4

OPINION
Page 4 Wednesday, November 5, 1986 The Michigan Daily

i

4

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

LETTERS:

t
w
" s
t
r }

B orowsky

s

a bumb'

I
S

Vol. XCViI, No. 45

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board
All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.

Upholding choice

THE SUPREME COURT'S 5-3
decision to uphold federal funding
of private groups that use money,
from other sources for abortion
counseling and services is progress
for reproductive rights. The
Court's ruling makes it illegal for
states to deny funding to private
organizations simply because some
of their activities include providing
abortions, abortion counseling, and
related services.
Unfortunately, it still stands
that states can bar funding that
would be used directly for
abortions. Funding can be used
for other, unrelated services but not
for the abortion itself. This
stipulation indicates a lack of
commitment to women's autonomy
which manifests itself in more
subtle ways.
Women are responsible for
0 childbearing, but receive little
support for their crucial role. They.
may lose their jobs, pay exorbitant
hospital fees, and not have access

to affordable, reliable child care.
Preventative methods are weak.
Contraceptives are neither free nor
accessible to everybody; many
states require teenagers to prove
parental consent before obtaining
contraceptives; women are raped;
birth control fails and schools
generally have to fight for sex
education classes.
The state has a legitimate interest
in assuring the medical safety and
security of women. But today,
abortion clinics are bombed;
women and doctors are harassed;
and with President Reagan's
support, the minority anti-choice
groups have tried to subvert the
legality of abortion through
administrative channels.
Given that all women have the
right to choose abortion, the state
should support that right
wholeheartedly. The Supreme
Court's ruling forces states to
obey the law.

Popularizing science

S TEPHEN J. GOULD is a top-
notch biologist and paleontologist
with a strong sense of duty to the'
non-scientist public. Although
Gould is at the forefront of his field
in evolutionary theory, he used
understandable language when
speaking to an overflow crowd last
Wednesday night at Rackham
auditorium.
He is trying to lead a school
of thought within biology that has
not gained general acceptance yet.
Gould argues that Western
society's ideological bias toward
gradualism has prevented its
scientists from seeing or studying
phenomena such as "punctuated
equilibria" in evolution and the past
catastrophes that resulted in sudden
mass extinctions in earth's history.
Gould points out that the revolution
in science caused by the theory of
plate tectonics met with
considerable resistance from
scientists before it finally
vanquished its opponents.
Gould's work is interesting to
the general public because he does
not shirk from bringing out
connected social issues. For

example, he fought to keep
creationism out of tie science
classroom by explaining in court
why creationism is not a scientific
view of the world and why
Darwin's theory of evolution is.
He has also done careful work,
including the popular The
Mismeasure of Man. , that debunks
pseudo-scientific racist myths
regarding intelligence.
It is Gould's keen sense of how
society promotes or constrains
scientific effort that is invaluable.
Wednesday night he pointed out
that Charles Darwin found himself
partially inspired by the work of
Adam Smith, the father of
economics. Above all, Gould's
own paperbacks and lectures for
scientists and non-scientists alike
popularize science and ensure its
progression with future
generations.. While the religious
Right mobilizes politically and
legally to undercut science in the
classroom, Gould counters
effectively by bringing his
academic message to a wide
audience.

To the Daily:
On October 29, the
Michigan Daily featured an
article by Mark Borowsky
entitled, "Mets win; 'U' must
live with fans." It was an
unfeeling, undeserved attack on
New York, reflecting
Borowsky's apparently burning
hatred of the inhabitants of that
state.
The winner of the World
Series not only wins a
championship, but naturally
winssbragging rights until next
season. If Michigan beats
Ohio State, we get to boast for
a year. If we go to the Rose
Bowl we can brag to everyone
in the country.
Yes, the Mets knew they
were good this year and were
not afraid to say it. Why
should they be? The football
team knows they are good. Do
you think they deny it? Hatred
of the Mets and their fanstis
only an extension of the
jealousy of dejected fans whose
teams did not do well this year,
like Borowsky's Cubs.
Furthermore, dislike of the
Mets and Mets fans is not a
sufficient reason to hate all
New Yorkers. Borowsky's
attack on New Yorkers is
egocentric, prejudiced, ignorant
and, I might add, unjustified.
It is filled with generalizations
that only bigots and fools
would make.
Borowsky appears to be
offended by some of the harsher
New York accents he hears.
Well, not everybody from New
York speaks that way. And
what if everyone did? Would
that make them less human,
less intelligent? Mark thinks
it does. By the way,
Midwesterners, (I assume you
claim this distinction) do not
speak without an accent as they
wish to believe. You do not
sound like newscasters.
Newscasters are paid for having
no regional accents. It's called
unstigmatized speech. You'd
better look that one up, I
guess.
Borowsky has also noticed
the large number of New
Yorkers at the University. He
speaks about the relative
stupidity of New Yorkers,
commenting or their inability
to read or write and on their bad
grammar. Ter is a reason
why New Y k sends more
people than a y c aer state
besides Michigan to the
University. New York is filled
with intelligent, well-bred
people who have attended top
New York State high schools.
The University could probably
fill its entire enrollment with
qualified New Yorkers.
I was particularly impressed
with the scholarly
generalization that "New
Yorkers...have some inherent
penchant for being bothersome,
and being persistent at it."
Borowsky sounds like a slave
owner before the Civil War
who justifies his inhuman
treatment of blacks by saying
that they are inherently
inferior. This is exactly the
kind of person the United

States of America has been
fighting against since its birth.
After all, the Pilgrims came
here to escape the persecution
of the Church of England.
Mr. Borowsky, you said in
your article that "Mets fans are
no more secure about
themselves than anyone else in
the world. They just happen to
use their teams to hide such
insecurity, laying it out on the
rest of us." Unfortunately, you
seem to hide behind your
ignorance of mankind and
insecurity about yourself when
you lay it out on New Yorkers.
Ynn nr..i o,. Ynvmi-.r


r

1 1i
' i i
<<
rt
d


the University "abounds with
New Yorkers and Long
Islanders, and therefore, Mets
fans." For your information,
Mr. Borowsky, Long Island is
part of New York. It is
pronounced with a silent "g
until you come to the Midwest
and people say "Oh, Lawn
Giland?" I have never heard it
pronounced that way except by
Midwesterners.
And by the way, in case
you've been wondering: I'm
from Long Island, New York,
I'm a Mets fan, and I'm damn
proud of it! Congratulations
Mets. You deserve it.
-Alex Price
October 31
Shoddy work
To the Daily:
I am writing in response to
Mark Borowsky's article on
New Yorkers ("Mets win; 'U'
must live with the fans, 10/29)
It was the shoddiest piece of
journalism that I have ever
read
It should be said that I am
not a New Yorker, have never
been a New Yorker, and don't
intend to be a New Yorker in
the near future but I was
absolutely offended at his
generalizations, stereotypes,
and blatant bigotry. "New
Yorkers ... have an inherent
penchant for being
bothersome." "It has been
scientifically proven that New
Yorkers' tongues operate
independently of their brains."
Who does Borowvsky think
he is printing these statements?
They are totally unfounded.
He calls the Mets
"...holier than thou." Talk
about holier than thou. This
entire "article" demonstrates
Borowsky's holier than thou
attitude. He claims that their
reading and writing skills are
doubtful. Perhaps they will
have to be columnists for the
Daily before he will
acknowledge their skills.
It would be too easy to
ignore this article, to say, "It's
just a joke," or, "He was trying
to be funny. Nobody really
believes this." This column is
no different than one which
attacks blacks, Jews,
Hispanics, any minority. We
wouldn't put up with those
articles; we shouldn't accept
this one.
It is not the Daily's pl.ace
to serve as a forum for one of
its writer's prejudices. Mark
Borowsky and the Daily owe
their readership, particularly
their New York readership, a
retraction and apology.
-Jeff Levin
October 29
New York's best
To the Daily:
In response to the obviously
ignorant Mark Borrowsky (sic),
I have plenty to say. I guess it
might be auite strange that I 1)

LIw


Detroit Free Press and Detroit
News.
I find it all quite amusing and
I have located the root of the
problem. First of all, it deals
with recognition. New York is
by far the best known city in
the United States and is known
all over the world for its art and
entertainment sector, financial
sector and its World Series
Champions.
In contrast, if the words
"Michigan or Illinois" were
mentioned abroad it would be
the equivalent of Nebraska plus
or minus a couple of Ford
plants. Thus, it can be deduced
that New York -would put
Michigan or Illinois to shame
and make Detroit or Chicago
look like a cow barn minus the
muggers and drug pushers.
I feel that UM and Mark
Borrowsky (sic) should be
happy to be blessed with New
Yorkers. We are known for
our character, diversity, and
culture and can add much to the
only two things the Midwest
are known for 1) farms 2)
mules (like Mark Borowsky).
So why don't you lay off the
city of New York and its team.
We deserve a big celebration
since we are the best and we
know it.
Furthermore, please let us not
compare the actual talent of the
1986 Mets to the 1984 Tigers
or any Cubs team in history
because it would be unfair of
me to rub it in anymore.
I know this will probably not
be printed because of all you
pro Michigan anti New York
(sic), biased reporters.
-Ted Tsao
-Alex Garbuio
November 2
New York laughs
To The Daily:
In Mark Borowsky's article,
which incidentally was the
pinnacle of impartial reporting,
of October 29, he claimed that
he wasn't afraid of the paper
receiving any letters because he
believed Mets fans could not
read or write. But a Yankee fan
can write letters, and one is
doing so right now.
I would just like to point
out a few things: I hear Mr.
Borowsky is from Memphis,
Tennessee. People in
Memphis don't have accents.
Oh no. I read that Mr.
Borowsky is a Cubs fan. The
Bleacher Bums in Wrigley
Field's stands are well behaved,
ruly people. Right. But
people don't write articles
exploiting Tennessee accents or
the behavior of Cubs fans, but
they do write about New
Yorkers. You know why? Be -

cause it's popular. It's simple.
But I want you to know,
New Yorkers thrive on the
stuff that Mr. Borowsky was
writing about; they don't get
angry, they laugh. At first I
was livid over the article but
then I realized that New York

4%

I
4-
4 ..

attract-that they are naive 4
suckers who would buy
anything with the name
"Elvis" attached to it. If this.
reputation doesn't fit everyone
from Memphis, well I can only
say that I am guilty of the
same crime that Mr. Borow -
sky has committed.
-Richard Eisen

-Staten Island, NY
November 2

4

Mets are gone!
To the Daily:
Long the doormat of the
National League; too long the
butt of jokes aimed at a team
that was both inept and
comical. The Mets survived to
go onto 1969 and 1973. A
twelve year famine broughtus
to the brink of success in
1985, only to fall short in the
last days of the season. And
now, again, success. Imagine
what it was like in Chicago
two yearg ago when the Cubs
knocked us out. Last yearis
St. Louis when the Cards did
us in. This bunch of no
talents that were so far over
their heads, it took "1986" to
prove how good they really are.
The Mets shall reign supreme
8 to 10 more years-EASY!!!
T.S. ON YOU CUBS!!!
T.S. ON YOU CARDS!!!
and T.S. ON ESPECIALLY
YOU MARK-the bumb (sic).
who wrote that offensive article
in the Daily.
No more-"Lets Go Mets"!!!
We're already GONE!!!
-Tina Firestone
October 30
Reeks prejudice
To The Daily:
I am writing to the
competent but biased
sportswriter Mark Borowsky to
inform him that New Yorkers 4
can read and they can write.
He has associated a whole
group of people with one
stereotype of a certain region.
The stereotype of the "New
Yorker" has also caused me
much pain for the past three:
years. Having been born an;
bred in the New York City
area, it grieves me that in Ani
Arbor there is basically one
negative attitude toward the
character of a typical "New
Yorker." Once again th:
attitude of the loud, obnoxiou:
archetypical minority has beeif
accepted and the rest must
suffer. Mr. Borowsky must
first learn to disassociat.
primal animal instincts whe:
writing stories concernin:
subjects which involve his
own insecurities and emotions.
It seems that Mr. Borowsky is
a touch intimidated by New;
Yorkers and has retreated in:io
the shallow cover of prejudice.
Perhaps this indicates deep-
seated fears of inferiority and
psychological turmoil. Yes,
many a true neurotic has:
-a~ :... a -i m~hn e

.*
".

L p

D -