Much to the chagrin of liberal academia, this nation has determined that guaranteed healthcare for all citizens should not be an undertaking of the national government, nor do they mandate that each employer must provide certain benefits. Like many industries, the state has determined that the private sector can accomplish the task of healthcare with far greater efficiency and coverage.

This is not to say that the cost of private healthcare is any smaller than the government price tag would be; payment instead comes from personal accounts rather than another large tax scheme.

However, the state has decided it should fund health coverage for groups that have no disposable income to spend, principally senior citizens through Medicare and impoverished children through Medicaid.

With those thoughts as a background, let us return to Wake Forest. Over the past two semesters, there has been an increasing tide of healthcare awareness: first in reference to professors' contracts, and now applicable to all faculty and staff. Two weeks ago, the mobilization of the lobby rose quite substantially with the appearance of 'Pro Humanitate?' signs throughout the academic buildings. This publication has dedicated several articles to the debate, and six seniors submitted a letter last week.

I can honestly say I know very little about the current healthcare plan that covers the employees of this university. I do not know the provider, what health problems are covered or the range of doctors that participate.

I gathered from the seniors' letter last week that all employees are covered by the same plan, regardless of occupation here on campus. Please keep this in mind as you continue.

Because of my ignorance on the issue, I was confused by the message the 'Pro Humanitate?' signs were trying to send. My first impression upon noticing the sign indicating that each employee pays each month was one of fairness. If each employee is receiving the same coverage and benefits from that monthly sum, the current program seems well designed. Only if the services vary from group to group does the designated plan seem preposterous. Furthermore, I was also shocked at the comparatively low monthly payment ¯ many student families here, including mine, pay upwards of per month for their coverage.

The second sign I saw was propaganda at its best. Listing several comparable universities' lower monthly payments, the sign made Wake Forest stand out as the anomaly. Though I realize flyers have limited space, it is appropriate to approach such a complex issue with more than just monthly numbers. An accurate judgment would include the benefits received at each school of differing payment levels, then measuring the proportional value of the services provided for the amount spent. Another reliable indicator would be the total per capita amount each university spends on employee healthcare.

Most of us would agree that a slightly higher expense correlating to increased coverage is worth the cost. Taking these numbers out of context is distortion and adding unneeded fuel to an already hot fire.

The third sign, indicating the number of full-time employees without healthcare, I cannot argue against. Something must be done to rectify this situation. However, I take strong exception to the language in which the debate was phrased by the seniors' signing last week's letter. Yes, the university community has the right to find out the salaries of those employees without healthcare and the reasons behind their lack of coverage. However, to carry this debate onto the ethnic battleground as well would be to forget the real issue on trial.

Nothing will be accomplished by the "politics of division," to quote Shelby Steele. Calling attention to this possible problem was a huge first step; thankfully some students on this campus have escaped the plague of apathy. However, solutions will never be reached by pitting the university against its own employees and students ¯ a trust must be fostered between all parties involved.

I highly doubt that the current policy was malicious or designed to uphold certain biases. We must all remember that healthcare in this country is a privilege, not a right. Perhaps we should move toward making it so, but that argument is for another day. We have a problem with healthcare right here, right now. Let us use the knowledge we have to the best of our ability, instead of spreading useless propaganda that only clouds the true issue at stake.