I'm extremely offended by Tyrone Henry's ("Faulkner should conform," April 21) pitiful attempt to express, through irrelevant and less-than-cogent analogies, that Faulkner should conform.
First, I do agree about tradition in the Citadel. However, when "Mr." Henry explores the guidelines that, to him, define equality, he fails to be diplomatic in doing so. No one has ever claimed that being equal is "fun." In fact, women (especially Black woman such as I) have been the main people to "sacrifice, endure and be humiliated by the group." Going off on this tangent proves his argument to be weak and in need of a thorough revision─ especially when defining equality.
He gets even more offensive when he constantly assumes that women need to hoist self-confidence. He mentions it twice in the column, claiming that feminists feel "short-changed . need[ing] a place to develop self-confidence." Then claims that women perceive equality as merely "uplifting, something that boosts confidence . [giving] a warm, fuzzy feeling inside."
Now come on. If her's going to try proving that Faulkner's dilemma is self-imposed, maybe he should stay away from such an over-generalization of what equality entails. I hardly believe that "the first black cadet coming in with dreadlocks," would appreciate such a definition of equality. And if he's going to bash women, he should refrain from including analogies that only weaken his argument and subtract from his credibility.
Jennifer L. James
Read Next Article