Lately, the "Letters to the Editor" sections of our campus newspapers have become the devil's playground. Students have used this space to wail about perceived insensitivities and injustices perpetrated by any number of persons and institutions. It is my purpose to highlight the ludicrousness of a few of these gripes in the hope of making students think twice before submitting their complaints for publication.
Two weeks ago, the Herald ran the following advertisement: "Find out who Kaiser Soze really is. Write for News; Don't be stupid; Don't be a cripple." Last week, Dorsey Heine, DC '96, submitted a letter the Herald entitled "Insensitivity displayed by 'cripple' comment." "You have managed to use [cripple] in a blasé manner, implying that a crippled person is stupid if she does not remedy her situation," she contends. "A 'crippled' person may be physically impaired, but that has absolutely no relation to his or her mental state."
Really? I thank Heine for illuminating my world. She has come through with an earth-shattering insight that none of theHerald's readers could have arrived at on their own. The Herald ad may not have been particularly funny, but it was also not particularly serious, and no one could take it seriously unless they were intent on being offended.
"Obviously you have missed the distinction between humor and a statement that degrades and demoralizes an entire group of people," she writes. Yes, Ms. Heine, you certainly have missed the distinction. Furthermore, you have probably offended many people by giving away the ending of The Usual Suspects. That is a real offense causing irreparable damage. That is true bad taste.
On Apr. 9, the Yale Daily News editorial page was graced with a letter entitled, "Fifth Humour skits simply further sexist myth," signed by Natalie Eve Garrett, CC '99. "The 'sketches' portrayed women as brainless, indecisive objects. None of the skits portrayed self-respecting women, while the majority of performances included dominant, dignified males. One skit actually mocked a woman's perception of sexism."
It seems that Garrett is suggesting that it is the imperative duty of an aesthetic enterprise to create a balance among the male and female characters so as not to offend the viewers. What about all the comedians that spend half of their stand-up acts talking derisively about their incomprehension of the opposite sex? What about most of the world's literature? Should all of this be censored?
"The Fifth Humour's ignorant perpetuation of female stereotypes is unacceptable," Garrett concludes. I wonder if the name Fifth Humour means anything to her? What if the members of the group were not ignorant of anything? What if they knew exactly what they were doing? What if they did it precisely because they found it humorous?
On Apr. 8, the YDN ran a letter called "Lacrosse team's initiation recalls a hurtful incident" by Emmanuelle R. Depayre, TC '96. Depayre had encountered a male friend of hers who was holding a transparency of a naked woman which he intended to include as a humorous interlude in a presentation. Deprayre was-you guessed it-offended. Let's go to the videotape: "While it is hard for me to accept that these young men think they made no error of judgment, I cannot understand why they could not apologize for an incident which offended me and could offend many other Yalies," she writes. We have here yet another intriguing claim. If Depayre is offended, she reasons, it is the duty of the offender to apologize. And what if the offender does not believe he has done anything wrong? Must he compromise himself in order to apologize? Is the offended party always right?
On Apr. 11 in the YDN, Matt Rockman, CC '97, took exception to Provost Alison Richard's claim that the strike has not caused too much disruption in student life ["Student applauds SLAC's civil disobedience"]. "Curiously," he writes, "the 1000-plus workers who are not getting paid didn't even figure in Richard's disruption calculus." Yes, ladies and gentlemen, what you have just read is for real. If the previous letters show an inability to understand humor, Rockman's letter is, itself, high comedy. In his alternate universe, Yale is responsible for not paying striking workers. Yale has caused a disruption in their lives by forcing them to walk off their jobs in order to strike. I invite Rockman to explain himself. I would try to do it myself, but it is far beyond my powers.
I apologize in advance to the easily offendable persons named herein for any possible way in which they may misinterpret what I have written. None of this is meant as a personal attack on you. In fact, I thank you all. Without you, this column could never have been written.
Graphic by Jenny Kuo.
Copyright 1996, The Yale Herald, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Yale Herald, Inc. Write to herald@yale.edu for additional details.