Letters to the editor

Tunnel of Oppression should be uncomfortable

When I read the Feb. 28 opinion article regarding the Tunnel of Oppression, I was astonished, to say the least. I moved from shock to anger as I continued to read, but allowed the words to filter past my emotions and move into my analytical cognition.

I read the article carefully, agreeing with some aspects of it and disagreeing with others. I am aware that the point of an opinion article is to state an opinion; however, I felt that the overall tone of the article was demeaning.

The section that stated, "I walked through (the sexual violence) section with my girlfriend, and it made me feel more than a little uncomfortable ... There's a line between raising awareness and making someone feel like they're not safe in anyone's presence," was upsetting.

I understand that the author may have felt uncomfortable.

To be honest, I think most people that went through that section and paid any attention to it felt uncomfortable -- that's the point.

Rape and abuse are not comfortable, and our slight discomfort while walking through a tunnel of words that merely represent those acts is nothing compared to what the victims of rape and abuse have felt and continue to feel even after the act is completed.

The author stated that, "Having all of these stories of women who were raped by their fathers, boyfriends, best friends and acquaintances ... made it sound like every guy was a sexual monster."

First of all, those "stories" that he carelessly mentioned are real experiences written by real people.

Second, very few of those accounts stated whether they were written by a specific gender, therefore how does the public know whether a male or female wrote them?

Thus, the author was merely assuming that they were attacking males, when in fact males may have very well written those same "stories" that he was referring to.

While he admits that he is aware that more women are sexually assaulted than men, it is clear that the author missed the overall point of the exhibit: to share the experiences of those who have been oppressed in the past, that will possibly be oppressed in the future and to celebrate those that strive to overcome oppression today.

Jennifer Jaber

Psychology '09

'Oppression' statistics lead to misinterpretation

In the opinion column, "Tunnel exhibit further oppresses," the author began to doubt the statistics given in the tunnel after seeing the following two assertions:

"Eighty percent of people under the age of 30 have been sexually assaulted," in a poster caption, and "eighty percent of people who are raped are under the age of 30," as a bullet point.

While it is possible for both statements to be correct, they say very different things. I suspect that the poster writer made a classic error of confusing two conditional probabilities (and also identifying sexual assault as rape, but that's not the main flaw here).

Let me paraphrase the two statements for clarity, although losing a little accuracy:

Poster: "If you're a young person, you're very likely to have been sexually assaulted/raped." Bullet: "If you've been sexually assaulted/raped, you're very likely to be young."

To me, the bullet statistic is plausible, while the poster statistic is not.

A common error in statistics is to confuse the probability of event A happening, given that B happened, with the probability that event B will happen, given that A happened.

In logic and also in law, the similar error even has a name -- a "converse error" -- as it involves confusing two if-then statements. Namely, if A then B, its converse B then A.

Such errors in reasoning are more common than many people might think -- look for them the next time you're arguing with someone, as you both may be right.

So, don't lose your faith in statistics, just watch out for their misuse or misrepresentation.

Peter Ross

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science

Publications should pursue sustainability

This letter is in response to The Santa Clara editorial, "Course catalogs hardly sustainable."

While I strongly support the school's many efforts to move toward sustainability, I ask you to question yourselves in attacking Associated Students for preserving the hard copy format of the course catalogue.

The resolution was written not to demolish the online option, but to allow students to continue to have an online or newspaper format.

Rather than point fingers at those giving you choices, perhaps turn the finger back upon yourselves and ask if you have picked up your copy of the course catalogue lately.

I encourage the student body to use the online format of the course catalogue and reduce the demand for the hard copy, but, while the demand is still there, I continue to support the decision to meet that demand.

Perhaps The Santa Clara should take a look at their own sustainability, and rather than producing a weekly paper version of their news, consider moving themselves to an online format.

Mandi Collins

Associated Students Senator

English and Marketing '09