To the Editor:
My generation has often been accused of apathy toward social and political issues, which accounts for the small number of voter turnout on election days. It is unsurprising that students and young adults vote in such low numbers; after all our generation and the issues we are concerned about are too often ignored. However the only reason politicians are ignoring our voice is because we don’t vote.
Our generation is not apathetic; Students across the country are volunteering in record numbers, 70 percent of 18-24 year olds nationwide volunteer locally and we also make up 85 percent of the military. Right here on UMass we have groups run by students like MassPIRG, ALANA, SCERA and the SGA that fight for students’ interests everyday. There are so many students at UMass and we have a tendency to focus on our differences, ignoring the fact that we have universal causes for concern. What student at UMass isn’t concerned about the lack of funding for state universities in Massachusetts? What student at UMass isn’t concerned about money’s influence in today’s politics? What student at UMass wants to see our forests and parks destroyed by giant corporations? What student wants to be known as a part of the generation that didn’t care? I have faith in the fact that here at UMass we do care. Everyone knows how students feel, politicians see the anti-war rallies and river clean ups and they get scared. They know we have the power to change everything. Which makes me wonder whether or not we, the students know what power we posses? We live in a democracy that is unfortunately controlled by old people. It’s simple they vote and we don’t. This Tuesday November 5 lets all get out and vote. Even if you think nothing affects you on this year’s ballot (which isn’t true) vote anyways. If we continue to ignore the political process then we will continue to be ignored. If there is a better voting turnout for 18-24 year olds then politicians will have to pay attention to what we are concerned about. Stein, O’Brien, Romney, vote for who ever you want, as long as you, we, vote.
Mark Koch
UMass student
To the Editor:
Question 2 proposes the elimination of bilingual education through the use of transition techniques, where students are taught in their native languages. As an immigrant who attended Massachusetts public schools from grades 6 to 11, I am in favor of Question 2 and believe that the current program is a great waste of state resources. There are many inefficient aspects of today’s bilingual education. The first, and most obvious, is that by teaching in the students’ native language, they are in no way improving their proficiency in English. If students are to learn all the mathematical and scientific terms in their native languages, they will lag behind when they actually enroll in mainstream classes. Secondly, it is impossible to attend to the needs of every immigrant. Most bilingual programs are offered only in Spanish or Portuguese. Though the majority of the immigrants is Hispanic and Brazilian, as is the case in the town of Framingham where I grew up, there are still thousands of Asian, European and African immigrants who speak entirely different idioms and who do not receive any “special treatment” from public schools. These students are automatically enrolled in ESL classes and forced to quickly learn enough English to communicate with others. Instead of a “smooth transition” into American culture, the bilingual program allows immigrants to remain stuck in their own culture. If a Brazilian immigrant can attend classes, speak to friends, attend church, watch TV, go to stores and do EVERYTHING in Portuguese, what incentive does he or she have to learn the English language? None. This is exactly what happens in Massachusetts public schools. Students ostracize themselves and simply refuse to learn English as well as respect and embrace the differences of the American culture. The reason I and other immigrants attend college today is because we chose to challenge ourselves. I feel that the bilingual program does not challenge or encourage students to learn and to grow as individuals. State representative Ellen Story claims that “There is no way that you can learn in one year enough to take all your other classes in it [English].” Is Ellen Story an immigrant? Has she ever taken ESL classes? I believe not. After taking ESL classes for one year, I enrolled in all mainstream classes in the 7th grade and finished middle school with nearly straight A’s and three awards of achievement. Learning a second language was not an easy task. It was a challenge, and a price to pay in order to take advantage of the benefits of living in the United States. What I did unknowingly was to reject the bilingual program that was offered to me and create my own immersion curriculum. The same idea is proposed by Question 2, and I feel that it is the most efficient way to teach immigrants.
Like Isabel Espinal, who led the rally against Question 2 last week, I believe that it is important for immigrants to retain their culture, values, and language. However, my opinion is that it is not the responsibility of the government. It is up to immigrants themselves to join hands and work together to balance the perpetuation of their own beliefs with integration into mainstream America.
Juliana Leal
UMass student
To the Editor:
In the 1998 referendum question, two-thirds of Mass. voters supported clean elections, which are taxpayer-funded allocations for candidates who agree to contribution and spending limits. Rather than take private money from wealthy donors, these clean candidates can afford to run by just collecting a few hundred donations of $5. With Question 3, we must show the government we still care about this program that accounts for 0.1 % of the state budget (not a lot of money).
Why should we care? We voters are sick and tired of hearing about campaign contributions from special interests getting them special favors, like Enron getting away with screwing its workers out of retirement savings or a Mass. coal power plant owned by PG’E getting exemption from environmental regulations by the Jane not-so-Swift administration after cutting a large campaign check.
Public funding rather than reliance on private donations will reduce this indebtedness to special interests. Maine and Arizona have already started clean elections with promising results – lower candidate spending and higher competition with more candidates running than in the past.
Let’s do the same in Massachusetts!
Matthew Saradjian
Graduate Student