“THAT GIRL over there is hot.”

“Yeah, but she is totally wasted.”

“Even better.”

Sadly, this dialogue is not far from conversations that go on all the time on college campuses, city bars and pretty much everywhere where people gather to drink. Women are preyed on in this society by men who look at women as sexual objects inferior to themselves, and such attitudes lead to rape and sexual assault all around the country. Women can never be held responsible for being raped or sexually assaulted regardless of the situation.

Tuesday night Dr. Christopher Kilmartin, a professor at Mary Washington University and a professional psychologist, spoke on Grounds about the dangers of sexism and how prejudiced views against women lead to sexual assault. Invited by Virginia Athletics, the Office of the Dean of Students Fraternity and Sorority Life, and one in four, a group dedicated to ending sexual assault, Kilmartin offered an intriguing take on how to prevent sexual assault: to make men more aware of how their actions can lead to the portrayal of women as social equals to men.

Blue light phones, Safe Ride, well-lit paths, self-defense classes and police officers are not enough to prevent sexual assault on college campuses or in metropolitan areas. Such measures serve only to protect potential female victims by either reducing the chances that an assaulter can sneak up on them at night, such as shuttle services and lighted paths, or act as a secondary source once an attack has been initiated, such as campus phones and self defense. Kilmartin pointed out that the best way to prevent sexual assault is to stop the perpetrators: the men who look at women as sub-humans and sexual objects.

While many men think that their part in preventing sexual assault ends with their personal choice not to assault women, this idea neglects the huge influence that men can have over their friends. Kilmartin discussed how important it is to interject when a group of guys are making derogatory comments about women, even when they are in jest. Such jokes propagate negative stereotypes and demean women, creating the environment in which some men feel that they can do whatever they please to a woman without her consent. Is it not a virtue of masculinity to be courageous? Men must be bold and stand against their friends in situations where women are being degraded.

Kilmartin offered three things that men can do on a daily basis to end stereotypes against women as well as demonstrate a lack of support for those who sexually assault or verbally demean women. The first step is to become educated and realize that the negative stereotypes against women are false. Secondly, noticing sexism in society allows men to not support companies that use women as sexual objects in their advertisements or to withdraw support from public icons that have proven themselves to be sexually violent towards women or to demean them in any way. Finally, Kilmartin discussed how truly important it is to stand up to sexism within social groups, because it is in these groups that the men who become sexual assault predators receive their opinions on female inferiority.

Men, this is your chance to stand up. Give up the stupid jokes about female drivers and throw the words “slut” and “bitch” out of your vocabulary. These are gigantic steps towards preventing sexual assault, because if women are viewed as social equals to men then predators will not think it so harmless to sexually assault and rape women. Men need to talk to their little brothers that men should stand up for women rather than shoot them down. As Kilmartin offered, society should not define masculinity as a contrast to femininity, for this creates the mindset that men are opposite — and therefore inferior — to women.

Men need to understand that when a girl says that she is waiting for marriage or that she does not want to have sex that this is not an invitation to try again later. Just because we have larger muscles than women does not mean they are meant to force ourselves upon them. If anything, we should be using our muscles to protect women. If a girl does not want to have sex, respect her choice as a social equal to a man and do not force it upon her physically or through coercion: look for someone else who is interested in the same type of relationship that you are.

Men must realize that the root of this serious problem is the negative stereotypes they perpetuate in society, and through rejecting these stereotypes and respecting the individuality and opinions of women we can have a gigantic impact on ending sexual assault and rape.

Greg Crapanzano’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at gcrapanzano@cavalierdaily.com.

The Michael Richards rant a couple of weeks ago shocked the nation and provided one of the most heinous and high-profile displays of racism in the recent history of American culture. The impact, like the gravity of the words uttered by the man we all know as Kramer from “Seinfeld,” was enormous, with many prominent figures in the African-American community promising change in racial discourse.

Comedian Paul Mooney has decided to stop saying the “n-word” in future acts and Jesse Jackson has launched a campaign to expunge the word from our collective conscience. Whether these efforts just represent sudden and unthoughtful reactions to a misguided statement or something meaningful in America’s understanding of race is something that can be debated, but undoubtedly they epitomize the strong emotional appeal that the “n-word” retains in our culture. In the University context, the main problem is that students do not receive the proper education on the subject. Despite its special stature, it is not immune from use.

One of the more troubling places where its expression is common enough for this columnist to write about it in a newspaper is right here at our University. I hear the word at least once a week, and sometimes much more frequently. Often is it spoken in the context of a joke, or as a direct quotation of lyrics, but every once in a while it rears its ugly head in flagrant displays of frustration, a bit more tame than that of Richards, but not all that dissimilar. What should the University do about this problem, and more realistically, what can it do?

It would help to analyze why the word is precisely so inflammatory because people often do not have a good grasp of this issue. Imagine if I called a white person “cracker,” or a Chinese person “chink,” or a Vietnamese person “gook.” What would normally be the repercussions? I have actually said the first two to friends (as a joke), and normally nothing happens. Some people will ask why at this point, thinking that those words should receive the same treatment as the “n-word.” Well, as you can infer from my refusal to explicitly write the “n-word,” they do not and should not. Like the “n-word,” those other terms represent a derisive designation for a racial or ethnic group, but unlike the “n-word,” they do not have the necessary history to make them formidable expressions of fear, dread and insult. The “n-word” has become inextricably linked to the exploitation suffered by African-Americans in the past; it connotes a history of inferiority more than a label for a certain group.

In addressing the problem of education, Student Council Diversity Initiatives Chairman Ryan McElveen explained in an interview that, “Most of the time students don’t know they are making insensitive comments because they’ve never had any sort of formal education regarding race.” This problem stems from an early age and runs through high school, when most people self-segregate and do not consider inter-racial issues until they come to college. Even at the University, however, there is no notable attempt to bridge some of the gaps that inspired this column. What to do about all of this is the big question.

Student-run organizations do hold conferences and lectures highlighting these issues, but that is not enough. Often only interested individuals attend, those with standardized and similar viewpoints — not the people who really need to be addressed. Something more proactive needs to be done, like rallies or targeting certain University zones and areas, perhaps by handing out fliers or engaging in conversations, where racial sensitivity is lacking. Also, as McElveen explained, “Multiracial coalition building is a start. To do so by playing up issues that confront all communities of color at the University will achieve the most impact.” Fundamentally, this is something the students will have to resolve on their own.

Whatever the solution, the status quo regarding the use of the word is unacceptable. The University community should stand together and draw more attention to this problem; there should be few higher callings in life than ending injustice, and this is an injustice. While communication and transmission of ideas are central to improving the situation, however, time will ultimately be one of the most important deciding factors in erasing the word from memory.

Erald Kolasi’s column usually appears Fridays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ekolasi@cavalierdaily.com.

FOR MANY years, the University has offered students the opportunity to apply for the first-year residence hall of their choice. Yet at the same time, the University has long suffered a disparity among students along ethnic and racial dimensions between Alderman and McCormick Road.

Although this racial and ethnic disparity has been noted by a lot of people and organizations, I’ve never seen any data which might substantiate the claim. That’s why I asked the Office of Institutional Assessment and Studies for some data on the demographics of Alderman and McCormick Road for Fall 2006. It turned out that the marked demographic difference was true.

Students who identify themselves as non-white American contributed roughly 21 percent of the McCormick Road residence hall population. In Alderman Road residences, nearly 40 percent of students — almost twice as many as in McCormick Road — were non-white.

This significant difference makes if difficult to believe that it resulted simply due to chance. Certainly, there must be some explanation, but they have yet to be discovered.

Various solutions have been put forth for fixing the lopsided statistics. One of the more common suggestions which might elicit a more immediate effect involves randomizing first-year housing assignments. Of course, the Housing Division would have to do away with first-years’ right to choose where they want to live.

But would it really be worth it?

Whether such a proposal is feasible involves careful consideration of the results produced from what would presumably be a more even racial balance.

Nov. 28, the Student Council sponsored the Greek Tunnel, which brought together the leaders of the Inter-Fraternity Council, Inter-Sorority Council, Multicultural Greek Council and the National Pan-Hellenic Council for a discussion on a broad array of diversity issues. Among the ideas discussed was the randomization of first-year housing assignments and the effects it might have on the Greek system.

Andy Paradis, IFC President, suggested that it “would be a benefit to IFC fraternities and ISC sororities.” Paradis believed that it could result in a more equal interest in Greek life throughout first-year residences thereby allowing more people to know about the reality of Greek life. Moreover, it might even encourage those who might not have ordinarily considered joining to think otherwise. In short, the end product could be greater racial and ethnic diversity in the IFC and ISC.

You might still wonder what benefits randomization holds for students outside of the Greek system. For one thing, the University has always strived to at least expose white Americans to other cultures to encourage a healthy and harmonious relationship between all students.

Although this is an especially meritorious cause, it is ridiculously infeasible for the following reason. Even if minority students were distributed evenly throughout McCormick and Alderman Road, the number of non-white students in McCormick Road would not be altered to the extent that students would be immersed in a sort of cultural cornucopia which might make more students keen on educating themselves about other cultures. To make the point more clear, consider Metcalf residence hall on McCormick Road. Three African-American students currently reside there. If housing assignments were randomized and if the population of racial and ethnic groups was evenly leveled, the number of African-American students would not increase so dramatically as to cultivate a significant change in McCormick Road’s environment.

And finally, there’s no certainty that by having greater diversity in McCormick Road, more white students will be more receptive to other cultures.

As a member of a minority group myself, I truly appreciate and adamantly support the need to diversify housing. Randomizing housing selections, however, isn’t the solution. The idea of randomization balances heavily on the assumption that the resultant increase in diversity will indeed promote more congenial relations between students of different cultures. Yet given that non-white first years have shown a clear preference Alderman Road, there must be some reason for their apparent predilection. For now, the University seems to be bewildered as to what those reasons might be, and so, it is best to resolve that matter first. Otherwise, forcing students to live where they might be uncomfortable could be disastrous.

Charles Lee’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at clee@cavalierdaily.com.

STEPHEN Parsley, in his Nov. 29 column titled “Shrouding sexism behind multiculturalism,” argues that “the battle over the veil is one of the key issues that will determine the future of Islam and the West.”  He goes on to suggest a ban on the veil in public schools and government places. As someone who had to discontinue her college education in her home country precisely because of the type of ban Parsely advocates, I read his piece in astonishment.  Not that the arguments were new to me, but I was not expecting to read it here in the United States where I have been studying freely and comfortably for the past six years with my headscarf on and with no police at the campus door to treat me as a criminal.  In what follows, I will try to point out some of the problems with banning veil under the name of liberation. 

First, a clarification about the term “veil.” It often refers to the modest clothing with which a woman covers all her body except her face and hands. Since wearing a long skirt and a long- sleeve shirt is not what makes a woman stand out, but covering her hair does, veil is often referred to as head-scarf. It is this veil that France has banned in schools. Millions of Muslim women over the world wear headscarves, in different shapes and colors. A great number of these women are active in public life, studying, teaching, working and engaging with their societies.  Need examples? Look for instance in Egypt, Syria, Malaysia, Indonesia, Morocco, England and in this country, where the current leader of a major Islamic organization, the Islamic Society of North America, is a Canadian Muslim professor who wears a headscarf. In none of these countries is veiling forced, and in fact, except for a handful of countries, in most Muslim majority countries, women are not forced to wear the veil. These women are conscious agents and capable of understanding their religious sources. If they understand their religion as instructing them to dress in this particular modest way in public, are we to say that these women have false consciousness? Are we to say that these women cannot choose how much of their body to uncover? Are we to say that they cannot and ought not recognize their Creator whom they believe created their bodies and has set guidelines for their lives?

To be sure, the abuses against women who do not wear a veil should be rejected.  Forcing a woman to be stuck in a burning building because she didn’t have time to put her veil on or to kill a relative because of her suspected morality are abuses and are not justified in Islamic law, either. Similarly, the ideas of women as the malicious tempters, as lesser than men, her body as a commodity to fight over, and all other patriarchal ideas deserve being fought against. I share Parsley’s frustration at these, yet the way to solve them is not to ban head-covering. To argue for a ban on the basis of these would be like preventing the use of cars for the sake of preventing car crashes. In fact, given the frequency of the crashes and the clear link between driving a car and crashing, perhaps the argument for a ban is not even this strong.

Furthermore, to symbolize Western civilization with one set of clothing (aside from forgetting Catholic nuns and Orthodox Jewish women in the West) and setting it against Islam is overly simplistic and misleading. In their article, “Feminism, the Taliban and the Politics of Counterinsurgency,” published in Anthropological Quarterly, Saba Mahmoud and Charles Hirschkind question the assumption that “a Muslim woman can only be one of two things, either uncovered, and therefore liberated, or veiled, and thus still, to some degree, subordinate.” These University of Berkeley anthropologists rightly ask: “Can our bras, ties, pants, miniskirts, underwear and bathing suits all be so easily arrayed on one or the other side of this divide?”

Finally, the veil is definitely not the problem before us in working for peace and fighting injustice and violence. Like the Feminist Front who failed to see the plight of women in war and poverty stricken conditions in Afghanistan, will we be misled to place the veil as a key factor in the making of terrorism and bigotry? We need a deeper insight and a bit more informed talk than this. Urgently.

Umeyye Isra Yazicioglu is a Religious Studies student in the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.

NO, THAT headlinewas not written by a five-year-old. Unfortunately is an exampleof what is now known as text-speak. Text-speak, which incorporates numbers like “2″ and “4″ as words and uses abbreviations like “brb” for “be right back,” “lol” for “laughing out loud” and “btw” for “by the way,” has created somewhat of a division between those who claim that texting is seriously damaging the English language and those who think the texting craze will in no way affect proper writing or speech. Contrary to what these people think, however, texting has reached the point where it is overtaking English.

Next year, for example, New Zealand high school students will be able to use this text-speak in national exams. According to an article on CNN.com, New Zealand’s Qualifications Authority said that credit will be given if the answer shows understanding of the material, regardless of whether it contains these abbreviations or not.

“I think teenagers have always tried to develop exclusive slang or sub-cultural language to differ from their parents. I don’t see this as particularly different,” says Sociology Prof. Sarah Corse

Although this is certainly true, the thought of texting being accepted in academic compositions is appalling. This interest in texting, however, has been growing for some time now.

In 2004, Chinese author Qian Fuchang cut down his novel, “Outside the Fortress Besieged,” into small text message chunks to be distributed as 60 chapters of 70 characters each. The novel, whose rights sold for 180,000 Yuan ($14,600), can be received through text-messages or phone users can choose to have it read to them over the phone.

“Culture evolves and as it does, so does language. Because our culture is technologically based it makes sense that our language would become that way too. If people from the Elizabethan era heard us speak they would think we were butchering the English language anyways,” says first-year Traci Kelly.

“Text messaging overall is a great way to get in touch with people, especially if they are in a place where they can’t easily answer their phone,” admits University student Josh Lesko. “But the obsession with this new language created by texters is completely ridiculous. I don’t understand what the fascination with it is.”

The Chinese, however, are not the only ones exploring the field of literature and instant-messaging. Lauren Myracle’s breakout success came with the publication of ttyl (translated to “talk to you later”), the first novel ever written entirely in instant messages. Both “ttyl” and its sequel, “ttfn” (“Ta Ta For Now”), are New York Times best-sellers, and the third book in the series, “l8r, g8r” (“later, gator”) is due out next spring.

“I’ve gotten in my students’ stories around five or six that incorporate instant-messaging,” adds William Boast, who teaches fiction writing at the University.

Corse, however, doesn’t think this is reason to worry. “The apocalypse is upon us yet again,” she jokes. “Read what people said in the 1920′s about jazz or Ivy League colleges dropping Latin translation from the entrance exams.”

While it may be true that texting has not reached an apocalyptic level, it is certainly on its way. According to a New York Times article, Cingular Wireless will be holding a series of “texting bees” for parents next year — a sort of spelling-bee of abbreviations created in an effort to bridge the gap between teenagers and their parents. By teaching parents teenage slang, Cingular argues in the article, they will help parents get to know their sons and daughters. The campaign, which was undoubtedly created to boost sales, fails to address the real problem: the damage this is causing to our language and our day to day interactions.

“The texting phenomenon is a reflection of how people relate to each other in this day and age,” agrees University student Andre Grimes. What does it say about us as a society, however, if we have been reduced to reading, writing and even speaking like kindergarteners?

“I use OMG sometimes when I’m talking out loud,” admits Kelly.

Text-speech is slowly creeping into our language: into our books, our oral speech and our schools. It is possible to keep both separate and functional, but not if it keeps on being encouraged by the very institutions that should veto its use. Aftr all, y wud u wnt 2 dum dwn ur own lnguage?

Andrea Arango is a Cavalier Daily columnist. She can be reached at aarango@cavalieradaily.com.

As usual with our last issue of the semester, The Cavalier Daily gives out some special end-of-semester awards:

The “Social Disease” award goes to culture warrior Bill O’Reilly. It’s open season on Christians. We’re glad O’Reilly is there, loofa in hand, defending their values.

The “Kandize the Wonderfish” award goes to Jennifer Bonenfante and Bonnie Ford, our adult friends.

The “Most Controversial Haircut” award goes to S. R. Sidarth, whose lack of a mohawk changed the course of history.

The “Robert Byrd Runner-up Award for Senatorial Diversity” goes to George Allen. Second place isn’t that bad.

The “Sensational Revolution!” award goes to ITC for installing effective spam blockers.

The “Most Exclusive Dining Hall” award John Paul Jones arena, where student athletes can drop their table scraps into a chute that goes to Newcomb.

The “Most Succesful Cavalier Daily Alumnus” award goes to Katie Couric, who’s doing a rather good job at CBS.

The “Punniest Epundemic” award goes to mumps, my mumps, my mumps, my mumps.

The “Siegfried and Roy” award goes to Ryan McElveen for his new line of Skittles: Taste the fruits of Darius’s prowess.

The “Colonel Kurtz Award for Most Delusional Colonel” goes to Colonel Jim Garrison, for assaulting Gavin Reddick after this semester’s open honor trial.

The “Big Gulp” award goes to Gavin Reddick — for all 64 thirst-quenching ounces.

The “Most awkward conversations overheard” award goes to the staff of C3 in Newcomb Hall. Thanks for putting up with us.

The “Mesotheoma” award goes to the facilites management asbestos removal team. We’ll find out in 20 years if they did a good job…

Here’s a statement most will not remember having seen in Cavalier Daily editorials in the past few years: This year’s Honor Committee is doing a pretty good job. For years, student and faculty skepticism about the honor system has abounded — and in the past year, honor surveys have given some definition to this skepticism. As we assess the performance of this year’s Honor Committee at the end of the semester, students should take note that they have an Honor Committee that has made talk of student outreach more than just rhetoric.

The past semester has seen publicized meetings in the Rotunda and an effort to educate students about conscientious retractions. Honor has also revived an ad hoc subcommittee on the single sanction, and finally is following up on a spring 2005 student referendum to investigate alternatives to the sanction.

Compare this to the record from the previous two semesters, when an out-of-touch Honor Committee seemed to ignore the fact that it was elected on the same ballot where 59 percent of voters asked to investigate alternatives for the single sanction. Those alternatives never came. This year’s Committee is not defensive about lukewarm feelings about the honor system. This change of tone has opened opportunities for students to interact with honor.

If only students lived up to the challenge. The numbers on student skepticism of the honor system suggest that hundreds of students should have shown up to the widely publicized October meeting in the Rotunda, which drew only about 50. Last night, the Honor Committee held a question-and-answer session on the faculty survey released this week. No one — students or faculty — came. Students skeptical of honor now lack an excuse to hold back their opinions, and should meet the Honor Committee halfway.

Of course, there have been a few disappointments this semester. For instance, in hewing to an overly strict interpretation of federal law, the Honor Committee missed a big opportunity to inform students about the honor system before the highly publicized open trial of Stephanie Garrison.

Overall, however, this year’s Committee has combined everyday case processing with an effort to address big issues. For instance, a proposal scheduled for a committee vote Sunday would significantly change the investigation panel, the procedure where the Honor Committee determines if it has enough evidence to pursue a case. Whether or not the proposal passes, it represents a good-faith effort to concretely address a common concern in the community: that the current system places too much burden on the reporter of an honor offense.

In the next few months, the Committee should give students a voice about the honor system where it counts most: the ballot. The Committee has on the table a proposal that would start the process of changing the single sanction, and should put either it or a similar measure before voters. In terms of binding referenda, voters in the past few years have only been able to play with semantics (the “triviality” proposal) or reject the shifty ploys of single-sanction diehards (the consensus clause). This Committee embraces, rather than fears, student opinion. We hope to see the fullest expression of this attitude next semester.

IMAGINE losing your home and possessions, having to flee your home and then, if you were able to return at all, having to live in a trailer in your front yard. Then imagine living there for the next 14 months in a neighborhood nearly devoid of life. For many people on the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina made this nightmare a reality last year, and it remains a reality as efforts to clean up and rebuild have proceeded at a painfully slow pace.

The head of Randy’s Rangers, who simply goes by Randy, operates a non-profit organization sponsoring a relief task force. According to Randy, in Mississippi, 30 feet of water accompanied by 140 mile-per-hour winds came ashore, tearing up all in their path. The reasons for the slow rebirth are myriad: poverty of the impacted areas — Mississippi and Louisiana rank 50th and 42nd in per capita personal income among the 50 states–, a quagmire of insurance litigation and even the physical and psychological barriers returning refugees have faced. All of this has created a tremendous hurdle for the people of the Gulf Coast to surmount, and they require the help of those who are able to give it.

Over Thanksgiving break, I made my second relief trip to New Orleans and encountered signs both of hope and of discouragement. For example, in March, the inhabitable part of downtown New Orleans extended a few short blocks from the river and French Quarter before giving way to buildings fronted with plywood and gutted inside entirely. Stop signs regulated traffic, as there was no power for traffic lights. When I returned this fall, the commercial district had progressed significantly and reclaimed several blocks from the devastation. Power had also returned to most of the city. However, the divide between what had been repaired and the rest of the city remained stark. Beyond areas of commercial interest, the city has been slow to rebound.

Another example: On both trips, I gutted houses of damaged or moldy material. This fall, I returned to a house I had helped clean in the spring. The family that owned it looked to be well on their way to restoring their house to its pre-Katrina state. But the rest of the neighborhood looked like a ghost town. A few houses had FEMA trailers in front, but they stood in the midst of a sea of empty homes, unkempt and browning lawns and cracked roadways. The few people who have returned are bastions of hope in this span of desolation.

These people are what keep me coming back and make me excited to be part of the rebuilding effort. There is so much to be done; in the poorer parts of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi especially there remain thousands of homes that need to be cleaned so that their inhabitants can make a new beginning. In Pass Christian, Mississippi, near where the hurricane came ashore, a wasteland of foundations and twisted trees, supports for raised houses and debris mark former home sites. Here a community needs to rebuild entirely, and to do so they need our help.

In both New Orleans and Miss., there is much to do, for those with the time and the inclination to do so. Students have a tremendous opportunity to aid in the recovery of the Gulf Coast. There are two main ways to do so: by doing relief work or offering financial aid. Relief trips provide a powerful image of the impact of Katrina as well as an opportunity to contribute in a tangible way. If relief trips are not your forte, other opportunities do exist. Individuals or groups can raise money or collect gift cards to stores like Lowes or The Home Depot and send them to organizations such as Randy’s Rangers, which can make sure they are applied where most needed. According to Randy, relief workers are constantly in need of building supplies, so contributions such as these are more than welcome. So look for opportunities.

For travel, Alternate Spring Break offers a trip, as do many religious organizations; Alpha Phi Omega, a coed service fraternity on Grounds, also went down last spring break. Financially, contributions can be sent to Randy’s Rangers, or other organizations. If you feel the urge to go down to New Orleans, go. Most importantly, be aware that the work has barely begun, know that you can make a difference and make sure that those in need are not forgotten this holiday season.

Robby Colby’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com.

“SAFERIDE’S purpose is to provide a safe passage for students who would otherwise have to walk alone at night,” claims SafeRide’s Web site. Unfortunately, this purpose fails to mention that only the passage of sober students is allowed by SafeRide. SafeRide’s restriction goes against the spirit of ensuring student safety and leaves those most vulnerable in danger.

Let us examine the purpose of SafeRide more closely. Because of crime throughout the city, students may not feel comfortable walking home. This seems especially applicable for young woman who are susceptible to sexual assault. But students most susceptible to crime are those who are intoxicated. As countless studies show (and any observer can see), alcohol causes the loss of fine motor coordination and reflexes. These effects put the intoxicated most at risk for assault, robbery, etc.

Nevertheless, the administration may hesitate to agree that intoxicated individuals deserve SafeRide just as much as their sober counterparts. Students engaging in sometimes illegal drinking somehow make it seem that they do not deserve a convenience that someone studying at the library deserves.

We should laud efforts to promote responsible drinking, but we must also recognize that nothing will deter college students from drinking. The administration should remain dedicated to all students, intoxicated or not.

The statistics also support the need of SafeRide for the intoxicated. A 2004 joint study completed by the Harvard School of Public Health, Saint Joseph’s University and the University of Arizona studied 119 schools nationwide with startling results. Women from colleges with medium and high binge-drinking rates had more than 1.5-times increased chance of being raped while being intoxicated versus those from schools with low binge-drinking rates. Obviously, the results of these studies call for more general measures, such as alcohol education and sexual assault education. But while it may be more important to address the cause of this problem in the long run, we cannot forget to address the symptoms in the short run. This includes the institution of all sexual assault preventive measures.

The University Police run SafeRide, and University Police Captain Michael Coleman said there were three main reasons for prohibiting intoxicated people from using SafeRide. First, police officers have an obligation to arrest those who are intoxicated in public. Second, Coleman stated, “Intoxicated people are unpredictable.” Intoxicated individuals could distract the driver, causing a safety hazard for all in the van. Finally, intoxicated individuals pose the risk of “losing body fluids,” exposing health hazards. These arguments should not be disregarded but seem to pose only small obstacles rather than insurmountable walls.

Coleman stated that if a person were only mildly intoxicated an officer likely would not know. He went on to say the way an officer responds to any student suspected of being intoxicated depends on the circumstances. If a student does not seem capable of taking care of him or herself, for example, the student will be taken to the hospital or arrested. It seems as if a taboo intoxication level exists where intoxication past this point means students cannot take SafeRide.

But the line cannot be drawn clearly. As Coleman himself noted, officers are not exactly smelling students’ breath. Officers have little to go by to determine if a person is intoxicated. Different officers will respond to the same student differently, likely based on their feelings toward alcohol. Because students are unsure if they will be accepted or turned down, they are deterred from even calling SafeRide. This will be the case even if the student is far from “losing body fluids” and would provide no problem in the van.

There are several ways to offer Safe-Ride to the intoxicated while minimizing the objections Coleman brought up. Perhaps one step could be to remove police officers from the SafeRide van and hire commercial drivers, as late night buses do. These drivers would have the same hesitations in driving intoxicated individuals that officers may have, but may be more accommodating as a group. A civilian would feel less responsibility than an officer to punish those that have been drinking. These drivers, then, would encourage more students to board in general. Furthermore, we cannot overlook the fact that students may feel less intimidated to use SafeRide if a police officer were not driving, and thus, use the service more often.

Yet these commercial drivers would still have the power to remove individuals from the van if they fear the individual would vomit (making the van temporarily unusable), but those removed could be strongly encouraged to call Yellow Cab. Likewise, if students (drunk or sober) distract the driver, they could be removed from the van. These measures would control distracting behavior or vomiting that Coleman alluded to, but would allow SafeRide to serve intoxicated students far more frequently.

At many colleges across the country, equivalents of SafeRide can be found serving all students, regardless if they had been drinking or not. Recognizing that student safety takes the greatest priority, the service overlooks what state the student may be in. These universities have wisely realized that it seems far more likely for a young, intoxicated woman to be raped while walking home than for an intoxicated rider to distract the driver and cause a collision. It will be a matter of time — and increasing numbers of sexual assault victims — before our University reaches the same conclusion.

Rajesh Jain is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at rjain@cavalierdaily.com.

ALMOST two weeks ago, the world was shocked to learn that former “Seinfeld” star Michael Richards repeatedly used a racial slur while reacting to two black men who were heckling him during a stand-up show. Richards, who played the eccentric neighbor Cosmo Kramer, apologized. Discussion about the event has continued, but has rightly expanded beyond this isolated and relatively unimportant incident to more universal issues. Jesse Jackson and other black leaders met Monday and called for a ban on the n-word in entertainment. This effort, while well-meaning, is a waste of time. Even in the unlikely event that it is successful, it will carry with it no concrete benefits for minority groups. Leaders like Jackson should focus on more concrete issues of racial inequality rather than campaigning against a word that is merely a symptom of racism.

It is hardly news that there are racists in America. The only reason so much attention has been given to this one incident is that Kramer was such a beloved character. It is shocking and unexpected to discover that the actor who played him is a racist, but it is also only one person. The widespread condemnation of his disgusting rant is justified, but insufficient.

Much debate has now centered on whether Richards is actually a racist or if he simply lost his temper. Based on the video from his performance, it is hard to defend the man. He could simply have been irritated to the point that the racial tensions present in many Americans forced themselves to the exterior, but his rant went well beyond what most people would admit to, even in their most candid moments. Regardless, any racist attitude, no matter how small, is harmful. Unfortunately, racism is also somewhat inevitable. Hatred for others based on ethnic, religious or other characteristics has been a part of human history for a very long time. The question, then, should not be how to eliminate racism, but how to mitigate its real effects. Jackson and the others intending to ban the n-word missed this point.

The word is understood by now to be offensive and is certainly only used with racist connotations. However, it is separate from racism itself. George Carlin, another comedian, once performed a routine about racial slurs. After listing all of the slurs he could imagine, he noted, “the words are completely neutral,” but context makes them good or bad. He used the n-word as an example and pointed out that when black comedians use the word, no one cares. Separate from its racist context, the word is just a combination of letters. What one ought to be concerned about, in Carlin’s opinion, is “the racist… who’s using it.” Leaders like Jackson, therefore, should look to solve the root problems that create people racist enough to refer to minorities using a racial slur.

It is also conceivable that one could be extremely racist without using the n-word. The most shocking part of Richards’ rant was not the use of the slur but his comment that “50 years ago we’d have you upside-down with a… fork in your ass.” Whether he is a racist or not is a personal issue, but the hatred that manifested itself in his rant would have been present with or without the n-word.

Ultimately, the problem with an attempt to remove the n-word from society is that it will accomplish nothing more than that. Even if the word disappears entirely, racism will exist. The issue may be more important that mere semantics, but it would certainly not usher in substantial change.

Walter Benn Michaels argues in his recent book “The Trouble With Diversity” that Americans put too much emphasis on promoting mere diversity and ignore issues of equality that are central to social justice. The response to Richards’s actions is subject to this critique. Eliminating the n-word might make us feel better about our society’s race relations, but it will do little to improve the lot of minorities. It will not lessen the gap between white and black incomes, eliminate racial profiling or free blacks from any of the effects of racism they now feel.

To condemn racism is an important function that minority advocacy organizations have carried out well. In a free society, however, completely eliminating racist viewpoints is impossible. If Jackson and other black leaders want to improve the lives of minorities, they should focus on alleviating poverty and removing the causes of racial inequality — not on changing the words racists use.

Daniel Colbert’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.