DA column misses important points

Although I understand James Zou's argument from his Oct. 20 column "Do not vote," I disagree with some of his main assertions.

First is the assertion that those who oppose Nifong are voting purely out of personal grudge and spite. I'm not saying these feeling might not be involved in people's decisions, but it is Nifong's dereliction of duty in his handling of the lacrosse case that has motivated his opposition and also produced these grudges and feelings of spite. And although I didn't watch the "60 Minutes" program, I read the transcript, and I think from it and the past six months, it is obvious that Nifong has behaved in a way unbecoming of his position.

By the way, I consider his actions-ruining the lives of three Duke students, making unsubstantiated inflammatory remarks, disregarding federal, state and local police procedural guidelines while still not owning up to his mistakes-to be a little bit more than "one sensational incident."

Secondly, the idea that a vote for Cheek is a negative vote is wrong. A vote for Cheek or the other challenger, Steve Monks (don't forget him), is a vote for change. Saying that because Cheek does not want the job makes voting for him futile is also erroneous because if Cheek win and quits immediately, the governor will have to appoint a DA, and many people have more faith in the governor choosing a competent DA than in Nifong's credibility as DA. The "Do not vote" column in the end is doing what it claims others are. It is short-changing the public by suggesting that by virtue of the supposed de-personalization of the political process, the public has two choices: vote Nifong or don't vote (a.k.a. vote Nifong).

Osagie Ighile

Trinity '09