Letters to the editor
By Osburn '02; Kohler; Ansell '03
Trying to clarify a definition
No, I'm not responding to the article, "On women and other things," to call the author, Windy Booher, a "mean bitch" like she predicted. Instead, I am writing to point out the fatal flaw that renders her column trivial and ineffectual.

Miss Booher, I completely agree with your criticism of Thor Hesla for spinelessly basing his attack of Ann Coulter on her looks, rather than her conservative political opinions. I couldn't agree more that it is absolutely ridiculous for him to end his article with the line, "Men don't want to date castrating bitches who make their livings peddling tales of men's weaknesses." While I don't agree with Coulter's conservative views, if Hesla is going to criticize the woman's articles, he should focus on the thoughts she verbalizes. I hardly think that she writes her articles to find a man or a "thousand lays," as he insinuates. However, the next line of your column, "I'm no feminist," is likewise flawed. By making this statement, you indirectly assert the same ill-informed, stereotypical image of feminists as angry, militant, man-hating activists, like Hesla, maintain.

I am not going to deny that "feminism" and "feminist" are loaded words. However, if you look up the word "feminist" in the Oxford English Dictionary, you find it defined as: "A person who supports feminism," defined as "the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes." The Feminist Majority, one of the most influential international feminist organizations, identifies their main goal as "promot[ing] equality between women and men and girls and boys, and support[ing] constitutional and statutory measures to gain full equality locally, statewide, nationally and globally." I would assume from the tenor of your article that you support these notions. Therefore, I must question why you flatly deny calling yourself a feminist and, consequently, insinuate that feminists are, as Hesla maintains, angry, ugly, lunatic women who you would never associate with. What's so threatening about asserting yourself as (if we combine the dictionary's two definitions) "a person who supports the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes"?

I respect the fact that you're trying to avoid Amherst's homogeneity. However, after reading the third section of your article where you condemn Amherst students for their fear of talking to new people, I would expect you have the courage to assert that, indeed, you think women and men should be treated the same. If you can criticize an entire student body for their self-consciousness in social arenas, I would at least expect you to be able to acknowledge that you deserve to be treated like everyone else. At this point, it appears that you are more weak and whiny than "mean" and "bitchy." Not much different than Hesla, quite frankly.

Jenna Osburn '02

Tenuring falls short of fairness
"The tenure process is a very complete appraisal," if one is to believe your recent article on the subject, "College tenures Saxton, Temeles" (Jan. 30, 2002). But that statement ignores the possibility that flaws and biases may nevertheless exist. Under the cloak of confidentiality, for example, any department member with questionable motivations can easily poison the entire process by distorting "evidence" and presenting misleading data. I believe Professor Takeyama's case is a good example of how vulnerable the current tenure process is to these kinds of biases and flaws. In my view, she was the strongest candidate for tenure my department has seen for a long time. Yet, tenure was denied.

Heinz Kohler
Willard Long Thorp Professor of Economics, Emeritus

The Captain pays Amherst a visit
A new guy showed his face on campus for the first time this past week, creating quite a stir. "You have to try the new guy. He's so good!" exclaimed Mandy Ulkins '03. In a place where students are tightly interconnected by Instant Messenger, Planworld and countless saliva exchanges, word about the new guy got around pretty quickly. "I saw him in Valentine for the first time the other day!" remarked the overly excitable Allie Liefman '05. "Finally, an older guy who knows what he's doing," commented Greta Silverman '02. Remarkably, Amherst women are not the only ones who have responded strongly to his arrival. Even guys have gotten in on the fun! "It is college, I mean, the place to try these kind of things. Deep down, I guess I felt the urge to try it once," Carl Stilton '04 confided.

Who is this mysterious older man that has captivated and satisfied the mouths of many? His name is Captain Crunch. No, not the ballplayer, just the old man in the blue jumpsuit. Pause for a second. Look at yourself. Take a look around. Watch as the future power elites of America consume Cap'n Crunch cereal at ridiculous rates!

"Why? Why?!!" you frustratingly ask yourself. It is not the Captain's mustache, sexual stamina or pirate tendencies that have left the Amherst community buzzing. Cleverly marketed and carefully placed, Cap'n Crunch draws people's eyes and piques their interest. A poster at the Valentine entrance grabs the attention of all who enter. Another poster in the cereal section draws diners to the sweet, intriguing nectar we have temporarily come to know as Cap'n Crunch.

Before the Investment Club throws on their dockers and takes middle-upper class strides while screaming "Quaker Oats!" to their broker, they must realize one thing. This Cap'n Crunch craze is merely euphoric. The Captain is the Buzz Lightyear of our campus. The craze will die down as quickly as you can say A-. Unfortunately, our desires have been cleverly manipulated through advertising, availability and the human inclination towards curiosity.

It is a shame that the dining staff at Valentine is not taking a long-term commitment in advertising the Captain. Because without the financial support or market expertise of advertising executives at Coca Cola, I assure you that the Captain's popularity at Amherst will only go down. He's just not that good. In fact, if he were that good, in most cases, he would probably only be perceived as "that good" because of previous conditioning and receptivity to advertisements.

I give this Cap'n craze one week. A week and a half, if the Captain gets in a bikini and tries to sing and dance in the Frontroom. Either way, he's just not that hot. Hey Amherst, good luck proving me wrong.

Jonah Ansell '03

Issue 16, Submitted 2002-02-12 23:08:24