Column on weath inequality badly researched, cited
In my experience writing for the Daily Reveille, I found the worlds of academic and popular press writing to be vastly different.
If a columnist wants to achieve readability without sacrificing sophistication, they must bridge the gap between academic and everyday language as well as bring meaningful analysis.
Unfortunately, in his March 3 column “Income inequality can be perfectly fair and just,” Daniel Morgan didn’t feel up to the work.
I applaud Daniel’s attempt to cite and use academic research as a basis for his column, but I find his use of that information to be somewhat selective and boldly misleading.
I mainly take issue with premise 3, in which Morgan uses unspecified research from the 70’s to the 90’s to prove his points.
Morgan’s explanation and citation of correlation coefficients sits in a vacuum, as we have no record of the sample used or any of the other methodology; he just presents figures and a vague explanation of correlation.
But who cares about things like accuracy?
Later in the article, Morgan namedrops David Cesarini and does so without properly citing the actual article, fully explaining the data sources, methods or the fact that David’s measure of IQ is widely debated in academic circles.
But who cares about citations and explanations?
I understand Daniel’s desire to create controversy and draw attention to his work. However, his methods are insufficient and without coherence — there are better attention-getters.
The Daily Reveille and its staff should be embarrassed that someone like Daniel Morgan is allowed space in the publication.
Skylar GremillionSociology Doctoral StudentFormer Reveille Columnist
Lent more than giving things up
As a philosophy and religious studies student, I welcome criticism of religion, as long as the critique is logically valid. However, this is not the case with Matthew Sigur’s Tuesday column, “Tis the season to repent – or something like that.” To say that Lent is about “giving up something” is categorically false. While self-denial plays a role, the purpose of Lent is to become more like Christ, not to please the Pope or your parents. Self-denial, almsgiving and prayer are methods that people use to achieve the goal of becoming like Christ.
While I agree that many people give something up just for the sake of giving something up, it is absurd to assume everyone who practices Lent holds such a mentality. On what grounds do you justify that “you never really give up anything big at each state of maturity?” What constitutes a “big” sacrifice? I know people our age who go beyond “smoking weed” as you put it, and fast for days and pray for hours. To me, this seems like a pretty big sacrifice.
Furthermore, you make another hasty generalization when you insist that people are only setting themselves up for failure by giving something up. What if people actually hold on to their sacrifice through-out lent? What if people get something very good and positive from Lent?
Had you written an article about how people completely miss the point of self-denial by substituting a steak dinner with gigantic crawfish boil or about how people shouldn’t give up something for the sake of giving it up or even an article logically arguing as to why you disagree with the practice of Lent, then I would have read the article, formed by opinion, and thrown away the newspaper.
Instead you chose to make a hasty and false generalization about Lent and its practitioners, which is why I felt it was necessary to defend those who see it as more than a silly practice.
Diego ZacariasPhilosophy/religious studies sophomore
Contact The Daily Reveille’s opinion staff at [email protected]