Women’s Resource Center needed asset
Monday’s editorial “Questioning New Resource Centers” generated a lot of controversy about the new Women’s Resource Center, which will open in the fall of 2010. We completely agree with the editorial staff, who encouraged students to be aware of where their money is being spent and to question the value of new university projects. What is sad, though, is that the Eagle staff and other students who agree with them still need to be convinced that a Women’s Resource Center is a valuable and needed investment.
Here is the point where we could launch into the many reasons why women on campus need the support a resource center would offer. But no amount of alarmingly high sexual assault statistics or lack of women’s health services will convince people who view women as a “special subgroup” that are attempting to “segment” the campus that such a space is needed.
The fact is that it isn’t about the statistics and it isn’t about one or two stand-alone events that demonstrate that gender inequality is alive and well. It’s about a system of oppression that hurts all people, men and women, and instructs us to value power over another person. It’s about a system that teaches us to think that a Women’s Resource Center isn’t fair to men, instead of viewing it as benefiting all people by pushing for an equality that will strengthen our relationships as human beings. A system that teaches us to place groups in need on a hierarchy, to argue that veterans need more resources than women, instead of acknowledging that we, as a society, have a lot of work to do so that neither group faces violence or inequality. This is a societal problem that Women’s Initiative, a group run by students with a student group’s budget, should not have to work against alone.
A Women’s Resource Center isn’t going to dismantle this system, but it is one tangible step we can take toward equality.
Sarah Brown and Jenny Keating Directors of Women’s Initiative
Eagle editorial board proves inconsistent
Perhaps The Eagle’s editorial staff should take a quick look through their archives before running an editorial like “Questioning new resource centers” that contradicts their previous positions on a women’s resource center.
The Eagle ran an article on September 30, 2007, titled “Women’s Center in Beginning Phases” which outlines the goals of the WRC. That same day, The Eagle ran an editorial stating that “The university and the Student Government’s collaboration on the future Women’s Resource Center represents significant progress toward a more open and safe AU.” It continued, “Considering that 65 percent of the AU student body is female, it’s almost surprising that a resource center doesn’t already exist ... to expect a full-time student to offer the same extent of services as a full-time staff director is unreasonable and unrealistic.”
On January 24, 2008, after the launch of the online resource center, Peter Brusoe devoted his opinion column to the topic, saying it was “time for a gender resource center.” He said that “A commitment from the university or a professional staff member and guaranteed funding will help ensure that issues related to gender expression and issues of gender inequality are addressed without fear of future budget cuts from a fickle senate.”
On April 27, 2008, the editorial staff awarded their annual grades to SG executives. SG President Joe Vidulich was given an A-, at least in part for his tireless work advocating for the creation of the WRC. At that time, the editorial staff felt that “The forthcoming Women’s Resource Center holds immense promise for male and female students alike.”
I certainly don’t expect the newspaper’s positions to remain static through staff changes. But I would hope that this editorial staff would take proactive steps to speak with advocates and become educated about the issue, as past staffs have done, before submitting a knee-jerk reaction that panders to the lowest common denominator.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have about the proposal, the goals of the center, or the reasons why a WRC is a vital and necessary addition to AU.
Vanessa C. Mueller 2007-2008 Director of Women’s Initiative, Class of 2008
Democrats should stop worrying about 2010
The only way Democrats could suffer substantial losses next year would be if they pissed off their supporters. Blanche Lincoln is in trouble because she has frustrated her democratic constituency, and the president’s approval numbers started to return to Earth when some democrats became disenchanted with him.
With Republicans focusing on the Democrats’ intra-party squabbling over health care and the poor shape of the economy, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Republican Party was actually still relevant and did not suffer the worst repudiation of any political party in recent history less than a year ago. One should remember that Democrats now hold seats in Idaho, some of the most conservative parts of the South (read: AL-2), every single seat in New England and are only lacking one seat out of New York’s 29-member delegation. To paraphrase Senator Brown’s comments from a few days ago, it is time to act like we won – because we did.
Some point to history as evidence that Democrats will lose seats next year, saying that the governing party traditionally loses 30 seats in midterms. One of my professors has even been telling me that his Democratic strategist friends are afraid of losing the House; I don’t know who his friends are, but I can tell you they probably aren’t very good at their jobs if they honestly think that, since Democrats would have to lose over 40 seats to lose their majority.
Consider the following: Democrats had already begun to lose in 1992, when Clinton won with only 43 percent of the vote and the Party lost nine seats in the House. They also had a zero net gain in the Senate that year. Additionally, 28 House Democrats retired instead of trying to win their seats in 1994. No House Democrats plan on retiring this year, although seven of them are seeking higher office, and only two are retiring in the Senate. Contrast that with the fact that eight Republican senators are retiring – and some of those seats are just screaming to be won by Democrats.
Fielding candidates like Rob Portman and Roy Blunt is stupid since they can be painted as Bushies with ties to the national climate. Fielding candidates like Mike Castle and Mark Kirk might make sense since these moderate candidates both have good shots at winning their Senate races, but Republicans should be terrified of losing those House seats since they are traditionally Democrat districts. Republicans were buoyed momentarily when they thought Harry Reid and Chris Dodd were vulnerable, but they seem to have forgotten that Reid has over $8 million in his account and Dodd’s numbers have started to pick up again. It also helps that a professional wrestler is running against Dodd – this isn’t Minnesota where voters like that kind of thing. Most importantly, Republican recruitment is not looking good – Republicans only got their top choices for candidates in a handful of races. True, Democrats have also lost some top recruits, but you don’t have to recruit candidates when you already have all the seats you want.
Democrats are going to get a public option in the final health care bill. The first hearings on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are scheduled for November. Education, immigration and energy reform is being embraced by both parties. FDR still won the biggest electoral landslide in American history in 1936 with double digit unemployment. America’s GDP just grew 3.5 percent. In short, Democrats are in the best position they’ve been in since 1964.
Bharat Krishnan Junior, SPA
Sexual abuse victims live with shame, pain
Reading the story of John Wojnowski breaks my heart, not only as a Catholic, but as someone who knows first hand the pain of sexual abuse at the hands of a church authority.
Although my childhood abuse was not perpetrated by a Catholic Priest(I was actually raised evangelical), I know the pain, shame, and lifetime effect sexual abuse has on its victims.
I also identify with the bitterness Mr. Wojnowski deals with. It can and will eat you up inside and make your life a living hell if you allow it to fester. Letting go of the anger and bitterness are imperative in order to move past this sort of trauma. That being said, forgiveness does not equal removal of consequences for the perpetrator. I do not personally believe in a statute of limitations for these sorts of crimes.
Those who prey on children should be brought to justice, regardless of who they are or what title they hold.
With that being said, it must be pointed out that while the sex abuse scandal was and remains to be one of the darkest moments for the Catholic Church, and we all can agree that one child being abused is too many, it involved only a microscopic number of priests (less than one-half of a percent). The vast majority of priests are dedicated servants who serve God and their fellow men tirelessly. They deserve our gratitude and support.
Joseph Riedel Grand Knight AU Knights of Columbus
Knepper’s ranting anti-American
I'm sorry, but I can't take any more of Alex Knepper's anti-American rants. America has made great strides on civil liberties of every stripe. But the point of this country is to "create a more perfect union," not to pat ourselves on the back after we've finished half the race. To say that America, a country that leaves 47 million of its citizens without health care, that tortures innocent people such as Lahkdar Boumediene without trial, is so advanced that we could demand others keep up with our moral standing is ridiculous. Is Knepper proud of Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and two wars, which have almost lasted a decade? Is he proud of the Texas GOP, whose platform calls for sex between gay people to be criminalized? Yes, we have a minimum wage and yes, we have the Civil Rights Act. These are great things. But Knepper's problem is that he looks at America like a child does a parent — with blind adoration, not even possible of doing something wrong. Hopefully, he can learn to love America like an adult — seeing its flaws and wanting to work for a better tomorrow.
David Grossman Senior, SPA
Where are the true gay rights leaders?
In the coming days and weeks there will be a lot of finger pointing at why gays can’t get married. Some would blame the churches. Some would blame the teabaggers. Some would blame the “dumb hicks in Maine.” Yet, to find the true culprit one does not need to go too far: The Human Rights Campaign and the timid leaders of the gay rights movement.
The Human Rights Campaign is an epic failure. The Human Rights Campaign has touted themselves as the premier group for promoting LGBT equality. They constantly hold fundraising events, come up with cute sayings and hawk merchandise. Yet, for all of this touting of the good work that they do HRC keeps on coming up short. Yes, they may have gotten their picture taken with Lady Gaga, they may have had that cute kid from Glee, President Obama may have even come and spoken to them. Yet, for the average gay, they’ve done nothing for us.
Can we serve openly in the military? No. HRC says to wait. Obama says to wait. What are we waiting for? A Democratic President? We have that. A Democratic Senate? We have that. A Democratic House? We have that. A national emergency and a need for more troops? We have that. HRC hasn’t been pressing for this issue because it’s not glamorous.
Can we get married? No. And thanks in no part to the infectiveness of the Human Rights Campaign we can’t even get married in Maine now. While groups like Equality Maine pushed hard, HRC was too busy trying to figure out what type of dinner to have at their fundraiser. They planned a stupid march in downtown Washington on a day when NO ONE from Congress was in town. How dumb was it? Honorary Doctor Barney Frank called it a stupid idea. When the person who has done to advance gay rights more than anyone else in the country calls it dumb, that’s a problem.
Looking at our campus gay rights leaders, we’re not much better off. The LGBT resource center has become a timid place to keep us quiet. Gay Pride week came, we weren’t allowed to fly our flags. Finally the University allowed us to put one up on the corner of the quad out of the way. Our university claims to support LGBT rights yet not a single dean or vice president comes from our community. When was the last time there was a gay night at Bender Arena? Why isn’t there mandatory safe-space training for all employees? Why do we allow the military on campus to recruit? Instead we have a cozy place to get mediocre condoms and pick up old episodes of “Queer as Folk.” It’s time we demand better.
Brad Whitman CAS, 2012
