Wealth Does Not End Discrimination

To the editors:

Perhaps it is Boleslaw Z. Kabala who remains rooted in "skin-deep culture" (Ed Notebook, Mar. 3). His suggestion that a good-sized paycheck takes away from a star's "minority experience" is demeaning. Kabala's brazenness to "grant" that Will Smith, Antonio Banderas and Jennifer Lopez might once have had to face hardship and discrimination, but no longer have to deal with it after receiving their "stratospheric paychecks," is the largest falsity in his article. The whole point of racism is that people are judged by their race and/or ethnicity and not by their intelligence, ability, talent or paycheck.

Kabala then points out that Matt Damon might have experienced hardship too; no one doubts that. Everyone experiences hardship at some point in his life. Anyone can be down and out; anyone can be poor; but can anyone be shot 41 times by the NYPD and not see justice served? If you don't think too hard about it, the idea that white males are now the group to be protected can almost sound right. But not quite right. Look around--at Harvard, in the courts, in government and in many other places, white males sit in positions of power. The discrimination for which Kabala is searching is not against Damon or the white male establishment. And that is not just "skin-deep"--it is reality.

Priscilla Chan '01

Natalie Guerrier '01

March 5, 2000

Spong has Noble Spirit

To the editors:

I can understand how the words of John Shelby Spong could be met with skepticism or even hostility (Op-Ed, Mar. 6). But nothing could surprise me more than J. Stuart Buck's opinion that Spong is "singularly unqualified" to deliver the W. B. Noble lectures, or that the Spong is out to destroy the heritage of the Episcopal Church. That is, unless by "destroying heritage," Buck means opening the Church's ranks to any person who feels the call to service, male or female, gay or straight. Or perhaps he means making the Church a place of discussion open to those of us who wish to reconcile reasons for denying God a place in our lives with the inner yearning for something spiritual.

The elements of Spong's book that Buck finds so "disturbing" naturally come up when one has an honest discussion about church life. Spong correctly pointed out that most young Christians who go to college either clutch the dogma more closely and give up their modernity, or let go of their Christianity altogether.

Spong's message is that there are alternatives to these routes. We can keep the faith and be modern, thinking humans, too. The Church changed dramatically once before, from an institution that concentrated on preserving a religious community to one that helped people cultivate personal relationships with God. Spong says it's time for the Church to change again, to dissolve the vast space between the godly and the secular and to advocate a new philosophy of life, love and being.

These are radical notions, but they represent the type of dialogue that we, the struggling Christian community at Harvard, are starving for. Spong has a message that is exactly as appealing to the doubters and backsliders here as it is to the self-labeled Christians. When we who have ostensibly left the Church forever come back to Memorial Church to hear Spong, I'm sure Nannie Noble will be pleased.

Jesse L. Field '02

March 6, 2000