To the editors:

It is true that opinions like the ones Kovacevich mentions ("As a member of X ethnic group, I think..."), when accepted dogmatically by professors and fellow students, halt conversation to the point of complete silence. But there is no reason why it should be this way: if they are nothing more than prejudices, they should collapse, or at least be uncovered, when rigorously tackled. To criticize professors of not tackling them is one thing; to criticize students for voicing such opinions is unacceptable censorship.

Despite what Kovacevich (or John Stuart Mill, for that matter) may believe, cultural background unavoidably skews the development of our mind. But ideally, there should be no trade-off between cultural background and independent thinking. The ideas expressed in the editorial, properly distorted, have been used to silence outside criticism and impose one culture's norms on others under the guise of universal logic. Knowing that this statement will annoy Kovacevich, I must say that, as an international student, I have often felt this pressure.

Conclusively, it is good to challenge "identity" aphorisms, but to reject them as inherently narrow-minded is monolithic in itself. EVAN G. LIARAS '00   March 16, 1999