Free newspapers will not help
To the editor:
Regarding David Rogier’s plan to provide subsidized or “free” newspapers to students, there are a few simple points about economics and free choice that ought to be considered. First, students can already obtain both The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, the two newspapers mentioned in the story about Rogier’s proposal, for free. Both papers are available online. Olin Library also carries hard copies of these papers, for those who like newsprint.
One must note that if students do live in a “bubble” and are not reading these newspapers, it is not because cost or convenience is a barrier. If students are not reading the publications that Rogier, the College Democrats, and the College Republicans would like them to read, it is because they choose not to read them and consider even “free” to be too high a price to pay. If students who do not read the Times or Tribune anyway were provided with a “free” (i.e. purchased through mandatory student fees) copy, they still would not read it, and the paper would go to waste.
For this reason, Rogier’s plan to provide papers paid for by mandatory student fees will not create a campus much better informed or more worldly than Washington University already is. What Rogier’s plan will do is redistribute money from students who choose not to read The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune to students who do choose to read them. Who benefits? Not everyone, but rather only those who like the Times and the Tribune. Who loses? Those who prefer other newspapers or alternative media.
It is furthermore asinine for anyone to think that partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans represent between them the spectrum of beliefs to be found at Wash U. Most Americans, and I dare say most Wash U students, are independents who would prefer not to have either party claim to speak for them. Similarly, this campus has a great many Green Party members and Libertarians, both of whom would find objectionable the ideological biases of the Times and Tribune alike.
The only way to accommodate the diversity of opinion and belief that exists on this campus is to let students buy the newspapers and magazines that they personally choose, rather than forcing them all to subsidize the choices of a few.
Daniel McCarthy
Arts and Sciences
Graduate Student
Newspapers are free online
To the editor:
I read with interest the article in the Nov. 22 issue concerning the possible provision of free or subsidized newspapers. It is easy to agree with the wish that students were better informed and not in “a bubble.” But any student who wants to be better informed about current issues needs only access to the Internet. I have a lengthy list of news sources bookmarked-The Washington Post, The Economist, MSNBC, the BBC and the Manchester Guardian among them. Type the name of your favorite metropolitan daily into Google and my guess is you’ll find it. Interested students can easily be awash in news. For those not interested, a “free” paper is unlikely to help. Why duplicate what is already freely available, albeit electronically?
James W. Davis
Arts and Sciences
Professor of Political Science
Basketball preview ignored other sports accomplishments
To the editor:
I find it highly ironic that the Tuesday, Nov. 19 edition of Student Life leads with a story about the lack of student interest in varsity athletics, and the Friday, Nov. 22 edition doesn’t mention one word about the swim/diving meet or the volleyball national championship quarterfinals. I love our basketball teams, but show some love.
Chris Wheat
Arts and Sciences
Class of 2004
Column identified problems with condom study
To the editor:
In his editorial, Alex Fak identifies epidemiological problems in the original study on the relationship between condom use and depression. This student seems to know more than the investigators who did the study. Confounding, selection bias and many other issues account for the results found. Thanks for bringing these to everyone’s attention.
P.S. Alex, any time you want to come work for us, you are welcome!
Linda Cottler
School of Medicine
Professor of Psychiatry
Questioning Democrats
To the editor:
It seems as if Mia Eisner-Grynberg had her way, everyone would vote for the Green Party. While this is not inherently a bad thing, the underlying theme of her column titled “Democrats need to be Democrats,” was clearly to shepherd a lost flock of Democrats to the Green Party. Eisner-Grynberg’s initial tirade seemingly complimented the College Democrats at a recent debate. Notably, her entire basis of judgment was on how liberal the groups presented themselves. I am a registered Democrat and consider myself fairly liberal, especially in domestic matters, but I am not about to cast aside every bill a conservative Democrat or Republican passed because it wasn’t liberal enough for Eisner-Grynberg’s liking.
Moreover, she apparently annointed former Senator Jean Carnahan as the spokesperson of the Democratic Party. This ignores the true leaders: Senator Tom Daschle (SD) and the newly-elected super-liberal Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (CA). This not only marked the first time a woman has ever been elected to party leadership (a rather liberal achievement in itself), but she also has a very progressive track record and has stood against President Bush and the Republican Party on numerous occasions-including the haughty issue in contention: the USA Patriot Act and going to war with Iraq.
Also, while I do find myself at odds with the Bush administration on most of their proposals, bipartisan (and sometimes even tripartisan) bills are not necessarily examples of Democrats (and Independents) crumbling to mighty Republicans. Sometimes there are compromises between the two parties, which result in near-unanimous votes in favor of the proposition.
Attacks on low voter turn-out as being the fault of liberals not knowing how to cast their votes are also founded. In the Presidential primaries, there was a more liberal candidate for both parties: Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and former Senator Bill Bradley. Both men were more progressive in their views then the candidates who won their respective party’s nomination.
Ralph Nader and the Green Party are typically decent people, but questionable politicians. Cutting back on military spending, and pulling our military posts from most, if not all, foreign sites simply is not a practical strategy. Like it or not, the United States is a de facto corporation, and as such, we must protect our interests and defend our citizens domestically and abroad.
If you so chose, vote Green. But, I strongly resent Mia Eisner-Grynberg shameful attempt to convert the masses. Proselytizing has a better home in churches, synagogues, and mosques than in public political forums.
Diego Chojkier
Arts and Sciences
Class of 2005
Letter ignored cited information
To the editor:
I would like to applaud Elliot Weiss’ critique of my Nov. 1 op-ed. It was reasonable, focused, and demonstrated evidence of thought and research into the matter. Especially valuable were his more recent, updated statistics and a warning to be careful of social science studies, as they can be misleading or worthless. Everybody should follow Weiss’ example and approach the world with the same critical mind.
Compare Weiss to Rishi Rattan, and you’ll see why I wrote the op-ed in the first place. Rattan’s response is basically to say that I don’t understand anything, while offering no evidence to support his position. He can say whatever he wants, but the fact remains that WU’s own sexual assault pamphlet, which cites the relevant Missouri law (Mo. Rev. Stat 566.030, .060) disagrees with him. My original column cited this source, but Rattan saw fit to ignore it completely, responding with general, fulminating, but empty, words.
Concerning slander, publicly calling a man a rapist without a jury conviction qualifies as slander per se, an egregious form. Coincidentally, this protection of reputation also applies to “murderers” who have not yet been convicted. Our legal system holds dear the maxim “innocent until proven guilty.” Just think what happened when this was not the case. Recall the USSR, Latin American dictators, and the McCarthy era. Rattan’s comment about how a jury’s decision does not necessarily reflect reality shows his disrespect for this guiding principle. His legal philosophy is slipping down a slope toward fascism.
Speaking about fascism, Rattan is not the only one using a common fascist tool: propaganda. The word derives from a Latin phrase meaning “propagating the faith.” The majority of social justice groups on campus expect you to unquestioningly accept the validity of their claims. Few signs hung around the 40 or in Mallinckrodt display any shred of evidence in support of their case. Although I am usually sympathetic to their causes, I resist their statements because they are propaganda. The fact that some students accept these statements without one second of critical thought is disturbing.
I would like to close by chastising the many students I have heard that insult the authors of views that they disagree with. Columnists are promoting discourse for what Merissa Gerson called an “apathetic” student body. Discussion keeps important issues fresh. It takes a great deal of courage to put your opinions and credibility on the line in writing; it is easy and cowardly to speak badly about people behind their backs. If you do not respect a person on the grounds that s/he has differing opinions, then you are a bigot, according to my friends Merriam and Webster.
Roman Goldstein
Engineering
Class of 2005
Re-Rethinking Palestine
To the editor:
Palestine Solidarity Week (PSW), was met with many praises and some criticisms. Recently, the column “Rethinking Palestine” by Daniel Berkman attempted to take a critical look at PSW and Palestine. Unfortunately, many of the column ‘s claims were based upon false assumptions about the week.
Berkman began his column by asserting that “students stood last week shoulder to shoulder with the people of the Palestinian Authority.” Interestingly, not once was the PA the focus during PSW, nor was it ever mentioned, except possibly in passing. PSW was neither in support or opposition to the PA. Instead, it focused on human rights and stood in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their suffering; not with any particular political agency. Later, speculating about the week’s origins, Berkman declares it “was part of a resolution adopted by the Second National Student Conference on the Palestine Solidarity Movement”. In reality, PSW was not part of any resolution adopted by such a conference. In the next paragraph, Berkman immediately makes the jump from supporting the Palestinian cause to supporting terrorism, a convenient but false conception. Building from this, he eventually states that there is no way to distinguish between and a “good” Palestinian and a “bad” one.
The most interesting part of the column was the proclamation “One cannot simply support the Palestin-ian people without supporting the Palestinian state.” The assumption here is that there in fact is a Palestinian state-an assumption which according to the U.N. is simply false. The Palestinians do not currently have a state or hold sovereignty over their own land, and what little control they have over their lives is continually challenged by sieges, helicopter gunships, and tanks. In fact, it is precisely under this premise that Sakina was formed and PSW was held.
The Palestinian and Israeli issue is a critical one in the world today. Unfortunately, Berkman made it clear from the statements in his article that he did not attend a single one of PSW’s events. In an issue as complex and enduring as this, it is absolutely essential for each side to understand the opposing side’s position. How can the issue be debated, and how can intelligent discussion follow if one side does not know what the other believes? During PSW an opposing forum by the name of “Who is occupying Whom” was co-hosted by WSI and JSU. Sakina made it a point to announce this forum during its own events and encouraged people to attend it. This action did not represent irony. Instead it represented taking the conflict head on, listening to what the other side has to say, and understanding them as they are. More of this kind of interaction should take place on campus.
Rouhollah Rahmani
Sakina Administrative Council
Engineering
Class of 2004
How Does One Rethink Palestine?
To the editor:
After reading Daniel Berkman’s “Rethinking Palestine,” I was immediately struck by the thought, “exactly what about Palestine is there to rethink?” This question gets to the heart of Palestine Solidarity Week. Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories is one of the last remaining cases of colonial military occupation. Citizens of no country, Palestinians are subjected to an ongoing process of physical and psychological warfare committed against them. After listening one too many times to myths similar to those Berkman propogates, I find it necessary to set the record straight.
Berkman’s claims of Israel’s moral superiority are dangerous. When an Israeli soldier kills an eight-year-old holding a stone from close range (Reuters, Oct. 25), talking about the most moral army in the world seems out of place. Every human rights group that has examined Israel’s practices has documented systematic and deliberate use of violence targeted at unarmed Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces.
Israel’s actions are not solely defensive. Military occupation of foreign soil is inherently aggressive. Encouraging 400,000 settlers to live on confiscated Palestinian land is not a defensive action. Similarly, the fact that between the signing of the Oslo Accords and the beginning of the second Intifadah more than 700 Palestinian homes in the Occupied Territories were demolished by the Israeli Army’s bulldozers demonstrates the continued aggression and destructiveness of Israeli colonialism even during a period of “peace.”
Moreover, the myth of Barak’s “generous offer” of 95 percent of the land, which the Palestinians rejected, needs to be addressed. Barak never offered more than 88 percent, but the crucial issue is not territory, but control. Because, under Barak’s offer, the Palestinian areas were divided into separate cantons and Israel would have retained control of all borders, the Palestinian pseudo-state would be like a prison. In a prison, the prisoners hold 95 percent of the area-the living areas, the exercise yard, the cafeteria, etc. The prison authorities only control five percent of the space: the prison walls, the bars around the cells and the control points.
Wash U members of Sakina support the Palestinian people’s right to national sovereignty, as does international law and President Bush. Sakina in no way supports violence against civilians, whether that takes the form of individual Palestinian terrorists or Israeli state terrorism. Berkman’s suggestion that Sakina’s display of solidarity with the Palestinian people translates into support for violence is laughable, if not offensive. It also shows that the author did not take the time to actually attend Sakina’s events before denouncing them. Perhaps opponents of justice for the Palestinian people should try fostering debate instead of attempting to stifle it by defaming Sakina’s genuinely noble intentions.
Mayya Kawar
Arts and Sciences
Class of 2004
Annabelle de St. Maurice
Web Master
Alyssa Gregory
Jack Darcher
Emiliano Huet-Vaughn