McGuire Article Lacks Substance

In "Confessions of an Iconoclast" (May 3), G. Brent McGuire writes that I "explained that, in considering whether to write a letter about Peninsula's response to campus feminism, [I] `decided not to stoop to their level."' He asks, "But what is our level--complete English sentences?" While I congratulate McGuire on his ability to string together nouns, verbs, and adjectives, I need seek no further than his own article for examples of precisely what "his level" is.

McGuire claims to uphold "rational argument," yet his polemics rely on incendiary rhetoric and false evidence coupled with a refusal to engage the larger issues he attacks. "What is `empowerment," he asks, "but a code word for...the celebration of `liberated mothers' and their bastard children?"

Is this the language of one who wishes to engage in rational argument? He goes on to suggest that the Take Back the Night Rally does "more harm than good--just as many of the country's sex education programs have resulted not in lower but in higher rates of illegitimacy and teenage pregnancy." Where did McGuire find this statistic? Unfortunately, we'll never know; he gives no citation.

More generally, though, I wonder how McGuire can presume to criticize the rally without considering its context, a week-long series of events that promote awareness of violence against women through speakers, performances, and workshops. I wonder if McGuire attended these events. If so, why doesn't he discuss them? Perhaps he doesn't find them objectionable. If he didn't attend these events, how can he justify attacking a rally that is uniformly promoted as part of a larger program, while saying that he welcomes "an honest debate"? McGuire provides no evidence that he has an earnest desire to engage in "honest debate," "reasonable discussion," or "rational argument." Since these are things that I value, I have tried my hardest to avoid stooping--no, sinking--to his level. Deborah J. Wexler '95