3 May 06
The last word on the matter comes not from Larry at all, but from Betty, so it will actually be coherent and civil.
Quote:
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your interesting letter from Mr. Nathan Rator.
I would agree that it is the editorial right and responsibility to publish substansive letters representing diverse, frequently opposing views, from all different sources, and to determine articles of significant content and depth. [Capt: Actually, if you had actually paid attention to what Nat or Lawinger said, the Monitor editors are not supposed to determine anything of the sort.] If you had the opportunity to read the March 8 issue, I had given considerable praise to the editor for the quality of coverage and substance in the Monitor. I then also discussed some aspects that I found worthy of criticism; just as it is important to communicate praise to a publication, it is just as important to communicate criticism. My second letter was merely a response to the editor's comments to my first letter; basically a disagreement between us as to whther or not the choice of material is an editorial decision. [Capt: What part of FREE-SUBMISSION do you not get?] I found the tone of Mr. Hayfever's original letter disturbingly close to the spirit expressed by the unedited reproduction of the Iles letter in the subsequent March 8th issue. To say that the two editorial decisions [Capt: One decision.] were not related is simply very obviously disputable.
I would add that Mr. Rator states that he didn't feel it (the manner in which the L. Iles letter was reproduced) "was a very fiendish decision". I would agree. I wasn't 'very' fiendish. I had not used such strong vocabulary, qualified carefully by Mr. Rator. [Capt: She gives me too much credit; I was simply sneaking in VFDs to give clues that it was another psuedonym.]
I am glad that the person writing these anonymous letters does exist, as Mr. Rator assures us. I used to be an editorial policy of newspapers on this campus that letters to the editor be signed by the actual person writing and that the newspaper staff confirm the existence of that person. [Capt: Since one of my articles last semester had been written as Hayfever--in fact, my editor friend Ian had been informed that it was me--the staff was able to take the letters on good faith. Certainly, it is not easy to come forward and to pen openly and honestly a provocative letter or article to be published as the prouct of the author's own thought or satirical musings. But it certainly affirms the spirit and aspirations of an open society to do so. And it helps other people be less afraid of thinking and sharing each others' words. Being too afraid to admit to one's own thoughts nowadays falls in too closely with the dangerous fears carefully encouraged in the recent publication by Horowitz, a McCarthyite terrifying compilation of scholars branded as 'dangerous'. It's like the spirit of fear and conformity forcing the last of the human species to give up their human form and dignity in Ionesco's play "Rhinocerous". [Capt: Gee, thanks for calling me a coward, lady. I reiterate to my friends here, the use of an alias in these letters was an ARTISTIC decision, not an issue of security.]
That's about all I have to say on this topic. Our thanks for your consideration of our views.
Dr. B.L. McLane-Iles
Professor of French |
As I mentioned before, I'm done with my side of this fight, and I'm glad the Iles' final shot was so restrained, but that couple still annoys me.
And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"