LETTERS: Presenting 'Both Sides' equally

To the Editor: In recent years, several other student newspapers have adopted similar strategies. When I was an editor of The Chronicle, the daily student paper at Duke University, we developed a monthly "In this corner? In that corner" section that served the same function. Implicit in these types of editorial presentations, however, is a responsibility on the part of the editorial staff not normally present for regular columns. Regular columns merely represent the opinions of their authors, who are typically given the freedom to write on any topic they choose -- and, of course, to argue any side of a story. While Stephen Thompson's piece, "Always spare the chair," represented a thoughtful discussion of one side of the issue, the community was done little service by College sophomore John Mamoun's truly sophomoric judgements as to who is and is not a "high-quality human being." Hopefully future editions of "Both Sides" will be better paired in terms of the quality of insight. Scott Halpern Medicine '00 To the Editor: In his guest column "Execute Sled's murderers," John Mamoun claimed execution is the best punishment for those who kill someone of significantly more societal worth ("Execute Sled's murderers," DP, 11/14/96). Mamoun attached "worth to society" to "quality as a human being." In judging quality as a human being, he appears to disregard someone's willingness to kill another person, while considering level of education as definitively good. This view not only makes acceptable an educated person's murder of an uneducated person of high moral fiber, but seems to encourage it. Mamoun then asks "What if a high-quality human being destroys another high-quality human being?" A high-quality human being does not destroy another human being. Doesn't Mamoun know his commandments? Paul Smith College '99

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.