Phallus-Breaking Wrong

To the editors:

Cardinale’s determination to spare the community from a “public attack on decency,” is both naive and egotistic (Op-ed, “The Other Phallus-Breaker”, Feb. 26). In defense of her actions against free speech, Cardinale states, “The statue was clearly created for its shock value and not to appeal to our artistic sensibilities.” What is clear is that Cardinale is incapable of separating her own views from the views of Harvard’s pluralistic community. The rest of her defense fares no better, as it is plagued with generalizations and her own brand of faulty social theory.

However, despite how much I disagree with Cardinale’s viewpoint, I will not go out and destroy every Crimson newspaper in which it is printed. Perhaps my respect for the expression of public speech has overridden my desire to feel “satisfied” that I have protected my fellow classmates from views I deem unsatisfactory.

McGreggor Crowly

Feb. 26, 2003