| Letters to the Editor | 31 March 1999 |
Letters to the Editor
Carnacchio's Column Offends Muslims
The following form letter was submitted separately by approximately 30 individuals. —Ed.
[We] are writing in response to your column entitled, “The Great Carnacchio Walkout”, in the March 10 issue of the Michigan Review. [We], and a great many other Muslim students, were offended by your reference to Muslim women’s dress: “...let’s get rid of these angry feminist female GSIs who cover themselves like Muslim women...”
As you are no doubt aware, many Muslim women on this campus wear the modest dress and head-covering that Islam prescribes. Insensitivity toward this practice, even in the guise of humor or satire, contributes to the hostile environment that many Muslims perceive. One instance may be harmless, but the cumulative effect does have a serious impact on the way Muslims, especially Muslim women, are viewed in this society.
Since many Muslim students see the Michigan Review as an anti-Muslim publication (based on this and previous incidents), and given the offensive nature of this excerpt from your column, we believe an apology and clarification would be appropriate, and would help maintain an atmosphere of civility between the campus Muslim community and the staff of the Michigan Review.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
The description of GSI’s in the Michigan Review as “angry feminist females” who “cover themselves like Muslim women” discloses the miseducation of the article’s author. Feminism, from my understanding of its present form, is a movement for female power. To associate the Islamic practice described by the author with feminism is misleading and, frankly, insulting to Muslim women. The question you most likely are asking yourself is “why?” Let me answer this question for you as best as I can. When the verse in the Qur’an came down to the Prophet Muhammed (may peace and blessings be upon him) requiring that Muslim women cover themselves modestly, the women did not question the verse. They obeyed immediately. They did not ask for an explanation as to why they should cover. Indeed, as those women who were fortunate to live during the Prophet’s (may peace and blessings be upon him) time knew, the hijab was in their best interest. Men looked at women with the cover differently. They once looked at them with an animalistic desire. Now, they could not examine the meat to desire it in this way. Men and the entire society was forced to look much deeper to discover what made these women so desirable—their hearts, their minds, their morality, their honesty, their strength, their faith and so on and on and on.
So, Mr. Editor, I hope you now know, and you can relay the message to your misguided author, that Muslim women did not and do not cover because they are either angry or feminists. It is quite the contrary. As their ancestors, they cover knowing only one thing—that this action will gain the favor of Allah. There are no other guarantees. They cover, not out of anger, but out of love for The One, The Most Knowledgeable, The Most Merciful Allah.
Serene Katranji
C.J. Carnacchio’s column, featured in the March 10, 1999 issue of the Review, was offensive and poorly thought out in several ways. Although I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I find it reprehensible that a supposedly respectable publication would include slurs against Muslims, women, and effeminate men. The opportunity to have one’s writing disseminated publicly should bring a sense of responsibility with it. To use this valuable opportunity to belittle someone else’s religious or personal expression is not only a waste of space and of the reader’s time, it shows a profound lack of respect for the other human beings with whom you share this campus. To include such editorials in the Review undermines any respect that the Review may possibly have on campus. Everyone with whom I have discussed this editorial has shared my opinion that it was offensive, prejudiced, and poorly thought out.
Kristin Funk
First, let us state unequivocally that neither Mr. Carnacchio nor the Review have ever intended to offend Muslims. Many of the letters we have received have characterized the Review as an “anti-Muslim” publication; the ”previous incidents” to which the first letter above refers was a factual error in an October editorial on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The error concerned a treaty signed between the Koriesh tribe and Muhammed; our editorial made a factual statement about this treaty which was based on a U.S. News & World Report article. It was later brought to our attention that the statements about the treaty in the U.S. News article were erroneous and had been retracted, and accordingly we issued a retraction and apology for our error in our next issue.
We are disturbed by how the specific passage of Mr. Carnacchio’s column in question has been taken out of context; it appears that many of those who have responded have received a forwarded e-mail version which only included the specific sentence that referred to Muslim women. Anyone who read the entire column should have rather easily realized that it was a humor piece making light of the GEO’s demands. The reference to the attire of Muslim women was made to create a visual picture of what was being described, and was not intended to offend or criticize Muslims. Unfortunately, many seem to have incorrectly interpreted it as saying that we should “get rid“ of Muslim women because of their attire.
It is unfortunate that we have reached a state on our college campuses where any mention of a religious or ethnic group in anything other than reverent terms is immediately denounced as offensive. This creates a chilling effect which limits discourse and stifles creative expression. In the future, we hope that readers of all campus publications will keep this in mind, and consider context, before automatically labeling any reference to ethnic or racal groups as “offensive.” —Ed.
Carnacchio Possesses 'Pitiful Views'
During my four years at the University of Michigan, I have been an avid reader of the Michigan Review. I appreciate the opportunity to read well-written articles that portray intelligent arguments about important issues. Also impressive, the Review allows and encourages conflicting articles and viewpoints in its publication. Having said this, I must vent about one of your regular writers. I am sure you have received many responses from readers about C.J. Carnacchio’s articles, indeed, he frequently gloats about these letters in his articles. I celebrate his right to be offensive, ignorant, and self-consciously hypocritical in his articles. I strongly believe in the freedom of press along with the other freedoms ensured by the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. I just wish I didn’t have to see him in the Review.
Given my dislike for Carnacchio’s views and facile writing, I found it highly amusing that he chose to write his March 10 article on the GEO walk out in the oft-ridiculed Daily columnist rant style. His “1/2 column” of bitching followed by a list of demands was reminiscent of the hallowed “reasons to hate sororities” columns of the Daily. (And about as well thought out.) While he occasionally manages a bit of prose that has some merit, I am forced by the overwhelming evidence of the rest of his columns to believe that this is an accident. (700 monkeys on 700 typewriters for 700 years...) In this article, Carnacchio calls GSIs whining, sniffling and pseudo-intellectual. In the parlance of the schoolyard... it takes one to know one.
That’s it. You’ll realize I didn’t resort to a list to format my rant, nor did I resort to immature references to physical appearance, personal references of the (vintage porn collection) sort, or ridiculing pertinent social issues to make my point. Seeing Carnacchio in print is actually a high point of my Review reading experience because it forces me to reaffirm my belief in freedom of expression. My reading enjoyment ends, however, with the end of his first poorly written sentence. Carnacchio no longer makes me mad, but a little sad at his pitiful views and means of expression.
Stefanie A. Miller
LSA Senior
Schwartz's A Cappella Review 'Refreshing'
I am writing regarding the review of last month’s Monsters of A Cappella by Matt Schwartz. I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to have someone reviewing vocal music performances who actually knows something about vocal music. Indiana University’s “Straight No Chaser” was indeed the highlight of the evening. Speaking as a vocal music major, I must say that his critiques of the other ensembles were dead on. Knowing a little bit about Straight No Chaser’s history and work ethic, I can say that their performance was no surprise. In that same vein, I can also say that, given my experiences in the Men’s Glee Club, the quality of the Friars’ performance also came as no surprise. In my first music education seminar, Robert Culver, then chair of the department, remarked: “All musicians, whether solo or ensemble, perform to the level of their practice.” How right he was.
Mark Surprenant
Senior, School of Music
These letters were published in the 31 March 1999 edition of The Michigan Review
(Volume 17, Number 9).
For questions or comments, see the Contact
Information page.