Malaklou column wrongly implies racist tendencies

It's nice to see Shadee Malaklou back on the editorial pages. Her columns are, if nothing else, always articulate and engaging. That said, I have a couple criticisms of her latest piece ("Cruel intentions and dangerous liaisons," Jan. 10). Malaklou has always contended, and does so again, that there is something racist about the sexual preferences of Duke women. In her words, "Duke women... do not lust after famous black basketball players... rather, they lust after white preps with celebrity status on campus, but not off." The implication seems to be that, if Duke women were nondiscriminatory, they would take the world-renowned basketball player over the relatively small fries of the frats, but because they do not, some racism must be at work.

But just as racist as the supposed preferences that Malaklou decries is her myopic focus on the lifestyles of white women. She entirely ignores those of black women at Duke. If she turned the slightest bit of attention to this sizable constituency of the student body, she would find that her claim that Duke women are disinterested in black athletes is utterly laughable. And as long as she's going to brand white women as racist for preferring men of their own race to men of others (however famous), shouldn't she also point a finger at black women at Duke who flock to members of an 0-12 football team over white big men on campus? Perhaps what Malaklou perceives as racism is merely an interest in commonality.

I also feel her persistent criticisms of Duke could be leveled at any college, or indeed, any place in America. Wherever one goes, there are men, whether they be frat guys, scions of wealthy parents, professional athletes, rock stars or even drug dealers, who attract inordinate amounts of no-strings-attached female attention. This certainly may be unfortunate, but the problem, if there is one, is with life in general and not with Duke in particular.

Asher Steinberg

Trinity '08