Sex exploitation? Only of ourselves
Dear Editor:
Re: “Sexist flyers fill posting space,” [Mar. 23, 2005].
Fellow DJ Blair Roberts and I were attacked in this article.
Melissa Miller discussed our radio show posters, which depict two girls, a somewhat badly rendered cartoon drawing of us. While I will be the first to admit that our publicity tactics rely on exploitation, the only people we exploit are ourselves. And we are fine with it, that’s just kind of how we roll.
I would also like to point out that her attack on the posters was based on false observations. The posters advertise Making Out at Stoplights, a KWUR radio show. There is no “event” being advertised at which topless DJs are expected. We are the DJs for the show, and we advertise topless poetry readings as part of the schtick. And even that is simply based on a running joke that the station is really hot, and Blair and I sometimes need to shed clothing to keep from passing out. Which is OK, because this is radio, and people can’t see us.
Please do not use our show posters to further pseudo-arguments (or at least include the show’s name so we can score some free publicity off it). The only women objectified in the article were Blair and myself, and Melissa Miller vilified us in order to fabricate an argument.
Julia Weissman,
Class of 2007
Sexist attitudes should be tolerated
Dear Editor:
Re: “Sexist flyers fill posting space,” [Mar. 23, 2005].
Michelle Miller makes the assertion that no posted material on campus should make anyone feel uncomfortable: “So how am I, and other women on this campus, supposed to study when we are bombarded every day by flyers and signs every time we return to our dorms or every time we go to eat in Mallinckrodt?” Not only is this melodramatic, but such a plea for rampant censorship is fundamentally opposed to American ideals of individual liberty.
Certainly, I’ll concede that some possibly offensive flyers go up around campus. As an atheist (and a meat lover), I have been offended numerous times; but that’s part of life in an open society. I have no more right to demand that material that offends me be censored than anyone else does to impede my free expression. I continue walking, conceding that some people think differently than I do.
Furthermore, it is partially Miller’s brand of virulent political correctness that has driven many populists away from the political left. As a liberal, I believe that it is essential to preserve individual liberties-and that means you will not approve of everything you see. It won’t scar you.
Jordan Hicks,
Class of 2007
Student antics hurt admissions
Dear Editor:
We read in Student Life about inappropriate drinking and behavior by Wash U students in the St. Louis community and theft of Student Life newspapers. Then we read about RAs’ rooms being vandalized, and someone defecating in one RA’s room. None of this is something that any current student’s parents can read and be anything other than ashamed.
But what of those parents and students who at this very moment are trying to decide which school will be their choice to attend for the next four years? The poor, inappropriate and criminal behavior by a few of Wash U’s very fine student body can wreak havoc on a long year’s work of all those who are trying to attract high caliber students to attend Wash U.
We strongly feel that the college years should not just be all work and no play. Students have every right to have a good time. We are well aware of the academic demands that are made, and the need to be off set by free time, parties and some crazy antics. But what has been happening lately are extremely serious, negative behaviors. If it only reflected on those that did them that would be one thing. Unfortunately it reflects negatively on Washington University and its student body. And that is a shame.
Robin and Don Parks,
Wash U parents and undergraduate admissions interviewers
Wash U’s history of press freedom infringement
Dear Editor:
Re: “Media policy is hardly Saddam-esque” [Mar. 23, 2005]
You should find out what I actually told your reporter before criticizing it. I described the Oct. 9, 2001 media guidelines as “the sort of thing you might expect to happen in Iraq-Saddam’s Iraq, not postwar Iraq, not in a free country.” Somehow your reporter managed to apply this comment to the present media guidelines, which are much less oppressive (though with some remaining problems).
More important was the outcome of the March 4, 2005 Arts & Sciences faculty meeting, which you did not report at all. By a nearly unanimous voice vote the A&S Faculty passed an amended version of my resolution, thus taking a firm stand on behalf of freedom of the press. That might not be remarkable at another institution, but it was remarkable at Washington University, where the oppressive Oct, 9, 2001 guidelines remained in force for nearly a year, with hardly a public criticism from the faculty, until modified under pressure from the Post-Dispatch.
This vote was a long-needed endorsement (somehow, it took three and a half years for my proposed resolution to make it onto the agenda) of freedom of the press at an institution whose faculty seems afraid to disagree with the administration, even on such a basic issue of academic freedom as freedom of the press. It was also a deserved slap in the face to those administrators responsible for the Oct. 9, 2001 media guidelines, which have no place in a free university or in a free society.
Jonathan Katz,
Professor of Physics
Pro-life thoughts on Schiavo
Dear Editor:
Re: “A ‘culture of life’ with no right to live and no right to die,” [Mar. 21, 2005].
It is a contradiction to claim the battle is for Terri Schiavo’s “right to die,” and then support that argument by noting she is too incapacitated to perform normal adult functions – such as exercising rights. In reality, this debate is over Michael Schiavo’s claimed right to end his wife’s life.
If the issue truly is about preserving Terri’s dignity through death, then starvation and dehydration seem two remarkably undignified means for achieving that end.
Congress’ intervention may be on shaky legal ground, but it strikes me as equally questionable that a court can end someone’s life without any written testament to that desire. One cannot sell a car, vote, rent an apartment or participate in a million other mundane activities without legal documentation, but the court system has decided that life can be terminated based on third-person testimony.
Why does the pro-life movement focus most of its efforts on the unborn and incapacitated, rather than poverty? Perhaps it’s because the poor of this country can speak for themselves by voting, protesting, working with advocacy organizations and writing their representatives, while unborn children and Terri Schiavo can’t. Perhaps it’s because UNICEF, WHO, USAID and a host of other organizations are better-equipped to lead efforts to help the needy around the world.
For that matter, I am hard-pressed to remember seeing NARAL running any vaccination programs or food warehouses for the impoverished around the world in support of their “choice” to have children.
I agree with the observation that says, “Life doesn’t end at birth.” All too often, our nation’s social policies don’t allow life to make it that far.
Bryan Kirchoff