Letters
Facts speak truth about rape
I am writing in response to Kathryn Goodyear’s letter "Verbal
assault sexually violent," (Viewpoint, March 5), in which she
challenges the manhood of Glenn Sacks, "Rape survey manipulates
actual number of victims," (Viewpoint, March 8).
Goodyear somehow thinks that, because Sacks dares to challenge
the exaggerated "one in four women are raped" figure by showing
that the survey was rigged, he is a poor example of the male
population.
On the contrary, Sacks is one of the few men who is both
informed enough and brave enough to politely expose exaggerated
statistics at the risk of being labeled a misogynist by emotional
reactionaries. Moreover, I would like to know how Goodyear’s
unfortunate experience of being propositioned at a bus stop, or of
being catcalled in general, somehow justifies spreading false
statistics.
Two other students, Carla Jackson and Anita Yuan, wrote a
response to Glenn that at least had some substance to it, in their
article "Look to definition of rape to correctly interpret study,"
(Viewpoint, March 6). Jackson and Yuan should be commended for
making an effort to think before they write. Nevertheless, they
should both read Christina Hoff Sommers’ "Who Stole Feminism? How
Women Have Betrayed Women," or Dr. Warren Farrell’s "The Myth of
Male Power; Why Men Are The Disposable Sex" to get a better
understanding of an issue they do not seem to have a grasp of.
Marc Etienne Angelucci
Second-year
Law
Arts do not need government help
I am writing this letter in response to Adam Komisaruk’s article
"Federal funding promotes freedom in American arts" (Viewpoint,
April 7). The only thing that Komisaruk is good at is making ad
hominum attacks on Matthew Gever, the writer of "Government funding
limits creativity, expression of art" (Viewpoint March 11), rather
than basing any of his attacks on facts. First of all, the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and government funding in general,
does not guarantee freedom of expression. Case in point: the
Supreme Court ruled that NEA recipients are not protected by the
first amendment and can have funding revoked.
Komisaruk, who do you think brought Pablo Picasso, Salvadore
Dali, Marcel Duchamp and Andy Warhol to this country? It was the
private sector – people such as Peggy Guggenheim, Julien Levy, John
D. Rockerfeller and Leo Costelli brought and promoted these artists
and created institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art and the
Guggenheim Museum.
While the Federal Works Project of the 1940s was failing
artistically and stifling expression, the private sector was
promoting art that mattered.
Take a walk to Bergamont Station in Santa Monica (a gallery
complex) one day and you will not see government sponsorship.
Instead, you’ll see individuals promoting and distributing art.
Komisaruk, you do not answer the question of why the government
needs to fund the arts. Why can’t the communities you mentioned
volunteer their own time, money and energy to the arts? And who are
you or the government to tell them what is "good" for them? If
these communities care about the arts that you mention, they will
donate time, money and energy to these endeavors. As long as people
care for the arts, which they will, the arts will always be funded.
We don’t need the government for the arts.
Mario Vasquez
Alumnus 1995
UC Riverside