Letters to the editor

Michelle Obama’s status as a fashion icon is inspiring, not demeaning

To the Editor:

In her April 14 op-ed “An Ivy-educated fashion icon,” Ana Baric writes, “If a female public figure can only receive respect and accolades (that aren’t related to her aesthetic appeal) if she wears pants suits, we have a problem.”

I think the problem is the opposite. Who says that curiosity in Michelle Obama’s fashion is negatively correlated with the amount of attention we give to her actual agenda and accomplishments? The first lady’s interest in bright colors doesn’t negate her interest in military families. The media may obsessively follow her footwear choices, but Obama’s status as a fashion icon is not demeaning. It’s inspiring because it shows that she is comfortable with herself, both as a woman who likes fashion and as an intelligent and successful professional. These are not mutually exclusive categories.

In her own words, one of the most important things Baric learned about herself during her first year of college was “the importance of wearing edgy black clothing.” Fashion is important, and it’s a part of who we are.

Just because I’m excited that Obama looked fantastic during her trip to London doesn’t mean I forget all the other things I love and admire about her. She would be just another celebrity with a stylist, not making the style section of the New York Times, if it were not for her impressive credentials. I admire her for her achievements and also for the way she presents them—dressed appropriately but in a way that reflects her personality and humor.

I think it is super for even “Harvard and Princeton educated” women (and hey, even Columbia women, as well) to love looking great, feeling great, and doing great work at the same time. I wish I could feel comfortable wearing one of Obama’s outfits to an interview rather than my standard black pantsuit. Women do not need to un-sex themselves or stifle their personalities to be taken seriously, and Obama is a testament to that. I commend her and look forward to seeing her at J.Crew.

Emily Rose Jordan, CC ’09
April 15, 2009

Columnist misrepresents issue of wealth redistribution with overly simplistic analogy

To the Editor:

Lauren Salz’s April 8 column “The daily mugging” is an unfair simplification of the issue of progressive taxation and wealth redistribution. By examining it in entirely nominal terms, Salz fails entirely to address issues of utility flow. She is of course correct in suggesting that even non-welfare government expenditures and acquisitions are still implicitly redistributive (a fighter jet protects poor Americans as well as rich ones, despite the latter paying for a hugely disproportionate 40 percent of the cost), but her “mugging” analogy ignores the fact that, despite the redistributive nature of such taxes, even the rich draw a significant flow of utility from the appropriations of their taxes. Moreover, one could argue that, in a sense, the higher tax burden of the rich is merited in areas such as defense, security, roads, and myriad other public services, as the fundamental service a rich American extracts from these services is clearly greater than that of a poor American. A clear example comes in the form of the aforementioned fighter jet. Yes, the richest 1 percent of Americans pays for nearly half the cost of that plane, but if one considers instead the value of the hypothetical jet, or tank, or satellite, as a function of the value it defends, this “disproportion” begins to disappear. According to this line of logic, this same 1 percent of Americans shoulders such a hefty tax burden because they control a relatively proportional stake of the wealth being defended by the American military. When considered in terms of dollars paid for dollars protected, the idea that American taxes are “excessively” progressive begins to break down. Similarly, while the rich pay a hugely disproportionate part of the cost of police, firemen, ambulances, etc., when one considers the value they extract from these services, i.e. the defense of a much greater aggregate estate, the dollar-for-dollar cost seems far more equitable. Admittedly, these correlations are not linear. After all, the rich pay not only higher absolute taxes, but also higher nominal tax rates on each dollar earned, but when one factors in diminishing marginal returns, the reality is that dollar-for-dollar, the value extracted by the rich from government services in relation to their tax dollars is likely far less disproportionate than Salz would have us believe.

Michael Samuels, CC ’12
April 14, 2009