Sexual Harassment and Date Rape on Campus

                I read the article “Family criticizes Notre Dame in 2^nd sex attack case” in the Chicago Tribune. After reading the article, I have to admit that I do not know whether or not I would say the accused was guilty, but I can confidently say that the university did nothing to help figure it out. The second victim told the police that she had been heavily under the influence of alcohol on the night of the attack, and while she said she was a virgin and would not have consented, it is quite possible that she did consent because she was so drunk. At the same time, I do not believe she would go to the hospital for tests or go to the police if she had no reason to.

                Unlike many other cases, the victim was able to provide a test and her clothes from the night of the attack. However, this amount of evidence was apparently not enough for the police to go forward with the case, even after telling the victim they would do so. I think that this is where the true issue of the case lies; in Notre Dame University police department’s inability to take the case seriously. It should not matter who the student is. And if they are an important person to the school, a football player in this case, they should be investigated even more as they are a strong representative of their school when they put on their jersey. The fault is not with the girl in this case, but with the police. Because they did not fully investigate, they will never know if she was actually raped or not. It is unfortunate that there is a possible threat on campus because the police did not take a case seriously.

                In the article, “At colleges plagued with date rape, why ‘no’ still means ‘yes,’ a woman described her frustration with schools and society today. 37 years ago, she attended Princeton where she was raped by the captain of the rugby team. She never spoke or wrote about it until she heard what happened at the Princeton “She Roars” conference. The male a cappella group serenaded one of the girl singers, then unzipped their pants and hip-thrusted at her on stage in front of everyone. The woman who had been raped so many years ago could not believe that colleges still had this atmosphere after all the strides woman have made and at a conference commending the successful women who graduated from their school.

                As a girl in high school looking forward to going to college next year, I am slightly concerned about the intentions of college boys but not really surprised. At our age and at this time, this behavior isn’t unexpected. Half of the music we listen to is about sex and pushing women around, even female singers sing about wanting to get pushed around. It’s normal for the movies we watch to have an intense sex scene. The notion of sexuality is everywhere in our world and it is encouraged in our culture, just look at some girls’ prom dresses. It’s a tradition that has become the time to make your body as good as possible with as little fabric as possible. While I do not think it is right, these sexual advances are a part of our culture. Rape is one thing and is never understandable, but college boys thrusting their hips on stage are just a part of what has become the norm.

Racism still exists...even at pools

            Today I read the article “Ruling over controversial pool sign stands.” In Columbus, Ohio, a pool landlord put up a sign saying “Public Swimming Pool” then under it reading “White Only.” The landlord claimed that “a black girl’s hair products clouded an apartment complex’s swimming pool.” When I first read this article I was simply disgusted. After everything this country has been through, we do not need these racist people walking around. They bring up problems that were starting to be diminished before I was even born. I cannot even imagine what it must have been like for that teenage girl to walk up to the pool of her parents’ apartment complex and read a sign that said she wasn’t allowed in because of her skin color. I know I would not have it for a second.

            Jamie Hein is the white landlord of the complex and the court found that she “violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act.” Hein’s defense was that “she posted it because the girl used chemicals in her hair that would make the pool ‘cloudy.’” In my opinion, this was a drastic and unnecessary way to deal with a girl using hair products that clouded a pool, if that was even the case. Hein said “I was trying to protect my assets.” Hein could’ve gone to either the girl or her parents and told them that her hair products were affecting the pool and asked her to either wash her hair out before she went in the pool or use a swim cap or anything other than posting a sign that attacked the girl’s skin rather than her hair.

            Michael Gunn, the girl’s father, was disgusted by the sign. He said “his daughter was saddened months later to learn the reason they moved from the apartment complex ‘was in a way related to the color of her skin.’” Hein’s actions were not right and could not be justified in any way. I believe that it was right for the court to find this woman guilty. She was completely wrong and she had other options for dealing with the ‘problem’ at hand, which shows that her actions were not to ‘protect her assets,’ but to protect her pool from an innocent teenage girl.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-panel-sticks-white-only-pool-sign-ruling-151624022.html

Bumper Stickers Can Be Racist - Photo

This is the photo of the car with the bumper sticker on it that was posted online.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

Bumper Stickers Can Be Racist

            I just read the article “’Don’t Re-Nig’ purveyor Paula Smith says bumper sticker isn’t racist.” To say the least, I was shocked when I read this and very offended. There is an image of a car with the bumper sticker that reads ‘Don’t Re-Nig In 2012.’ Obviously, the person who created this sticker is very racist and the person with the sticker on their car isn’t afraid to show their racism. Racism isn’t a question in this conflict, however, Paula Smith, creator of the bumper sticker argues otherwise. She is from Hinesville, Georgia and “insists that neither she nor the sicker are racist.”

            Ms. Smith has an online website that sells controversial stickers and other items in perusal of Obama. When Ms. Smith was interviewed by Roger Friedman, she claimed that the “N-Word” is not defined as racist in the dictionary. But Friedman found on dictionary.com that the “N-Word” is defined as “’probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.’”

            Clearly according to the dictionary and any normal human being, the N-Word is offensive and should not be a part of anti-Obama campaigning. After being disproved by this definition, Ms. Smith continued to argue in her interview, saying “that President Obama is ‘not even black,’ but rather, ‘a mixture of race.’” In my opinion, I think Ms. Paula Smith should go ask President Obama face-to-face whether or not he finds the word offensive. I would then have her hold up her white arm to his and see if she would then still tell the world that he is not black.

            Ms. Smith continued to dig herself a deeper hole when she said that the N-Word is not ‘offensive’ or ‘derogatory,’ but then said that “she herself does not even use the word.” So its not offensive, but you don’t use the word? And you don’t use the word but you decided to create a website that uses the word that all of America and other countries can access? And you decided to put on that website a bumper sticker that uses the word that can be purchased by any person in the world? And you say you don’t use the N-Word is that correct? Makes no sense to me.

            More important than Ms. Smiths’ contradicting statements is my and the world’s belief that the N-Word should not be used. No excuse for using the word or justification can be made; it is simply wrong to use it and it is not worth it to argue otherwise.

Affirmative Action

          Today I read Tim Wise’s response to the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy. While I agree with some of Wise’s points, such as the simple fact that whites have privileges, I strongly disagree with some of his other opinions. Wise believes that in order to ‘repay’ the ‘debts’ of past white supremacy; we must give blacks the upper-hand in life. This includes putting a high value on race is college admissions, jobs and education, such that people of different races should be valued and treated as better than whites. I am not saying that whites should be of higher value than blacks by any means because they shouldn’t, but rather that whites and blacks should be viewed as equals. It is interesting to me that Wise does not see the contradiction he creates in several of his arguments; he is preaching that racism should end, but then is saying that blacks should be treated with more privileges than whites. While I agree that whites need to ‘pay’ for the past ‘debts,’ I do not believe that black supremacy is the way to go about it.

            If a student comes to a teacher asking for help with math because they can’t focus because of their situation at home, obviously the teacher should help them. But a teacher should not go out of their way to help a black kid because they assumed that because they’re black, they need extra help. However that is what Tim Wise is arguing. Originally, his argument was that teachers are racist and automatically assume a kid is doing badly because their racial, and therefore cultural, influences are causing them to. Then Wise fully contradicts himself by saying that teachers should not be colorblind and that students’ color “says a lot about the kinds of challenges they are likely to face.” Ultimately, it seems that Wise’s point was that privileges towards whites should end, but privileges towards black need to begin, and that sounds like racism all over again to me.

After also reading the article “Appeals court to hear affirmative action challenge” in the San Francisco Chronicle, I have come to the conclusion that race should not be considered in academic decisions. It is not right or constitutional to base someone’s acceptance into college because of their race. Considering race as a plus or minus is racism in it of itself. If the courts were to lift the ban that has been in place against affirmative action since 1996 and students put their race on their college application and then were not accepted, they would think it is racism when it isn’t. Race should not be “[considered] in admissions decisions to promote campus diversity.” Campus diversity should be based off of life experiences explained in applicants essays; not based off the color of someone’s skin. If people really want the end of racism, then we must start thinking on the basis of equality and not repenting for past actions. One of Tim Wise’s main arguments was that we have to ‘repay’ the ‘debts’ of the past, but he never said how. And in my opinion, giving privilege to people based on race isn’t repaying any kind of debt, but instead carrying racism into the future.

Bald Barbie Dolls? I say YES

            By the time I was twelve years old, I owned not only several Barbies, but Barbie houses, accessories, pets and friends…and at least one Ken doll. It seemed then that Barbies were all girls talked about and we wanted to be just like them. After reading the article “After cancer hit, women lobbied for a bald Barbie” (Yahoo!News) I can say I wish I had had a bald Barbie when I was little. Toys and women in the media are considered role models to young girls, and these role models effects on these girls is a major issue today. Young girls are more exposed to profanities and revealing shows now than ever before. Those things are being portrayed in their toys, such as Barbies, who have sported “thigh-high pink boots” and crop-tops exposing their belly buttons. While these Barbies may be making a fashion statement for older girls, seven year olds should not think a teeny-tiny t-shirt and booty shorts are the right thing to wear at that age.

            On the other hand, Barbie dolls have been “crushing stereotypes and showing little girls that they can be whatever they want to be” for over fifty years. One of the women pushing for these dolls to be made is Rebecca Sypin, whose “12-year-old daughter, Kin Inich, lost her hair this year in her own battle with leukemia.” For this young girl, who has been battling a disease to the point where she lost her hair, to see her own body and, more importantly, bald head on that of a Barbie doll would mean the world. It is important for these young girls, who feel so vulnerable, to know that they’re not alone. And a Barbie doll will do just that. Also, girls who haven’t had cancer can be made aware of it by the dolls. Therefore, if a young girl ever comes across a bald girl her age, she won’t be shocked or scared. She’ll say, “Hey, you look just like my Barbie doll,” which is about the best compliment any girl can get.