"Busiest Student" competition disappointing
I was sorely disappointed in The Eagle's "AU's Busiest Student" competition. Why is this something that even needs to be featured? It is a fact that most of us are very busy with jobs, internships, classes and clubs. While I applaud students like Vitas, Dooley and Olson for pursuing their passions, the overworked lifestyles of these students and many others at American are just ridiculous. What happened to having some time to just kick back, relax and watch a movie or read a book?
I'm also curious as to why sleep has become such a low priority. Assuming Vitas' Monday schedule is similar to the rest of his weekdays, he gets five and a half hours of sleep a night - unless he is pulling an all-nighter, something that he says happens "at least once a week." Dooley reported that she gets roughly four hours of sleep a night. Neither of these students are anywhere near the Centers for Disease Control's recommendation of seven to nine hours of sleep a night (and let's face it, college students generally prefer more than that). This is just plain unhealthy, and yet many of us seem to think nothing of it.
By making this feature a competition, The Eagle is contributing to a mindset that says that our GPAs and our resumes are more important than our physical, emotional and mental well-being. I certainly hope to see an in-depth, well-researched article on what the consequences of such lifestyles are.
Carolyn Browender Senior, School of Public Affairs
Vyse makes errors of terminology in column
Graham Vyse's Nov. 12 account of his trip accompanying members of AU Students for Liberty to Philadelphia contained a significant error of terminology. Vyse states that "there are two main camps within the libertarian movement: the minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, or anarchists." This is incorrect. The term "anarcho-capitalist" might be apt, but anarchism, by definition, is a leftist movement that seeks to place power in the hands of the workers, not in the state, nor in a privileged capitalist minority. More specific terms such as "anarcho-syndicalism" and "anarcho-communism" help to clarify things. Anarchism is properly understood as the ultimate expression of the anti-authoritarian left, associated with labels like "libertarian socialism." In fact, in Europe, the word "libertarian" is almost exclusively associated with anti-authoritarian leftists.
American-style libertarians claim to oppose tyranny and coercion, and while they have much to say about state power, most of them have no problem with private tyranny, i.e. abuses committed by capitalists and corporations. Ron Paul and some other libertarians at least give lip service to this (they use the term "corporatism"), stating that megacorporations would not exist if not for the market-distorting subsidies (among other things) that they receive. I respect their intellectual honesty, particularly because far too many people dishonestly use libertarianism to excuse and rationalize their own privilege and greed with a veneer of jargon.
I recently attended a presentation on "The Solidarity Economy," sponsored by Community Action and Social Justice, which demonstrated numerous successful examples of anarchist (or anarchist-like) economic ventures. We anarchists seek to propagate such things, in pursuit of a more equitable, healthy and happy world. All the while, we have to explain that anarchism does not stand for chaos and disorder, and that we only partially overlap with American libertarians.
Scott Charney Graduate student, School of International Service
Cady column goes a bit too far
I'm not going to pretend that I respect Ms. Cady's opinion that American should implement a Smoking Ban policy. I notice she is only a freshman and is probably ignorant of the fact that this issue was quite fervently debated about a year-and-a-half ago. The same arguments that advocates of the ban made then are the same arguments that Ms. Cady makes in her column. The arguments are just as persuasive as they were then; that is to say, they are not persuasive at all.
A campus-wide smoking ban is little more than a policy enacted on the part of non-smokers to remove the inconvenience of smokers from campus. In the final analysis, smoking ban advocates want simply not have to put up with smokers on campus. The flower beds are ugly, the smell is discomforting, and smokers are ubiquitous; all these they (and Ms. Cady) cite as legitimate arguments to ban smoking. Reading Ms. Cady's column, it would appear smoking on campus is, at worst, an inconvenience.
She cites the very real negative impacts of secondhand smoke almost as a secondary argument; she does not mention anything about health until the middle of the column. Now, if her column were about the serious issue of responsible ownership of one's health, this little epistle would have a different tone entirely. But that's not what Ms. Cady writes. She should heed her own advice and just let people take responsibility of their own health, instead of allowing an enlightened few to assume it for them.
Despite the contents of this letter, it may surprise Ms. Cady that I am not part of the wretched throng defiling the flower beds. I have never been a smoker; I took a drag once when I was thirteen and decided it was not for me. I arrived at this decision in my own personal way, just as Ms. Cady arrived at hers. I hope that if Ms. Cady learns anything in her studies here at AU, it is that freedom has its difficulties and living in freedom is often uncomfortable.
Voltaire Cortez Senior, SPA
Women's Resource Center Must Not Waste Money
On Nov. 1, The Eagle ran an article announcing two new resources at AU: the Women's Resource Center and the Veterans’ network. This was followed by an editorial and lively discussion at theeagleonline.com questioning the necessity of "special interest resources."
Of course, the Women's Initiative submitted a follow-up Letter to the Editor and debate article followed that. It is this last article that prompted me to write. Only two men were quoted as opposed to the Women's Resource Center and, of course, this just leads the reader to believe that The Eagle managed to find two sexist men. Therefore, as a woman, I would like to voice my opposition not only to the Women's Resource Center but to the logic behind its creation.
Sarah Brown and Jenny Keating, directors of Women's Initiative, wrote, in a Letter to the Editor, that it is sad "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." They go on to express distaste for many "systems" that prove unfair to women, and that "a Women's Resource Center isn't going to dismantle this system, but it is one tangible step we can take toward equality."
I would actually argue that equality will not be achieved and such "systems" will not be broken down until women stop whining and patting each other on the back. As women, we should be more concerned with strapping on our boots, getting our hands dirty and heading out to the front lines (both literally and figuratively). For more information, find out who General Dunwoody is.
But really, who am I to judge? That's what I thought until someone was kind enough to post the proposed budget in response to one of the articles. The Women's Resource Center does not just take up AU real estate, it costs students more than $50,000/year. Of course, we can't just look at the price; we have to consider its costs and its benefits. Personally, I have trouble identifying benefits for a campus that is more than 60 percent female, already provide wellness, medical and psychological support services, as well as specialized programs through the Women's Initiative. Now I am being judgmental.
Let's consider one more statement made by the directors of Women's Initiative in their Letter to the Editor: "It's about a system of oppression that hurts all people ... 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." Statistically speaking, if you are reading this article, you are a middle class white girl. I am a middle class white girl. I find it appalling that any of my peers consider themselves equally or more deserving that a veteran of the United States armed services.
The new veterans’ network was supported by The Eagle's original editorial on the subject when the Women's Resource Center navigating the VA system is usually more difficult that anything the average AU student encounter in his or her four collegiate years. Imagine the average, stressful college experience. Now add a four- to six-year gap between high school and college. Fill that gap with high intensity training, repeated deployments to Iraq and/or Afghanistan and contending with the loss of a fallen comrade.
If we have $50,000 to spend, it should be on guaranteeing that the men and women who have served our country and chosen to attend AU at minimum have access trained mental health personnel who have the relevant training to address PTSD, academic support services that help veterans bridge the gap in their education and maximize their wealth off on the ground experience and creating an environment where faculty understand the unique situations and perspectives of their student veterans.
From the sounds of it, this project will move forward regardless of popular reactions. With that, I sternly suggest that the supporters and leaders of the new Women's Resource Center ensure that precious dollars do not go to waste and consider every step of the way that there are, in fact, groups and minorities on this campus that are more deserving and more in need of our time, space and financial resources.
Megan Lynch Graduate student, College of Arts and Sciences
