February 24, 2010

Letter to the Editor: What case for discrimination?

Print More

To the Editor:

Re: “The Case for Discrimination,” Opinion, Feb. 24

We were already “forced” to accept the values proposed by Resolution 44 by deciding to become undergraduates at Cornell. If one wanted to be involved in a campus where discrimination was a de jure part of the campus policy then it was that individual’s choice to enroll elsewhere; perhaps BYU.

I take great offense in seeing my tuition spent on funding discrimination. I came to Cornell not to see others’ personal values discriminated against, but rather to see them exercised intellectually for the improvement of campus as a whole. Including others outside of a club’s cultural or ethnic constituency only furthers the aims of that club. Take for example, any of the many dance troupes on campus where students of different ethnicities perform Taiko or Indian folk dance. Their inclusion does not dilute the solidarity of these organizations, but promotes a mutual understanding between different groups.

The fact that we do not have an anti-discrimination statute already in place is appalling and should be viewed by the University as a disgrace. While we might see ourselves as more diverse and less elitist than Harvard, all student groups there must adhere to a non-discrimination policy.

It does not make sense to condemn discrimination within the admissions process, the classroom or the work environment but then allow it when students congregate in campus buildings and use university funding. Though Resolution 44 is not perfect, it brings us closer to Cornell’s mission as a university.

Kevin Tomera ’12