Review's omission was reprehensible

To the Editor:

I read Kevin McShane's cartoon while eating in Stevenson today. (According to the caption on the cartoon, the Review refused to publish it and did not notify the cartoonist.)

As someone with a bad case of "underdog-itis"(or perhaps an exaggerated sense of fairness), I've always wanted to see Tom occasionally get the better of Jerry, Wile E. Coyote beat the Road Runner and, yes, Charlie Brown swat Lucy. This has nothing to do with aggression against women or any such thing - though I'm sure some would argue it is. It's just that I grew tired of watching one character continually get beaten up. Believe me, if it was Jerry who always got the short end of the stick, I would be asking that Tom occasionally get his due. While I wouldn't have gone as far as graphically kicking Lucy's head off her neck, I wouldn't have minded seeing her get a swift kick.

If the Review's omission was simply due to a lack of space, it is understandable. If, however, it was due to a judgment of the nature of the cartoon, I would be disappointed. I would be surprised that the Review is willing to print cartoons with pornographic images and subjects (as happened in a previous Toupydoop) but not something along these lines. Did the Review feel that the pornography cartoon's making fun of porno-watchers was acceptable while this one wasn't? Perhaps that's understandable in such a Politically Correct, self-important and self-absorbed environment. However, if the Review is to make any pretense at responsible journalism, it can't make such judgments. A consistent standard must be applied across the board and once you open the doors to certain types of work, you can't slam them shut based on your private opinions. One of the purposes of the press is to help us think and see things. If the cartoon had provoked outrage, all the better - at least it would have stimulated thinking. Failing to notify the creator and giving them a chance to clarify the situation or be heard is reprehensible.

I sincerely hope the omission was solely due to a lack of space or some such technical issue.

-Jaya S. Bajpai, College sophomore

Get some therapy, quick

To the Editor:

I'm glad you decided not to publish that horrible strip - I definitely would have sent a scathing note of protest if you had. This isn't the first blatantly mysogynistic strip McShane has done, but it certainly is the most offensive. I really don't care if he has trouble getting dates at Oberlin, but his level of overreaction is appalling - this guy really hates women, that he thinks murder is an acceptable answer to having tricks played on men by women. This "comic" is exactly the sort of thing the police and psychologists like to point to as evidence that a serial killer should've been identified before he went on his rampage. (And each one of those killers would've just laughed and said, "Hey, man, it was just a JOKE!") This crosses the line between poor taste and downright DISTURBED big time! The First Amendment protects his right to draw anything he damn well wants - but that doesn't mean you have to print it. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, you had a duty to your readers to REFUSE to print such a disgusting screed. That wasn't censorship - it was responsibility to the Oberlin community. What's next, McShane? Kill the fags? Kill the darkies? Get some therapy, QUICK!

-Mary Margaret Towey, College first-year