Editor:

I am writing on two issues: first, I will argue that Laura Ephraim’s e-mail should not have been included in the section of "Harassing E-mails;" second, I would like to address the editorial that Ms. Ephraim wrote regarding the vandalism to her door.

The e-mail sent to Ms. Ephraim included in last weeks TSL section of "Harassing E-mails" was inept. If the staff at TSL had read between the "racial slurs" and profanity, it would have appropriately realized this e-mail was an editorial sent personally (though anonymously) to Laura Ephraim in response to her editorial in the previous week’s paper. I conclude that TSL acted with blatant irresponsibility as they used Ms. Ephraim’s e-mail solely because they lacked the patience, proper investigation and apposite analytical skills to locate copies of the other harassing e-mails (to include the most vulgar and profane one sent to the two Black students). By printing the e-mail sent to Ms. Ephraim, SL stripped the e-mail of its validity by placing it under a "harassment umbrella" even though it conveys very important ideas that the queer community should address in their dialogue of "homophobia" at Pomona and the other Claremont Colleges.

I do not believe that the use of racial slurs were indicative of any sort of bigotry from the author for the simple fact that he/she used quotes around the words "nigger," "spics," and "fags." When any dialogue about prejudice is introduced, such language should be expected and is simply used to gain the attention of the reader (a simple use of a trope or stylistic device). Moreover, the point surrounding those words was an excellent one.

The queer community (at large) does harbor its own prejudices, to include hatred of certain sports, races, religious institutions, and the country at large for their inability to embrace the queer lifestyle. Denial of this bigotry within the queer community will only hinder any attempts at acceptance. This obstruction is becoming evident in racial communities as they are now facing severe political backlashes from such programs as quotas (note that I did not say affirmative action), race based worker unions, etc., as the minorities continually–and rightfully–seek justice. This further supports the e-mail author’s belief that this sort of behavior (classification) was, is and probably always will be a part of Western Civilization, i.e. something that is unavoidable for everyone.

The first instance of vandalism that Ms. Ephraim spoke of was the inscription of "Why?" underneath her "I Support Queer Rights" banner placed on her door. Though spineless in it’s delivery, asking "Why?" is a very appropriate question. I am continually asked "Why?" I am a republican and a "Why?" I am a Christian and have had to offer an informed, intelligent answer to each. Therefore, I see no reason why this should not be asked to members of the queer community. If Ms. Ephraim placed that banner on her door, she better have thought through the banners message thoroughly and maintain a sufficient answer to others who pose that question. Even though the vandal was not identified, Ms. Ephraim still had an avenue to answer his/her question in the editorial she wrote but chose instead to make it into a completely separate issue. I feel as though she did graze past an answer to that question, but only to lead into an over-arching and personal issue for her as a Head Sponsor: homophobia.

The second occurrence of the burnt paper being placed on her door was utterly inappropriate and the vandal made it unreservedly lucid that he/she is an idiot. However, to assert that this action was also one of homophobia might be too hasty. I know of many accounts of persons’ doors being vandalized without a Queer Rights banner that were just a matter of drunken, stoned or drug filled students acting foolishly; students who at the moment thought destroying someone’s property was a "cute" thing to do. Was this even considered as an alternate explanation for the burnt paper?

These acts might have been ones of homophobia, but the evidence does not have the weight or substance to render such a strong and heartfelt response. I praise Ms. Ephraim’s article for its insight and sophisticated dialogue and she may know of instances she cannot reveal because they were told to her in confidence as a Head Sponsor; unfortunately the piece itself did not present enough evidence needed for the opinion’s credibility.

Unfortunately, I must end my opinion here because I could write for days on all the detestable acts that happen regularly on this campus. I would also like to invite the person who wrote the e-mail and the person who vandalized Ms. Ephraim’s door to step forward and offer their own explanation as I do find it hard speaking on their behalf. In closing, I want to note that this letter-writer is both black and queer (and Christian and republican) and a friend to Ms. Ephraim.

Sincerely

Aaron Arnwine ‘01