There's no time like returning to school after the Christmas season to enter the fray of an argument. F.Y.I.: some arguments appear to be wrapped beautifully with gifts inside and others wrapped beautifully while empty. Reading our fair paper last semester, I found an argument by a Mr. Fitzgerald, "New publication influences objectification" published on Dec. 8. The argument addresses the appropriateness of the new student paper's name, The Warrior. So, let's look at his package in order to see whether it's elegantly wrapped with a gift or with disappointment.

His argument can be wrapped in three statements, numbered here for convenience. (1) If the name "Warrior" objectifies Native Americans, then the new paper ought to change its name. (2) The name "Warrior" objectifies Native Americans. (3) Hence, the new paper ought to change its name. That's some pretty fine wrapping. But, we don't know if it's empty or if a gift's inside. So, Mr. Fitzgerald tries to show us a wonderful gift. He proceeds to bolster the truth of (2) by (a) noticing that to objectify a person is to violate that person's humanity, (b) by citing the authority of Martin Buber on the phenomenon of subjectivity, and (c) by providing a sub-argument from analogy: just as I'd be hurt should one call me a drunkard or jerk, so too Native Americans would be hurt should a name violate, quoting Mr. Fitzgerald, their "multi-faceted, subjective individuality." He also says that (d) the name, "warrior," perpetuates racism. Lastly, we should point out the hidden tape, namely, Mr. Fitzgerald assumes that the concept of humanity entails "multi-faceted, subjective individuality." Some tape.

Does Mr. Fitzgerald's argument have a gift? Let's ask some clarifying questions before answering that question. I'm not offering a counterargument in what follows. (I) Assuming we even know what the term means, what's so morally special about having a "multi-faceted, subjective individuality" (If Mr. Fitzgerald culled this term from Buber, one should keep in mind that Buber is notoriously obscure. And that's an understatement!) Why is subjectivity, for short, morally significant? (II) If the concept of humanity entails subjectivity or being a subject of experience, then would Mr. Fitzgerald be willing to attribute the concept to other, non-human beings that seem to be subjects of experience? If so, then would we have to extend moral consideration to these groups? Suppose one of Marquette's opposing teams is named, The Cockroaches. If we said things like, Squash The Cockroaches, then would we be stepping on cockroaches as anthropods by violating their "humanity"? Finally, (III) does the concept of warrior refer only to Native Americans such that we can't use it in reference to things other than Native Americans or define it by terms that pick out certain universal qualities-nobility, courage, or strength-that Native Americans happened to embody?

These questions are not meant to belittle Mr. Fitzgerald's argument. I ask them because I don't know whether he's got a gift for us, i.e., whether the argument is good and The Warrior name should be changed by editors of the new student paper. So, rather than saying that Mr. Fitzgerald's argument is good or bad, we should not open his present until these as well as other questions are answered.