An image that was recently posted to Facebook has come to the attention of many of my Taiwanese friends and other Taiwanese University of Washington students. That image was on the UW’s Web site for transfer applications, in Section 4 of the application progress (Address and Residency). It listed the country of Taiwan as “Taiwan, province of China.” This is a problem for many Taiwanese, including those that are students at the UW. As an alumnus of the UW, I find it hard to believe that the UW would like to promote this kind of one-sided, and erroneous, view of Taiwan. If I recall correctly, on my undergraduate admission application to the UW, there was a question on diversity, on how I may have experienced diversity and how it has applied to my life. Therefore, I believe it is also the UW’s goal to attract, pursue, foster and teach students in a way that promotes diversity in more than just race, culture, religion, but also in students’ ways of thinking.

One aspect of diversity is respecting the differences between countries as well as differences in people’s beliefs. While it is certainly some people’s opinion that Taiwan is a province of China, I assure you, there are a great number of those (Taiwanese and non-Taiwanese included) that would say that Taiwan is not a part of China. It is for this reason that the University of Washington has a couple of student associations that exist to help promote and spread the word about Taiwan’s distinct culture, country and people ­— the Taiwanese Student Association and the Taiwanese Overseas Student Association.

While there are many bright students that attend the University of Washington, and although their upbringing may cause them to believe that Taiwan is a part of China, it should be the university’s goal to help create an environment in which they question what they have “grown up with” and learn to be independent thinkers. It is not only unfair to them – but also to those that may not be too knowledgeable about the China-Taiwan issue ­— to have them glance at some application page and see “Taiwan, province of China” and, as a result, reinforce a common misconception.

I understand that the university is a public institution, and that may mean certain things are not in the university’s control. But, may I remind everyone of the fact that the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan one single day. The notion that Taiwan is and has always been a part of China is a fabrication of the Communist Party of China. Furthermore, the current position of the United States is that it simply acknowledges China’s position on Taiwan, but it does not accept that position as their own (checking the U.S. Department of State Web site, for countries and regions, it lists Taiwan, simply as “Taiwan”). To have “Taiwan, province of China” in the UW’s application process is shameful, wrong, and forcing an identity on a group of people that may not identify with that position.

At the same time, I know that there are Taiwanese who identify themselves as Chinese or as both Taiwanese and Chinese. As a result, it is also not my place to group all of the Taiwanese people together and claim to speak on behalf of all and say that we are Taiwanese and not Chinese. Doing so would make me just as wrong as those who try to force the Chinese title onto me. Being an American-born Taiwanese that speaks only Taiwanese and English, and only a little Mandarin (thanks to CHIN 101 at the UW), there is no reason for me to identify with being Chinese. Taiwan has its own language, culture and people, and as such, I am Taiwanese.

I hope the university can correct this error to that of just “Taiwan,” rather than “Taiwan, province of China,” and let all students, not only Taiwanese students, have the opportunity to not be bullied into believing this misconception. Higher education is here for us to question, reason and think critically. Give the students the opportunity to find facts for themselves rather than giving us this one-sided, erroneous view of Taiwan.

Like the character Michael Scott says in the TV sitcom The Office, “Diversity is the cornerstone of progress.” Without diversity, we limit ourselves as individuals and as a society, becoming like a single-minded person, unable to adapt for the better. Diversity at its core is embracing differences and drawing on those differences to create something new, bigger and refreshing. Let us embrace the differences between China and Taiwan and support Taiwanese people’s right to self-determination and individual freedom.

Richard Lin

2009 UW electrical engineering

alumnus

Climaxing with today’s resignation of the top UN climate change official Yvo de Boer, most of the articles I find in the news about global warming are discussing the validity of the concept. Recent questioning should not change our course or force in working toward clean energy, for the health of ourselves and our children. The election for one of our U.S. senators in the state of Washington are coming up this year, so our senators will be less likely to vote for strong environmental bills in order to keep their seats. As constituents of this progressive state, we need to show our senators that we want their support in executing strong carbon-cutting solutions.

Last week, WashPIRG students collected nearly 350 Valentine’s Day cards from the UW population, which were delivered to our senators. They read, “Wind turbines are white, solar panels are blue, support American clean energy, and then we’ll support you!” Let us send more love to our senators! We will be able to make an impact on their minds and show them that so many of us care, if we keep our efforts up. When an opportunity to participate comes up like this, please do.

Cecile Farmer

Music, communication

In response to “Court decisions drowning out voices of people” by Chris Jordan, Feb. 10, 2010,

I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion expressed by Chris Jordan in his article. The recent Supreme Court decision essentially places special interests as supreme over interests of the general public. Giving corporations unlimited spending power based on the faulty idea that corporations are people and money is free speech has disastrous implications for the fate of our democracy.

In Al Gore’s book The Assault on Reason, he describes a time during his campaign when his strategists said “spend X amount of money on advertising, and your poll ratings will go up Y points.” Sure enough, he spent X amount, and his poll points jumped to the exact prediction of his strategists. Like it or not, our political views, knowledge and behavior are all intricately linked to what we see, hear and experience through the media that we interact with everyday. The process, as we can see from Gore’s example, is frighteningly predicable and exploitable. I’d be willing to bet that oil, dirty energy and insurance providers have analysts every bit as talented as Gore’s, and now they have the power to manipulate public opinion with near-infinite resources.

This is certainly not what the framers had in mind when crafting the protection of free speech. As vice chair of WashPIRG, I am campaigning on issues that matter to me and my fellow students on a regular basis. Tabling, petitioning, making phone calls, and other grassroots techniques are what make our democracy thrive, not spending billions of dollars to buy poll points and votes. When I see a need for change, I meet with other like-minded people and work to build public support. These are the resources available to me and to nearly every other citizen of the United States. To somehow equate giant corporations with a citizen like myself has the potential to destroy the work that I and so many others constantly put forth, merely because of the financial resources available to them.

We must also keep in mind that the Supreme Court can be wrong, and its word is not final. We can pass legislation to ensure that the advertisements at least show what company is paying for them, restrict the ways corporations use money to influence elections, or even pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling. In any case, we must act fast before the corruption inherent in this ruling spreads too far.

Justin McCarthy

Junior, political science

WashPIRG vice chair

In response to Danny Choi in “Free Speech Friday,” Feb. 12, 2010,

I can’t speak for The Daily’s staff, but I can relate what I didn’t see when looking at the front page of Friday’s Daily: a plot by racist, white-supremacist editors to humiliate Ms. Tran or establish, as Choi wrote, a “lewd, disparaging image … [whose distribution] violates principles of decency, equality, and respect for humanity.”

I saw, instead, the inclusion of a microphone ­— it’s a radio show — and the co-host of the health show. Innumerable objects can be ridiculously construed as phallic, and the effective operation of a microphone necessitates it point towards the speaker’s mouth. Isn’t assuming, without research, that the editorial staff had consciously or unconsciously intended to perpetuate a racist agenda a bit … racist?

First, the inclusion of the co-host in a photo is logical. People call in for sexual-health answers. The comedian, as in Loveline, is present to make it easier to discuss personal matters and make it enjoyable for the audience to listen. It makes sense to emphasize the “answers” part of the show, doesn’t it?

Second, why do you assume a white supremacist was behind the layout? Why “white?” Why do you vilify racism and yet call the other co-host, Mr. Parsons, “white” ­— a blatantly nonscientific, outdated, racist term that’s full of hateful connotations?

I’m not an apologist for overt or covert racism nor for sexism (be it misogyny or misandry). Should readers encounter discriminatory stories or subtexts in The Daily, they should loudly point it out. We’re here at the UW, after all, to encounter and learn from a wide array of people and ideas. However, I think framing the image choice in the Feb. 5 issue of The Daily as racist is misplaced and stretching to find injustice where there is none discernible. Lambasting a photo of a female of Asian descent in a recording studio talking about sex is counter-productive to honest dialogue about discrimination.

Maybe the emphasis on “dirty” at the bottom of the page related to the sex theme, but more likely it’s related to the alliteration to how unhealthy Drumheller looks. Its inclusion in your letter does not make sense.

Andrew Lingbloom

Senior, biology

In response to “Extremist demonstrators digging their own graves” by Zachary Gussin, Feb. 17, 2010,

I want to thank Zachary for this insightful article about the “extremophiles” frequently seen on campus. He’s so right by pointing out that all they do is defeat their own argument before anyone would ever listen. Dumb (in the classical sense) and mute – that’s all it amounts to. There has recently been an increase in the dialogue between women’s rights supporters and pro-life supporters in this country that, in my opinion, has been very constructive. Most people agree the number of abortions performed in this country is shocking, but intelligent people also realize that pointing the finger at those who disagree will never make the problem go away. Pro-life and pro-choice may never find a true common ground, but both sides have the same interest in preserving and protecting human life. By likening a woman’s right to protect her own body to the systematic eradication of a people, we are only setting the debate back decades and increasing hostility.

As for the LaRouchians, do they even know what they stand for? I’ve glanced at their so-called information, and it’s all just negative attacks on Obama or U.S. society in general. Do they have any solutions? Any policy ideas? Not from what I see. The only suggestion they have is to to send Obama to the moon to protect NASA. It’s ridiculous. From what little I know about LaRouche, he is some kind of radical leftist ideologue more concerned with his own cult of personality than working productively with the rest of society to help improve things. It’s a testament to free speech at public universities that these wackos are even allowed on campus.

Shane Clyburn

Journalism, creative writing

The requirement to take a full year of foreign language should not be enforced indiscriminately.

First and foremost, let me say that, while I understand the motivation behind a year-long foreign language requirement at any institution of higher learning, I think the indifference of the program to the individual circumstances of students is a poor model for addressing students’ best interests. It’s likely that the rationale behind the foreign language requirement is the belief that an educated individual should have some experience engaging with persons of different cultures and backgrounds. Being acquainted with that culture’s language is an integral part of this education. The idea behind this conviction draws upon the same values that motivate our interest in increasing diversity on the college campus.

However, while there are ethnic and cultural differences among us, each of us also has a unique educational background. I myself am a returning student who has taken courses in three different languages: Russian, Spanish and Japanese. Could I learn more about those cultures whose languages I have already been introduced to or other cultures more broadly? Certainly. Would continuing any of those courses be the most effective means of increasing my exposure to diversity or enhancing my personal understanding of it? I would argue that it is not.

By considering my request for an alternative, the department may worry that they will open the floodgates, prompting countless students to submit insincere waiver requests simply to avoid a class they would prefer not to take. But by caving in to this concern, we instead deny students the option of developing their cultural engagement in other ways and taking a more personal interest in what cultural diversity means to them. Ultimately, we deny educational diversity in favor of ethnic diversity, and that’s not a choice we should be forced to make. Allow students to put together their own curricula, and we may see more engagement, not less.

While I think the current system is unjust and poorly thought out, I do not expect to be heard, so I will do what I must to graduate. By writing this, I instead hope that others will come forward and submit their own personal experiences and force the arts and sciences department to address the unique circumstances of the students whom they serve rather than issue a blanket declaration that nothing, short of intellectual disability, may circumvent. For myself, I believe that the initial acquaintance to a language and its general form is the most important aspect of foreign language education for a student who has no plans for proficiency. Can you say with certainty that I am mistaken?

Language aside, there are other options. This coming quarter, for example, there are classes offered including Introductory History of American Ethnic Groups, Race, Ethnicity and Education, and Introduction to African American Studies. I would gladly take any of these classes in place of a third quarter of language, and I would gain more from it. This is particularly true for someone in a situation such as my own, as I will be gone after the spring. And as anyone who has taken a language can tell you, once that third quarter is over, the vast majority of what I learned will be gone as well.

This letter is a plea on my behalf and on behalf of anyone who is interested in more than just fulfilling a requirement: When we request it, allow us to help shape our own education in diversity. Cultural awareness is more than just language, and so severely limiting our options sends the wrong message to students who are genuinely interested in other cultures and ethnicities. Instead of paying lip service to the idea of diversity in the form of an arbitrary foreign language requirement, let us explore for ourselves what it really means.

Shane Phillips

Senior, biochemistry

In response to “Olympia wants to raise your taxes” by Thomas Cloud, Feb. 18, 2010,

I completely disagree with Thomas Cloud’s opinion article on Thursday, which opposed tax increases. In the current situation our state is in, the only options are to either cut spending or increase taxes. The state provides a huge number of services to the public. Lowering spending means cuts to state programs. Going to a public university, the benefits of taxes are apparent every day, probably more so than to most people. We all have the privilege of attending a great university for less than $8,000 a year (for undergraduates who are Washington residents). This would not be possible without the funding that tax-payer money provides. Consider those students on the Husky Promise who have a full scholarship to the UW. Programs like the Husky Promise and other essentials to a good education are currently threatened by budget cuts. Of course cutting wasteful spending must be part of the discussion. However, many of these budget items are not wasteful and should be kept if possible. I know how much people hate paying taxes and abhor the idea of paying more, but students at a public university should be the first to support increased taxes if that’s what it takes to protect our programs.

George Rowe

Freshman, political science