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