Selfishness

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Having just finished reading your feature story of March 2, "Disobedience a la Thoreau: The Case of Gus Yates," my sense of outrage has prompted me to write this letter.

First of all, I object to Mr. Yates' claim that he is responsible for his own well-being. Whether his claim is valid or not, he certainly is not competent to make a decision which endangers the lives of others, i.e. the park rangers and any other individuals who might have been in the woods at the time. Mr. Yates' selfish decision occupied the equipment and manpower of the park service--valuable resources which might have been needed for genuine emergencies.

Secondly, I object to the 'glorification' of individuals like Mr. Yates by the media. The Crimson has chosen to make a hero of Mr. Yates for an action which was not only irresponsible but illegal. Mr. Yates poses the question: "Why should I have to defer to someone else's definition of acceptable risk?" The answer lies in the moral values which underpin our system of law: the belief that human life is sacred and, therefore, the individual is not free to sacrifice it.

As a longtime backpacker (not a climber). I believe that there are safe and responsible ways to use the wilderness. I feel that Mr. Yates' climb was neither of these and, moreover, that it might jeopardize access to wilderness areas.

Fortunately, Mr. Yates is alive to tell his story. A less experienced or less lucky individual might have met a quite different fate. I found it most significant that Mr. Yates stated he would discourage anyone else from attempting a similar climb. I fear, though, that because of the publicity Mr. Yates has received, the end result may be just the opposite. Joshua L. Sheinkman, '81