Prof: Comments on program misused in Weigel’s column

David Weigel grossly misrepresented me by quoting me out ofcontext in his Wednesday column. He gave a false impression of myviews on Asian American Studies at Northwestern and on studentactivists’ efforts.

I support an Asian American Studies major and I support theAssociated Student Government bill. I recognize that one of themain reasons NU even has an Asian American Studies program is as aconsequence of student activism. I made it clear to Weigel that Ithought the program needs to be grown at NU — with more facultyand more courses, exactly the students’ demands. And while I amopen to including our program in a larger umbrella program, such asethnic studies or diaspora studies, such a larger program does notsubstitute for hiring more faculty trained in the subject and doesnot mean I do not support a major — as Weigel asserts, with myquote as “evidence.”

I am realistic enough to know that programs such as AsianAmerican Studies and ethnic studies do not “grow naturally out ofexisting liberal arts curricula” without some very vocal andstrenuous efforts — activism — to make them happen.

When I said, “We’re not just here to make Asian Americans feelgood about themselves,” I was not denigrating the students’ valiantefforts. The comment was made in the context of saying thatadministrators often do not take the program seriously as anintellectual discipline and view it mainly as a form of studentservices.

My fellow faculty members and I have expended great effort tobuild Asian American Studies at Northwestern. I certainly do notview the students’ efforts as “Black Panthers impressions” andapplaud them for caring enough about Asian American Studies tofight for its future alongside us.

Dorothy Wang

English professor

Weigel’s sloppy work shows bias against worthyprogram

David Weigel’s Wednesday column fudged facts and culled quotesout of context to form specious conclusions. Disturbingly, Weigelalso urged Associated Student Government senators to “take intoaccount” these falsehoods when voting.

If you’re going to write about particular student activistefforts on campus, wouldn’t it be natural for you to get in touchwith said student activists? Had Weigel decided to speak to anymembers of the Asian American Studies Taskforce, perhaps his columnwould not have turned out to be an appalling series ofmisportrayals and faulty conclusions.

The Asian American Studies bill did not demand that the programacquire faculty and courses in “at least 13 disciplines.” Inreality the bill simply asks the university to expand the diversityof course offerings and suggests some departments and disciplineswhere Northwestern could offer courses.

It’s too bad Weigel decided not to look into the history ofAsian American Studies advocacy at NU before denouncing studentsfor “doing their best Black Panthers impressions” and “brandishingbig sticks.” Conveniently Weigel fails to mention that students inthe Asian American Studies Taskforce had participated in a seriesof meetings with the administration for nearly two years prior tothe first Daily coverage.

In these meetings problems were identified, data were analyzedand solutions were proposed by students. But no major improvementsemerged. It only was after two years of dialogue that more than 30student group leaders sent a public letter to Weinberg College ofArts and Sciences Dean Daniel Linzer to express concern about andsupport for the program.�

�It may be the case that Weigel truly views this publicletter as a drastic, unnecessary step that “taints” the AsianAmerican Studies program. It is far more likely that all of hisdistorting and misquoting is merely a dishonest, round-about way ofopposing the development of cultural-studies programs. Even thoughcolumns are held to lower standards than articles, Weigeldefinitely deserves a Medill F for his piece of yellowjournalism.

Asian American Studies Taskforce

Submitted by Howard Lien, Weinberg senior

and Rosa Nguyen, Weinberg sophomore

Smaller frats have no right to keep SAE off of campus

I do not normally agree with the Fraternity and Sorority Lifeoffice. Hell, no former Kappa Sigma agrees with the office. If notfor it, the Interfraternity Council and that unfortunate incidentinvolving a flask and a beluga whale at the Shedd Aquarium, KappaSigma might still have its house (although this is highlyunlikely).

But the debate about whether to bring Sigma Alpha Epsilon backto campus is puzzling. The small houses argue that it will detractfrom their recruitment efforts, while Sigma Chi’s leaders argue SAEwill threaten their status as the new guys on campus. But othersput forth the simple economic model of more competition leads tobetter, more efficient markets (or fraternity life in this case) –at least somebody took something away from intro to econ.

I have a message for the small houses: The guys who rush “bighouses” are not the type of individuals who will rush Chi Phi. Thismay sound like an elitist fraternity guy argument and it very wellmay be, but I have nothing to lose saying it.

My experience has been that recruiting new members is not thatdifficult. If the small houses and Sigma Chi cannot step up to theplate with an added chapter on campus�then there issomething wrong with them — not the system.

Bryan Tolles

Weinberg junior