Dear Editor:
As if the world of political punditry and commentary needed another gross-generalizer like David Brooks, but apparantly, Josh Kraushaar is intent to fill this non-existent void. Kraushaar concludes his column by stating "let's raise the discourse and debate over substance rather than style," yet the bent of his article is focused on phony assertions about liberal ire towards conservative thinkers and writers. Liberal is a loaded term and in actuality represents few of the people it is targeted against. It is easy for one such as Kraushaar to suggest that "liberals" despise President Bush becuase he "is: a Republican, Southern, straight-talking cowboy." Never mind that he is neither Southern nor a cowboy-and yes, I know damn well what it means to be Southern as I hail from Chattanooga Tennessee, aptly titled the Gateway to the South-but this comment reflects a growing trend amongst the President's supporters to move the content of the debate away from substance and into style. Nevermind that many who despise Bush do so because there is tangible evidence that he was not actually elected, or because he promised not to nation build but has done so twice (or has attempted to), or that he cuts taxes while trying to pay for a useless war, or that his No Child Left Behind act is crippling schools, or that his Faith Based Initiative is undermining the ability of many community service groups to operate because they have no religious affiliation, or that he decries activist judges when "activist judges" put him in the White House, or that he has the gall to call John Kerry soft, a purple heart winner, while he disappeared from the National Guard. In short, people hate Bush- yes, I used the word Hate- because he lies, he governs with little regard for the democratic process that is the basis of our legislative process and he openly acts without regard to many Americans and most of the world. These are all substanative issues, yet Kraushaar merely points out stylistic ones. Perhaps then, it is you Josh Kraushaar that needs to learn the difference between style and substance.
Andrew Shapiro Senior, CAS
Dear Editor:
When I opened my copy of The Eagle today, I was unpleasantly surprised to see that the editorial page featured two pieces firmly condemning legal abortion and the March for Women's Lives. While I took issue with many, if not most, of the arguments made by authors Alan Griffith and Jason Richwine, I was most disappointed in the lack of balance on this issue. I have generally found The Eagle to offer a fair and balanced view of controversial issues, and it is unfortunate that your journalism ethics are not up to their usual standard today.
As for the articles themselves, I think many of the arguments put forth are highly dubious. While I appreciate Griffith's rejection of the "coat-hanger" argument, I disagree with his position on the relevance of this aspect of the debate. Women had been having abortions for centuries before Roe v. Wade, and the conditions in which abortions were performed (and still are in areas where abortion is either illegal or unavailable) were irrefutably harmful to women's health and lives. Like prostitution and substance abuse, abortion is an integral part of society. While every effort ought to be made to reduce the number of abortions (be it via birth control efforts or a morality campaign like the one Richwine seems to suggest), it is unrealistic to think that we can prevent every single one. If the pro-life movement wants to reduce the number of abortions in this country, it ought to do one of two things. It can either promote responsible birth control practices, or it can educate people about the only anti-abortion argument that I can personally respect: the idea that life begins at conception. I do not share this view, and I do believe that a ban on abortion would infringe on my civil and reproductive rights. But, if an individual rejects the option of terminating her pregnancy because of religious, moral or ethical values, I will support her in her decision. However, other women should not be denied that choice.
Nathalie Marechal Sophomore, SIS
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The Eagle always tries to remain fair and balanced in its overall publication. The content of our Opinion and Commentary page is based on the submissions received prior to publication. In last Monday's issue, both sides of the debate were presented through our news coverage; however, the opinion page was one-sided. Writers of all persuasions are always encouraged to submit opinion pieces, but last Monday abortion rights writers failed to do so. Although this is regrettable, The Eagle is not obligated to write opinion pieces to counter other arguments when none are submitted.]
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to the two pro-life pieces that appeared on the opinion and commentary page of the April 19 edition of The Eagle. As a pro-choice woman, I was extremely disappointed in both pieces, even though I respect both authors' rights to voice their opinions and to take whatever stance they wish on the issues surrounding the abortion debate. Unfortunately, the two authors of these pieces do not afford the same respect to those whose opinions differ from their own. I consider myself pro-choice because I respect the individual rights of women and men to make their own decisions. I have no more right than anyone else to dictate to another person what they can and cannot do in their own lives. I would never assume that I understand or have a right to know the details of another person's situation or private life, nor would I assume that what might be right for me is right for everyone. The pro-choice community supports more than the right to a safe and legal abortion. The upcoming March for Women's Lives is not, as Jason Richwine calls it, "The March for Women's Promiscuity." One does not need to be a "radical feminist" to support or merely appreciate the notion that women should have open access to contraceptives, family planning information and basic health care information. With access to this information, women are better able to make decisions in their personal lives and to engage in family planning, both of which allow women to reduce and potentially eliminate unplanned pregnancies and reduce the need for abortions.
Allison Englen Graduate Student, SPA
Dear Editor:
An Open Letter to Jason Richwine,
I would like to address some of your comments in "Pro-choice Promiscuity."
First, the article states that "The National Organization for Women considers it a travesty of justice that "emergency contraception" - i.e. the abortion pill - is not accessible to teenagers over the counter." Emergency contraception and the abortion pill are not the same thing. Emergency contraception is taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex (or contraceptive failure). It works by inducing a period and preventing a pregnancy from occurring. "Abortion pills" such as abortifacient RU486 terminate an existing pregnancy. There is a very big distinction between stopping something from happening and terminating an existing pregnancy. Ignorance about the difference between emergency contraceptive and the abortion pill perpetrates the myths.
Second, the article quotes from the "Why Are We Marching?" website the statement "...for victims of rape and incest so they [will] not be victimized again" to which you respond: "Abortion prevents rape and incest?" No, Jason, abortion does not. The option of abortion allows a woman to not have a child that was the result of a violent crime.
Third, reproductive rights are not a women's issue because they promote "sexual promiscuity" or "licentiousness" in women. Reproductive freedom is important because voluntarily managing one's own fertility is a private and fundamental right.
Fourth, I am sorry that you are nonchoice. It is my opinion that people who don't believe in reproductive freedom should refrain from sexual activity and remain virgins until they are planning a family. If this is not the case, Jason, then thank a pro-choice person for the birth control that is abundantly available to you.
Amina Hafiz Graduate Student
Dear Editor:
This semester the sociology department offered a non-recurring special-topic class titled "White Privilege and Social Justice," taught by professor Celine-Marie Pascale. Contrary to the opposition and skepticism presented by two pieces published in The Eagle last fall, the class was a tremendous success.
The first article quoted David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. "Only whiteness studies attacks the group it studies ... This is a racist field; it's a leftist attack on white people, not an academic field," he said. After taking the class I can say with confidence that he is wrong.
The class was not an attack on white people. It was about examining how white privilege affects everyone, from the institutional level to the personal level. The class provided perspectives on white privilege from people of different races, while acknowledging the realities of racial inequality today.
The same article quoted AU professor Gary Weaver: "I don't think we need a separate course on white culture because good cross-cultural studies will look at dominant and minority cultures." I doubt there is any class at AU that discusses race as in depth or as honestly as this class. Our classroom became a rare environment where people openly discussed racial perceptions and beliefs without fear of saying the wrong thing or insulting someone.
The second piece expressed concern that the professor "must maintain a balanced and objective curriculum," and that "most of us are already well-versed in its (dominant white society) elements." Addressing the first concern, I can say that the class was purposefully constructed to understand how people of different races perceive race differently. As for the second concern, I think the voices of these two pieces prove that we are nowhere near fully understanding the complexities of race in the United States.
Maureen Daniel Sophomore, CAS
