Women’s Resource Center Worth Discussing — From All Sides
I am a woman. I am active in Queers and Allies, I am active in Women’s Initiative, and I work at the Women & Politics Institute. I’ve interned for the Feminist Majority Foundation and THE LINE, a groundbreaking campaign to end rape. I am the brains behind (con)sensual, the localized campus campaign for consent. I am hoping to pursue a career in advocacy. I am seeking a major in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and a certificate in Women, Public Policy and Leadership.
But that is not why I support the Women’s Resource Center.
I support the WRC because I think it is key to achieving our university’s goal of being an institution of pride, inclusion, and student-centered policy, and I think that the WRC’s outspoken critics have often been misinformed, abrasive, and incorrect.
The WRC is neither useless nor redundant. WI is not a WRC. For example, one of the WRC’s key purposes is the decentralization and mainstreaming of sexual assault resources. This will make the process of reporting and receiving support for rape and sexual assault easier, less emotionally volatile, and more efficient. These resources, although created for a problem that affects women disproportionately, will help all students at AU and create a much safer campus climate. Similarly, the WRC will offer programming and guidance on other issues of interest to women and that disproportionately affect women- economic problems stemming from institutional sexism, disordered eating and relationship violence, to name a few. The WRC will also offer resources for women hired by AU itself, making it easier for them to navigate professional situations in the male-centered world of academia. Most importantly, the WRC will institutionalize and further expand on progress made by WI, shifting what is now a student-run effort to include women in the decisions of our campus leaders to a professional, faculty-led movement to make sure women on campus are respected, heard, and represented fairly.
The WRC is not a bastion of man-hate, nor is it a dig at all the guys at AU. It is a safe space, with literature concerning women, issues affecting women disproportionately, and women of import; with trained faculty to counsel students on issues from academics to date-rape; with guidance and resources available for students and faculty alike on how to succeed - in the AUniverse and the larger world - despite the obstacles of institutionalized sexism and pervasive discriminatory practices in our culture.
A Women’s Resource Center is much less about feminism and women than it is about equality and all people on campus. It is a much-needed step toward creating a truly student-friendly campus climate, and no amount of argument about the number of women on campus or the “mythical pay gap” will not only fail to conceal its necessity, but will rather exacerbate it.
Carmen Rios Sophomore, CAS and SOC
Knepper misses point about resource centers
I am appalled at the opinion piece written by Alex Knepper in the Nov. 16 issue of The Eagle. His article, "Feminist — err, women's center wastes money," is not only one of the most disgusting things I have ever read, but also one of the most misinformed. He states that there is not an academic, economic or health-based need for a Women's Resource Center to be established, but the arguments he makes based on "fact" are both wrong and highly offensive.
He presents the fact that far more women attend AU than men as an argument against the academic need for a Women's Resource Center. Now, perhaps if all of the women on campus were women's studies majors, this would be true, but we're not. A resource center would be a valuable supplement to both sexes interested in furthering their knowledge on women's issues.
Next, he argues that women "make more money than men in about 40 professions." According to Knepper, this completely discounts the "myth" of the pay gap. I would argue, however, that it isn't about who makes more in 40 out of several hundred professions, but that everyone is paid equally for equal work. It is not a competition between the sexes as to who can make more money, but it is a fight for parity in the workplace for both men and women. I'm not quite sure what he meant by there being no economic need for a resource center, but there is indeed disparity in which kinds of jobs women hold, as well as in what they're paid; I think educating people about this fact is an undeniably important task that a resource center could help to accomplish.
Lastly, he argues that there is no health-based need for a women's resource center. Women who have been raped or sexually assaulted, according to Knepper, don't need "a room filled with feminist buttons and books by Andrea Dworkin." As a survivor of rape, I would emphatically state that if anything, I would trust a Women's Resource Center to help me find what I need before I would trust Knepper to do the same. Women are different. Experiences with rape and sexual assault are different. One woman might find Dworkin to be a comfort, while another may not. The fact that such a resource is there is a good thing for survivors, as well as for people who want to dissect the rape culture in which we do indeed live.
As Knepper also points out, I will agree that, yes, there are hospitals in the area. Yes, there are sexual assault hotlines and a Student Health Center on campus. But I can attest to the fact that rape is a traumatic, terrifying and confusing trespass on one's body and mind and a hospital or a hotline are not options a survivor may realize she has or feels safe with. A resource center, on the other hand, can point women and men in the right direction in terms of recovery and empowerment after an attack. Resources can help survivors heal and grow after one of the worst experiences of her life. If this center were to help just one person cope, then I think my tuition money is worth it, at least.
Basically, I think this article was insightful as to why a women's resource center is so important to the AU community. There are numerous misconceptions in regards to women's issues that could be dispelled by adequate resources.
As a final comment, I don't know what Knepper was trying to accomplish by derisively calling it a "feminist resource center" instead of a women's resource center. It's 2009. Feminist is not a dirty word. It is not a degrading word. It is not an obscene word. It is a powerful word — and it can be threatening to those who fear equality and empowerment exhibited by women. Alex Knepper, you don't need to be threatened by that word. Strong and smart women are actually a pretty good thing.
Erica E. Best Junior, SPA
Veterans’, Women’s resource centers should not be compared
I am writing this letter in response to the editorial, "Questioning new resource center" dated Nov. 1. I strongly resent the board's utilization of veterans' issues as the basis to attack the necessity of supporting women's equality at AU. This nation was founded upon the premise that "All Men are created Equal." This notion has been defended and secured by those service members whose efforts you seek to manipulate for your own petty political purposes. While I firmly believe that veterans deserve all of the support that we can provide, I have a hard time believing that any veteran would want this support to come at the expense of others who are also in need of it.
If you wish to make the argument that women do not necessitate added assistance from the university or that the services offered by the proposed Women's Resource Center are duplicitous with other resources within the university, then I respect your right to do so. I disagree, but even more to the point, I would posit that the creation of a veterans' resource center is completely immaterial to your argument and that a veterans' resource center should not be associated with the attempted deprivation of a service aimed at benefiting the general welfare of the student body. Your motivations in this instance are readily transparent and are not at all consistent with the notion of service that this university and our Armed Forces were founded upon. In the future, I would suggest that you allow your arguments to stand on their relative merit and that you resist the temptation to resort to cheap political pandering.
If you wish to support the veterans on campus, I would suggest doing that as opposed to arguing against other initiatives.
Daniel Rogers Veteran
Sex column questionable to LGBT community
When I learned that there was an article in The Eagle addressing stereotypes of the lesbian community, I was excited to pick up a copy of the paper. This enthusiasm quickly dissipated by the third sentence when I learned that, according to the AU Threesome, lesbians are not a community, but a "phenomena" to be studied.
In an effort to acknowledge that the column attempted, but failed, to be humorous, I can look past the inaccurate comparison of lesbian sex to Jell-O shots, the offensive implication that lesbians are all biologically the same and even the language that suggests that "encountering a lesbian" is similar to running into a strange creature in the wild. What I cannot seem to move past, though, is the Editor's Note at the bottom of the column, which reads: "In an attempt to prevent misinterpretation, we would like to acknowledge our sex columnists are of varying sexual orientations and genders."
While I'm glad that The Eagle has taken a non-heteronormative approach to the sex column, what this note implies is that The Eagle staff does not regard members of the LGBT community to be capable of saying things that offend and hurt persons in their community. It also assumes that all LGBT people are the same and that if one gay identified person finds something acceptable, then the rest of the LGBT community will too.
This is not the first time The Eagle staff has used this problematic argument. On Sept. 2, in an effort to defend the AU Threesome column "Sex-perimentation Defines Welcome Week," the Eagle stated, "the Scene section's editorial staff, which is comprised entirely of women, reviewed and approved the piece before it went to print. They thought it was fine." This, again, implies that because a few women found something "fine," so would all women. Based on the controversy that article raised, I would hope they have learned that this is not the case.
People of marginalized communities — LGBT identified people, women, people of color, people with disabilities, economically disadvantaged people, etc — are not homogeneous. We do not all find the same things acceptable, funny or offensive. The Eagle can publish a sex column that is offensive to some lesbian women if it so chooses, but it should not use the presence of a LGBT columnist to justify doing so.
Sarah Brown Senior, CAS Director, Women’s Initiative
CLEP exams cause missed opportunities for students
The Eagle's Nov. 11 staff editorial, "Touting tests worth taking," suggested that more students should be encouraged to take CLEP exams and the university should accept more CLEP exams for course credit, mentioning as potential benefits the savings in tuition dollars and the possibility of smaller General Education classes. The two recommendations are linked, in that if the university does not accept CLEP exams for course credit, there is no real incentive for students to take them. Review of exams is the province of the university's academic departments and faculty, and at present the faculty have only found five of the CLEP exams to come up to AU's academic standards. The only way for that to change, ultimately, is for the CLEP exams to become more rigorous, so that the faculty feels comfortable granting course credit for students who do well on them.
As for the General Education Program, The Eagle's editorial board would do well to remember two things. First, a student may only use four exams overall for General Education credit; that includes AP exams, IB exams, and the like. Thus, it is far from clear that more students taking CLEP exams would result in smaller General Education classes. In the end, the most important determinant of average class size is the overall faculty-to-student ratio of the university, and no number of exams accepted for course credit is likely to affect that. Second, AU's General Education Program is not simply a list of courses, but also an overall program with learning outcomes that faculty, teaching across the program, strive to achieve. A General Education course is more than just disciplinary content, but also a course that includes the promotion of such intellectual capacities as critical thinking and ethical awareness. The Eagle's writers should think twice before encouraging students in a course of action that would lead to their avoidance of important opportunities to acquire those capacities.
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson Director, General Education Program
