The recent letter from Lydia Hearn concerning “racism” in themedia is yet another sad attempt by an instructor with a politicalaxe to grind being willing not only to smear people’s reputation,but also take that axe into the classroom. Not once does shemention that their might have been other factors leading to the onecase having been the only one to mention the race of the assailant,from different requirements based upon the type of incident, todifferent people taking down the reports, to a simple statisticalaberration given the limited sample size.

Rather, she takes this column as “concrete evidence” that eitherthe Foothill/De Anza District Police are engaged in racialprofiling (how the factual stating of race of victim/assailantbecomes racial profiling has yet to be explained) or the staff atLa Voz are deliberately trying to damage the image of minorities.Given the unmistakable political leanings of La Voz writings overthe last 10 years, this last implication was almost laughable.

The only “concrete evidence” that exists is that Hearn lackedthe professional integrity to explore other possibilities (sinceshe admitted she had no idea whether or not the reports weretranscribed verbatim) before publicly impugning the reputation oftwo groups of people.

The only “concrete evidence” that exists is that Hearn iswilling to use her classroom as a vehicle to pursue a politicalagenda with a preconceived premise in which she manufactures”evidence” rather than independently evaluates possiblealternatives. Both of these issues call into question her fitnessto be in the classroom.

Now to be fair, it is possible that this is an aberration ofHearn’s professional behavior. It is possible that she simplyreacted emotionally, without taking the time to think throughpotentialities, and that in the cold light of day, she realizes shemade a mistake.

If Hearn writes back and apologizes to both the Policedepartment and the students at La Voz for her scurrilousaccusations and insinuations, if she promises not to make herclassroom a place of political indoctrination but rather a placewhere data can be evaluated independently without preconceivedconclusions, and if she commits to taking a statistics class sothat she can learn the inherent flaws in making sweepingconclusions from an extremely small sample set, then you asstudents can feel more comfortable learning from such aninstructor.

Until that time, students should be aware that Hearn may be moreinterested in indoctrinating you rather than educating you. CaveatEmptor.

-Scott Peterson

De Anza Math Instructor