David Duke at CSUN

The public outcry over the invitation of the CSUN Student Senate to David Duke to debate the merits of Proposition 209, the “California civil rights initiative” (CCRI), is not surprising. While there is no disagreement as to the right of the student senate to invite Duke to speak on campus, its judgment is questionable, particularly knowing that its actions may reflect poorly on, and possibly adversely impact, the university.

More importantly, it has done a disservice to the student body it represents. Its choice of Duke has denied the student body and the community at large a “quality” debate on the CCRI, clearly the most controversial issue on the November ballot. Although the student leadership justifies the right to invite Duke based on its authority and the constitutional protection of free speech, its action is about neither.

The student senate made a bad decision, one that did not take into serious consideration the credibility of the invitee or the desire of the student body to hear a credible debate. There is also a clear lack of sensitivity to the concerns of the rest of the campus community, including faculty, administrators, alumni and financial supporters of the university.

I hope the student leadership understands that those of us who are criticizing them are not challenging their right to invite anyone to speak on campus. The issue is not their “right” to do so, or “freedom of speech.” The issue is poor decision making.

On a positive note, the controversy that has erupted and the processes involved are all consequences of a system that allows for student government, as it should. The men and women who have chosen to serve their student community may well be tomorrow’s leaders. The leadership experience they gain is an educational and growth opportunity that, while not always resulting in universal support of their actions, will nonetheless serve them well and make them better leaders tomorrow.

WAYNE ADELSTEIN

Agoura Hills

Adelstein is president of the CSUN Alumni Assn. and a member of the CSUN Foundation Board.

* My question is, how can an issue as important as affirmative action be legitimately argued against by a known bigot. The mere fact that David Duke is arguing against affirmative action makes people think affirmative action is a good thing. Affirmative action to me simply is opposite discrimination. A minority living next door to a person in the majority has a better chance to get the job, go to college, etc. This is race-based discrimination. This is not to say we don’t have a problem; we most definitely do. But the problem is not a racial one; it’s a socioeconomic one. A poor person, white, black, yellow, whatever, who grew up in a rough neighborhood deserves to have lesser standards to get into the school or get the job. This is only fair because of the bad hand the person was dealt. Help the people who need the help, not a person who grew up next to me, got the same grades as me, etc. This is not a race issue anymore.

How can a known racist convey such an argument? He cannot. It seems to me that whoever set this debate up really did not want the issues to be addressed. I am against affirmative action. I am against racism in any and all forms. I am against Duke and the KKK. There has to be a legitimate person to speak in favor of the cons of affirmative action. Accepting Duke to speak against affirmative action is equal to saying that if you are against affirmative action you are a racist. This is just not the case.

Duke has the right to speak. But for my school to pay for his appearance on an issue he has no right defending is absurd. Let [Duke] talk if he wants; I’m not going to listen. Let him speak, but not on my dollar.

KEVIN MEHLMAN

Woodland Hills

Mehlman is a graduate student at Cal State Northridge.

* Re “CSUN Asks Ex-Klansman Duke to Speak at Debate on Prop. 209,” Sept. 4.

I heartily agree with economics professor William Brown at CSUN and David Reed, chief of staff to the chairman of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education and Finance, that choosing David Duke to represent proponents of Proposition 209 was manipulative, theatrical and sadly, to me, academically bankrupt.

I believe that meaningful debates can occur only between people of equal stature and qualifications. Pitting an avowed racist whose celebrity derives from infamy against a civil rights leader sullies and trivializes the issue of affirmative action. I discount Duke on affirmative action like I discount Tammy Faye Baker on living economically, or a Mafia boss preaching the merits of honesty.

Sometimes people, by their own actions, forfeit the right to any serious consideration, and Duke is one of them. Student Senate President Vladimir Cerna missed the point when he said: “We seem to forget this is a university. If you can’t discuss these issues here, where can you do it?” It is a university and therefore the public and students had a right to expect a more academically honorable approach to debating this important issue.

SANDRA A. WHALING

North Hollywood

* To invite David Duke to CSUN because he is the only person to accept the invitation is a ludicrous reason. If this is the best [they] can do, then why have the debate at all? It’s not really necessary. Besides, this is the beginning of the new fall semester. Why begin it with images of hate and ill tidings toward our student representatives? Oh yeah, and saving $4,000 for more productive uses would be a nice idea. If my tuition funds were used to support this in any way, I want a refund.

ELIZABETH PEISNER

Woodland Hills