4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, September 27, 1999 c be £~idig ttIg tt Capitalizing on the magic and mystique of the 'F'word 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 daily.letters@umich.edu Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan HEATHER KANIINS Editor in Chief JEFFREY KOSSEFF DAVID WALLACE Editorial Page Editors D o you remember the first time you heard someone swear? If you are at all sane. probably not. but bear with mc. Did your ears explode? Did they burn at Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Dailv. the sound of your first you stare,. eyes wide, mouth agape, at the speaker of the profan- ity? Fifteen to 20 years later, do you continue to flashback to that horrible moment when your virgin ears were christened with the brute force of human vulgarity? Of course not. Chances are that moment hasn't walked across your con- science since. And further, we've all probably made use of such terms a million times in the interim. So why, then, do we four-letter word? Did Exploring options 'U' should eliminate fall rush Jack. Schillaci ts a Itd o put such a burden on say, "he must be saying some really bad stuff." Then they run out to the store to buy the CD, only to find Tipper Gore has placed a 'Parental Advisory- Explicit Lyrics" stick- er on it. They can't buy it, so they find one of their older friends and duplicate it. The net result: The kids hear the unedited song any- way, they've committed a federal offense, and they all think it's really, really cool. What a great message to send! I don't want to raise a First Amendment argument. I don't find this censorship an unconscionable use of governmental or pri- vate authority. I'm not concerned about the marketplace of ideas or other such rhetoric covered extensively in Comm 101. The problem is that these regulations and policies don't accomplish much. All sorts of ruckus is made about the need to protect chil- dren from the horrors of rap music and cable television, but kids are almost never at a loss for potential bad influences. If they don't hear it on TV kids can listen to their parents swear, or the neighbors, or their friends, etc., etc. The unintended effects play on the kids' sub- conscious and teach them that it's OK to swear unabashedly. After all, if it's really that bad, someone will beep you out or tell you to shut up, right? The trend as of late seems to be leading from trying to avoid such language to utiliz- ing it extensively just to capitalize on the shock value. Knowing that they have stickers and can prevent the spread of profane mater- ial, record companies can look like they are working to protect kids by "self-censoring." Similarly, the Federal Communications Commission can pretend it's cleaning up the airwaves by requiring stations to blip every- thing out. The truth is, both tactics only result in more profanity. Take, for example, FOX's new show "Action." Beeping out every other word t t makes Jay Mohr look like a real ass and a dynamic character, even though the writing barely rises above tedious. It worked for Andrew Dice Clay. so why not now? Instead of working on content, the Jerry Springer- esque writing focuses more on context, to the detriment of all viewers. We don't get better plots, we get more colorful word usage. I'm not suggesting that musicians and TV studios should stop the swearing altogether (much the opposite, actually). Sometimes, however, as in the case of "Action." the industry uses the little beeps to their advantage - turning up the volume but not making the sound any bet- ter, Further, the lesson that regulators are try- ing to teach younger media consumers is lost altogether. Rather than teaching kids to choose their words carefully and swear in moderation and when the situation calls for it, things are dealt with in absolutes. Swearing is never permitted, but it happens all the time. On the one hand, the media outlets allow their product to be censored. On the other, they are using that censorship as a means to boost their product. And people wonder why kids sometimes feel like they're getting mixed signals. I'm not saying that we should teach all children to swear at age six. Instead, they should learn an appreciation for the value of words, and the media - like it or not - can play an important part in that. We all swear, after all, and there's no point in sheltering kids forever. By preventing programs from capitalizing on the notoriety of the forbidden, some of what anti-entertainment-media pun- dits fear might dissipate, and maybe TV would be more sound and less fury. - Jack Schillaci can be reached via e-mail atjschilla aumich.edu. Do not swear; however as this ofends his delicate ears. Two weeks into the Fall semester, students are finally purchasing backorder books and memorizing new class schedules. As usual, University veterans slowly get back into the swing of things as first-year students orient themselves to college life. Amidst this post- summer confusion, students rush fraternities and sororities. Rush, the process in which potential Greek members visit the sorority and fraternity houses on campus, began last week. This enticing social scene appeals especially to first-year students looking for companionship. But students need to recognize that participa- tion in a Greek house is a serious commitment. The University should prohibit first-semester rush so new students can explore all campus options before following the crowd of rushees. Rushing provides a great way to meet friends, but pledging a house requires much dedication. The majority of University sorority and fraternity houses require that all members live in the respective house for at least one year. Most members are happy with the cama- raderie and activities that pledging brings, but the first month at school is an incredibly early time to decide where to live the following year. On the many other college campuses across the country that prohibit fall rush for first-year students, people often find that waiting a 'semester only reinforces the decision to join the Greek community. Prolonging rush not only provides a more relaxing start of college, it actually broadens one's social circle. Festifall occurs in the first week of school, which gives students a taste of what the University has to offer outside of classes. Since many first-year students are shy to approach the tables or miss the event alto- gether, signs for various clubs and events are posted in and around every building on cam- pus. The heavy scheduling of rush in the Fall months conflicts with the mass meetings for these college organizations, preventing stu- dents from even learning about desirable activ- ities. Since men's rush is informal, it is much less time consuming. Pressures of pledging strap students for time before they recognize the wealth of diver- sity available. Beyond the intramural sports, multicultural clubs and community service options, Winter rush would allow better inter- action with all students at the University. First- year students would get a better idea of the dif- ferent houses by meeting more members prior to committing. This is especially true because a "silence period" accompanies the sorority rush. Between the sorority mass meeting, which occurred last week, and the last day of rush, all sorority members are prohibited from talking to any rushee. The Panhellenic Association bars Greek participants from con- versing with the prospective members so all students make independent decisions. This silence period isolates new students adding to first-year jitters. Eliminating first-semester rush encour- ages first-year students to take a step back and gain a versatile experience at college. As of now, many sororities do not even offer Winter rush because the large amount of fall rushees fill the quota allotted for each house. Taking away the fall rush option would make winter rush more effective and trigger a deeper interest in the houses at a necessary time. Greek Week occurs in the spring when the houses compete in fun events mainly geared towards raising money for communi- ties in need. Members still excited by initia- tion will be more dedicated to service events like Greek Week. The expanding opportuni- ties students will encounter as a result of postponing rush will look great on job appli- cations and help with people relations in future settings. this sort of language? In the name of protect- ing polite society from itself, television chan- nels and the record industry beep out, mute or otherwise block that which might offend our ears. In the process. however, they manage to counteract their intended effect by bolstering the mystique of swearing. This issue may seem like something of a non-sequitur. The thing is, the mix of Victorian morality and political correctness often influences the entertainment media for the worse. TV makes swearing cool by making it for- bidden - something that everybody does all the time but must nonetheless be obscured. Kids watching an Eminem video on MTV, for instance, will see his lips moving a lot but occasionally won't hear a thing. "Wow," they 0 9 1* THOMAS KULJURGIS TENTATIV ELY SPEAKING Reader: Editorial fraught with error TO THE DAILY: CFA WILL IARINQ ARMS IS *1 Au0 AM ,L N & M DI D' FoR C Academia: not forsale Princeton should retain controversial scholar Last week, Steve Forbes, GOP presidential hopeful, Princeton trustee and alumnus, business executive and billionaire, presented a dangerous ultimatum to fellow Princeton board members with his petition for the resig- nation of the recently hired controversial bio- ethicist, Peter Singer. Forbes promises to with- hold any future contributions to Princeton until his request is accommodated. In doing this, Forbes has flexed his plutocratic muscles where he should not - in an academic setting. Singer, whose views on euthanasia have sparked heated protests on the Princeton cam- pus by right to life and disabled rights groups, is teaching a class on the ethics of death and dying. Students in the class have said that Singer has promoted discussion in his class rather than using it as a vehicle for promoting his views. But the content of Singer's lectures would- n't be nearly as important to Princeton if Forbes himself was not calling for Singer's resignation - and at private universities in particular, money talks. Princeton is hoping that philanthropy runs in the family. Forbes' father, also a Princeton alumnus, gave mil- lions to the university. But if Princeton bows to Forbes' wishes, they will send a dangerous message: academ- ic subject matter is up for sale. Academia is one of few environments in American society where issues and ideas, regardless of how controversial or inflamma- tory, can be discussed fully and openly. Forbes - or anyone else - should never be able to denial of their academic freedom. Well-rounded controversy is essential to growth, and in this case, Singer is not limiting the class to his own views. Far from it, he is trying to understand what other academics and even his students are thinking. Students will be required to give presentations in class. He even encourages them to find material outside the required reading list. But what is Forbes' motivation? It is rumored that he may be using this to broaden his campaign platform to include some moral stands after a lack-luster "flat tax" run for the presidential bid in '96. His campaign manag- er even said Forbes would not limit his protest to university trustee meetings, but would take it to the campaign trail if necessary. The power of money in America is as old in the republic itself. Every election year, plutocrats seem to gobble up more and more objective opinions, buying votes, buy- ing ads. Can they buy academic freedom? Princeton must not fear Forbes' financial leverage and should ignore any and all threats made by him and other wealthy alumni. It is the job of the university admin- istration to protect the integrity of their aca- demic environment. And if Princeton caves, where does it draw the line? Such actions would set a frightening precedent for all other universities. Outside politics cannot dictate university policy. Universities should withstand power plays eclipsing academic freedom. Administrators must sustain an environment of scholarly It always amazes me when anti-gunners piece together some fact and fiction to arrive at a tasty morsel of misinformation. The first distracting piece of info in the Daily's editori- al ("Right to bear arms?" 9 22,99) is that "no gun control law brought before ... federal courts ever has been overturned on Second Amendment grounds" Please take a look at US. vs. Emerson. The second error is thatithe editorial claims that modern interpretations supercede original intent in the creation of a law. So, if the modern meaning of freedom ever changes, I guess we're all in for trouble. Third, the statement "it (the National Guard) is not fundamentally different from the state militias of the colonial era" is in error because of the facts that the Daily itself put out - the weapons and training are provided by the government. Also, the militia, as it was understood in the 18th Century, referred to a reactionary force of civilians to an oppressive government, much like the militias of the Revolutionary War. At no time was the militia involved in the dities that are commonplace in today's National Guard. Also, the statement "it is still composed of civilians who the government trusts to bear arms" is just plain ridiculous! I'm sure that the powers in England authorized the colonists to bear arms. The opposite is in fact true, where disarming the American colonists was the first. order of business leading to imposing higher tariffs. Next, "The potential of self defense does not grant individuals the right to own guns," but in the opinion of the Daily, the potential of death of an innocent does grant the state to restrict access to guns. Where is the logic? More than 2 million crimes are prevented by the brandishing or use of a firearm every year! The Daily's statement about paranoia is also an error. Paranoia is a good thing. Just think of the difference in outcome in China if the demonstrators had been armed. Every country that has undergone "revolutionary" changes towards more oppressive regimes has made it their first step to take guns away from civilians. Remember Adolph Hitler? Finally, the Daily seems to think that guns cause so many deaths and takes a massive toll on our economy. More people die from drink- ing related incidents than from all gun deaths combined over years. The financial toll on this country from drinking is almost incalculable. With over 1.5 million DUlsma year, with mil- lions of crimes being committed with the offender being under the influence, and the tragedy of chronic alcohol abuse, alcohol dwarfs the cost of guns to this country. Like the hypocrites they are, the Daily warmly embraces alcohol, while rejecting guns. JOSEPH KIM SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY Denying citizens arms is nonsensical 't ii I MA9Ac*9 I You're telling me that you wouldn't want to protect them by any means necessary? If I was robbing a house or assaulting a person, I'd be a hell of a lot more scared of someone and more apt to leave with someone pointing a gun at me rather than someone try- ing to fend me off with kicks and punches. Furthermore, the editorial talks about hunting and sport shooting. I completely agree with the Daily up until the point where the editorial says hunters and shooters should have their guns taken away from them, and for some their livelihood, for the sake of other people. Whether the people just don't agree with what these hunters and shooters do or whether they are worried for their own well- being this shouldn't matter. Hunting and sport shooting do not kill people, plain and simple. Why take away a nation's tradition for some- thing so ignorant? Frankly, I don't have much else to say. However, two points to sum up. One, go ahead and try to ban guns, but I guarantee they still fall into the wrong people's hands and devas- tating events still occur. Finally just realize one thing: guns don't kill people, people kill people! MARK ANDERSON LSA SOPHOMORE Abortion law warrants praise TO THE DAILY: I read with interest the editorial entitled ("Wait for what?" 9/20/99). I am writing to express my support for the new state law requiring a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed. A waiting period is also required before the purchase of a firearm. A woman's decision to have an abortion is no less grave and should be given all due consideration, including con- sultation with - at minimum - her doctor and the father of the child, if at all possible. Remember that once the procedure is fin- ished, it is irreversible and the decision to pro- ceed must not be made in haste. Regarding state-issued pamphlets to be provided by the clinic, how does knowing the details of the procedure and the stage of devel- made in haste or on impulse. A 24-hour wait- ing period before so weighty a decision as that to have an abortion is to be applauded. CHRISTIAN CASPER RACKHAM STUDENT Nuclear power is bad for environment TO THE DAILY: The Environmental Issues Commission believes it necessary to clarify both ourselves and our stance regarding nuclear energy in light of recent letters to the Daily. We under- stand how people can be misguided to believe that nuclear energy can be perceived as a viable power source and alternative to fossil fuels and hydroelectric dams. It is true that power fueled by the latter sources is extreme- ly destructive environmentally. Deforestation, soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, air pollution, acid rain, air pollution, fractured communities and increased risk to the public's health have all been the results of such sources. The environmental community does not contest these facts. Yet, it also real- izes there are alternatives that go above and beyond all three aforementioned power sources. The Commission and environmental com- munity as whole are committed to achieving sustainable communities both here and abroad. Proven alternatives do exist. Unfortunately not enough weight or research is given to their effective implementation. These choices include renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic cells (solar power) and wind power. These power sources certainly are the least destructive environmen- tally. They create no hazardous wastes and there are no crises to find "safe" storage sites once they have been used. Furthermore, such sources have even been proven to be more cost effective than our current methods with nuclear energy being the most expensive@ power source (see wvwccnrorg). Unfortunately, industries and governments thrive on promoting such sources which are hazards that jeopardize all life both now and into the future. In response to those who question our Vi..+. RIPoQ ll Y tT. ... inCE AI.t EA1 aY 'D1T? _RIP -: Ytec. .Ht' c+ tMc a _v1G't'1'Nt- t ANO uN C4-toe lam" .