In a letter to the editor (Nov.12), a certain sociology major asked several questions concerning the meaning of our letter (Oct. 6) and then promptly began to link his Rorschach-like interpretation of its content to it.

You stated we had concluded that the rejection of racism required “racial castration.” Not true. We merely stated that “we were concerned about race” but also that we were not to flagellate our white backs for the sins of our forefathers.

Obviously it is not chic to recognize the fact that there is a brand of institutionalized anti-racism which implicitly states whites should just “keep still” and listen to how racist they are—everyday. We choose not to be silent. We are white, proud to be white, and are not going to apologize for it. We believe human relationships should be guided by the Golden Rule, and everyone should have an equal opportunity.

We did not misunderstand the meaning of Unity Through Diversity Week. Its goals are lofty, and we support it. However, it still suggests that we “genuflect at the altar of cultual pluralism.” In other words, if you happen to want tighter immigration controls or don’t believe in affirmative action and homosexuals make you uneasy, then you are labeled homophobic racist. That’s nonsense.

Implicitly linking your list of racial and ethnic slurs to the content of our letter was rude—not to mention incorrect. You are one of “the herd” who are controlled by the media and institutionalized policy, and that’s why we forgive you for your gross misrepresentation of our viewpoints. We hope you will soon recover from your bout with whatever it was that caused you to read so many falsehoods into our letter.

Mark Sloan

Deborah Davenport

Brian Higgins