Normally I don't read your paper because, frankly, I don't think that it is the best example of exemplary journalism (and it has nothing to do with the fact that it's run by students).

When I received a copy of the piece "Let me conversate with you" in my mailbox, it only reinforced my reasons for why I don't pick up the Post.

This letter isn't to call for the dismissal of the young woman who wrote the editorial, or even for a public apology printed in the newspaper. If anything, it should serve as an example that while your writers are free to express their opinions, people like myself from the campus and larger community will exercise our right to critique what is said.

What I found most disturbing about Devon Wiesend's editorial is the utter condescension and the feeble sense of authority in which she writes her piece. This is very evident in how in hearing a few students speak to each other in casual conversation, she not only characterizes them as incapable of having an extensive vocabulary, but also putting the burden on their shoulders that students at UWM have a bad reputation because of one word that they use.

First of all, as someone who's been teaching at UWM for nearly five years, I (as well as anyone who has taught a composition course, or any course that requires an intensive amount of writing) have seen all kinds of students from various backgrounds who have used colloquial language to write formal papers, not to mention misspelled words and incorrect grammar.

This fact alone dispels any notion that low-income black students at UWM (let's just call it like we see it) have a monopoly on the "improper use of the English language." I wonder if this writer or anyone else dedicates time during the UWM Post staff meetings to see if any of their colleagues have incorporated any kind of word improperly and chastise them for doing so, or if they use terms or express ideas that are far more offensive than the use of "conversate," or placing hyphens where they aren't necessary (i.e. "pet-peeve").

Also, in terms of making students the scapegoat for why people have such a disparaging perception of the larger student body at UWM, this too is also problematic for a number of reasons.

First, using words such as "conversate" is not the reason why UWM students have a bad reputation on the East Side where, of the small percentage that attend this university, very few black students live.

Perhaps it has more so to do with words that reflect racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes, a vocabulary that I don't think "conversate" would fit into, as well as public drunkenness and lewd behavior.

Speaking of which, would the writer of this editorial place a similar blame of the school's tarnished reputation on the number of students who roam up and down Downer, Maryland, Oakland and North avenues intoxicated and engaging in all kinds of inappropriate and destructive behavior for all to see?

But to directly address the racial aspects of this editorial, the tone of the writer confirms for many an indifferent and uninviting attitude that people have attributed this university of having toward people of color enrolled here. Ever since I was an undergraduate here in the fall of 1995, there has been a declining number of students of color.

There have been countless organizations and resource centers (i.e. Crosspulse Journal, Academic Opportunity Center) who have made similar observations, and have the statistics to prove it.

If we want to talk about increasing the reputation of this university, I, personally, would find a newspaper editorial demonizing a particular demographic far more damaging than the words people use in casual conversation publicly.

Donte McFadden

Department of Africology instructor; adviser, McNair/CIC/SRE Program

> Comments