To the Daily:
The juxtaposition of Isa Kasoga's ("Conservative arguments show fear," 2/5/98) and David Burden's ("'U' admissions are unfair to non-minority students," 2/5/98) letters was an illustration of the difference between reasons and explanations.
The distinction between these concepts is important. Kasoga claims that the explanation of anti-affirmative action opinions (e.g. "amorphous moral arguments") is that losing privileges and opportunities makes them feel bad. Although this ignores minority members who are against affirmative action, I agree with his point. Abstract arguments are usually constructed after the fact to justify strong feelings, but rarely cause them. Burden made a similar observation about people who feel slighted by "the system."
What isn't acknowledged in Kasoga's letter is that the same is true of pro-affirmative action arguments. White hegemony and the history of oppression may be good justifications for affirmative action, but when someone is pro-affirmative action, the reason has to do with how it makes them feel when minorities are denied opportunities that are given to less-qualified white people.
I am not saying that abstract explanations for or against affirmative action are not relevant to policy and legislative decisions. But if your goal is to convince people and get them to feel the way you do, you need to address their reasons and not their explanations.
Legislative and policy decisions should always take into consideration multiple factors, even explanations. But if you want people to agree with your stance, the question to discuss is this: When is it justifiable for one person to feel good at the expense of another? Is it OK if you feel good at my expense because other people have felt bad at your expense? Just because you have felt bad, does that mean that it is justified for me to have the same experience?
Different people will answer these questions differently - don't assume you know my answers to these questions. I am simply pointing out that feelings are the reasons behind opinions on this issue, and these should be addressed directly when you are trying to change someone's opinion.
Greg Stevens
Rackham
To the Daily:
I am writing in response to Eric Moutz's letter ("Humor Is Needed When Facing Life," 2/4/98). Camille Noe was not suggesting that Berenson's "Bear Bones" be stopped. Berenson can preach sexism and write as many editorials as he chooses. Noe was simply pointing out the Daily's poor choice of cartoonists. I don't think we would approve of a daily white supremacist column. And I do not believe Noe meant to compare Berenson to a Nazi. Rather, she was pointing out the powerful influence of daily cartoons on society. The Daily's decision to run a sexist cartoon constantly reinforces negative stereotypes about women.
Casey Hoye
LSA junior
To the Daily:
I graduated from the U of M and moved to the mountains of Colorado. One of the things I never missed from my college days is the miserable editorials of The Michigan Daily. I just found the Daily's Website and was impressed how, though life has changed considerably since 1988, the bias of the paper has remained steadfast. I can only imagine how the Daily has managed to ignore reality all this time. Though my bookmarks file is pages long, the Daily doesn't cut it. I'll check back in 10 years.
Loren Siebert
University alumnus
To the Daily:
As a member of ENACT, one of the environmental action groups here at the University, I am writing to make people aware of the threat imposed on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by oil companies. The 125 miles of coastline that is a part of the refuge is the last untouched stretch of the U.S. Arctic Coastal Plain. According to the U.S. Department of Interior, there is an 81-percent chance that there will be no recoverable oil found in the refuge. If oil is in fact discovered, it is estimated to be only 3.2 billion barrels - enough to fill America's energy demands for a mere 200 days. If this beautiful land is drilled for oil and tapped dry, where will oil companies go next? Plundering a national treasure for small potatoes is no way to meet America's long-term energy needs.
Drilling for oil will completely destroy this pristine ecosystem and will result in a significant drop in the numbers of caribou, musk oxen, grizzlies, polar bears, wolverines and snow geese that thrive on the coastal plain. The numbers and migration routes of the porcupine caribou herd will be seriously affected. The Gwich'in are a native people who have lived in the Wildlife Refuge for hundreds of generations and depend upon the porcupine caribou herd for their survival. If these animals are displaced or killed, the lives of the Gwich'in will be threatened. What is at stake is a way of life thousands of years old - all for a possible 200 days of oil.
Destroying the refuge would bring tragedy. Why explore and develop this land without pursuing other oil-saving energy strategies? Raising automobile efficiency standards, developing alcohol fuels, building better mass transit and encouraging alternative sources of energy are just some of the many possible alternatives. Each of these options would reduce air pollution and global warming, save energy, increase national security and boost the nation's economy. If these solutions are not plausible or sensible, then we must come up with solutions that are.
Why does our society have a need to develop every inch of our country without thinking of the repercussions? I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness - not overcrowded cities bursting with technology and flooded by melting ice caps. At the rate we are using up resources, we will run out of oil and gas in 50 years. I ask everyone to write to their senators and representatives and tell them your opinions on the environment. The Earth will survive long after we are gone, but how soon will that be?
Elizabeth Stromberg
School of Art
To the Daily:
It seems that some students and alumni are irritated with some of the Daily's spelling errors over the past few weeks. Well, the Daily is in good company. The whole University seems to be spelling just as badly.
In the national classified employment advertisements for the Feb. 8 edition of The New York Times, there is an ad for the Executive Director of M-CARE. In it, University is spelled both "Unviersity" and "Universitdy." Also, "along" is spelled "alog." This advertisement was in a prime location for all to see the errors.
Apparently, spelling is a University-wide problem. I simply encourage the Daily to lead the charge for proper spelling and the use of spell checking. Good luck!
Jed Christiansen
Engineering junior
02-16-98
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |