USC mascot is inappropriate
I uderstand people wanting to treasure their history by upholding a mascot name like the USC Gamecocks. However, most of us are progressing as humans.
The Gamecocks, regardless of how the name came to be, is a terrible name for demonstrating pride and spirit for one's school. Yes, as some have stated, Michael Vick had a barbaric idea involving dogfighting as a sport. In the same light, calling a school mascot the Gamecocks portrays a lingering shadow that the so-called sport of animal fighting is condoned by those that choose to ignore, or maybe even support, a practice that is clearly a barbaric cruelty.
People should stop going back into history as to how the name had come about, and look at the picture of what the name refers to today. Take a look at what the mascot name is demonstrating for young people to look up to now.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Voting rights not in jeopardy
A letter appearing in The Herald on Tuesday contained a number of factual inaccuracies. Voting rights do not expire, and no eligible person or group needs anyone's "permission" to vote.
The right to vote is guaranteed by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1870. This is a permanent guarantee.
The Voting Rights Act simply enforces this right. Some provisions of the Voting Rights Act are permanent, such as the ban on literacy tests that was first en- acted in 1965. Some provisions of the Act must be periodically renewed, as was most recently done in 2006. However, African-Americans' right to vote would not have "expired" if those provisions of the Voting Rights Act had not been renewed.
All eligible citizens have a permanent, constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Unfortunately, a rumor that has circulated on the Internet for several years seems to have raised unfounded fears to the contrary. This rumor is simply not true.
John T. R. Holder
Instructor, Department of Political Science