News
Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line
News
At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions
News
Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists
News
‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam
News
‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6
Pornography, Not Modesty, Encourages Sexual Assault
To the editors:
Mikhaela Reid's editorial cartoon (Cartoon, April 27) is egregious for its mindless offensiveness, error and harmful nature. After the rather irrelevant and ad hominem fashion police argument, which effectively mocks the clothing styles of certain orthodox Jews and Christians, Reid goes on to insinuate that modesty is somehow linked to rape.
Is modesty really responsible for rape? Or is there a more obvious cause all around Harvard's campus--namely, pornography? Common sense indicates that a rapist is more likely to be involved in pornography than in avoiding lustful thoughts. Indeed, the facts colloborate common sense: psychological studies and even the Attorney General's 1986 Commission on Pornography point to pornography as encouraging sexual assault.
Reid's cartoon is harmful precisely because it draws attention away from one of the genuine causes of rape: society's glorification of both violence and consequence-free sex. When an overwhelming percentage of movies, songs, advertisements, books, etc. glorify both non-monogamous sexual relationships and violence, is it a surprise that rape is an everyday occurrence? Is it a surprise that rape happens at Harvard when a large percentage of campus organizations use sexual innuendo to promote their events?
Reid is right to warn against a return to the societal stigmas of the Victorian era, but she does Harvard and women a dangerous disservice to claim that modesty fuels rape. The magazine selection at Out of Town News needs to be worrying us a lot more than women in turtle necks.
Lawrence P. Morris
April 27, 1999
The writer is a resident tutor in Mather House.
Vouchers Are Not the Answer
To the editors:
Vasant M. Kamath claims (Op-ed, April 27) that vouchers for private schools would "alleviate the crisis in American public education." Nothing is farther from the truth. Vouchers give government money to parents so that they can send their children to private or parochial schools. Advocates of the voucher system say allowing parents of poorer children to choose private schools will cause all schools to compete in a market system and will produce a more effective and efficient educational system.
However, research shows that voucher systems in Cleveland and Milwaukee were not effective. Cleveland voucher students did markedly worse than their public-school counterparts on standard tests. Mark Peterson's studies used to support alleged gains by voucher students have been criticized for serious sampling errors and unfair comparisons.
Free market efficiency comparisons between vouchers and public schools are not valid. Since public schools must provide education for all students, they have special burdens (costs in free market terminology) that private schools do not bear. For the voucher market to be truly competitive, the government would have to pay subsidies to public schools for the special social burden they alone must bear, and provide lead time to make use of this subsidy.
Another cost that public but not private schools are required to bear is the special standards they must meet for hiring teachers, testing students, choosing curricula and public reporting. Giving public money to a private school provides a blank check for instilling any values in that school that its patrons want, even those we as a community would reject. Due to our communal social discourse about the public school system, schools have been able to promote racial and social integration. Vouchers may lead to increased self-segregation.
Finally, rather than providing an incentive for public schools to improve, vouchers would take needed money and political support away from this system. Indeed, despite the rhetoric, the true goal for most advocates of vouchers is not to help public education but to transfer public money to church and suburban schools that serve the better-off white middle class.
Public schools can succeed if they have adequate community involvement, funding and teaching standards. If you have doubts, talk to one of your classmates from Boston Latin. When the students and parents who are most concerned about education withdraw from public schools using vouchers, these institutions will decline further. Students that remain will suffer. These students-at-risk are ignored at society's peril.
Polls show that voters don't want vouchers at the expense of public schools. What they want in smaller class sizes and better reading programs. Public schools are in great need of improvement. We have a system in place that has the potential to provide good education for all Americans; we're just not using it. The answer does not lie in dismantling this system, but in investing a serious effort, every year and everywhere, to make it work.
Jane H. Martin '00
April 28, 1999
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.