determine a person's health include income, equity, shelter, peace, education and social justice. Urban life puts all of these aspects into jeopardy on a daily basis; as a result, some choose to protect themselves by any means necessary.

Slavery, institutionalized racism, discrimination and under-representation at every level of government has left bruises and permanent scars on the souls of black people. The adversities encountered on a daily basis leave many of us disoriented, wondering if we're going through the struggle alone. Hip-hop is an opportunity for us to draw upon our similar experiences.

Hip-hop also demonstrates the evolution that African storytelling has gone through as a means of sharing, learning and bonding. The hip-hop nation should not be condemned simply because young, white America has chosen Snoop Doggy Dogg and the Taco Bell Chihuahua as its mascots of multiculturalism! So instead of sitting upon your white horse looking down at and condemning an entire culture, perhaps you should divert your attention to becoming an activist for equality and social justice.

Danae Curtis,senior, College of Liberal Arts

Two sides of the grad union debate

I am writing in response to Ed Day's editorial on Thursday, which claims that a union of teaching assistants and research assistants would be beneficial to graduate students. Day seems to believe a person opposed to the union is either apathetic or ignorant. Yet, there are many TAs and RAs out there who approached the prospect of a union with an open mind, but after examining the facts have come away strongly anti-union.

At first glance the union sounds very appealing. GradSOC promises to improve health care, raise stipends and even get more parking. Who could oppose these goals? But when union representatives were asked (at a recent meeting of my graduate program) basic questions about the union, they either dodged the question or gave vague answers.

For example, how would the union be structured and organized? When asked this question, the representatives responded, "This is your union," but beyond that, had no definitive plans. With no plan of attack it is impossible to respond to the diverse goals and situations of an immunologist and a sociologist.

How will the union improve health care and raise stipends? The union representatives did not provide any specific answers to this question. The majority of the promises the union makes will cost someone more money, yet they never state where this money will come from. Unless the union is able to obtain grant money or siphon funds away from other University programs, the unions claims are merely pipe dreams.

Those opposed to the union are not apathetic or ignorant; on the contrary, we have looked at the facts and have come to the conclusion that the union is NOT a good thing. I urge RAs and TAs to make informed decisions and think twice before we pay dues to create an ineffective, directionless and unrealistic bureaucracy.

Rob Graham,research assistant, laboratory medicine and pathology

In her Jan. 14 letter, Erin Glaser Arlinghaus asks why students who vote against a union should be bound by the decision of a majority voting in favor of it.

There are two answers to this question. The first is quite simple: That is the nature of democracy. Democratic decisions legitimately have consequences for all those who have the right to participate in making them, even for the minority whose views do not win out. To see the justice in this, one need only reverse the question Arlinghaus poses. If more than half of all graduate assistants believe union representation is best, why should they be forced to bend to the will of a minority? Arlinghaus should feel free to make the case against union representation. It makes no sense to argue that supporters -- who believe a union is in the best interest of the University -- should give up their views becasue some individuals disagree.

The second answer is that Arlinghaus's gripe is with Minnesota law, not with the graduate assistants seeking union representation. State law creates the election system within which we all operate, and it means all of us are represented by a union and covered by a contract or none of us are. The choice, therefore, is straightforward. Either we choose to have a voice in the decisions that affect our lives, thereby working to improve wages, benefits, graduate programs and undergraduate education, or we choose to allow things to go on as they are: wages that are ninth among the Big Ten public universities, benefits that result in uninsured children, and arbitrary changes in tuition policies and fees.

Josh Curlee,graduate student, civil engineering