Your “The Freshman Survival Guide” (Oct. 12) states: “The first half of your first term of college is known as the ‘Red Zone,’ the period of time a young woman is most vulnerable to rape … so go with friends you trust and look out for each other, and keep an eye on your drink.”
Why are you giving advice only to women when addressing rape?
How about talking frankly with men, the gender that creates and perpetuates the problem? What if instead you had published:
“Male sexual assaulters are more likely to prey on freshman women, so if you observe a man play up to a freshman or any other woman, stick around and intervene when necessary. If you know of a man who puts drugs into women’s drinks, report him to authorities. And do not in any way condone, encourage, enable, participate in or make jokes about such behavior in men.”
Harriet Behm, Eugene
I wanted to check in with you all to say that I absolutely love your work, and I’ve been able to use a great deal of your work in my classroom to talk about very important social justice related issues as well as important community organizations and goings-on, for which I’m very grateful.
I also wanted to check in with you about your recent issue, “Back to Campus” (Oct. 12). I noted that the “Freshman Survival Guide” is placed opposite an ad for a lawyer who seems to represent students and other folks who are accused of sexual assault.
I’m not familiar with the details of how y’all sell advertising and why certain ads are placed on certain pages or paired with certain articles, but as a consumer of Eugene Weekly I’m concerned that the pairing of this article with this ad is promoting or at the very least condoning sexual assault.
I realize this is a leap, but I’ve shared the ad and the pairing of the two with a variety of folks and we each agreed that there was a message being shared, and it is one of linking freshman survival with the protection of those accused of sexual assault.
I understand the Weekly has already been distributed, but I wanted to share this concern as a community member, an educator, a woman and a UO student.
Relée Davis, English language development teacher, Eugene
Editor’s note: The placement was unintentional and unfortunate. We apologize.
KENNEDY IS WRONG
Will Kennedy’s “Raffi for grownups” (Oct. 12) spoke more to his anger issues than to give information about Jimmy Buffer. I’m not a Parrot head my music taste runs a gambet from clasical to funk & hip hop. But I do have a lot of great 80’s young adult music memories with Buffet. I get his point about the me Gen, but many of these big bucks people are philanthropists.
Jimmy Buffer funds environmental & humanitarian disaster relief volunteer action through FAUACA in the Carribian. He also gives grants to youth in Detroit & for vegi gardens in harlem. Do your homework Mr Kennedy.
Carol West, Eugene
Editor’s note: We felt that this letter made its point without our editing it for typos.
LEVIN IS WRONG
On the whole, I appreciate Rick Levin’s florid stylings, even if he does tend toward an oxymoronic holier-than-thou nihilism. That said, his recent review of Jekyll & Hyde at Cottage Theatre (Oct. 12) gets some important background wrong.
First, Freud, Marx and Nietzsche are not all products of “the late 19th century.” Marx published Das Kapital in 1867, after 20 years of previous published work. He died in 1883. By contrast, the vast majority of Freud’s work was published during the first three decades of the 20th century.
More important, Levin’s gloss on Robert Louis Stevenson’s original, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, provides a nice example of how people confuse what they think they know for what they know in fact. Contrary to Levin’s assertion, this story is not a familiar one — much less “the way it speaks to the duality of human nature, good and evil and all that.” It is the titular characters that are familiar, not the story, or its vision of good and evil. I’d guess these are virtually unknown.
I’d be curious to hear how Stevenson “intuits the catastrophes of the coming century.” It seems to me that Levin has simply read his own obsessions into the space where familiarity with the actual work would go.
I regard this as a shame, as beyond the apparent spectacle of the current musical lies a profound original of lasting relevance.
Timothy Shaw, Eugene
First James Taylor, and now Jimmy Buffett. Next, Will Kennedy will be chastising John Denver because “Rocky Mountain High” wasn’t about smoking pot.
Michael Billings, Eugene
LETTERS POLICY: We welcome letters on all topics and will print as many as space allows, with priority given to timely local issues. Please limit length to 200 words and include your address and phone number for our files. Email to email@example.com, fax to 484-4044 or mail to 1251 Lincoln, Eugene 97401.