A person calling herself/himself “Martha” posted an online reply to “Remembering Acevedo” (April 28) saying that she/he meant “no offense,” but “there’s no point in praising somebody paid from ALL STUDENTS’ money becoming the ‘advocate’ of CERTAIN STUDENTS, based on extrinsic, non-academic factors.”

Here are my responses.

I wonder why “Martha” limits her/his potential audience to the relatively small number, like me, who read the unpublished, anonymous e-replies to the daily letters.

It’s disrespectful, not to say shocking, for somebody to use the occasion of Cathy Acevedo’s untimely death to criticize the University for using “ALL STUDENTS’ money” to become “the ‘advocate’ of CERTAIN STUDENTS, based on extrinsic, non-academic factors.”

Since when is implementing diversity on campus an “extrinsic, non-academic” factor, and since when is it reprehensible for the University to use the resources of all its students in order to advocate for diversity of every kind for every student on its campus, and which benefits the entire academic community?

I worked with Cathy, I admired Cathy, I respected Cathy, and I liked Cathy. She deserves much better than having her life’s work sullied in this callous manner by someone without the courage even to identify herself/himself.

Requiescat in pacem, Dear Cathy.

Chana Bursztyn

University Employee