Misplaced sympathy
Who's right?
Your bias is showing
Misplaced sympathy
The cover story for the November issue,
"Delayed and
Denied," was both valuable and disappointing. The
author seemed remarkably unaware of the main themes that
were emerging from her account: 1) the university stands to
lose a lot of money if fewer students come from abroad and
2) that holders of student visas were able to cut corners
on immigration regulations in the past, but can no longer
travel home with expired visas and expect to gain immediate
re-admission to our country.
It is hard to imagine living abroad and expecting to get
away with failing to comply with visa requirements, even
when I was a young, irresponsible student. The author tries
to muster up sympathy in the readers, apparently not
realizing that few of us will ever forget the consequences
of the lax application of visa regulations.
Christine Miller, PhD
Department of Pediatrics
Johns Hopkins University
The saddest aspect of the current troubles experienced by
universities such as Johns Hopkins is that these
institutions have become increasingly dependent upon
foreign students. I know of one particular engineering
program at Johns Hopkins where recently less than 4 percent
of the applicants were from the United States. At select
engineering schools nationwide it has become common for
more than 70 percent of the applicants to be from China.
Such outrageously skewed numbers are both undesirable and,
ultimately, unsustainable. Our nation's educational system
must begin to cultivate more of our own students.
Richard Ambrose '97
Baltimore, Maryland
Many of the foreign terrorists who attacked the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, came to the
United States on student visas. It should not be surprising
that the federal government has taken measures to
investigate people who wish to come to this country as
students and to monitor their activities once they are
here.
Government agencies can move in slow and irritating ways,
but the United States is actually at war with an implacable
foe. Foreign terrorists have threatened to carry out
further attacks on our soil. While your foreign students
face annoying inconvenience, many young Americans who are
fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan are dying or being
wounded.
Robert J. Fleischaker
Oceanside, California
Who's right?
The November issue asked,
"Will We Ever Stop Killing in the Name of Religion?"
["The Big Question," p. 4]. The answer was disappointing,
essentially saying all religions are true. All religions
cannot be true. All religions differ from one another and
hold exclusive views about God, man, and salvation. Either
one is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all
wrong.
So, the big question for each one of us is: Which religion
is the truth? Or are none of them true? If one sincerely
investigates with an open mind, one will find the answer.
Then one should share their answer in a loving and
respectful way.
Dave Fadeley '86
[email protected]
Would that it were so easy. Let us just erase thousands of
years of strife and come together in the name of religion
with one god of many names. It sounds very simple, and it
is the doctrine of the day. Our chaplains, our professors,
and our religious leaders speak of unity that culminates in
the worship of one god by various pathways. I say this
weakens the experience of true worship and deceives rather
than enlightens.
We free Americans should rebuff what is spooned out from
our college periodicals and tepid would-be leaders. Express
your worship of God in the freedom that so many have died
for by holding fast to the tenets of your faith. You need
not meld into some watery, universal understanding
mumbo-jumbo.
James H. Fuller (Nursing '97)
[email protected]
The enduring wisdom of Thomas Jefferson offers us both
insight and hope for the elimination of religious wars. He
recognized that religion requires the power of the State to
enforce orthodoxy. Without the benefit of proof within this
life, monotheistic absolutist religions have no way of
discerning truth from heresy. At the same time, their
absolute beliefs allow no room for compromise; the
consequences of transgressions — eternal damnation
— allow no room for questioning and growth.
Therefore, they are trapped in shrinking circles of true
believers vigilantly ousting any heretic. Ultimately,
belief mitosis transforms a unified body of believers into
smaller and smaller factions. For the institutions of
religion this is the antithesis of a survival strategy. The
horrible quid pro quo exacted by the State from religion is
to imbue acts of civil institutions with the infallible
authority of God. Relieved of the constraining forces of
conscience and reason, the State can wage war and achieve
its temporal ends undeterred by logic and fact. Appeal to a
higher moral authority provides the ultimate and
unquestionable rationale for political actions.
Jefferson and his ally James Madison ultimately won the day
on the important issue of separation of Church and State
and saved the United States from religious wars. They
convincingly argued that free debate and argument would
distinguish truth from heresy. At the same time, people,
informed through debate and acting on their free will would
discern the truth and the path to righteousness. Erik Molander (Bologna '77, SAIS '78)
[email protected]
Your bias is showing
Regarding "Enemy at
the Gates?" [November, p. 25] concerning conservative
author Ann Coulter speaking at Hopkins in September: My
daughter and I attended this lecture and were shocked and
disgusted at the rude, uncivil, hostile audience [members],
who were more interested in shouting down Ms. Coulter than
in listening to what she said. I felt that I was at a New
York City Communist Youth rally full of future Al Frankens
and William Kunstlers.
Ray Gordon '66
Baltimore, Maryland
I am outraged at Johns Hopkins Magazine for publishing a
hateful, biased, and anonymous editorial written in the
form of a news story ["Enemy at the Gates?"]. To describe
Ann Coulter as an "enemy," "right-wing," and "provocateur"
shows unbalanced journalism at its worst. Michael Moore and
Nelson Mandela's names, although included, were not
similarly prefaced with equally agitating representations
such as left-wing, even though their political leanings are
well-known as such.
David Breznick '84
[email protected]
Return to February 2004 Table
of Contents
|