Letters to the Editor

Chappelle's routine was not 'tasteful'

To the Daily:

In response to Dave Chappelle's performance on Sept. 21 and the Daily's Sept. 22 review ("Chappelle and Breuer light up joints, Hill"), we would like to state the following: We went to the show. We went on the pretense that the show's focus was marijuana, hence the title, "Completely Baked." Jim Breur succeeded in entertaining us with comedy about weed and being completely baked. We couldn't stop laughing throughout his routine. And then, Dave Chappelle.

His performance was less than desirable and tasteful. As women we were offended. We would have rather spent our $10 on a dime bag than sit and listen to Chappelle talk about "titty bars" and his opinions on oral sex. As women at the University, we don't need to be reminded of prejudices we encounter on a daily basis. You didn't have to be a "feminist" to be insulted and degraded by his performance. All you had to be was an active listener.

We enjoy comedy. We love to laugh. But sitting through a half an hour of pointless commentary about Chappelle's Saturday nights was vulgar enough to lose our respect for him as a comedian. So thank you, Jim Breur. You were genuinely comedic. But as for you Dave Chappelle, your abrasive comedy was directed towards gender-bashing, among other things. So no Dave, we will not suck your c*ck (as you put it). And it is not because we're "feminists," that issue is irrelevant here. It's because you don't have the power you think you have. The next time you want to give yourself pleasure, you have the power to do it yourself. If you smoke with your right hand, do it with your left. But leave us out of it.

Kelli Frame

LSA sophomore Lanni Lantto LSA junior

Confederate flag opponents need a history lesson

To the Daily:

The Daily's editorial staff needs a history lesson on the Confederate flag ("Take it down" 9/21/00). The civil war was not fought over slavery - most of the confederate soldiers did not even own slaves. It was fought over state's rights. President Lincoln did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation because he felt badly for the slaves in the south, but because he needed the backing of the black population of the United States at the time to increase his potential number of draftees and voters. The Confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery, but is wrongly believed to be so by those who refuse to learn about our nation's past. Furthermore, not every person who owns a confederate flag (this is actually not the Confederate flag but one of many that was used by the confederacy during the war) is a proponent of racism. To say, "more often than not, the allusion to racism is the intended purpose of such a display" in reference to displaying the Confederate flag is both unfounded and untrue. I suggest you take a class on American history and stop listening to people who are ignorant to the truth of the past. The confederate flag is not a sister of the Nazi flag. And as long as the Daily's complaining about racist flags, wasn't the United States of America founded by slave owners, racists and bigots? I don't hear you complaining about any state capital flying the American flag. Maybe we'd be best off to learn about our past and show respect for people who were fighting for their rights, and not slavery, as you and many others want to think.

Frederick Dery

LSA senior

Quandary of the straight white male

To the Daily:

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the respondents to this whole Men's Health issue have all been female? Hearing them tell me that this campus is not anti-male is about as reassuring as a 1950's (all-white) Alabama school board assuring black families that their schools are all pro-black.

They cite the number of male professors, the emphasis on sports, etc. to make their case for the continued "dominance" of male goals on campus. What they don't cite is the attitude inherent in their letters - an attitude which perfectly supports the claims made in the Men's Health article.

This attitude to which I refer creates (what I like to call) the Quandary of the Straight White Male. Let me explain: You see, virtually any minority group who has a beef with society, the "system," or life in general can state their grievance and the world stops to take notice (such is life in our present-day PC society). However, if John Q. Whiteguy has a complaint about the way things are going, he is told to "stop crying" (as in Emily Achenbaum's column "Men's Health says boys cry at 'U.' Need a tissue?" 9/18/00), and berated in letters for not being able to "take it" ("U is pro woman, not anti-male" Erin Hartl 9/14/00), or flat out called names ("Frankenstein,", in "Campus is not anti-male" Audrey Jackson 9/19/00").

If I (admittedly a Straight White Guy) were to tell a black or gay victim of discrimination to "quit crying and take it," I would be ostracized off of the campus - if not chased. However, because white males (and yes, I understand the article refers to males in general, but bear with me) are somehow viewed as still being the "oppressors," it is all right to take pot shots at us and assume that our success in life is already pre-determined. Well, I've got news for you: It is not.

To assume that white males, as a rule, have it easier than everyone else is a a stereotype. I hate to break it to you, but neither myself nor 90 percent of the other white guys out there have ever racially oppressed someone or done their part to perpetuate any kind of glass ceiling, and my success in life is far from assured. Funny how the people who like to perpetuate this stereotype tend to be the very same people who protest loudly whenever someone tries to perpetuate a stereotype against their ethnic, gender, or other minority. If they try to redress their own stereotype, they are redressing a societal evil. If I try to redress one against me, I am merely whining. And women complain about a double standard ...

Merely being liberal does not make you as open minded as you might think.

Jim Knapp

LSA senior

Intersection raised concerns not heard

To the Daily:

I absolutely agree with Douglas Jewett's Sept. 18th letter concerning the hazardous intersection of Catherine and Glen Streets. I have crossed there to the Glen Street Parking structure for 5 years and each time I cross I feel I am taking my life in my hands, even in perfect weather conditions. Because the concept of "yielding to pedestrians" is a completely foreign concept to most Michigan drivers we, the pedestrians, "play chicken" each day with cars who feel they've got the green light, what are we doing in the crosswalk?" Many people in our area have similar stories of nearly being hit crossing that intersection.

Recently, there were some folks at the intersection studying the situation. I was glad to see them there and I spoke with one of them and expressed my many concerns about the design of the intersection - the two turning lanes, the downhill slope, the ineffectiveness of the Yield to Pedestrian signs. "It's an accident waiting to happen." I concluded. The fellow's comment was "use the overpass."

We who work on the Medical Campus are completely heartbroken our concerns were not heard before the tragic accident that took the life of Janis Marchyok.

Sarah Wiener

General surgery