Category Archives: Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor responds to alumni concerns about Scot Council

Olivia Proe

To the editor:

As incoming president of Scot Council, I would like to take this opportunity to address the concerns some of our alumni have voiced regarding the new governing body. I am proud of the governing body that students have worked so hard to create, and strongly believe the creation of Scot Council to be a critical change undertaken with due diligence. 

Campus Council (CC) is relatively young in the grand scheme of Wooster’s history, having just celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. It was borne out of student dissatisfaction with the governing system at the time. Accordingly, students overhauled the constitution to create a new system to address structural inefficiencies and underrepresented voices. Now, 50 years later, it is time for another change, one that will accomplish similar objectives.

While I was not a member of the Oversight Committee that drafted the Scot Council constitution, I firmly believe it was created in good faith to better serve Wooster students. These representatives from both Student Government Association (SGA) and CC pulled from the best aspects of each governing body to streamline our current system, making it more accessible and welcoming to students who have not served before.

I disagree with alumni concerns that the Oversight Committee did not take student opinions into account while drafting the Scot Council constitution. The Oversight Committee spent months consulting various student groups across campus, seeking input about the new governing body. Oversight also hosted numerous panels where students were encouraged to address concerns — ultimately changing the scope of the constitution to ensure that it has the same powers that Campus Council formerly held after students offered feedback. Scot Council will still have the ability to make policy changes, allocate funding to student organizations and approve charters — all powers that were clarified in the constitution thanks to students who contributed to the Oversight process. Had Oversight received significant opposition from students about overhauling the dual system, the taskforce would have ended the process; in fact, student opinion favored creating this new system.

Based on feedback from students, and from my own prior experience serving on SGA, the dual system of SGA and CC was not working well. There have been almost no contested elections on SGA the past few years — and oftentimes so few students were interested in running or stepped down before the end of their term that both bodies had to run emergency elections where students were selected by application, rather than elected, to fill seats. In fact, SGA saw nearly a 50 percent turnover of senators during my first term. 

In contrast, the new election system under Scot Council has garnered such incredible student turnout that every seat is filled or hotly contested. I am especially pleased that we have four students running to be the new First-Generation/Low-Income (FGLI) Representative, showing that we have filled a need that was not previously addressed by SGA or CC. Having one governing body removes confusion around elections, which encourages more people to run. With more people running for fewer seats, the new system offers more democratic representation. 

I am sure that Scot Council’s constitution is not perfect, and I anticipate bumps along the road while we navigate the new system. We will remain open to constructive criticism and peer input while we refine our constitution to best suit the needs of the student body.

I hear the alumni who are frustrated with changes. You are individuals who poured your hearts and souls into SGA and CC, and I sincerely thank you for your commitment to making Wooster a better place. We are doing the same and following in your footsteps to make positive changes to our home. Ultimately, I am sure we agree that we all want the best for the students we serve — and I believe that Scot Council is the way for us to accomplish that shared goal. 

Sincerely,

Olivia Proe, former SGA Advocacy Chair, President of Scot Council ‘21

Sam Casey, former SGA Vice President, Vice President of Scot Council ‘21

Rishika Todi, former CC International Diversity Representative, Treasurer of Scot Council ‘22

Maggie Dougherty, former SGA Class Senator, Secretary of Scot Council ‘21

Srushti Chaudhari, former SGA Class Senator, Chief of Staff of Scot Council ‘22

Emilee McCubbins, former SGA President ‘20

Nick Shereikis, former SGA Vice President ‘20

Carly McWilliams, former SGA Secretary ‘22

Isaac Weiss, former SGA Treasurer, former Oversight co-chair ‘20

Matt Mayes, former CC At-Large Representative, former Oversight co-chair ‘20

Emmy Todd, former CC At-Large Representative ‘22

Amber Rush, former CC At-Large Representative ‘22

Jill Munro, Former CC Faculty Representative, Director of International Student Services

Grace O’Leary, former SGA Student Services Chair ‘20

Abigail McFarren, former SGA Outreach & Diversity Chair ‘22

Anna Medema, former SGA Advocacy Co-Chair ‘20

Jennifer Grossman, former SGA Advocacy Co-Chair ‘20

Abby Donohue, former CC Selective Service Organization Representative ‘20

Marco Roccato, former SGA Class of 2020 Senator

Saralee Renick, former SGA Class of 2022 Senator

Oria Daugherty, former SGA Class of 2021 Senator

Devon Matson, former SGA Class of 2021 Senator

Lillian Dunning, former SGA Class of 2021 Senator

Yuxuan Ke, former SGA At-Large Senator ‘20

Doug Morris, former SGA At-Large Senator ‘22

Lilia Eisenstein, former SGA Class of 2022 Senator 

Ivan Akiri, former SGA At-Large Senator ‘22

Letter to the Editors

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

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

 

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

 

Letter to the Editor: 9/14/2012

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

Letters to the Editors: April 20th, 2012

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

Letter to the Editors, April 1st

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