Brian Eller’s April 11 column on racial profiling makes several absurd statements regarding the recent port controversy. Specifically, he refers to “the President’s port deal” in which “the president offered to hand over security of our ports.” What is the basis for this remark? After all, the White House’s position is that Bush was unaware of the deal until after it had already been finalized.

In fact, Mr. Eller fundamentally misunderstands the controversy. Nothing was “offered” at all. The issue was DP World’s acquisition of the British company that is currently managing the ports in question.

Furthermore, Mr. Eller’s description of DP World as “a company based out of the United Arab Emirates” is simplistic, even for the scope of his article. Being “based out of” a country is very different from being “wholly owned and operated by the hereditary monarchy of” a country, which is the case with DP World. Obviously, having a foreign government, Arab or otherwise, managing strategic access points raises long-term security issues beyond terrorism.

Finally, Mr. Eller implies that Democrats scuttled the deal with their “hypocrisy” when 70 percent of Republicans in Congress opposed it as well, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

I would suggest that Mr. Eller actually read about a topic before he tries to contort it into the most bizarre argument in favor of racial profiling I have ever seen.

Jerry Fan

Architecture sophomore

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.