I have been ashamed of my alma mater since it gave an honorary degree to Phyllis Shafley, whose hatred of women’s rights [and gays] brings disgrace to a liberal arts university.

I therefore propose that to achieve a balanced viewpoint to the honorary degree process that Washington University bestow Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood an honorary doctorate.

Beth Kline Mann
BA’60, MA ‘66

I am writing with reference to the article entitled “Happy Anniversary, Roe.” And to be honest, I’m a bit shocked. I’m not terribly shocked that a pro-choice article was featured in StudLife. No, this is Wash. U. That is normal, even respectable. I’m shocked at this level of venom in an article that essentially begins with the thought “Why is everyone so worked up about this abortion thing? It’s been legal for forty years!” What? Are those forty years supposed to be such powerful justification that no one even has the right to be upset about something that they perceive to be horribly wrong? But that’s just it.

I honestly don’t think that Miss Villalon has actually bothered trying to imagine how anyone could be so backwards as to want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I will freely admit, the merits of doing so seem dubious at best, but I am nevertheless a firm proponent of reducing abortion. And given the economic and political institutions behind it, one must realize that so much more is necessary than just condoms and cucumbers. I feel that I can understand the reasons why a great many Americans want abortion to be a choice. But to dismiss the opposite view (a view held by both men and women) as flippancy or antifeminism is frankly a little bit offensive, both to my opinions of morality and my logical sensibilities. And those sorts of remarks I don’t understand.

Kyle Flagstad

A huge thanks to the Obama administration for its outstanding efforts to protect access to affordable birth control for millions of women, including women employed by religiously affiliated institutions serving the broader public.

Birth control use for basic preventive health care is nearly universal in the United States. In fact, Guttmacher reports that 99 percent of all sexually experienced women and 98 percent of sexually experienced Catholic women will have used birth control at some point in their lives.

Like many other young, ambitious women, I rely on birth control to prevent unintended pregnancies until I am ready to have and support a family. Yet, birth control has always been a monetary concern. Thanks to this important, commonsense health care benefit, millions of women who would normally pay $15 to $50 a month will have access to affordable birth control, helping us save hundreds of dollars each year. Not to mention, family planning care also saves $6.20 for every $1 of taxpayer funds.

The Obama administration understands the importance of improving women’s health and the health of their families through the usage of preventive services, such as birth control. I support and applaud the key players in this decision who understand that decisions surrounding basic health care are personal and should not be determined by one’s government or employer. Thank you for supporting women’s health and women’s choice.

Alyson Currey
MSW 2012

Being a St. Louis native has advantages not afforded to many Wash. U. students. I live in the dorms; however, I don’t wait for mail, I can see my dogs whenever I want and I can score free meals whenever my family eats out.

In particular, I’ve enjoyed not having to navigate the mess that is traveling back to St. Louis. And so on the Sunday before classes began, which most of you likely spent unpacking or flying to Lambert, I decided to go on a walk.

Around midday I donned some warm clothes and stepped outside (I live beside an expansive 564-acre park). It was cold, but the clean, sharp air was refreshing, and I took my time ambling on a trail that follows the park’s perimeter.

I went to church that morning; however, for me, my spirituality is grounded most firmly in my love for nature. Being outside gives me a sense of awe that I am a part of a grand web of existence that connects all living things is both fascinating and incredible. I find the beauty of this delicate design very spiritually moving.

My respect for this interdependent web of existence has naturally made environmental sustainability a key aspect of my lifestyle choices. I became a vegetarian, I carry my own silverware everywhere I go and I am an avid fan of reusable shopping bags.

Environmental advocates have the facts behind them: Global warming is real, and it is happening. But they often fail to understand the potential for connecting with individuals on a spiritual level. Many religious texts have moving passages about the Earth’s beauty. Moreover, given the potential consequences, deciding to act on climate change is, at its heart, a moral question.

As our world is forced to confront our environmental problems, some will discover the necessity to act through charts and numbers. But many will be most readily moved by realizing the connection between their spirituality and the world around them. As environmentalists, we must not sacrifice this avenue of engagement if we are to succeed in our efforts to protect the planet.

Jake Lyonfields
Class of 2014

The “dying and inefficient business model” at whose legitimate legislative efforts Professor Glenn MacDonald is so quick to scoff comprises nearly 95,000 businesses in the United States that support approximately 2.2 million mostly middle class workers (many of them in unions) and contribute more than $15 billion annually in federal and state taxes. Presumably, many of his students in “Economics of Entertainment” take that course in the hope of one day being a productive and well-paid member of the entertainment industry and not in order to participate in an academic post-mortem.

As one such denizen of the entertainment industry, it perplexes me that Professor MacDonald focuses on the relevance of copyright to the cost of re-production rather than on the cost of production. Movies and TV shows cost millions – sometimes tens or even hundreds of millions – to produce. Unless production costs can be recovered with a reasonable profit, there is no economic incentive to create. Cost recovery and profit, in turn, depend on controlling and monetizing distribution. And that depends on copyright which gives creators exclusive rights over the reproduction, distribution and performance of their works. Without those exclusive rights, the creation of new and original works is made much less likely. Such a blow to our cultural life strikes me as a bad thing per se.

One would think that Professor MacDonald, as an economist, might have something to say about the impact of widespread, industrial scale theft of created works on the economics of the entertainment industry. I find it hard to imagine that theft on such a scale in other industries would impel the professor to blame the victim. Were Apple to be the victim of massive patent and trademark infringement that gave rise to the manufacture and distribution of tens of millions of counterfeit iPads, will the Professor conclude that Apple’s is a dying and inefficient business model?

The Stop Online Piracy Act in the House and the Protect IP Act in the Senate may not pass in their current form but even their opponents recognize and agree that Internet piracy is a global scourge that must be addressed in a way that does not ignore the scale and international scope of the problem. Such recognition is not the dementia of dying industries; it is a clear-eyed assessment of what marketplace fairness governed by the rule of law entails.

Daniel M. Mandil
Senior Vice President
Associate General Counsel
Viacom Inc.
(WUSTL Parent)

I am writing in response to the most recent staff editorial, entitled “Finally, a candidate who can multitask.” Due to recent allegations, the article disdainfully urges people to vote for Herman Cain because he not only “shows just what kind of moral and upstanding citizen he is,” but “no other candidate appears to…[be] singularly qualified to run the country.” First, these allegations against Cain are allegations. They may or may not be true. If they are false, then the reputation of an innocent man has been irrevocably smeared beyond repair. If they are true, should a candidate or president’s sexual indiscretions take priority over his or her policies?

The point is that several presidents, notably JFK—a known womanizer—allegedly engaged in adulterous affairs, and even FDR actually died in the presence of his mistress. However, history highly regards these presidents. Second, during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, many people insisted that his private life should be kept separate from his ability to run the country, and the majority of the Senate concurred. The nation has more pressing problems, they claimed, than delving into cases of sexual promiscuity.

In the end, for a highly regarded student newspaper, this staff editorial, albeit satirical, seems to miss the point.

Sincerely,

Isaac Amon
Class of 2012

This country is founded on ideas of religious tolerance and freedom, as well as a separation of church and state. In recent years, however, it seems like the line between religion and politics has become increasingly blurred, an especially troubling issue in the area of reproductive rights.

Earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services passed a decision that requires insurance plans to provide birth control without co-pay. Conservative Republicans, backed by the Catholic Church, have been fighting this decision ever since. They are currently pressuring Obama to expand the already-existing exemption clause in the Affordable Care Act to allow religiously affiliated universities, hospitals, and other organizations the right to deny coverage for contraceptives.

How does this affect me and you? Wash. U. isn’t religiously affiliated, but think about all of the organizations, including potential employers and graduate schools, which have religious ties. They would be able to deny birth control coverage to all employees and students, no matter their religious convictions.

Although the official stance of the Catholic Church is against the use of contraceptives, the reality is that women of all faiths greatly benefit from birth control’s availability; 99% of sexually active women in the US have used birth control at some point in their lives, including 98% of sexually active Catholic women.

Denying women access to such an important preventive health measure doesn’t make sense (especially when you consider the church’s stance on abortion). If Barack Obama allows this exemption to pass, it would hit uninsured and underinsured women the hardest. Women should benefit from this new health care reform law regardless of where they work or go to school.

Abby Traub
Class of 2013

An article entitled “Wash U is segregated” was published in Student Life recently, describing our campus as self-segregated. Apparently, that was a surprising fact to some readers.

As a black male who is now a senior, it was not a surprising observation to me. Yet, judging from reactions posted on the newspaper Website, and on facebook, many readers were deeply offended by the column. People called the article– and the newspaper– racist. Some students even proposed sit-ins.

I think that is absurd. The article made an observation. Agree or disagree. Don’t shut down the discussion.

It is unproductive when people react to a provocative article with unfounded claims that institutions and people are racist. When discussions of race are met so passionately, it causes people to avoid the topic. Race needs to be discussed. Obviously, some people’s sensitivities were offended by the piece. But that should be the start of a conversation, not the end of one.

Why don’t we try to discuss and resolve these issues with one another?

Instead of reacting in an impassioned moment and updating our facebook statuses or rallying our friends around a cause that may be half-baked, we should take a moment and think. Let’s not assign the worst motives to one another. Let’s try to be more reasonable in our responses. Ultimately, that will do our campus and our society a lot of good, especially when the topic is as inflammatory as race.

Michael Fletcher
Class of 2012

The premise of the article “Will the racial divide in hip hop end?” is unfounded and the entire piece is poorly researched. First, a basic Google search of the artist Kreayshawn would quickly illuminate the fact that one of the major reasons that she is called out for “exploiting black culture” is because she and the rest of the White Girl Mob have chosen to ostracize themselves from the (majority black) hip hop scene by using the “n-word” in lyrics and through social networking. To add injury to insult, Kreayshawn herself has defended this choice by claiming that poor upbringings and jail time give her and her friends the right to use a word that continues to be used by non-black people to diminish and demean black people.

The author then complains about the fact that “other [non-black, non-male rap] artists need a qualifier.” I would agree that being “othered” is unfair. Racial minorities, members of the LGBT community, people with disabilities and countless others are “othered” every day of their lives, usually without a choice. In contrast, it appears that Kreayshawn has placed the othering (in this case) “white” qualifier on herself by calling her group White Girl Mob. She has chosen this identity because it is controversial, and regardless of whether she has skill or talent, it is this blatant parody and appropriation of black culture that makes her marketable and interesting.

It is ridiculous that this article utilizes a quotation from Donald Trump to prove that most white rappers must suffer a comparison to Eminem. Donald Trump is not a music critic. Out of the endless music magazines and newspapers that have reviewed Mac Miller’s mixtapes, the author chose to instead use a quote from someone with no association with contemporary hip hop culture to justify the article’s central point.

Finally, what exactly is the “stigma” of being a white rapper? Eminem has continued to enjoy success and heavy fan support, regardless of the criticism that has followed him throughout the years (which I would argue is mainly focused on his at-times violent and misogynist lyrics). Kreayshawn also seems to benefit from the attention generated by this “stigma.” And there are hundreds of artists who are involved in the hip hop community who get ahead based on their talent rather than sympathy generated by those who believe in a white-rapper “stigma.”

Yasmin Boakye

Last week, Studlife elected to run an ad by the David Horowitz Freedom Center on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Several editorials opined on the subject, and stated that they believed the paper erred in doing such. They questioned the rationale for allowing the ad to appear in Studlife, and they admitted that even though the center paid for the ad, opinions of this type should not be permitted to be run, as some people may consider it “offensive.”

As a writer for Studlife, albeit on hiatus, I would like to opine myself. As previous articles have said, if the First Amendment means anything, it means the right of individuals to espouse beliefs which people dislike or even condemn as bigoted. One editorial furthermore said that they doubted whether Studlife would publish an ad if certain comments were directed at “other historically marginalized groups, such as homosexuals, African Americans, or Jews?” They asked would the paper sanction an advertisement that openly dehumanized any of the aforementioned groups.

The fact of the matter is that nearly 20 years ago, in 1992, Studlife was faced with a similar situation. Holocaust revisionist Bradley Smith wanted to run a Holocaust denial ad, which openly declared that the Nazi regime did not actively engage in the attempted genocide of European Jewry. After much debate, Studlife decided to run it in the name of free speech. This made national news, especially because other universities such as Yale, Berkeley and Harvard declined to publish it.

In the end, if you disagree with David Horowitz’s views, explain why, but the answer is not censorship, or a condemnation of Studlife’s policy, but a simple debate on the merits, which everyone can see, read and reason out for themselves. As justice Louis Brandeis declared 85 years ago, in words which still ring true today, “To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning…if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies…the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Sincerely,
Isaac Amon
Class of 2012