The Michigan Review

BAMN Challenges Review to High Noon Showdown

The other day a crowd of 150 passers-by listened intently to a debate over religion on the Diag.

Because of this event it has occurred to us that a similar, informal debate between Review staffers and BAMN would be a useful contribution to the discussion of affirmative action on campus.

We would like to cordially invite any of your pompous, privileged selves to debate at 12 noon on the Diag on Monday (9/28). Please let us know soon if you are too scared, so that we can search for other less cowardly, more ambitious rightwing ideologues. Email bamn@umich.edu.

Thank you for your careful consideration.
Luke Massie for BAMN

The Review Editors Respond

Mr. Massie,

Thank you for your invitation; however, we must respectfully decline your group’s invitation to an “informal debate” on the Diag on Monday, Sept. 28, for the following reasons:

First, our primary business is to publish a student newsaper, not to engage in a shouting match on the Diag — which is what any “informal debate” with your organization would inevitably become. The evidence in this regard is clear and incontrovertible, as demonstrated by the nature of the “informal debate” you attempted to engage Mr. Connerly in during his appearance at U-M last March (to cite just one example). Heckling, interruptions, and personal insults are simply not acceptable tactics for a debate, which is defined as “a formal contest of skill in reasoned argument, with two teams taking the opposite sides of a specified question.” (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary)

Second, we refuse to debate your group because we do not wish to grant any more legitimacy to a group which openly professes violence as a means of achieving its political goals. (We assume you intend the “By Any Means Necessary” portion of your group’s name to be taken seriously.) If you wish to believe that we are “scared,” because we prefer not to engage in heated discussions on sensitive topics with a group that has proven itself capable of violence towards those with whom it disagrees, you are free to do so.

Finally, we would simply point out that your invitation itself reveals that your group is incapable of any rational, respectful debate, as you proved unable to even finish the letter without resorting to personal insults (i.e., calling us “pompous” and “privileged”). We have better things to do on Monday, and every other day, than to engage in this sort of 3rd grade-style name-calling — namely, attending classes.

Cordially yours in “pomposity” and “privilege,”
The Editors of the Michigan Review

Collier Responds to "Lanterns & Lances"

Lee Bockhorn’s recent column “Heroism in an Unheroic Age” (September 16, 1998) caught my attention for a couple of reasons. First, I too consider the flag on the Diag “one of my favorite sights on campus.” Only a few years ago, U-M flew a small, bedraggled, and often only partly raised flag — and on rainy days flew none at all! Sometime during the later Duderstadt years, floodlights and a proportionately huge flag were installed, and we now have a sight to behold - and proudly to hail. Second, I take your point about the academic criticism of U.S. policies and actions, but with more hope than you. If you read back into the 1930’s, you will find very similar attitudes among both faculty and students then; Eric Sevareid’s Not So Wild a Dream may be the best book to give you a feel for the times. And yet within a few years, those same college students had graduated to leading Ranger companies ashore on Omaha, commanding PT boats in the Solomons, and flying in those huge formations of bombers over Germany. I really think that today’s students would, “when the dark days of battle return,” respond every bit as well.

Tom Collier
LS&A Academic Adviser

U-M Prof "Gratified" by Debate Coverage

I’ve been meaning for some time to write to thank you for your coverage of my debate with William Lane Craig last February, in Rackham, on the existence of the Christian God. (“U-M Asks: Does God Exist?” February 11, 1998)
I was gratified that you gave the debate coverage which was extensive, generally accurate, and (as I thought) generally quite fair to both sides. So far as I can tell, the Daily gave the event no coverage at all (beyond a notice on the day of the debate informing people when and where it was to take place).

Your readers might be interested in reading the transcript of the debate, which now appears on my web site, along with some background information and post-debate comments. The address is: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~emcurley/debate.htm

Yours truly,
Edwin Curley

This article was published in the 7 October 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 2).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.