Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Editorial poorly argued

To the editor,

Let me see if I can paraphrase Ms. Sheila Bapat's Commentary argument in Monday's Wildcat: "Ms. McGrath is clearly non-human because she dares to voice an opinion that does not correspond with mine."

I must take issue with both Ms. Bapat's content and her presentation. First, Bapat has forgotten the first rule of critique: challenge the argument, don't attack the person. McGrath, for all her faults, does not deserve to be labeled "a leader of Planet Right Wing," "insane," or "a flaming extremist." The problems Bapat has with McGrath's words should not degenerate into a mud-flinging contest. This is a problem I have noticed repeatedly with UA students: we need to learn to distinguish a valid content critique from a diatribe against an individual.

Second, I have a problem with Bapat's use of the phrase "We all know [that McGrath's words were] ludicrous." I, for one, do not know that McGrath's words were ludicrous. The "we all know" phrase is the first major cop-out of argumentative writing. With this phrase, Bapat does not need to prove why she feels that McGrath's words are ludicrous. Instead, Bapat attempts to rely on the general consensus of her audience to correspond with her views about what is ludicrous. In our pluralistic society, with its variety of beliefs and its genuine conflicting world views, assuming an audience consensus is a dangerous place to start an argument.

Third, Bapat fails to show how McGrath's arguments are extremist. She informs us that McGrath is using shock tactics, but fails to explain why the issues McGrath raises are not genuine subjects of concern. Because McGrath's words on morality do not correspond with Bapat's, somehow McGrath was thrown into a "far-right" camp. I fail to make the logical leap from McGrath's expressed views to her ending up in a far-right camp.

Finally, Bapat explains that we should ignore McGrath because she speaks about "issues that don't really matter." The issue of morality in today's society, I argue, is one that is far from inconsequential. Perhaps inadvertently, McGrath touched off a recurring debate about public morality with her words. I contend that this debate got so much reaction because it is actually a very current and important issue. I would much have preferred to see Bapat use her column space to argue effectively against McGrath. I would have liked to see some solid statistics to prove that pregnancy and alcoholism are not related to coed dorms. I would have liked to have read a well-crafted argument in favor of the UA women's studies courses. Then, perhaps, we would have received an insightful commentary rather than a personal attack.

Danielle Kamps

First year, College of Law