Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor:

Kudos to the Herald for running a fair, well-researched news article on the controversy over Hillary Clinton as Class Day speaker. Unfortunately, David Wertime's, MC '01, opinion piece on the same subject cannot be likewise praised ["Are we debating Hillary for the right reasons?" YH 3/30/01]. He writes that ad hominem attacks against the Class Day speaker are inappropriate. That's a worthwhile point, and it's why we have tried so hard to be civil and restrained; I wonder how it would be possible to demonstrate opposition to the selection of a speaker in a more constructive manner. Wertime should instead consider how his disapprobation for ad hominem attacks relates to his treatment of me.

First, Wertime suggests that I am unable to find any meaningful distinction between "slinging mud" (something all politicians do) and vilifying, which (Wertime claims) is one cause of my opposition to Clinton. But I don't complain of Clinton vilifying her opponents; instead, I contend that she believes her opponents to be, in fact, mean-spirited, which is a far cry from "slinging mud" and actually unrelated to it. A politician might very easily harbor hatred and disdain for all her opponents without ever slinging mud.

Second, Wertime claims that the "real reason" I dislike Clinton is her "arrogant attitude." I'm sure that I used those words, but I gave Wertime at least a dozen reasons to dislike Clinton. To reduce those to one, and then implicitly criticize my beliefs because that one reason is so skimpy, is as bad as replacing the word "not" with ellipses.

Third, Wertime misrepresents the incident in which Clinton claimed that she couldn't "be held responsible for every undercapitalized business." I cited this story to illustrate Clinton's uncaring attitude towards the businesses that would certainly go under if her healthcare plans were enacted. After unfairly dismissing this argument, Wertime says that's the only example of her arrogance that I gave him. That is simply not true.

Wertime continues by asking rhetorically (and sarcastically), in what way did Clinton say those words about undercapitalized businesses? "Standing up?" Actually, I told him—arrogantly, uncaringly, exasperated that the lives of a mere few million people could get in her way.

Wertime concludes by implying that since my critique of Clinton's attitudes and manners is so thoroughly baseless, I must merely be rationalizing my misogyny. In general, evidence beyond a string of misrepresentations and faulty analysis should be provided before such a charge is made in print.

At no point in our discussion did Wertime confess any confusion over my positions. I would ask you to read about them on our website. The URL is: pantheon.yale.edu/~jad58/boycotthillary.html. 

—Daniel Mindus, TC '01

Photo caption inappropriate

Dear Editor:

I am writing to register my disappointment in regards to a photograph you published in last week's April Fool's edition. The photograph was of Professor Patricia Francisco, who is a rape survivor and award-winning novelist. She was one of the first women to ever write a memoir of that experience and was courageous enough to accept an invitation to speak at Yale and share the story of her rape and recovery. In the past, Rape Awareness Week events have not been well attended. For that reason I was especially happy to see both a Yale Daily News and Yale Herald photographer at the tea and had hoped that it would lead to additional exposure and awareness of the issue of rape. To my dismay, the Herald did not write an article but instead chose to publish this sensitive photograph in the April Fool's addition with a wholly inappropriate and indelicate caption. The caption, unfortunately, appears to mock a portion of her memoir.

I do not believe that the Herald editors purposely decided to ridicule this woman, her rape, or Rape Awareness Week itself, but nevertheless the photograph with its published caption did serve to undercut the success and gravity of all three. I do not believe this was done maliciously, but out of carelessness. The Herald should not publish a photograph if it does not know what it is, and it certainly should not attach a caption to a photograph when it does not know what it is. I hope in the future the editors will be more cautious in their choice of material for publication. 

—Dana Peck, DC '02,

Rape Awareness Week Organizer

The caption on the photo was an error; it was not intended as a joke for the April Fool's issue. The Herald apologizes for any offense it may have caused. —Ed

Corrections

Luke Habberstad's article on Pride Week named Sunita Puri, DC '02, as the coordinator of a panel called "Creating a Queer Friendly Asia" ["Pride Week draws crowds," YH 3/30/01]. Anna Taylor-Shih, SM '02, should also have been named as a co-coordinator of this panel.

David Wertime's column on the Class Day speaker referred to Mort Zuckerman as the editor of U.S. News and World Report ["Are we debating Hillary for the right reasons?" YH 3/30/01]. Mr. Zuckerman is actually the owner.

The Herald sincerely regrets these errors and apologizes for any inconveniences they may have caused.

Back to Opinion...