To the Daily:
How brilliant! The mass extermination of women in the service of creating a master race of men! I can see now, Dror Baron, the error of my ways ("Pfeffer's letter did not help women," 11/9/98). I cannot imagine why it was that I originally targeted issues such as wage disparity, violence against women and the unequal distribution of power in society as the backbone of gender inequality. Admittedly, these are not real issues at all. I am ashamed of my letter and realize now that my beliefs parallel those of Hitler's (which is, of course, what Baron was truly trying to make clear to that damn feminist I used to be). If after reading my letter, dearest Mr. Baron, you have surmised that what I really want is a society of men and the systematic annihilation of personal choice, you must have a deeper insight than my own. I agree with your implicit assumption that men cannot and will not change and so we should simply create a homogeneous society. Although I do have some deep fears about the insecurities that such a society will provoke within the darkest and deepest recesses of his psyche.
But really, let's get down to it. I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony (read: Dror Baron) can process my point. Choice is relative and informed by gender (as well as race, class, sexual orientation and ability). It is not my choice to be paid less than men, raped, battered or overlooked as a viable presidential candidate. I do not, nor have I ever, felt that the solution to this lack of choice and opportunity is to "become" men. This, of course, is a sophomoric "solution" to a global and timeless problem. I do not understand the logic that asserts that those who wish to create opportunity and greater choice for women are actually out to minimize choice. These are the assertions of the ignorant and privileged. I guess it just boils down to the question, Baron, of which one of these groups are you? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both."
Carla Pfeffer
LSA senior
To the Daily:
The Daily's editorial "Plagued by the past" (11/6/98) is only the latest example of the Daily's ineptness. Besides being in direct conflict with the Daily's stance on freedom of information, the editorial was filled with misconceptions and empty arguments.
The confidentiality laws surrounding adoption were created for the adopting parents whose insecurities about their own shortcomings have led to the continued pain and anguish of adoptees. These people who either didn't want or couldn't have children of their own are the only socially accepted remnants of slave trading in the United States. The ability of an adoptee to find their biological parents is important not only in medical emergencies, but also for their day-to-day mental health. Adoption is one of the most traumatic events that can happen to a child, and it has been shown to adversely affect the adoptee throughout their life. Many grow up believing they were unwanted and develop difficulties maintaining relationships. I can say from personal experience that finding one's birth parents can go a long way in resolving those issues.
There is absolutely no valid reason to keep adoption records confidential after the child turns 18, when the duties of the adopting parents are, in the eyes of the law, over. Just because some unfit parents don't want their child to know they exist is not a good reason to keep other parents from being able to contact their child. And to argue that this loss of confidentiality eliminates adoption as an option for young unwed mothers is absurd. It only means they don't get a clean slate, that they might actually have to take responsibility for their actions, god forbid. In conclusion, if the Daily is going to argue that laws should be enacted to save a few people from embarrassment then it should discontinue reporting anything that might be construed as embarrassing so that everyone can "close those chapters" of their lives and we can all live happily ignorant.
Cameron Chappell
Engineering junior
To the Daily:
Susan Port's article in the Daily on Oct. 5 ("LSA-SG against administration on Fleming move") was a misrepresentation of what transpired in the government's meeting on Nov. 3. While it is true that LSA-SG is taking a stand on this issue, the article is incorrect in two important ways.
Port writes, "for the first time in recent years, members of the Literature, Science and the Arts Student Government are publicly expressing opposition to the University administration's actions." The Student Government has and will always be committed to the voicing student concerns regardless if they are in opposition of the administration. We have worked hard to advocate for academic change and have succeeded in our attempts to rectify some student concerns. This is not the first time we have taken a stance - nor will it be the last.
The Government is very concerned with the issues that the move poses, such as the relocation of student services into temporary housing. We do see the move to temporary housing as potentially resulting in a diminished quality of advising given to students because of the lack of privacy and inadequate room and resources. We also recognize that the relocation of Honors as well as the Registrar's Office will temporarily inconvenience some students. We are committed to working with the administration to ensure that LSA students are not adversely affected by these changes.
While it is important that students know what their student government is doing through Daily coverage, I do want to voice my concern about this prematurely written article.
Sangeeta Bhatia
LSA senior LSA Student Government President
To the Daily:
We live in an age of stereotypes. Now, however, it's not just enough to stereotype based on race, religion, gender and age, we must also have stereotypes based on our geographic origin. Such is the conclusion of Ken Galica's letter ("Michiganders should leave the 'U,'" 11/5/98) concerning the arrogance of New Yorkers. Ken, I hate to clue you in, but it's not like Michigan residents are that much less snotty and high-falutin'. Just witness the obnoxious female undergrad, late for class and desperate for a parking spot, honking up a storm behind me in her Range Rover because I refuse to mow down the helpless pedestrians who are crossing the street in front of me by the Modern Language Building. Guess what? She had Michigan plates. Is that what you call friendly? I think not. Snotty? I think so.
I could cite kids from New Jersey as examples too, but my Dad owns stock in Nissan and I wouldn't want to upset the consumer group responsible for buying half the Pathfinders made in the United States. (Hey, Michigan winters are rough, I know you guys and girls need four wheel drive to get to class!) The point being, this type of arrogant behavior is pervasive and not just a product of one geographic region. Arrogant students here are more the result of them having parents who felt that buying them nice stuff was more important than hiring tutors to get them through remedial math classes. I would hesitate to attribute such arrogance to a specific geographical influence.
So stop giving New Yorkers a hard time. I, for one, have never owned a Jeep Grand Cherokee but am content to drive around in an old Honda Civic with New York plates. So if you want to find arrogance, why don't you try looking a little closer to home next time? I could point you to a nice Detroit suburb called West Bloomfield.
Jeff Cox
LSA senior
11-11-98
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |