To the Daily:
The editorial staff of the Daily is shooting itself in the foot with such editorials as "Desperate measures" (11/3/97). While an editorial is a forum to express one's opinion, that opinion should be supported by a consistent, logical argument. The failure to do so not only reflects poorly on the author, it leaves his or her premise open to attack.
The author of the article begins with the sad story of Kawana Ashley, a woman who shot herself in the belly to kill her unborn child, presumably because she couldn't raise enough money to pay for an abortion. This anecdote alone might convince some that abortions should be free and plenty but the author then, in apparent defense of this belief, states that "The government must look at each issue from a more objective stance."
Were the government to look at the issue from an objective stance, the criterion would certainly not be "if the woman has a sad story, give her an abortion."
The author defies all reason by proclaiming that "The federal government must stop putting low-income women's lives in peril (by not offering Medicaid-free abortions)." The implication is that the government is killing poor women by not providing free abortions. Using this logic one could say that the Daily's editorial staff is killing poor women by not providing free abortions. Or that the government is killing poor men by not providing free sport utility vehicles (the fatality rate of Kia Sephia owners is much higher than that of GMC Suburban owners).
While there certainly exist arguments in favor of Medicaid-funded abortions, one wouldn't know it by reading this article. The author might think about doing his or her cause a favor - leave the writing to someone else.
Sam Huffman
Engineering senior
To the Daily:
I want to thank the Daily for the continual coverage of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary and the National Women's Rights Organizing Coalition, but I especially want to thank the group members for working so hard to entertain me. Every day, I read through each page of the Daily, the Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News, hoping and praying (is that still allowed under the Code?) that BAMN made the news. It is comedy of the highest order. Where else can you find rabid college students ridiculing themselves by using insane and barbaric "protest methods."
BAMN? I guess NWROC didn't seem tough enough. I understand because in elementary school, my lil' gang changed its name from the "Goonies" to the "Monster Squad" to sound tougher, too. I wouldn't expect anything more from the lil' terrorists of BAMN.
I was going to write that BAMN is an embarrassment to the University, but they aren't. More than 10 students would have to be involved for the group to be a reflection of the school. My misguided - but lovable - roommate suggested that the organization simply has passion. Mob thugs share that same sort of passion when they are using the same Gestapo tactics that BAMN is so proud of. However, to their credit, no one from BAMN has broken anybody's leg. Yet.
Although the Daily is providing fantastic play-by-play, I still can't figure out the exact positions of BAMN or NWROC. They demand their First Amendment rights to have their voice heard at public meetings, right? If so, the First Amendment must only apply to their members because they drown out all opposing voices with violence and profanity. It doesn't matter if their position on affirmative action is right or wrong (though it is wrong), because their plan of action is wrong. No one can get their way through intimidation or force. This said, the many intelligent people who support affirmative action cannot support BAMN because their actions are ludicrously stupid.
In closing, I want to say that BAMN has two options for the future. Either they can continue to entertain me and make a mockery of their cause or they can behave like civilized people. Personally, I'm hoping that they get their own TV show, but either way, I know that the Daily will continue the great coverage.
Lance Roberts
LSA junior
To the Daily:
Cara Spindler, in her review of "How the Mind Works" ("Author Pinker explores 'Mind,'" 10/24/97), has illustrated a few commonly held misconceptions about the field of cognitive neuroscience. In her politically correct skepticism of Steven Pinker's ideas, Spindler has missed the boat on what in fact "the mind" that Pinker discusses actually is. In his treatment of the brain as a modular structure, Pinker does not focus on the precise function and interaction of neurological structures of the brain. Instead, he illustrates the computational theory of mind by observing that, unlike the structure of a computer or microchip, the structure of the brain does not intuitively suggest a modularity of design. Thus, Pinker arrives at a functional methodology - reverse engineering.
In his dissection of human behavior from the perspective of reverse engineering, Pinker necessarily assumes the existence of evolution by natural selection. He does not, however, idealize the implicit 'nature' in natural selection. In fact, he refutes what he terms the "naturalistic fallacy" and affirms that just because evolution by natural selection may have given rise to particular traits or tendencies, 'nature' should not be thought of as good or bad. The frequent misinterpretation of this and other similar arguments proves only one thing: Nature is not always politically correct.
Since evolution requires that organisms reproduce, a byproduct of the discussion of evolutionary theory as it pertains to humans is the discussion of human sexuality. In today's political climate, any talk of biological determinism in sex roles is taboo. Spindler is obviously sensitive to this taboo since much of her critique of Pinker's book entails a cynical and disjointed synopsis of the argument surrounding each mention of testicles or promiscuity.
Ironically, the very reason that ideas such as evolutionarily derived promiscuity sound so farfetched is because genes have such a minimal influence on behavior. In order to influence natural selection, all that a gene would need to do would be to make it a tiny bit more likely for a chimp or a gorilla or a human to exhibit a particular trait over a few million years. Thus, the idea that sex roles or personality characteristics are biologically determined is only true to the smallest extent.
All political discussion aside, it was certainly not Pinker's intention to write a manifesto on sex roles. I believe that everyone ought to read "How the Mind Works" simply because it is a brilliant, witty and insightful perspective on the interdisciplinary field of cognitive science, and it offers insight into something nearly as fascinating: how Steven Pinker's mind works.
Matt Murphy
LSA junior
To the Daily:
I just read the "Fall Outlook" in the Daily and noted with amazement that GSIs are earning $900 a week! ("GSIs juggle teaching responsibilities, homework," 10/23/97) Unless the salaries have skyrocketed since I last taught, the article should have stated that $900 a month is the typical GSI salary.
Amy Wrzesniewski
Rackham
11-07-97
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |