To the editor:
This letter is in response to the April 29 guest article written by Arik Wolf, vice president of the College Republicans. It seems as though Mr. Wolf wasn't very liberal in his memory of the beginning of the Clinton administration. The president was up front and open about his professional relationship with Mrs. Clinton. He was open with the fact that Mrs. Clinton is an extremely intelligent woman who is extremely qualified to perform most any administrative job. The president also made it clear that his wife is an important part of his life and he calls upon her for advice and counsel. He remarked, "We have a first lady of many talents ... who most of all can bring people together around complex and difficult issues to hammer out consensus and get things done."
Mrs. Clinton does not "work behind closed doors, scheming about government programs to shape your future." She is an open woman who is involved in her husband's administration.
Few people are aware of the highlights of Mrs. Clinton's biography. She graduated with honors from Wellesley College, then proceeded to Yale where she was on the board of editors of the Law Review. Since then, she has been a law professor and a vocal advocate of children and families founding the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. She has served as chairwoman of the Arkansas Education Standard committee and spent many years as an active full partner in a Little Rock law firm. She was Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Young Mother of the Year in 1984.
Regardless of your politics, you've got to respect Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments. Chances are, if another democrat had been elected to the White House in 1992, Mrs. Clinton might have been appointed to a cabinet post. It isn't fair that since she's married to the president that she should be restricted from doing what she does best. When the president appointed her to the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, he made an informed choice and chose a woman who is more than qualified for the post.
Every first lady has her forte. Barbara Bush is adept at fighting illiteracy. Lady Bird Johnson cleaned up America's highways. Hillary Clinton is involved in more actual policy than any first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. I don't know the exact reasons why so many people fear her activism, but she shouldn't be chided for being intelligent and qualified.
Margaret Thatcher was a model woman who was a very effective prime minister. She is a good role model for everyone to follow, but to discourage people from admiring Mrs. Clinton because of "lost potential and gutlessness" is just plain ignorant. Mrs. Clinton is not a "radical feminist." Her work has not been in any way directed at inflicting America with the superiority of women, but with the saving America and its children and families. Let's not bicker about what right she has to be involved in Washington and realize that she's intelligent, committed and on our side.
Chris Foster
sophomore, music education
president of College Democrats
To the editor:
As chairwoman of the Police Advisory Board for the University of Houston, I have been concerned about the recent editorial "They blew it," (April 29) and letter to the editor from Ms. McCord Hoffman, "Get with the technology," (May 1) criticizing the Police Department's handling of the bomb threat to M.D. Anderson Library on April 28 and their knowledge of technology. Because of the serious nature of these concerns, I will ask the Advisory Board to review both matters. I write now to convey my personal views regarding the work of UHPD.
Having worked with police Chief George Hess and UHPD on the Advisory Board for the last four years, I have come to respect the fine work the department has done to keep our campus safe. The most recent data available on serious crimes at UH for the years 1993-95 clearly indicate a significant drop in the rate of violent crime. For nonviolent serious crimes related to motor vehicle theft and burglary, the figures also show substantial decreases. In fact, contrary to popular belief, our campus is much safer than the vast majority of campuses in the country. I believe this is due in large part to the excellent service provided by UHPD.
The letter regarding UHPD's officers' knowledge regarding computer technology suggests that the department is computer illiterate and out-of-step with the rest of the campus. While it is surely impossible for every officer to specialize in every field of criminal activity, UHPD's philosophy is to provide general training in a variety of areas for most officers and to have some officers work as specialists. UHPD, in fact, has specialists in computer crimes on the force who have been trained by the FBI. Indeed, UHPD provides significantly more training for all of its officers than is required by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education.
With regard to UHPD's handling of the bomb threat (which was handled in conjunction with the Houston Police Department, the UH Fire Department and top UH administrators), Chief Hess assures me that UHPD carefully followed all appropriate guidelines for such matters. I can state with confidence that UHPD is acutely aware of the seriousness of bomb threats and the importance of their handling of such matters with utmost caution.
Sandra Guerra
associate professor, UH Law Center