To the Editor:

The article entitled, “The Catt is out of the Bag: Was she racist?” which appeared in the October issue of the Uhuru has been the subject of many dialogues.

Some have been positive, while others did not agree with the article. The object of the Uhuru is to be a source of information. The purpose of the article was to generate intelligent and productive conversation.

Indeed, several letters have appeared in the Daily on the matter of the dedication of Catt Hall. The discussion on the matter has already begun. Therefore, the article has accomplished one of its goals.

Many have criticized the article because they claim that it had faulty research and that the quotes were incorrectly attributed to Catt. To say this, one would assume that these individuals have researched the matter on their own.

In reality, those same individuals who criticized the article have not been able to provide proof of this alleged wrong attribution. Other individuals who have researched the matter, for example, those who wrote to the Daily, have come to the same conclusions as the article.

But perhaps many are unwilling to recognize the truth. History can be interpreted many different ways to make it fit into a particular image. But it takes more to admit a supposed heroine might have been a flawed individual.

The article was not written to minimize the efforts of Catt and her contemporaries; rather, it was to offer a different perspective. Some complained that the article was biased because it did not emphasize Catt’s contributions.

The response to that is obvious. The other side of the coin: a building stands with her name and her picture plastered on the cover of the new ISU directory. Her contributions have been emphasized, and she has been canonized.

What has not been presented are all the facts. Most of the various committees were aware of the “problem,” as was stated in one of the letters to the editor in the Daily; the solution was a panel discussion that did not even touch the topic.

Another person claimed that the Uhuru article was not going to stop a dedication as big and as celebrated as this one. But the article never urged halting the dedication of the building. It only provided facts; facts that that were not available on the pamphlets hailing Catt’s achievements.

If the reader is aware of all the facts and then chooses to participate in the events, it should be a decision that is made after careful evaluation. For some who need to “see for themselves,” then they should take the initiative and research on their own and come to their own conclusions.

Some suggested that the article belonged in an opinion section so that only the author is responsible for it.

The reason why it was not done that way is because the Uhuru staff supports and stands behind all the research and writing that was done. To put a disclaimer would be to say that everyone on the staff does not agree with the article; in fact the opposite is true.

The heading “A Publication for intelligent activism” is not just a catchy slogan. It is dangerous for misinformed and uninformed people to fight against or promote a cause.

There are different ways in which the matter could have been handled. These ways would not have been as tasteful as the article was, and they would not have been as informative nor “intelligent.” Inciting riots is no way to solve a problem.

The Uhuru will attempt to bring forth issues which will stimulate the reader’s mind and encourage action and participation. So far the article on Catt has done both. It has sparked an interest in some and ignited the writing ingenuity in others.

A university, in fact an administration, can stand a little criticism. It’s ludicrous to believe that the whole bureaucracy will come crumbling down because of one article.

The fact that some people took the article as a personal attack is unfortunate. As stated before, the goal was to inform and raise awareness about these issues.

We are all encouraged to speak our minds and fight for what we believe in. Yet if our opinions are not the “norm,” then this right is snatched from us.

As a free society, one should enjoy freedom of speech and discussion. This First Amendment right should not be reserved for the powerful elite’s club. Everyone should have a voice.

Meron Wondwosen

Editor of the Uhuru

Sophomore

Political Science/French