Week in Review

Wednesday, May 15, 1996

The Western Tradition?

Thoai Nguyen, Director of the Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence, spoke May 2nd on the history of violence against Asians in the US. Nguyen relied on inflammatory rhetoric rather than fact in attributing violence toward Asian Americans to racist whites.

Nguyen claimed that most Asians came to the US because their countries were torn by wars that resulted from 'Western imperialism.' He accused the US Armed Forces of 'dehumanizing' Asians while preparing troops for war in Korea and Vietnam, and said that dehumanization has led to violence against Asian Americans. He complained also that the media stereotypes Asians as being 'docile victims' and 'geeks,' which further contributes to anti-Asian violence in the US.

Nguyen lamented that Asians are 'seen as perpetual foreigners in this country,' and went further; 'the history of Asians in America is synonymous with the history of anti-Asian violence.' Finally, he asserted that the police, instead of protecting Asian Americans, brutally abuse them — the tool of a racist regime intent on oppressing Asians.

Reverse Speech Discrimination

A conflict involving the right to free speech at Central Connecticut State University has drawn national attention over the past few weeks.
The incident began when a Mr. Bergman drew attention to the school's efforts to besmirch the reputation of his colleague, Norton Mezvinsky, because Mezvinsky opposed affirmative action.

Bergman made copies of an article that detailed the school's attack on Mezvinsky, including a memo by CCSU Professor Ronald Fernandez that contained a plan to 'humiliate' Professor Mezvinsky. He posted the copies at various sites on campus, but noticed that they were quickly removed.

When Bergman observed a woman removing the copies from a bulletin, he approached her and told her that by tearing down the messages she was violating his right to free speech. The woman, Dawn Bliesener, countered that she had the right to tear down anything she found offensive, and taunted him in an 'openly insulting and antagonistic' manner.

Bliesener then went to school administrators and the campus police and accused Bergman of having harrassed her.

The school responded by issuing Bergman a formal reprimand that will remain in
his file for two years, despite the fact that Bliesener's testimony was the only evidence they had.

Bergman filed a grievance against Bliesener, which the school dismissed. Bergman then filed a second grievance against the school, which was dismissed, and finally an appeal of that dismissal, which was also dismissed by the school.

The Future of Affirmative Action

All four members of a panel entitled 'Is There a Need for Affirmative Action in Public Policy Today?' last week agreed that affirmative action was indeed necessary. Dean of the College Lee Pelton, although not a panelist, gave a short speech in support of affirmative action. Pelton said that 'affirmative action is good for business.'

Of course, discrimination against the best-qualified employee based on his race is inherently bad for business. So, never mind that the economic incentive for non-discrimination exists with or without the federal government's intervention.

Urban Renewal

Kathryn Whitmire, former mayor of Houston, spoke on how to reclaim American cities as the business and cultural hubs they once were. She related her attempts to solve the problems which plagued her city to other major urban centers.

Miss Whitmire's advocated cooperation between inner cities and suburbs, pride in one's city, efficiency in government, and improvements in the education system.

Miss Whitmire's revitalization strategy included school vouchers, teaching morality in schools, privatization of city functions, and using crime prevention money to build more jails and pay for more policemen on the streets. If people stopped pointing fingers at each other and started working on their own problems, they could easily be solved, according to the former mayor.

During her 5 terms in office, Miss Whitmire reduced the size of government, expanded cultural resources, improved the public school system, reduced crime levels, tripled park space, and brought Houston back from the brink of economic ruin.

The Politics of Economics

Brian Wesbury, Chief Economist of the US Congress Joint Economic Committee, came to the College this week to explain how the economy relates to public policy. He presented a compelling, well-documented argument that lower taxes and less government intervention would be better for economic growth.

Mr. Wesbury encouraged people to abandon the idea that the government is the most integral component of our economy. In simple economics, he said, the artificial regulation of government supply creates the demand for more intervention. Mr. Wesbury pointed to the 1960's as the turning point where a larger government caused a decrease in economic growth. If such 'largesse' in government had not been promoted, Mr. Wesbury said, the U.S. economy would be $2.9 trillion stronger, translating to $12,000 more for every citizen. During Carter's 'malaise' and Clinton's economic 'funk' — both periods of high regulation, taxes and spending — family incomes shrank. By making it difficult to start and operate companies, the government hinders the creation of wealth.

Dartmouth economics professors Anderson and Branstetter attempted to debunk Mr. Wesbury's analysis. Mr. Wesbury countered with an explanation of currency exchange, while Professors Anderson and Branstetter interrupted him with questions such as, 'What do you think the 'D' stands for in GDP?' After the question and answer session, several students approached Mr. Wesbury to apologize for the behavior of the professors.

Professor Anderson later stated that she 'certainly wouldn't describe [her behavior] as heckling. I would describe it as academic discourse.' She also explained that Wesbury's Speech was 'more politics than economics.'

Week in Review

Article Tools

Related Articles