Holman wrong to privilege Horton over the victim
To the Daily:
While I understand Josh Holman’s attempt to restore dignity to a talented athlete (Think about what this means to Horton, 02/16/2005), I believe his framing of the current status of Horton’s situation is biased and vastly disappointing.
Holman’s theory that Horton’s emotional turmoil somehow merits a return to the game invalidates the source of the charges brought against him. In asserting that “regret” could restore Horton to his prior role on the team, Holman endorses the pardoning of high-profile (and highly valuable) public figures at the expense of the victim’s own suffering and stress. “His accuser,” the acidic name used to refer to the young woman who has apparently been a victim of some form of domestic violence, seems to hold a negligible role in this “nasty episode.” As a member of the University community, I am appalled that your comments so inadequately bring new perspective to this situation. Holman’s opinion is one that glorifies admission of guilt as noble instead of identifying Horton’s actions as unacceptable. Having a leadership role on the University’s basketball team is not therapy, it is a privilige.
Kelly Bixby
LSA junior
The Review was unethical in its GEO coverage
To the Daily:
I was walking to my dorm room yesterday when I saw an eye-catching front page of The Michigan Review in the dorm lobby. The front page was a photo of the Rackham Building with the word exposed printed on top of it in bright orange. Wondering what the issue was about, I took the paper and read the article on the third page, “Exposing GEO.”
I was more shocked that never when I realized that the article named five graduate school instructors and exposed what they had said in private e-mails between top graduate employee organization committees.
For a moment, I could not believe that I was reading a publication by a group of University students. It looked more like a cheap tabloid, distributed in revenge against the GEO committee for not granting the Review an interview.
The Review accused a GSI of breaching confidentiality, but that is not the issue here. Publishing e-mails on a publication that is distributed widely on campus is a blatant violation of privacy. I find that issue of The Review a shame to have in a university like this.
Huey Fang Lim
LSA sophomore