The Decision to Bring Duke

Re “With Rights Come Tough Decisions,” Sept. 15, by Vladimir Cerna, student body president at Cal State Northridge.

How many of us in this country will never experience the kind of oppressive day-to-day fear and terror described so eloquently and passionately by Cerna? A Constitution that protects our freedom to speak out against injustice is certainly one of America’s finest achievements and one never to be taken for granted, particularly when there are so many people around the world without such a guarantee.

And yet I find myself in deep disagreement with Cerna’s conclusion. Freedom of speech was never in question in the case of CSUN’s invitation to David Duke. Duke is free to spread his opinion as he wishes, and to my knowledge has not been prevented from doing so. Then, does Duke have a right to speak at CSUN? Of course not. That is a decision, not a right. Duke has a right to speak out, but no one is obligated to give him a stage, or a microphone, or a satellite dish or, for that matter, an audience. If he can’t get the attention he’d like on the 6 o’clock news, he is free to make as many fliers as he can afford and hand them out door-to-door. It’s a free country. But I don’t have to go door-to-door with him. Neither do you, Mr. Cerna.

ANNE KEMP HUMMEL

Northridge

Cerna, the Salvadoran-born CSUN class president who voted for free speech, demonstrates what I’ve discovered since moving to Los Angeles and coming into contact with so many immigrants. People born outside the United States understand and value the freedoms of America much more than those of us born and raised here.

Ironically, Thomas Jefferson was against immigration. He felt that those born in regal monarchies outside the United States would not understand our principles of freedom. Given the right to vote, Jefferson believed that they would endanger America because they were too accustomed to being servants of the state and they would vote for the same tyrannies from which we had just won independence.

Cerna says that he lived in a country where his father and uncle were murdered by the government for demonstrating their inalienable right to free speech. Cerna knows the value of a state whose sole founding purpose is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens. And his vigilance for our freedom was expressed in his vote.

Jefferson never considered that Americans would grow fat and complacent and forget the value of what we’ve created here. He said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It now takes an immigrant to keep watch on our freedoms.

America is the shining hope of the world. The immigrant has become the shining hope of America.

Thank you, Mr. Cerna. Your vigilant watch for freedom is much appreciated.

ALLEN STANFIELD

Sherman Oaks

Cerna’s defense for casting the deciding vote inviting Duke to debate affirmative action is specious at best. Cerna stated he was defending Duke’s right to free speech.

I don’t recall Duke’s freedom of speech being suppressed by anyone; therefore, there is no need to defend it. He is who he is today thanks largely to the use of his freedom of speech. Furthermore, it is not free speech when students, not known for their abundant wealth, are paying his fee of $4,000.

I think it’s shameful that Cerna could not discern the difference between free speech and a thinly disguised attempt to spin the California Civil Rights Initiative in a negative light. It is infuriating that these student politicians are using student funds to promote their own political agenda, and then spew forth weak rhetoric to defend it. We used to call those maneuvers political dirty tricks.

LOUIS M. KROLL

Van Nuys

It was bad enough the student senate in their infinite juvenile wisdom voted to invite Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and avowed bigot, to represent the supporters of Proposition 209.

What probably started out as an attempt to stage a debate on affirmative action, a most sensitive and controversial issue (especially on university campuses), has become a much publicized and thinly veiled attempt to paint the issue as a referendum on race.

So what else is new? How could they allow their motives to be so transparent? Preposterous? Absurd? You bet. Effective? Hardly. Even their allies, opponents of Proposition 209, are criticizing the students’ folly.

What is even more appalling is The Times [opinion column] from Cerna under the heading of “Perspective on Free Speech.” Someone tell Cerna this is not about Duke’s free speech rights. The furor is about the inability of the student senate to understand the importance of fairness when organizing a discussion of this very important proposition. You don’t set out to find the least credible person to represent the view you disagree with.

Cerna, in our country only 10 years, as a student body president should know better than to abuse our delicate free speech concept. Maybe he should learn what the word “integrity” means. It would have come in more handy when addressing his student council cronies than trying to apply the doctrine of free speech.

Someone should proofread his column. George Bush was not the president in 1986. Or don’t we teach American history anymore at our schools?

MICHAEL D. PARENTE

Woodland Hills

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

Why are our educators and government leaders surprised when the public turns its back on additional funding for our educational system?

The Duke controversy at CSUN is just the latest example of an out-of-touch bureaucracy that allows mandatory student funds to be used in such a manor.

Advisors and instructors at the university should have advised and instructed the student leadership early on against such an ill-considered manipulation. The media coverage of the planning and the media coverage of the actual event will only separate the two sides even farther and accomplish the things that none of us want: less respect and funding for what was once the great California educational system.

JERRY A. HELLARD

Calabasas