Letters to the editor

Accusations of plagiarism not fact

Had Sarah Weir (“Dershowitz article should reveal
allegation,” Oct. 24), actually attended Professor Alan
Dershowitz’s appearance at Royce Hall last Tuesday, she might
have felt no need to fault your reporter, Jennifer Murphy
(“Alan Dershowitz discusses “˜The Case for
Israel,'” News, Oct. 22), for failing to note the fact
that Norman Finkelstein has leveled charges of plagiarism against
Dershowitz. In fact, she would have been able to hear
Dershowitz’s own comments regarding these spurious
allegations.

The fact is, Finkelstein’s allegations against Dershowitz
boil down to the following: Dershowitz quotes Mark Twain’s
“Innocents Abroad” and actually attributes those quotes
directly to Mark Twain, as opposed to attributing those quotes to
Joan Peters, who quoted the same Twain material in her 1984 book,
“From Time Immemorial.” In citing the primary source as
opposed to the secondary source, Dershowitz is adhering to (a)
common sense, (b) actual fact (he read Twain’s book circa
1970, while Peters’ book was only published in 1984) and (c)
the Chicago Manual of Style.

Dershowitz’s book is an attempt to defend
“(Israel’s) basic right to exist, to protect its
citizens from terrorism and to defend its borders from hostile
enemies.” As far as I can tell, it’s that “basic
right to exist” part that seems to upset Finkelstein and
causes him to characterize Dershowitz’s work as
“scandalous scholarship” (as reported by Weir).

Finkelstein has leveled the very same charges (as reported by
Dershowitz) against Joan Peters, Daniel Goldhagen, Elie Wiesel and
many others who don’t agree precisely with his own position
regarding Israel’s basic right to exist.

Steven L. Morris, Upland, CA BSME 1984

Students need to take action and vote

I was happy to read Adam Foxman’s article (“Event to
Encourage Political Involvement,” Oct. 23), which discusses a
prime and vital opportunity for students to start getting involved
in our country.

Current elected officials have so far failed to show much
concern for the public colleges that have given so many people a
chance to get an affordable, high-quality education, and frankly
this is because college students don’t seem to care enough to
vote. Maybe if Schwarzenegger solves California’s current
budget crisis by giving the UC system its third budget cut in three
years, students will start caring, but that will be too late. In
order to make sure that our issues are being listened to, students
must take an active part in the running of our state and
country.

Greg Wannier second-year, political science and
organismic biology, ecology and evolution

“˜Partial-birth’ abortions
inhumane

I feel that the editorial “Abortion bill first step toward
giving up choice” (Oct. 23) was a poor argument against the
newly passed bill. Instead of presenting facts, it included a lot
of rhetoric about how the bill was the beginning of the end of
abortion rights. I believe strongly that a woman has a right to
choose, but past a certain point in a pregnancy, it should no
longer be a reproductive right.

“Partial-birth” abortion, or in medical terms,
intact dilatation and extraction, is a particularly heinous
operation. Usually performed late in the course of a pregnancy, the
woman is given drugs to dilate the cervix. Then the doctor
maneuvers the fetus so that all but the head is outside of the
uterus. The doctor then punctures the base of the skull and the
contents are suctioned out. The dead fetus is finally removed from
the woman’s body.

Does this sound humane? At a time in the pregnancy when the
fetus could perhaps survive on its own, should we be suctioning out
its brain? Is this what a civilized society should allow to happen?
This issue is less about choice and more about humanity and
civility, and the editors failed to recognize it.

Christopher Sheckler fourth-year, sociology

Name of abortion not misleading

In Thursday’s editorial regarding
“partial-birth” abortion, the editorial board noted,
“The name of the procedure is misleading. The distinction
between “˜partial-birth’ abortions ““ not a medical
term ““ and abortions performed by dismemberment is that, in
“˜partial-birth’ abortions, the fetus is partially
removed from the womb before it is destroyed. Only a small
percentage (by some accounts, less than 1 percent) of abortions are
performed in this manner.”

In trying to prove that the term “partial-birth” is
misleading, the board proved the opposite.
“Partial-birth” abortion is appropriately named
because, as they point out, the baby is “partially removed
before it is destroyed.”

The fact that less than 1 percent of abortions are
“partial-birth” abortions and the fact that this is not
a medical term does nothing for the argument against this type of
abortion. Would genocide be congenial if it were done in
moderation? Neither the name a crime takes nor its frequency have
anything to do with whether or not something is a crime. Lynching
is neither a medical term nor a frequent occurrence, but most agree
that it should remain illegal.

Anthony Kohrs UCLA alumnus

Sarcasm makes light of serious issue

I found Jerry Pfohl’s article, “Protect U.S.
freedoms ““ save lap dances,” (Oct. 24) to be
self-defeating and somewhat inane. Pfohl claims to support
women’s right to give lap dances, yet his humor is
condescending and thus fails to provide genuine support for the
cause. In other words, he makes such snide and nasty comments about
the women that I find it hard to believe he has any genuine respect
for them.

Pfohl makes stinging quips at the women he claims to be
supporting with such statements as, “Give these ladies the
chance to leave their poles and go to the polls,” and,
“Without hundreds of $1 bills tucked into their thongs night
after night, how will these poor girls keep on paying for medical
school?” He probably was attempting to be satirical, but this
failed because he makes fun of something he claims to support.

Julia Riechert fourth-year, English and art
history