How amusing it was to read another reac-tionary opinion on the on-going censorship debate at Dartmouth. Conor Dugan's opinion piece "Uncommon Threads Crosses the Line of Decency" [The Dartmouth, January 20] struck me as falling victim to the sin he accuses one of its writers of succumbing to: self-righteousness. Dugan apparently thinks "indecent" material should not be delivered to his door; the operative definition of indecency here being anything which offends his "human dignity," which I suppose means his religious and personal ideals.
Uncommon Threads has a right to publish whatever it desires. As does The Beacon. As does the Dartmouth Review. As does any publication in the United States. There is no law against poor taste or sexually explicit writing. Granted, it would be unwise to disseminate "awakening" to a grade-school audience, but this is a college, a place where diversity and dissension are encouraged. What Dugan seems to be calling for is selective censoring of campus-sponsored publications, but what he doesn't realize is that not everyone has the moral standing he ostensibly possesses. I hope he never takes a literature course, for if so he may be exposed to such purveyors of "indecent" material as Henry Miller, D.H. Lawrence, William S. Burroughs and James Joyce. Shall we shelve everything by these and other authors who were subjected to government censure and obscenity trials? Should we apply the same government intervention, or should we make this a somewhat "fair" system, in which we have a student-run tribunal look over every article submitted to a campus publication to insure there aren't any explicit references to such "degenerate" acts as sexual intercourse?
It seems Dugan has trouble describing the true nature of sexual intercourse. He states that in "awakening," "the sexual act becomes a means to an end -- that of pleasure." And this, of course, is wrong (he writes). But when is "the sexual act" not "a means to an end?" Even in procreative sex, the sexual act becomes a means to an end -- procreation. Just because Dugan's beliefs say one end is right and the other is wrong does not mean he should force his opinion on others.
Speaking of "grievous assaults on human dignity," where was Dugan when the December issue of The Beacon was delivered with a picture of Dean Pelton's head on the cover -- distorted and appearing similar to the head of one of those reminders of slavery, the lawn jockey? Intentional or not, this incident could be filed under the "assault on human dignity" department. And several weeks ago I was surprised to see a reprint of the Uncommon Threads story in the Dartmouth Review, juxtaposed with dialogue taken from a story in Penthouse magazine. Not only was this sordid issue delivered to my "house of worship" (my room), it contained twice the amount of pornography. The authors even admitted doing their research by reading Penthouse. The Dartmouth Review isn't a campus-funded publication, but shouldn't something be done to stop their smut peddling? Is the Dartmouth Review guilty of distributing porn, or is the printing of pornographic quotations acceptable because they were used to disparage the original article?
The problem with censoring is that there is no way everyone can agree on moral absolutes. While "old-fashioned" types might take offense at graphic depictions of sexual intercourse, I may not. On the other hand, though I find shoddy reasoning, hypocrisy, sanctimony and selective censorship despicable, Dugan may think they're acceptable. The point is, you cannot discriminate based on what one group of people perceives to be right or wrong. If you don't like it, just don't read it.
Uncommon Threads is not "Dartmouth's own version of Hustler." It has a right to print anything it wants to, even if it may appear to some that the publication was contradicting itself by condemning the Jack-o-Lantern for its lack of tact in the same issue. As long as Dartmouth and the United States are havens for free speech, Uncommon Threads and similar publications are needed and welcomed.
Lastly, let me offer Dugan advice. Since you seem to revile literary depictions of homosexual sex, you probably aren't too fond of homosexuals. I'm sure you'd find a certain scene in "Braveheart" in which a gay man is thrown out of a window, a laugh riot. Maybe you and Eric Dahlberg '00, who wrote last week's letter to the editor ["'Braveheart' Viewers Reacted Appropriately to an Amusing Scene," The Dartmouth, January 15] suggesting that this particular scene be played again so "we can all have a few laughs" should get together for a screening of the looped scene. I'm sure you'd have fine things to discuss while watching a "jerk" being tossed out a window repeatedly. I'm sure it'll be a lot more fun than reading Uncommon Threads again.
Defend Uncommon Threads.
