To the Daily:
I was barely able to finish reading the March 25 editorial "Well read" before I proceeded to vomit all over it. Seriously. Although I wholeheartedly agree that exposure to minority authors is important, it is unfortunate that this view was propounded in an article that can only be called a piece of editorial garbage. Ernest Hemingway, I'd like to point out, did not write "The Grapes of Wrath." John Steinbeck is the author.
Not only does the editorial author not seem to have read the works he or she is critiquing, but he or she apparently seems to have trouble constructing a grammatically correct sentence ("But many student face quite a different life."). I would also like to object to the Daily's presumption that only students from inner cities will "have a hard time relating" to the protagonists of novels like "A Farewell to Arms." I find it difficult to relate to an impotent, alcoholic newspaperman and a war veteran. Further, what does it mean to relate to a text anyway? In my experience, all it takes to read a novel, poem or play is an active imagination and intellectual curiosity, and I'm sure the Daily would not deny that these attributes transcend racial, cultural and economic boundaries.
If a student cannot write complete sentences, or doesn't know Ernest Hemingway from John Steinbeck, he or she is certainly not, in my opinion, "well read" and should spend more time actually reading works of literature instead of worrying about the canonicity of minority authors whose positions in the literary canon are by and large relatively secure in the first place.
John Leffel
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
I'd like to respond to Carrie Lewis's letter ("Hockey fans' behavior was horrible," 3/24/98) by saying that while I appreciate the fact that she has a right to her own opinion, I think the 3,000 students who see hockey games at Yost Arena as a catharsis and a way to support their school would tend to vehemently disagree. If the behavior she has issue with was isolated, I could see where she may have some legitimate grounds to take umbrage. Instead, she chose to attack the Michigan hockey fans who have worked hard to turn Yost into one of the most feared places for an opponent to come into because they know that they will face the wrath of Michigan hockey fans.
It's become a tradition, not unlike what the media refers to as the "Cameron Crazies" of Duke basketball fame. No one dares to attack them for making lewd comments toward opposing teams, but instead, they are alluded to as some of the most passionate fans in their field. Yost fans are no different. They have simply raised taunting to an art form, something that all students can choose to participate in like a well-organized support for the Wolverine icers.
My response to you Lewis is: How dare you question the manner in which fans support the University. Michigan hockey fans may never win any congeniality awards, but by the same token, ask any member of the hockey team, and they'll tell you that there is no better advantage than that which comes from playing at "the Barn" with the raucous support of fans. So before you go attacking the fans who make Yost great, remember that all sports have their good and bad sides, and both sides of the coin should be accepted if the game is to be appreciated.
Craig Barker
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
Well it seems that once again the students at the University cannot see beyond their own narrow-minded concerns. I speak in reference to Erika Alea and Julie Wellnitz's letter, "Sex offenders do not deserve a second chance" (3/19/98), in which the authors fail to consider the consequences of their opinions. Their basic opinion is that if an individual is convicted of sexual assault, time served should not be the end of their punishment. They further state that all sex offenders should be branded for life, and most horribly, they state that "sex offenders don't deserve the basic human rights we believe in here in the United States."
I will state categorically that I agree that sexual assault is a heinous crime. But one cannot go around removing peoples' rights. Our society is based upon every individual possessing certain inalienable rights. If a precedent of creating exceptions to these rights is established, then the next thing that happens is that everyone's rights will have been removed as well. It's easy to say, "Oh they're only sex offenders, they don't deserve rights," but what will happen when it's immigrants and then journalists and then it's everyone.
Remember, one of the reasons the United States has all of these "cumbersome" rights is to make sure that only the guilty are punished. I would rather 100 criminals go free than a single innocent person be convicted. It is easy to say the few should sacrifice in the name of the "greater good" until the one saying it is one of those few.
Then again, no one reading this will be one of those few, right?
David Hudyma
Engineering senior
To the Daily:
I am writing in light of a disturbing article I read in the March 25 Daily ("Candidate accused of racism").
I am disturbed not so much by Dale Winling's distasteful, immature and illogical campaign poster, but instead by what may turn into an appalling case of suppression of the most basic of First Amendment rights.
There was no threat expressed or implied in Winling's political statements. So while Winling appears insensitive to the point of being undeniably offensive to many, his conduct falls plainly in the borders of constitutional protection.
"Insensitive" is a characterization that can be at times applied to people across every racial, ethnic, political, sexually oriented and religious spectrum that one cares to examine. Unquestionably, being offensive is protected conduct in the United States.
Obviously, many students quoted in the article are legitimately upset, but to answer their calls for official sanctioning is opening the doors to divisive "witch hunters" while it simultaneously gags everyone. If the University seeks to engage in the criminal or quasi-criminal prosecution of behavior such as Winling's, I think the enemies of equality and progress have already won.
The notion of free speech for all is a bitter pill to swallow, but nobody said justice comes easily. The University should not turn down the path of suppression of expression.
Stephen Hipkiss
University alumnus
To the Daily:
The March 13 Daily included an article, "Math enthusiasts to celebrate Pi Day" from The Los Angeles Times. This article included a decimal approximation for pi of 3.1415926535. This is not technically correct, even though the 10th decimal is in fact five. Since the 11th decimal is nine (pi to 20 decimals is 3.1415926535 8979323846) the 10th decimal rounds to six, not five.
Only a very minor error, as I'm sure the Daily will appreciate. Other than that, it should keep up the good work.
Tom Strait
Engineering first-year student
04-01-98
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |