News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
This evening I had the opportunity to peruse the latest Peninsula issue.
I say opportunity because at an institution which prides itself on diversity, a magazine which provides an alternative viewpoint provides a consistent check that I am not falling into the trap of dogmatism.
Further, part of having an analytically critical mind implies the ability not only to construct a rational argument, but also to recognize one.
Unfortunately, after reading this issue, I was not able to exercise my recognition abilities since there weren't any rationally constructed arguments.
This issue, which covers a topic on which people have such strong opinions, is one which is likely to spark a great deal of debate.
Let's not go the way of the debate on the issue of homosexuality. The last time the Harvard community had an opportunity to debate arguments which questioned tenets which many of us take for granted, we wasted it by casting epithets like "hate speech" and ranting about personal choice.
I did not hear one conversation in which an opponent of the views expressed on the issue systematically pointed out the holes in the arguments. Surely we are intelligent enough to find these holes.
And if we don't try, but rather take our own views on faith, are we not degenerating to the same level of dogmatism of which the Peninsula is guilty?
As a pro-choice woman, I encourage those with a view contrary to the Peninsula's to take a look at this issue. Really, it won't bite. The greatest risk you run is that of receiving a paper cut. It certainly won't call into question any beliefs that are based on any rational foundation.
A few things to look for in reading this issue are facts taken out of context, opposing arguments misrepresented, and, despite the calm rational tone, a decided lack of systematic logic that doesn't start by assuming what is in question. This issue is nothing to be afraid of.
Let's argue about what it says and doesn't say, instead of about the fact that this stuff was said. Let's approach this debate with confidence instead of fear. Let's use our heads, if for no other reason than to differentiate ourselves from Peninsula. Melissa E. McSherry '94
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.