A Reader's Reply

To the editors:

I am ashamed that The Crimson reprinted "A Grader's Reply" (Opinion, May 16). Among other blatantly sexist comments, the author of the piece (which was originally printed in 1962) states that while A's go to those essays with creativity, "The B's go to Radcliffe girls who memorize the text and quote it verbatim, in perfectly hooped letters with circles over the i's."

In addition, the author notes that "Don't (Cliffies) write offers to come over and read aloud to us your illegible remarks ... we may be married."

This inflammatory article portrays Radcliffe women as gold-digging ditzes, and though the author's opinion may have been representative of the social prejudices of the time, it has no place in this year's paper.

Imagine if the target of "A Grader's Reply" hadn't been the women of the College but rather some ethnic or religious group--the article would have never made it out of the archives! Instead, it appears to be The Crimson's opinion that while racial and religious discrimination is wholly impermissible, it's perfectly all right to discriminate against women-after all, they're just 'Cliffies.

Susan M. Brunka '03
May 17, 2001

No Turmoil in VES

To the editors:

I write on behalf of 22 other students in the department of Visual and Environmental Studies (VES). We were appalled by the portrayal of the department presented in your article regarding the dismissal of Ellen Phelan as department chair and the appointment of Kenan Professor of English Marjorie Garber to that position (News, "Staff Complaints Led Knowles to Replace VES Chair," May 16). Our experiences in the department have been overwhelmingly positive, largely due to the great talent and generosity of the faculty and staff criticized in the article.

Over the past two years, we have all benefited tremendously from Phelan's five-year plan to improve the VES program. Recent visiting faculty members include sculptor Joel Shapiro, performance artist/dancer/filmmaker Yvonne Rainer and photographer Boris Mikhailov; renowned director Hal Hartley and photographer Nan Goldin, along with many others, will come to the program next year. Working with these artists has provided us as students tremendous insight into the practice of the visual arts, opportunities to discuss our work at a professional level of criticism and connections with many artists with whom we will stay in touch after the end of the semester. The notion that we should suffer from this continuing link to a vibrant art scene is absurd.

Some of the permanent VES faculty, including Ellen Phelan, have also commuted from New York at different times here. While an outsider might be skeptical of this practice, any member of the VES department can speak to Ellen's influence and dedication in bringing us the absolute best. Her active pursuit of improvements within the department stems from a real concern and respect for the students within. This is reflected in her classes, where she is appreciated as a teacher who is both articulate and involved in the work her students are doing.

The Crimson's article demonstrated a complete lack of respect or understanding for the profession of art. The depiction of "famous career artists, who painted alone and often paid studio assistants to do everything from wash brushes to manage their archives," fails to acknowledge the intensity of engagement with his or her work that an artist must have in order to create, as well as the complex business of managing artists and the value and prestige of apprenticeship or internship experience. The VES department functions within this reality, and as a result, the program has improved vastly, as evidenced by the thesis exhibitions in recent years and the graduate school acceptances from programs at Yale and California Institute of the Arts. Our larger concern, however, is whether The Crimson's one-sided story reflects a greater misunderstanding, and indeed devaluation, of the role of the serious practice of the visual arts within the University, and unique conditions required for the department to flourish.

Lacking any student voice, the article presented a warped view of the staff and faculty, notably Professor Christopher Killip and Arnheim Lecturer on Studio Arts Nancy M. Mitchnick. Killip arrives early every day and greets the students who are just finishing up their darkroom all-nighters. He takes on many summer research advisees and supervises intensive tutorials; this year, he even took on an extra class for rising seniors in the spring to make up for the loss of a visiting faculty member. Individually meeting with students and arranging field trips to local exhibitions, Killip keeps an eye out for his students as they make their way from his 40a and 40b classes through a train of visitors to the all-important senior thesis. In the CUE Guide he received a 5 for the advanced course, VES 143, that he taught last year.

Mitchnick is equally dedicated, known and loved around the department for the enthusiasm she brings to the Carpenter Center. Due to this dedication and her own remarkable talent, she teaches one of the best undergraduate painting courses in the country (let alone the department)--a fact to which the always-heavy shopping period draw of "Painting With Attitude" attests. On the night before theses were due, Mitchnick left her Easter celebration and spent the entire night helping students, both her advisees and others with critical feedback, inspirational stories of Brice Marden and even a few leftovers. Just a few hours later, she returned to the Carpenter Center to teach a full eight-hour class.

In sum, VES is far from being "in turmoil." Interpersonal conflicts are common in any field, and we believe The Crimson presented a warped perspective on highly valued members of the department and failed to address the real issues surrounding the change of department chair. We stand by our faculty and the staff, both old and new, and while we have been a bit unsettled by recent rumors, we are prepared to continue to build the program with newly appointed Department Chair Marjorie Garber.

M. Elizabeth Glynn '03
May 17, 2001
The writer is a Visual and Environmental Studies concentrator.

Unfit to Print

To the editors:

I write in response to Parker R. Conrad's ill-advised column "Fit to Print?" (Opinion, May 18). The op-ed page is no place for the managing editor to defend The Crimson against criticisms and allegations of poor ethics. For Conrad to write a column about the journalistic process is a direct conflict of interest. Conrad's editorial blurs the line between news and opinion at The Crimson and is particularly ironic given that the focus of his piece is The Crimson's ethics.

Furthermore, Conrad begins by noting that his column is not designed to address issues of particular controversy but rather general issues about journalism, Crimson style. But his first section is a direct response to particular allegations about The Crimson's unequal coverage of the sit-in. A more appropriate way to handle such concerns would be to publish additional letters to the editor on the subject and a rebuttal to the specific points they make.

Alexandra Neuhaus-Follini '04
May 16, 2001