Dallas police wrongly ticketed at least 39 drivers for being "non-English speaking drivers" over the last three years.

These cases were discovered after Ernestina Mondragon was pulled over for making an illegal U-turn-but instead of just being ticketed her for this offense, Mondragon was fined $204 for being a "non-English speaking driver." Mondragon challenged the charge in court, and it was dropped.

The Threefold Advocate believes that these cases are a troubling reminder of ignorance and racism that is still alive and well in many places.

For one thing, there is no law that makes it a crime to drive a car if one does not speak English. The only thing at all close is a federal statute regarding commercial drivers, but this is a statute that Dallas does not even enforce. In any case, these were not incidents of commercial drivers anyway.

It is disconcerting when those who are supposed to be enforcing the law and upholding justice do not correctly know the law and improvise based on personal opinions. This was no isolated incident either. These citations for non-English speaking drivers were issued in several different patrol divisions by at least six different officers.

What these police officers did was discriminate on the basis of language ability, and they specifically targeted Hispanics, who represent a growing population in the United States, including Dallas.

There is absolutely no reason that people should be fined because they speak Spanish and not English. The United States has no official language. The U.S. also needs to respect the dignity of all and uphold justice for everyone, including minorities.

A growing population of Spanish speakers in the United States adds to the country's diversity, and it should be seen as a strength, not a weakness, especially in an increasingly global world.

While we commend Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle for denouncing the citations, refunding all fines that had been paid and promising to investigate all officers involved in the cases for dereliction of duty, we question why these injustices even happened in the first place.

Speaking Spanish is not a crime. We need to maintain justice for everyone, including those who speak Spanish. Hablar espa–ol no es un delito. Necesitamos mantener la justicia para todos, incluyendo los que hablan espa–ol.

The Threefold Advocate would like to address the issue of professors and professionalism both inside and outside of the classroom.

As students pay to come to JBU, professors are essentially the employees of the student body and, as such, are expected to maintain a balanced, professional relationship with them.

In the wake of certain behaviors that have been observed in classrooms across campus that violate this expectation, the Advocate would like to offer professors a few helpful tips that it believes will not only clarify our stance on the issue but help keep professors behind the line that is professionalism.

1. A professor's job is to teach and mentor students, not be their friend.

We realize that there are situations in which professors maintain friendly relationships with students. This could include being on a first-name basis or even inviting them over for dinner. However, this type of situation is an exception rather than a rule.

Having relationships with students is healthy, but professors are still in a position of authority. Professors should not compromise that position by crossing the line and becoming too close to students.

2. Part of being a professional means setting aside personal views and biases and remaining as objective as possible.

As professionals, professors must keep a certain level of objectivity.

Too many times personal beliefs and worldviews are pushed upon students in class. Students appreciate that professors care enough to share, but using an entire 50-minute period to tell students how their views are unfounded and possibly wrong crosses a line somewhere.

Students can go to church to get a sermon, so keep the preaching to a minimum.

Also, as objective professionals, professors are expected to leave personal biases at the classroom door. On a diverse campus like JBU, it would be easy to accidentally offend any one of the students in a class simply by making a stereotypical comment or singling a student out in class.

Students do not care that professors have a sister who married interracially or a friend who dyed his hair bright orange - comments regarding race, sexual orientation, intelligence, ethnicity, background, height, appearance or even choice of major are completely unacceptable.

The Advocate does not expect professors to be politically correct 100 percent of the time, but it certainly expects them to try. As a professor, if you are unsure of a comment before you say it, don't say it at all.

3. Don't get too personal.

Students understand that professors are human beings and that they have bad days and that situations arise. However, personal information shared in class or with students who do not specifically inquire should be kept to a minimum and, even then, kept at a professional level.

A cute story about a professor's child that relates to the class is harmless. Hearing all the gory details about the illness a professor just recovered from is taking it too far.

Personal information should remain just that: personal.

However, as employees of the University and employees of the students, there are certain guidelines and rules that professors must uphold.

We feel that the essence behind the idea of professionalism has been altered and ask that the professors who do not fully understand this idea get a dictionary and look it up.

Students pay $25,756 per year to attend John Brown University. The Advocate believes they deserve a little professionalism.

In the October 29, 2009, issue of the Threefold Advocate (Issue 7), Hannah Jeppsen wrote the column "High time for latest hate law." In it, she claimed that President Obama's signing of the Hate Crimes Law was actually a good thing. She argued that this law would help protect women and people with disabilities, such as her sister.

I can completely understand wanting to be protected by the law, and I can sincerely applaud the noble desire to protect one's sister. The hate crimes law, though, is not a good way to accomplish this.

I would ask Miss Jeppsen, and all other readers of the Advocate, to consider the following hypothetical scenario in which two women are raped. Suppose then that one of the victims was chosen because she was, for example, an outspoken lesbian. Suppose the other just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I dare you to tell the family of the second woman, to their faces, that the crime against her was in any way, shape or form less horrible than the crime against the first person. And yet you are in favor of a law that would discriminate between the two victims based solely on the motivations of the perpetrators?

I firmly believe that all people should be equally protected under the law, regardless of their minority status or any lack thereof. That all are created equal and deserve equal status under the law. That any law which provides more protection to victims of so-called hate crimes, than to other victims of the same actual crimes is unconstitutional, immoral and just another form of the discrimination that has been plaguing this country since before it was founded.

David Penner

Junior

Cuiab‡, Brazil