Student Debate: Indian gaming, good or bad?

Wednesday, September 28, 2005  

Is Indian gaming good for the state of New York? Two students at Syracuse University take opposing sides in the debate.

Robert Tumas, a junior in English and textual studies major, says tribes should be allowed to make their own decisions. "American Indians have the highest unemployment rate and the lowest life expectancy in the country, and conditions on reservations are compared to Third World nations. Remember, although a sovereign nation pays no taxes, it also gets no help from the government, such as welfare and Social Security," he writes. "Opening casinos on their land has improved these conditions and created more jobs and economic growth for Indian nations. Our founding fathers did spend close to a century trying to eradicate the natives of this great country; I think the least we can do is let American Indians gamble."

Drew Bland, a junior in political science, policy studies and economics, doesn't trust tribes with their "monopoly" and says Indian gaming is racially discriminatory. "II use the term "monopoly" because any New Yorker who is not an American Indian cannot open the same type of business," he writes. "Indian tribes get to transcend the law and do something white, black and Hispanic people can't do. In its 2004 economic impact report, The National Indian Gaming Association called it 'the Native American success story.'"

Get the Story:
Robert Tumas: No threat from casino owners (The Daily Orange 9/28)
Drew Bland: Tribes unfairly control casinos (The Daily Orange 9/28)