GET A LIFE

Dear Professor Donald Wilkes, Get a life! With all of the serious events taking place in our world today you choose to describe Justice Thomas' graduation speech as "appalling, perverse, and disastrous?" [April 30] Wow. I thought a key purpose of a professor was to expose his students to varying opinions in an attempt to stimulate thought in an environment where they are educated, not brainwashed. After reading your article in last week's Flagpole, I had a clear vision of a fire and brimstone preacher using his pulpit to sway developing minds towards one very narrow manner of thinking. (Interesting you should call Thomas narrow as well. Take a good look in the mirror.) Boy howdy, would I hate to be the one student in your class who disagrees. I would truly wonder how objective my professor might be towards my grade after differing with him all semester.

I must admit the passion you exhibited in your letter is commendable; however, don't assume people have to applaud Thomas' speech during graduation. To think that a UGA professor doesn't have enough faith in his students that they can sit, listen, and arrive at their own opinions certainly doesn't speak well for your faith in their ability and talents. Furthermore, if one student misses the occasion to attend their own graduation ceremony for your "classic" protest, then you have done a wonderful job of stealing a "classic" memory from that student. Fine, you disagree with Thomas and most (if not all) of his opinions, but staging a protest doesn't set an "example for students on the verge of entering the legal profession" either. Rather, it allows the future alumni, Class of 2003, to look back on graduation and remember that kooky Professor Wilkes who tried to get me to listen to more of his same ol' bantering instead of a United States Supreme Court Justice's insight. If you truly care for the well-being of your students, you'll be at the graduation ceremony on May 17, sitting on your hands.

David Youngerman

Athens

RESPONSE TO WILKES

I write this letter to urge Professor Donald E. Wilkes to reconsider his decision to not attend the 2003 graduation ceremony at the University of Georgia School of Law.

First, I must disagree with your essential pretense that "... a worse choice of a judge as a graduation speaker could hardly have been made." Nothing could be further from the truth. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only African-American sitting on the highest court and most prestigious court in the land. He is a notable public figure, with a prestigious academic (Yale University School of Law) and employment background (head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Federal Appeals Judge for the DC Circuit) is a man from very humble roots and overcame tremendous disadvantages as a youth. Further, he is the only native Georgian on our nation's highest court. Notwithstanding your opinion concerning his views, he appears well qualified, and certainly more qualified than Ralph Nader, who spoke at my graduation (which you attended).

You disagree with his mostly conservative opinions, and as a lawyer who practices a significant amount of criminal defense, I tend to agree with you regarding his philosophies on individual rights. However, you ignore several important opinions which give insight and reject your belief that Justice Thomas has "one of the most anti-human rights voting records on the modern Supreme Court." For example, in 2001 (during the modern Supreme Court), Justice Thomas joined another "extremist," Justice Scalia in Kyllo v. United States, ruling that thermal imaging devices used to gather information about people in their homes without a search warrant is unconstitutional. Your hero, Justice Stevens, joined another "extremist" Justice Rhenquist arguing the police were justified in using heat seeking devices to look into homes without a warrant, seeking potential drug activity. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, decided in 2002 (another modern Supreme Court decision), Justice Thomas in a separate opinion, referring to opinions which allowed as constitutional roadblocks which we see here all too often in Georgia, stated, "... Indeed, I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered "reasonable" a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing," making those who follow the Court believe Justice Thomas would overrule past cases allowing such intrusions on individual liberty. These are just a few of the many cases which show the other philosophical side of Justice Thomas, and hardly indict him as you state in your letter, a person who "... has narrowed the legal rights and remedies of Americans against Government."

As for the Anita Hill matter, I find irony in your letter when you speak of Justice Thomas' views against Habeas Corpus relief (generally referring to post-conviction relief for those convicted of crimes) when you Professor Wilkes, of all people, should hesitate in criticizing a man who has never been convicted or even charged in any legal setting surrounding Ms. Hill's allegations!

As you may remember, I was a student of yours at the School of Law some (many) years ago. You attended my graduation. I was honored by your attendance as I believed, as many of my classmates believed, that you were honoring our hard work and sacrifice in your class. Your failure to attend graduation will deprive this year's graduating class of that honor.

From what I remember from your Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure classes I periodically attended, you were very opinionated. Most people would agree you had a ferocious liberal attitude, and it was espoused in each and every class. I did not join your liberal philosophy, and disagreed with you quite often. I believed you were wrong, but respected your ability to passionately convey your ideas. There is an old saying, "you hold your friends close, but your enemies closer." Perhaps it is said so you will better understand your adversary. For these reasons you should attend Justice Thomas' speech. If not, it will be yours, and your student's loss.

Jeff Rothman

Athens

SURELY NOT HERE?

So I understand that Iraq is finally returning to the pre-Saddam Hussein Iraqi flag which flew over the country before the defeated regime. The only difference in the flags, as I understand it, is that Hussein had the native equivalent of "in god we trust" printed on the flag when he used religious dogma and persecution to control the country.

Wouldn't it be sadly ironic if that happened here?

Eric K. Krasle

Athens

COVERED PROTESTS

Just read your guest editorial re: "monopoly in media." [April 23]. I can't speak to the entire article, but I can tell you, as someone who spends a fair amount of time in a Clear Channel newsroom, there was no edict banning Clear Channel stations from reporting on anti-war protests. To the contrary, the Clear Channel stations (at least the ones in Atlanta) sent reporters to cover them.

Tim Bryant

Southern Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

Athens

COWARDLY SUV

On a recent Sunday night at 10 p.m. while biking my way to 5 Points, a red SUV passed me on Lumpkin (in the left-hand lane, while I was in the right) and the front passenger stuck his head out the window and screamed, "Get a car you jackass!"

It's obvious that your purpose was an attempt to instill fear into an innocent bicyclist, yet I would like to take the opportunity to address your fraternity brothers and sorority sisters as to how your SUV cowardly accelerated off in an attempt to avoid any rebuttal to, essentially, your act of terrorism (look it up in the dictionary). You were in a SUV, I was on a bike. You probably lost at least $10 in gas speeding away in fear. I'm sure your buddy "Dubbya" would be very proud. With the adrenaline I've received from my episode, I've drafted letters to the I.F.C., Arnett Mace Jr. and Michael Adams. But, I think I'll settle with the satisfaction that even in your hulking, gas-mongering SUV, you were too afraid to confront one guy face-to-face on his little bike.

Come on fellas, today was Palm Sunday. Do you really think Jesus enjoyed your prank as much as you did?

Matt Berkvist

Athens

WHERE'S WUOG?

I guess I'm out of touch with the current state of the "War on Internet Airwaves," but the last time I checked, WUOG still had a website available even though they had been shut down by Hillary Rosen and her cronies at the RIAA. Now that appears to be gone as well.

What gives, and what can we do to stop this madness? There are still plenty of college radio stations (WXYC and WXDU are still broadcasting over the Internet up here in NC) which are streaming audio. Why has WUOG been singled out, or was it a voluntary decision? I just don't buy the idea that streaming audio of independent music will hurt record sales. If anything, it makes me (and others, I trust) more apt to purchase CDs because I actually get to hear new music. Since most of my listening hours are at work when I can't pick up a signal, I rely on Internet streaming for this resource.

Now, Rosen has chosen to take over Iraq's copyright laws (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30441.html). Looks like Iraqi radio will get the first slap of democracy.

Will McKinley

Durham, NC

IT'S DISCRIMINATION

Will somebody please explain to "Pissed Off Gay Neighbor" (Letters, 4/23) that just because she and her partner co-own the house, they are not able to have another roommate unless they get married? It's called discrimination, and I don't see how it's any better than asshole frat boy neighbors.

Name Withheld

Athens

OVER-REACT?

I was watching Channel 11 News the other night, and the piece was about the policy of placing guns in airplane cockpits. One airline - despite the Bush administration's opposition to the program - has already begun to train their pilots in self-defense and proper gun use. The question was raised, why is the Bush administration against the program? In response, the anchor reported, "They fear that pilots will over-react to imagined threats."

I nearly slid off the treadmill! Overreact to imagined threats! What, like declaring war on a country you don't know for sure has weapons of mass destruction, commence to destroy that country in hopes of finding these phantom weapons, and still, after the land is leveled, not finding them? Do you mean something like that?

Nico Isaac

Athens