Letters to the Editor

Drinking age should not be lowered

To the Daily:

In response to the editorial on binge drinking ("Enough is enough, " 11/21/00), I must disagree with the statement asserted that lowering the drinking age would encourage less binge drinking. By lowering the drinking age, we would only be shifting the bingeing problem to a younger age. Additionally, the serious and deadly disease of alcoholism would not be affected by the age change. Allowing younger people to drink will not automatically increase knowledge and awareness of the health issues of drinking. Only informative and meaningful health education will increase knowledge and effect change in behaviors.

Unfortunately, we live in a reactive society in which issues such as binge drinking must arrive at a crisis state before important programs are supported. Messages and education are not delivered until it is too late and lives are already being lost. Education on drinking must be more than commercials, posters and letters in the mail. I do agree with the Daily's statement, "binge drinking is everyone's problem." It requires all of us - friends, classmates, resident advisors, faculty and staff - to notice and reach out to those around us who may have a drinking problem. It is our responsibility to encourage those with stress and drinking problems to seek help or be prepared to read of the death of another classmate due to alcohol.

Kim Kovalchick

School of social work

Daily shows pattern of sexism in stories

To the Daily:

I would like to register with the Daily a troubling pattern of sexism that I have seen in a college newspaper that should be the beacon of excellence in college journalism. First there was the column by Branden Sanz ("Making life just a little bit easier for men," 10/25/00) which was unveiled chauvinism - from suggesting women refrain from hairstyles that make their faces look fat, to suggesting that women "employ the Designated Ugly Fat Friend properly," it was an appalling piece.

Then the Daily's insert on pornography was out two weeks ago. While I appreciated the Daily's attempt to portray a balanced investigation into pornography, I did not appreciate you printing the "top 10 adult films of all time." This would be akin to doing a report on the "pros and cons of drinking alcohol" and then printing a "top 10 alcoholic beverages of all time" list. By printing the top 10, the Daily is endorsing pornography, when many people see it as objectifying and humiliating to women, as well as sanctioning violence and sexual assault against women. A case in point: In the No. 2 movie named, Deep Throat, Linda Lovelace was forced to perform the sexual acts on film at gunpoint by her husband/manager. Is this what the Daily should be representing?

I opened the paper a week ago and was excited for humorous mock "pleas" from each candidate as to why he should be president. I was dismayed to find unwarranted sexism, which I assume the columnists would excuse by saying that these were supposedly the words of thickheaded candidates, not the writers themselves. That doesn't fly with me. Waj Syed ("Being George W. Bush: Why I deserve to be President," 11/21/00) calling Katherine Harris a "bitch" and joking about interns who will "shut up and put out like good Southern belles are supposed to" is gratuitous, outrageous misogyny.

This kind of disrespect would not be condoned against another minority group. There has been too much silence about this incredible disrespect leveled at the women on this campus. It makes me sad that sexism is seen as funny and slips into the Daily with such startling frequency.

Brooke Dunitz-Johnson

School of social work