The term “politically correct” has been so bastardized by America’s soundbite generation that the “PC” label now serves as a weapon of invalidation with which historically under-represented groups may now be soundly mocked and admonished.

Case in point is Todd Turner’s vindictive letter to the editor that appeared in the Feb. 23 issue of the Daily. Quoth Mr. Turner:

“There are probably many unqualified people let into the university to simply fill quota as it is; then surprise, they don’t make it. Another explanation could be that ISU has been less apt to lower their standards to simply make people like [Brian] Johnson feel better.

“I know the possibilities are not considered proper to the politically correct community, but they are valid and true.”

Which possibility is true, Mr. Turner? That the university permits the admission of unqualified students, as your first possibility asserts, or that ISU has not lowered its standards to admit deficient students in the effort to fulfill a quota?

These statements are contradictory to one another, so I’m puzzled by your logic that concludes that both of “these possibilities … are valid and true.”

Exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that your possibilities are reality also escapes me. In support of you argument, you provide not one shred of evidence, statistical information, testimony, historical perspective, scientific studies or surveys … nothing. So how we are expected to believe your theories, which run counter to one another, is beyond me.

Like “liberal,” “conservative” and “alternative music,” “politically correct” has evolved into a nonsensical, superficial term with no common definition yet. It’s still supposed to inspire certain thoughts and emotions without ever examining the meaning of the actual grist of an issue.

People concerned with social issues, such as why an alarming number of African-American students are failing to graduate from Iowa State, are members of the insidious politically correct community, the same jello-heads who introduced the terms “vertically challenged” and “follicle-ly invalidated.” They are oversensitive, bleeding-heart, “whiny little babies,” Mr. Turner would have you believe.

So, in regards to the issue Mr. Turner so clumsily addressed, does President Martin Jischke “need to explain why the graduation rate for blacks is only 33 percent?”

ISU, as Dr. Jischke himself has often stated, is engaged in the pursuit of becoming the best land grant university in the nation. An integral part of this endeavor has been the integration of minority students into the university community. And obviously, the objective of any student is ultimately graduation. When two-thirds of a student demographic section is failing to attain that goal, the pursuit of becoming the premier land grant university in the nation would appear to be lacking.

Yes, Mr. Turner, the students do not run the university. However, they are entitled to have their concerns addressed and their input considered. They are, after all, paying increasingly heftier tuition to attend the premier land grant university in the nation. A state institution, I might add, that is ultimately responsible to its constituency.

Does this mean Dr. Jischke should apologize? Of course not. But as president of a state-run university, the responsibility to investigate such a disturbing trend ultimately lies within his administration.

Perhaps an administrative effort should be made to investigate the cause of such a disastrous African-American graduation rate. Is the cause merely an educational failure on the part of African-American students? How many black students are transferring to other schools? How many former black ISU students are earning degrees from equivalent universities, a potential scenario that would debunk Mr. Turner’s assertion that African-American students remaining at ISU and achieving their degrees?

These are questions that can be addressed without resorting to quotas or “politically correct” whining.

In closing, Mr. Turner, I found your letter insulting. Not because we most assuredly would disagree on the specifics of this issue, but because you refer to your ideological opposition as “close-minded,” “imbeciles” and whiny little babies. (Who are you, Hanz and Franz?) You then assert the validity of your own argument armed with nothing but your absolute and unsubstantiated belief in your own inherent rightness.

Dr. Jischke must cringe when he realizes he has such crayon-wielding, mantra-spewing malcontents such as yourself supporting him.

Arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous, and unintentionally hilarious, combination.

---

Timothy Davis

Class of ’96

Chicago, Ill.