To the Daily:
In the wake of yet another student death due to alcohol (Scott Krueger of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), I ask this: How many more need to die before we understand the seriousness of drinking? In the Daily's article about underage drinking ("Alcohol common for students under 21," 9/30/97), I read shocking statistics about the percentage of campus crimes and other problems that are alcohol related, yet I perceived no sign of concern from the students quoted on the matter.
I suppose that the majority of students agree that alcohol can cause problems but feel that they can be prevented by "responsible drinking." To me, this phrase sounds like an oxymoron. Once a person starts drinking, his or her judgment abates.
As an advocate of abstinence from alcohol, I realize that I am in the minority. Because of my Islamic beliefs, I can proudly say that I have never consumed a drop of alcohol and I do not feel that I am "missing out." I have fun just by being in the company of good friends. I don't need a chemical compound to induce a state of merriment and neither does anyone else!
I am writing in regard to the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary and its behavior at the hearing sponsored by state Rep. David Jaye (R-Macomb) in Shelby Twp. I want to applaud the police officers who did not hesitate to curb the rude, malicious and illegal actions of BAMN during Jaye's hearing. The members of BAMN obviously have no respect for opinions that deviate from their own. As stated in the Daily article, Jaye gave the members of BAMN an opportunity to voice their opinions. Nevertheless, the members of BAMN wanted only their opinions heard and refused to allow any useful debate or deliberation on the issue.
It is evident that BAMN, both by its name and its behavior at this hearing, is an unreasonable and militant band of fanatics with no respect for the law, other people's beliefs or the ideals that this nation holds dear. My personal belief on affirmative action is irrelevant - I believe that the University community needs to have a civil, intelligent and peaceful deliberation on this very important issue. Discussion is essential, as nobody - including BAMN - knows everything about this issue.
I also believe that the proponents and opponents of affirmative action share the same goal - to eradicate racism and ensure equal opportunity for all. Both parties disagree on the means to reach that shared goal. Thus, it is important that both groups share ideas in an intelligent manner. BAMN is counterproductive to this end and should therefore receive no further support from the University community.
I hope that supporters of affirmative action do not allow BAMN to be the sole voice supporting affirmative action, for if it continues to be so, affirmative action will certainly be abolished at the University without any productive deliberation. Groups like BAMN may make some noise and attract attention, but they do not help their causes. So, I challenge supporters of affirmative action on campus to form a legitimate, civil and open-minded group so that we can leave extremists like BAMN in the street to have temper tantrums while reasonable people solve the issue at hand.
I thought Nicholas Cotsonika's article on the University's football rivalries ("Rivals instill the pride and tradition of football spirit," 9/25/97) was a well-written exploration of one of the things that makes being a college football fan so much fun. However, while I realize that these designations are somewhat arbitrary, I disagreed with his choice that the University of Minnesota was a historical rival while the University of Illinois was not accorded this same status.
His description of Illinois' fans behavior struck a chord with me. As an Illinois undergraduate, the game on the schedule that everyone got worked up about was, of course, the U of M game. My friends and I thought that this was pretty silly, since we surmised that to U of M fans, Illinois was just another team. A pretty easily beatable one at that. In terms of current football rivalry, it is very true, Illinois is no rival to Michigan.
Illinois fans might want a rivalry because for years, Illinois has been in the shadow of U of M, both athletically and academically. When a closer look is taken, the University of Illinois is in many ways comparable to Michigan, more than some U of M supporters might appreciate.
In any case, Cotsonika's mentioning Minnesota as a historical rival, while omitting Illinois, would probably make most college football historians scratch their heads. It could be argued that the rivalry between the Wolverines and an Illinois team led by George Halas and running back Harold "Red" Grange in the 1920s was intense enough to spark the national interest in football that resulted in the success of the National Football League. (Their past rivalry is excellently described in an advertising section of this season's Sports Illustrated College Football Preview Issue.)
Cotsonika wrote that in a 1995 Michigan-Illinois game, Illinois was defeated, "by a team that had no regard for them." This kind of no-respect attitude from the Wolverines has cost Michigan games against "blow-off" teams over the past few seasons. It was also evident in a 1993 game, when the Fighting Illini came to Ann Arbor, spoiled Michigan's undefeated season and dropped them in the polls. It would take only a few similar performances for people to begin talking about the resurrection of one of college football's greatest rivalries.
To the Daily:
As an alumna of the University, I was grieved to hear of the murder of Tamara Williams on campus. I am enraged that you have given valuable space to attempts to justify her killer.
Criminals always have some excuse or explanation for their actions, some account that they give to themselves about how their crimes are justifiable. Treatment programs for batterers and sexual offenders focus on stripping away those rationalizations and helping offenders to confront the real harm done by their actions. It does not help when members of lawful society accept or condone these excuses.
Neutralizations of moral wrongs pervade American society. "Never give a sucker an even break" justifies fraud. "Don't let yourself be whipped" justifies abuse. "Sometimes you just have to defend yourself" justifies letting disputes escalate to assaults. One result of all this justification is that we have the highest rate of violence of any industrialized country in the entire world. No place else comes even close.
So, when some imply that Tamara Williams' refusal to put out sexually on demand from her abuser is some sort of justification for her homicide, it becomes part of the problem, not part of the solution. Maybe the killer thought that he was entitled to Williams' body. Maybe his friends shared this degrading belief. If the Daily's apprentice journalists are to become responsible members of the profession, you need to present such statements with appropriate counterweight from some of the many qualified sources on domestic violence available to you. Then, maybe, you will inform and not incite your readership.
10-03-97
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |