To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in response to last week’s article outlining the pro-life vs. pro-choice debacle on campus. Primarily, I wanted to comment on a statement made by Ms. Christo of the k(NO)w organization.

In her statement, Ms. Christo expressed concern that the pro-life messages displayed by the Wooster Scots for Life could possibly be seen as offensive to those on campus who have personally been affected by abortion. While I am not affiliated with the Wooster Scots for Life, I would hope that this was not their intent. In my past interactions with various pro-life groups, many, though admittedly not all, go above and beyond to reach out to the mothers and even the fathers (who are often the forgotten victim) to provide emotional, psychological and spiritual support in the time following an abortion. I know that the Gabriel Project, a group active within the city of Wooster, is available to serve any College of Wooster student in that very way.

I also wished to comment on your statement that college students across the country are overwhelmingly pro-choice. According to a 2011 poll by the Gallup Organization, 51 percent of the 18-34 year old age group did identify themselves as pro-choice. What I find interesting, however, is in that same age group, 59 percent felt that abortion should be illegal.

To me this points toward the growing trend across all age groups to return to a more pro-life stance within our country. A fact that is illustrated when we realize that only 38 percent of those surveyed in 2011 found abortion morally acceptable.

Finally, I would like to challenge the Wooster Scots for Life to expand their message on campus outside of just the abortion issue. In my mind, to be truly pro-life, one must also take opposing views on issues such as the death penalty, war and euthanasia. The pro-life movement spends so much energy on the abortion issue that we often neglect to defend the lives of those past the age of infancy.

Peace,

Nate Addington

Catholic Campus Minister for the College of Wooster

Letter to the Editor

Written as a response to Robin Klaus’ “Dorms are not dumps”

 in the Nov. 16 issue of the Voice.

Upon reading the “Dorms are not dumps” article, I took a moment to analyze what I just viewed. The humorous introduction was a situation students may encounter during their stay here. The other day, I almost slipped on the first floor of my residence hall, where I proceeded to observe a sizable volume of orange Sunny D spilt on the floor. I did not see this incident occur, just like the glitter incident, but I would assume that in my situation, the “culprit(s)” would recompense for their accident.

This leads me to my difference of Ms. Klaus’ article. In the second paragraph as quoted, “I heard the culprit complaining about a threat of charges about the mess.” The word I find questionable about that statement is “heard.” Nowhere in the article does the writer mention about confronting the “culprit.” Hearing anything is purely speculation; I can walk into Lowry and hear many conversations but I cannot hold validity to them unless I ask about what actually happened.

I do not disagree with how Ms. Klaus praises the custodial staff because frankly, they should receive greater thanks than are given. She is right in mentioning how they clean up after us and even though not all of us are from affluent households, we do not have the right to make the dormitories pigsties. There was a report sent out to residents of my dorm by the RD outlining cleaning violations that occurred. One of them happened to be in my hallway. Thankfully the person who committed this act took responsibility and was sorry for the accident.

All I would like to read is that Ms. Klaus received her information correctly and talked to the “culprit.” She may be surprised and find that the glitter incident was an accident. Journalism is all about the facts and if they are wrong, then who can we believe?

Colin Omilanowski ’16

Dear The Wooster Voice,

In an attempt to remove a nagging thought from my mind, I have decided to write a viewpoint about last week’s article by R. Taylor Grow. I do not know this person and am sure that “An unacceptable stereotype” was well intentioned, however the “argument” is ages old, irrelevant and quite simply has been made too many times. Yes, Damien from “Mean Girls” and Cameron from “Modern Family” are inaccurate representations of gay characters. Congratulations for repeating a now age-old-point, I’m pretty sure the general populous of this school as well as country know that gay males are not always rotund and flamboyant (considering the amount of times a similar argument has been stuffed down peoples’ throats). However, there are too many stereotypes and illegitimate opinions about people of the queer community to focus on two representations of gay males that were seemingly intended for humorous purposes. So, let’s lighten up and laugh in this present time when there is no politically correct way to speak about a single person without categorizing them or speak about a group of people without being accused of creating stereotypes or misrepresentations.

— Maria Janasz ’14

The following letters were sent as a response to an article written by Jacob Sklar ’12, published in the April 6 issue on the Voice, about the relationship of the Republican Party and women’s rights.

Jacob Sklar’s defense of the Republican party’s treatment of women in the Viewpoints section two weeks ago is offensive and woefully misguided. His claim that legally mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds prior to the procurement of abortion do not constitute “state-sponsored rape” (to use his snide quotes) is predicated on the argument that neither force nor threat of force would be used.

This statement alone illustrates Sklar’s ignorance regarding rape and delegitimizes sexual violence perpetrated without force or threat of force. The boundaries of rape are drawn with consent. Ignoring this fact and thereby creating a script of “real rape” is, to use Sklar’s words, shameful. Even the FBI’s newly updated definition of rape emphasizes consent as the defining factor. I’m interested to know how Jacob Sklar thinks that forcing a woman to have an object inserted into her vagina in order to procure an abortion is anything but non-consensual. If women are forced to be penetrated in order to then receive a legal medical procedure, that is coercion and that is rape.

Sklar also expresses dislike for the fact that “women’s issues,” have been limited in the media and public sphere to those of sexual health and reproduction. This has become the monolith for women’s issues because these are the fundamental human rights that the Republican party has so gleefully jeopardized over the last year. I agree with Sklar that Democrats have become successful in proclaiming themselves to be the party of women regarding these issues, but this is because they are not the ones slashing federal programs that benefit low income women and children, scaling back abortion rights, limiting women’s access to birth control and reproductive health care, shaming women’s bodies and sexual agency, and, in some cases, decriminalizing domestic violence to save money. This past week, legislation was signed into law in Arizona that forbids abortion two weeks before a woman even becomes pregnant. This political circus is a cheap and shallow ploy to write the standards of society on women’s bodies, denigrating them as incubators for heterosexual, married, reproductive sexual purposes.

Finally, Sklar’s ill-suited argument that more men commit crimes and Republicans keep them in jail so that they can’t hurt more women does absolutely nothing to address the issues currently raging in our society that disproportionality affect women and is entirely unrelated to his argument regarding women’s issues. If Republicans have a stronger track record for keeping rapists in jail, then wonderful for them. However, if you are really so concerned for sexually violated women and their well being, then the party that attempted to legally change the term “rape victim,” to “rape accuser,” would force a woman pregnant through rape to have a metal wand shoved into her vagina for no viable medical reason, mandate that she carry her pregnancy to term and then afford her and her child little to no state or federal support is probably not where you should start looking.

-Meredith Loken ’12

We found several of the points made in the article “Democrats not the party of women” to be highly problematic. Firstly, it is concerning that a man would claim which party is for women by essentializing women’s experiences, wants and needs. He portrays women as weak, fearful and in need of “special” protection, when in reality, all citizens require equal protection under the law.

Secondly, his outright dismissal of the invasive and oppressive trans-vaginal ultrasound policy is alarming. We felt that he was just distracting readers from the issues brought up in the article to which he was responding by bringing crime into the argument. A trans-vaginal ultrasound is appalling, as are the other assaults on women’s reproductive freedoms from the Republican party.

In fact, the Republican party is not necessarily advancing women’s  interests, but is in fact acting against them. The Republican party the author portrayed reflects a patriarchal social order that works to the detriment of all, confining women into the role of a nurturing but fearful mother figure who relies on a male protector and provider.

Women are, in fact, more likely to be victims of crime, but that is not necessarily an issue that either party is correcting by being “hard” or “soft” on crime. The victimization of women is an issue that is rooted in prevailing gender norms and stereotypes. While the author is proposing that the tougher-on-crime Republican party is resolving the issue of crime, neither party is doing enough to change the social structures and thus, stop crime from happening in the first place.

We disagree with the notion that Democrats privilege the criminals over the female victims and further assert that the Republican party privileges wealthy, straight, white anglo-saxon protestant males over everyone else through their proposed budget cuts that disproportionally and negatively affect the “minorities.” For example, the proposed Republican budget cuts would limit funding for Medicare and Medicaid, which are programs that have a high percentage of women beneficiaries. The GOP budget plan would also take away “Obamacare,” thereby making it legal for insurance companies to charge women more for healthcare.

-Anna Easterday ’13, Adrienne James ’13, Kelsey Jandrey ’13 and Grace Miller ’13.

Vermox

Hey, excuse me. Sorry to bother you, but I would really appreciate it if you would take that at least 25 feet away from the building. I know that people smoke cigarettes right next to the building all the time, but it’s just campus policy to make sure the smoke doesn’t bother anyone inside. I know the windows are closed, but it’s just our policy. Why would it bug someone? Well, I don’t know, there are a lot of reasons people might not like smelling cigarette smoke, maybe they have asthma, maybe they have particular allergies to smoke, like my aunt does. Okay, I am a residence life staff member, and you are disrespecting me. There is no reason for you take that tone with me. Okay, that’s it, I am calling SPS. Well ya know, you could have avoided that if you just smoked a little bit farther away from the building. Maybe you should learn to show a little bit more respect for yourself and your classmates.

-Polly Policy, Resident Assistant

Hey, excuse me. Sorry to bother you, but I would really appreciate it if you would take that at least 25 feet away from the building. I know that people smoke cigarettes right next to the building all the time, but it’s just campus policy to make sure the smoke doesn’t bother anyone inside. I know the windows are closed, but it’s just our policy. Why would it bug someone? Well, I don’t know, there are a lot of reasons people might not like smelling cigarette smoke, maybe they have asthma, maybe they have particular allergies to smoke, like my aunt does. Okay, I am a residence life staff member, and you are disrespecting me. There is no reason for you take that tone with me. Okay, that’s it, I am calling SPS. Well ya know, you could have avoided that if you just smoked a little bit farther away from the building. Maybe you should learn to show a little bit more respect for yourself and your classmates.

-Polly Policy, Resident Assistant