Yesterday, I was shocked and saddened by Liz Froehlke's gross misjudgement ("Lack of acceptance an issue of ignorance," Nov 17) of what is considered an acceptable subject to "poke fun at." I have not seen a more patronizing or mean-spirited article in the time since I arrived here at Notre Dame. The first paragraph (half of the whole article) seems exclusively devoted to doing what you claim to most deplore, and attacking someone else for no good reason. If, as seems readily apparent, she cannot air her views without resorting to numerous ad hominem attacks on the person, morals, age and intelligence of Colin Keeler, then I implore her to not air them at all. I don't want to hear her personally attack a person who is new to this school and, in her own words "just a freshman." I am also "just a freshman" but I can certainly understand and be extremely indignant when she patronizes one of my classmates. This is doubly true when it is someone I both know and respect for his intelligence. If she thinks this little of him, I dare not ask what she thinks of me.
Obviously, Ms. Froehlke disagrees very strongly with Colin. It just so happens that I come down in the middle of this issue, by and large. There is a place for satire, especially when the target is Hollywood, but I still object to the method Stiller chose to use. The fact is, Hollywood exploits all manner of disabilities in its quest for profit and acclaim. However, the end does not justify the means. Stiller resorted to tactics even more blatant and deplorable than the Hollywood norm, in an effort to discredit the Hollywood norm. Though Hollywood deserved to be discredited, I believe Stiller could certainly have made an attempt to find a more reasonable method. Satire, on some issues, is just too harsh.
The same argument applies just as easily to Ms. Froehlke's letter, however. Her argument is something that I largely agree with, after the first paragraph is through. However, in that first paragraph, she chooses to insult Colin Keeler simply because he disagrees with her, and to insult all freshmen, simply because Colin Keeler is one. I found it very difficult to sit down and read the remainder of her letter, or acknowledge that it has merit, because of the sheer hypocrisy with which it began. She is a senior in college, and clearly believes herself more intelligent and mature than Colin, and presumably than myself. She should prove it.
David Loughery
freshman
Keough
Nov. 17
