German House letter misses the boatTo the Editor:
To the authors of the letter, "German Students Harassed by Films," in The Tech, March 5:
There is not a $9 billion industry which degrades and shows violence against people of German descent. Germans, in postures emphasizing the physical features which make them German, are not shown consistently in the multi-billion dollar advertising industry as sex objects, secondary commodities, childish, etc.
Germans, in selling for money what is expected of them as Germans during dating and marriage, are not subject to illegal working conditions and then arrested when their activities are discovered. Eighty-five percent of Germans are not subject to continuous harassment in workplace because they are German.
To Hailperin, et.al.: to twist the words of those documenting abuse is not only an act of outrageous slander, it is an insult and a stab in the back to those who have been abused, by suggesting that either this abuse never occurred or that it does not matter if this abuse occurs.
If German House residents really experienced the acts they talked so flippantly about, if such acts occurred as I have mentioned in the first paragraph of this letter, would they be so intolerant and fascist? I doubt it. It is always easy to feel superior to those already discriminated against.
It is the democratic right of women and men to make the claim that pornography is a violation of women's civil rights, and to have a hearing to determine if this is so. The MIT administration has decided to deny their right to have a hearing.
That this censorship has occurred has never bothered those who discuss censorship so much, nor the fact that posters of the womans rights group ProFemina have been consistently torn down and attacked with swastikas, etc.
Das Boot does not portray German people the way Hailperin, et. al., suggests. It is sad that people who may be of German descent do not understand the history in this country of portrayals of Germans which were prejudiced, etc., and the efforts of those who understood human rights to lessen such portrayals.
Hailperin, et. al., cannot be excused for their ignorance and can only be blamed for their refusal to acknowledge the harassment that is everywhere on this campus.
Hailperin, et. al., as well as the other reactionary students on this campus, would do well to join those others who have fought propaganda which encourages a stereotype and which instigates violence.
Irene Baker '82->