“COMING TOGETHER” Speech By Thomas Kincaid,Student Body President
The following speech was given by the student body presidentat the closing of the affirmative action forum on Wednesdaynight.
First off, I appreciate everyone who came out tonight, and Iwant to give a huge thank you to Lyndsey Hummert as well as acommittee of student leaders for putting this whole showtogether.
In a speech immediately following his appointment to lead SMU,the University’s first president, Robert Stewert Hyer, said:” . . . [a University] is to lead men to the truth. That willmake them free and save them from inflicting wrong upon themselvesand their fellow men.”
That quest for truth is what has occurred here tonight. In itspurest form, tonight’s discussion was about seeking out thetruth in an effort to set one another free. Will we ever discoverpure truth in our life on this Earth? No, but I promise you thatpure truth is what we are called to spend our life seeking.
In addition to seeking truth, we ought to be seeking unity.Looking at tonight’s event, I know that it simultaneouslyrepresents everything that the SMU student body is not, andeverything that the SMU student body is. The SMU student body isdiverse in many ways, including opinion—a diversity which Iam committed to protecting, because I know in school you learn morefrom people who are different from you than people who are thesame. But that diversity does not mean the SMU student body isdivided. I can promise you, we are united.
The 133rd Psalm starts out saying, “How good and pleasantit is when brothers and sisters live together in unity!” Thatreally says it all. Look around: You may disagree to the point youwill spend your life fighting against that other person’sopinion on affirmative action, but realize you need that person tohelp you in your search for truth. For if there is no one tochallenge us, then there is no one to question our version oftruth. And if one of us ever thinks we have pure truth, we shouldstop and recognize that we are then truly lost.
The students of SMU are united in the principle thatdisagreement and diversity of opinion does not equal division. Weappreciate the challenges we provide one another, and we arecommitted to ensuring this campus is the home of an open, honestand safe exchange of ideas well beyond our time here.
By being a student on this campus and especially byparticipating tonight, should someone ever ask you, “What didyou do at SMU?” If you wanted to, you could answer, “Ilooked for the truth.”
Remember, we are here at SMU to lead and challenge one anotheras we search for truth, and in that search, we stand strong, and westand together.
“In my Own Words:”
Michael waters sets the record straight on faulty DailyCampus quotes
Dear Editor:
I participated in the affirmative action forum on Wednesday, butto my dismay, three separate comments were attributed to me inyesterday’s paper that I did not make. Therefore, I deem itnecessary to recount the views I expressed, in my own words, toclear any misconceptions that might have resulted due to errors inyour reporting.
First, the paper quoted me as asking, “Are there any meansto a level playing field?” This quote fails to communicatethe question I posed to the panel. The question that I posedregarded whether or not there are any other means outside ofaffirmative action that would level the metaphorical playingfield.
Secondly, the paper quoted me as stating, “Affirmativeaction is an inherent idea. Discrimination is all the same.”Unfortunately, I cannot offer a correction to this quote. Not onlydo I not understand it, but I did not make it.
Finally, the paper quoted me as stating, “Merit should notbe an issue with affirmative action.” These are not my words.I did attempt to convey the point that affirmative action does notallow persons opportunities they are not “qualified”for, which counters the “unmerited” claims of opponentsof affirmative action. Affirmative action programs do not provideunqualified persons with unearned and unmerited opportunities, butinstead provide opportunities for advancement to persons who havebeen historically, systematically, and vigorously excluded fromsuch opportunities.
Now that I have addressed my misquotes, I would like to defendthe position of one whose words and legacy have been used in vainand taken out of context. It has been stated that the Rev. Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr. was an opponent of affirmative action dueto his statement that persons should not be judged on the color oftheir skin, but on the content of their character. One need only toread Dr. King’s 1964 work “Why We Can’tWait,” which clearly follows his 1963 “I Have ADream” speech, to discover otherwise.
King states, “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatmentfor the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. TheNegro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should asknothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it isnot realistic.”
King knew lip service and warm feelings would not liberateAfrican-Americans, or any other groups suffering under the whip ofoppression, for that matter. Direct and immediate action had to betaken, and because these oppressed and persecuted masses could nolonger wait, they faced police dogs, fire hoses, house and churchbombings, and dug many graves for fallen freedom fighters, all thewhile seeking out justice and righteousness.
And if you would like to respond that I should forget the past,and all its lingering, present day effects, gaze hopefully towardsthe future, and turn a blind eye to present realities, I suggestyou travel down to Jasper, Texas and see if the Byrd familyagrees.
Michael W. Waters ‘02
Masters of Divinity Student, Perkins School of Theology
If Peruna Goes, I Go
Dear Editor:
The editorial last week calling for a change from our historicalmascot (since 1933), Peruna, to a full-sized horse was plain andsimple mascot envy.
Back in Southwest Conference days when we were good— 2nd in the country good — Peruna was one of thecountry’s top mascots, and SMU students everywhere lovedtheir determined little pony.
We didn’t need a gigantic horse to compensate back thenbecause our football team beat the hell out of everyone itplayed. Now, after almost two decades of despair on thefootball field, the Ed Board has lost its patience and is talkingcrazy.
Why do away with a central part of our collective SMU soul infavor of a gaudy horse with no connection to the fabric of ouruniversity? A horse, no matter how big and fearsome looking, willdo nothing to overshadow bitter losses.
When our football team starts winning again, Peruna will oncemore assume his rightful place among the top tier mascots in thecountry — provided Peruna handlers run fast, stand tall andrefrain at all times from kissing or otherwise caressing the ponyon the sideline.
SMU is a small school with big dreams. Peruna is a smallhorse with a big heart. By selling Peruna out, SMU studentswould only be degrading themselves.
To do away with Peruna would be a vain act. Doakdidn’t need a stallion on the sideline to win the Heisman;Dickerson and James didn’t need a giant horse to win theSouthwest Conference, and we certainly don’t need one to winthe WAC.
All we need is a couple more years with Coach Bennett and aloyal student body that stands by its traditions.
Respectfully,
Andrew Novak
Former Peruna Handler
