The Jewish members of The Spectator staff, including the current editor-in-chief, considered the humor in both "Hillel pieces" as attacking stereotypes of Jews, such as "generally unassuming curly-haired overachievers" rather than referring seriously to any sort of actual Jewish practice. Obviously, Jews do not forcibly circumcise Gentiles with pruning shears, and the idea of anyone chasing President Gerety with a sharp object and intent to circumcise is absurdly funny.
I am familiar with the role of blood libel in European history and the pogroms that resulted. However, within my article and the humor piece on the preceding page, there are no references to the blood of Christian babies, children or matzah at all. There is blood, there are foreskins and some playful caricatures of Orthodox Jews, but there are no allusions to blood libel at all, because if I had intended to refer to Jews grinding up the bones and blood of children to put into matzah or to mark their doors on Passover-there would have been a Jew with a gigantic meat grinder churning out matzah in the comic.
Unfortunately, this is the lesson taught by the humanities at Amherst College: you skim the book and put whatever you want into your creative interpretation, from latent homoeroticism to a critique of Foucault, without really needing any basis in the text. Usually the writer is long-dead, and thus unable to defend himself or herself from baseless inferences.
I am offended.
Lisa Ing '01<br>Former Editor-in-Chief of <i>The Amherst Spectator</i>
<b>Ambulance article in poor taste</b><br>The article in the previous issue about the theft of a Fire Department ambulance from Alumni Gym last Sunday morning ("Ambulance stolen from 'Night Release'; driver runs from scene") was in poor taste. It glorified the criminal actions by a student who placed the lives of other Amherst students and the public at large in jeopardy.
The individual who stole the unit still laughs about the incident, has no regrets, is cavalier and seems indifferent to the entire incident.
First, he easily could have killed someone with his antics of driving the ambulance airborne over curbs and knolls. Second, he deprived others at the "Night Release" event of medical care for the 15 minutes the ambulance was missing. Third, he damaged the ambulance, so now it is unavailable for use until repaired. It has front suspension damage and front- and rear-end structural damage that will cost some $2,500 to repair.
The Amherst Fire Department provides emergency medical services to the Town of Amherst, Amherst College, UMass, Hampshire College and the Towns of Hadley, Shutesbury, Pelham and Leverett. The individual who stole the ambulance has diminished our ability to provide this service and is not remorseful about it at all.
He deserves much more than just a suspension from Amherst, and The Amherst Student needs to exercise more responsibility in the manner in which it reports incidents that are a serious infringement upon people's safety.
Keith E. Hoyle<br>Fire Chief, Town of Amherst
<b>WFP delegation ignores the truth</b><br>The author of "Cuba policy argument ignored facts" (Apr. 25) criticized me as being "sanctimonious." I naturally had to make sure that this word hadn't recently changed meanings, so I checked and verified that it meant "hypocritically pious." Then I recalled some of the claims that a particular gentleman and others of the Witness For Peace (WFP) delegation had stated in the past and I realized that perhaps a loose definition of the word was being employed.
In the April 19, 2000 article, "Five College Students join IMF, World Bank Protests," last week's columnist was quoted as saying "The World Bank and IMF currently serve as tools where first-world countries are able to make a profit off of very poor people; these loans are forcing free markets on developing countries with huge amounts of inequality between the rich and poor." Hidden within that verbiage is a possible principle: it is somehow wrong for a big, powerful organization or government to exploit the poor.
The author of last week's piece would probably be willing to make Cuba the exception-once again. Perhaps he and the rest of the WFP group would care to inform themselves about the corporation Cubalse. (If you question its veracity, my information comes from a source sanctioned by the government of the Republic of Cuba.) This corporation is responsible for the enslavement of the common Cuban. The Cuban government is the sole employer of the workforce; non-Cuban companies have to use a government-controlled employment agency (Cubalse). The potential employer pays between 6,600 and 11,000 pesos per month-paid to Cubalse. In return, the workers merely earn between 300 and 500 pesos, with the government keeping the difference.
I pointed this out at the indoctrination session sponsored by the WFP delegation and was told that wages between 300 and 500 pesos ($13.63 and $22.73 per month) were very competitive in Cuba. This is not true. In Cuba, very little is available for Cuban pesos because food is distributed by the government, so most money ends up in dollar-stores or tourist markets (no Cubans allowed.) Even if this wage were desirable in Cuba, the exploitation reeks of the kind against which the author protested last year at the IMF/World Bank protests. It is clear that the government and foreign corporations have come up with a scheme to skimp on wages for the common Cuban worker. The Cuban government is, as the author would say, "making a profit off of very poor people."
This author also refers to two "distortions" in my article. It is widely known and accepted by everyone, except the Cuban government, that the Brothers to the Rescue planes shot down were not in Cuban airspace. Suppose they were. Would it justify shooting down an unarmed Cessna-type aircraft? Hardly. No matter how annoying the planes might have been, they were always unarmed and on humanitarian missions to save rafters. The other "distortion" is my assertion that there is a requirement to prove that a potential immigrant will be financially cared for when he arrives in the U.S. Despite what last week's author says, the requirement does exist. Section 204 [8 USC 1154] (a)(4)(A) explains the concept very clearly, telling that such an undertaking of financial responsibility is required for five years.
It is the responsibility of those that went to Cuba to teach realities; not to indoctrinate, but to educate. Blindness to facts makes it easy to support the Cuban government. That the WFP delegation went to Cuba for 10 days, spoke to the Cuban Foreign Minister and consequently got a little wrapped up in their promise to "engage in activism" is understandable. Before they engage in activism, however, they should research and find out the truth. I reassert my claims from two weeks ago and hope that the veracity of the claims made by some members of the WFP come into question.
Miguel A. Gonzalez '03