24 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(08/25/09 11:12pm)
IT'S MID-AUGUST on the University Grounds, and you know what that means: Soul-smothering heat, bumper-to-bumper traffic on Route 29 for three straight days, and - of course - a whole new crop of fresh-faced first-years.\nOh, first-years. As you meander across the grassy lawns of the McCormick Road halls and gather on the balconies of the Alderman Road dormitories, parents in tow with arms overflowing with enormous down comforters, plastic boxes full of clothes, and neon-colored desk lamps, I can't help but be filled with envy at all of the possibilities that lie before you. Unless you forgot to get a box fan. In that case, enjoy your heatstroke.\nIf you're new to Grounds, and this is your first issue of The Cavalier Daily, let me say to you: Welcome!
(04/21/09 5:45am)
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve no doubt heard about the Obama’s new family pet, a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo. Various news outlets have stumbled all over one another to get the first pictures of the “first pooch,” and it isn’t new: ever since Obama’s unexpectedly adorable announcement to his daughters about adopting a dog during his presidential acceptance speech, everyone from CNN to BBC has devoted precious airtime and print space to speculating about the breed and gender of the lucky canine. And while a fluff news story can be a nice break from the violence and confusion that can often dominate journalism, the coverage of the Obama family dog is symptomatic of a larger problem in American news. Simply put, we’re nosy. We’re obsessed with knowing every detail of each other’s lives.That’s right: we’re voyeurs. That’s why we’ve turned the celebrity gossip machine of the National Enquirer, Us Weekley, People, Star and other weekly glossies into a multimillion dollar industry based purely on speculating about the personal lives of the rich, famous, and surgically altered. It’s why we follow celebrities on Twitter when they blog about the sandwich they made for lunch or the affair they’re having with the nanny. It’s why we watch hours of The Millionaire Matchmaker, I Love Money 2, and The Biggest Loser and waste huge chunks of time clicking through Facebook photos when we should be studying for finals. As we become more and more sedentary, spending more and more time on the couch with a soda in one hand and the TV remote in the other, we increasingly live vicariously through the famous figures that abound in our culture of voyeuristic pleasure.America has loved a good celebrity scandal ever since Marilyn Monroe sang a breathy birthday serenade to President John F. Kennedy in 1962. In the 1950s and 60s, celebrity gossip emerged as a veritable form of news and hasn’t relinquished its grip on our national consciousness since. And it’s an interesting phenomenon, because it isn’t worldwide, or even consistent across Western culture. In France, for example, the general population couldn’t be less concerned with the personal life of President Nicolas Sarkozy, who divorced his wife while in office to marry Italian model and singer Carla Bruni, who writes steamy songs about their time in the bedroom and has dozens of nude photos in European magazines. In America, national news revolved around the President’s personal life for nearly a year in 1998 as every news outlet in the country covered reports that Bill Clinton may or may not have engaged in oral sex with an intern, despite how decidedly unimportant this fact was to his ability to govern. The differences are striking.The celebrity gossip culture goes far beyond mere curiosity. Paparazzi are so intent on snapping photographs up the skirts of famous young women that Britney Spears dedicated a two-hour television special to tearfully requesting that she be left in peace. At Gisele Bundchen and Tom Brady’s recent wedding, security guards fired shots upon two photographers who snuck into the ceremony illegally, shattering the back window of their SUV. In a world where people are famous just for being famous — Kim Kardashian and her sex tape, Paris Hilton and her pink diamond-encrusted Bentley — we feel almost entitled to know every detail of their ever-changing romances, tumultuous friendships, and sordid sex lives. Television companies make a fortune off of simply filming the actual lives of good-looking individuals fighting, making nice, and then fighting again. The Hills, anyone? And when reality isn’t good enough, a costume designer dresses the flawless Blair Waldorf to the nines so that we can watch her and her famous, fabulous “frienemies” gallavanting around New York.Sure, reading about the lives of famous folks is a good diversion from our own problems. It makes you feel better to think that, sure, Angelina Jolie may be an international sex symbol with billions of dollars and an unbelievably sexy boyfriend, but hey, she still (supposedly) gets phones calls from a hysterical Jennifer Aniston at 3 in the morning. But ultimately, shouldn’t we more concerned with our own lives? And when it comes to politicians, especially ones as prominent as the President of the United States of America, shouldn’t we spend more time on the news discussing their leadership strategy than their family life?President Obama has a lot on his plate in the next four years. If we as a culture could pay as much attention to his plans for Guantanamo Bay as we do to his plans for the family puppy, we’d be a much more informed nation. Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/14/09 5:48am)
As an out-of-state student, I take a lot of airplane flights. Last summer alone, I took no fewer than six international flights, each one seemingly longer and more uncomfortable than the last. Most recently, I flew down to Mexico for Spring Break, an ostensibly simple and pain-free journey. But increasingly, I find my air travel experience severely hindered by the Transportation Security Administration’s screening procedures. Poorly trained employees, inconsistent procedures, and money wasted on expensive but imperfect equipment are making air travel less convenient, but aren’t really making it any safer.Flying to France, I decided to bring my toiletry bag in my carry-on so that I could brush my teeth and wipe errant eyeliner off my face after I inevitably passed out thirty minutes into the 8-hour trip. As I was instructed, I placed my travel toothpaste, mouthwash, make-up remover, and hand sanitizer into a little plastic baggy — as though this process somehow strips them of any harmful properties they might have if left simply to the confines of my cosmetics bag. A thin-lipped, severe-looking TSA official inspected my Ziploc, prodding it a few times before removing my tiny toothpaste and saying with a note of satisfaction that did not go unnoticed: “This is 4.1 ounces; the limit is 3. You can’t bring this.”I stared at her incredulously as she removed it from my bag. “Well, enjoy it,” I said sourly. “It’s spearmint.”“Oh, we just throw them away,” she shrugged, adding my precious toothpaste to a massive pile of lotions, lip glosses, and other tiny bottles and tubes.If looks could kill, she’d have rued the day she confiscated my Colgate. She also threw away my bottle of Aquafina that I’d tried to sneak in buried beneath the books, magazines, and boxes of Dramamine in my purse — a trick that, disturbingly, works about three-fourths of the time.It’s not that I’m unwilling to put up with a few mild inconveniences and lost tubes of toothpaste for the sake of national security. I’d stand in line for hours to have my belongings scanned and my body invasively patted down if it meant preventing a mid-air hijacking or a bombing. What’s irritating, though, is that the TSA’s procedures are reactionary rather than progressive: in attempting to prevent past attack strategies from being repeated, screening procedures become woefully inept at anticipating newer plans. What’s more, TSA spends thousands of dollars on new equipment like full body scanners that often malfunction, effectively mishandling a task that a human employee could perform with far greater accuracy — if properly trained — for about $10 an hour.In 2001, Richard Colvin Reid, also known as Abdul Raheem, attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes during a flight from Charles de Gaulle International Airport in Paris to Miami International Airport. Reid’s attempt failed miserably, but not because of any inventive security measure: upon seeing Reid fiddling with a match, a flight attendant reminded him that smoking was not allowed on the airplane at any time. When Reid continued his antics, the flight attendant noticed that he was attempting to light a fuse on a shoe that he’d removed and placed in his lap. He was subsequently subdued by the flight attendants and passengers who used seatbelts and headphones to restrain him while a doctor on board administered Valium. Reid has since received a life sentence in prison.Since the infamous shoe bomb plot, TSA has insisted that all passengers remove their footwear to go through security screening. It’s comforting to think that, should someone be dumb enough to try the same trick again, TSA officials would supposedly discover the explosives in the scanning device. What’s less comforting is that the chances of anybody being stupid enough to try this exact same plan again, well aware of TSA’s procedures, is so tiny that it almost makes the inconvenience of removing shoes not worthwhile. And even less comforting is a January 2007 report that states that TSA screeners at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport missed more than 60 percent of bomb components smuggled in by undercover agents. Screeners at Denver overlooked explosives 90 percent of the time, and Los Angeles International missed the planted components about 75 percent of the time. (If you’re flying out of California, pick San Francisco: they only overlooked bomb bits 20 percent of the time.)What’s more, anybody with the right documentation — counterfeit, stolen, real or not — can, in fact, board an airplane with firearms or explosives. In a late March article published in the Jackson, Mississippi Clarion-Ledger, journalist Chris Joyner notes that TSA officials allowed Jackson Mayor Frank Melton to carry his personal guns onboard flights despite rules explicitly forbidding firearms. Melton’s documents were genuine, but in March 2007, a couple passed a handgun through TSA security using fake documents at Los Angeles International Airport. In 2005, officials in New York seized 1,300 falsified badges from 35 different agencies being used to sneak forbidden items past TSA and into airports.Despite these risks, air travel continues to be the safest form of transportation available to travelers today. Statistically, you are far more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport than you are to die in a plane crash. Nevertheless, the TSA needs to spend a little less time heckling passengers for their toiletries and a little more time adequately training their employees. When TSA can develop effective methods of catching terrorists and bombers, I’ll gladly sacrifice all the toothpaste I own. Michelle Lamont is an Associate Editor for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(04/07/09 4:49am)
Recently, I had the privilege of watching the documentary “Haze,” which tells the story of Gordie Bailey who died in 2004 as a freshman at the University of Colorado after consuming excessive amounts of alcohol at the Chi Psi fraternity house. “Haze” seeks to explain the phenomena behind this kind of dangerous binge drinking on college campuses across America. While Bailey’s story may be horrifying, it’s anything but uncommon. And the most tragic part of his story is how easily his death, and the deaths of countless others, could be prevented.According to the Gordie Foundation, a group founded following Bailey’s death to raise awareness of the dangers of alcohol consumption in college, a university student dies of alcohol-related causes every five hours. Seventeen hundred students die every year, either as a direct result of alcohol consumption, or in drunk driving crashes, falls, or other accidents caused by impaired judgment. Alcohol causes six and a half times more student deaths than every other drug combined, yet we often think of binge-drinking as a harmless pastime or even a collegiate tradition. At the University, we’re far too ambitious and talented to allow this kind of mindless, dangerous culture to continue.The Center for Disease Control and Prevention defines binge drinking as any practice of alcohol consumption that raises the user’s blood alcohol content to above 0.08 — typically five or more drinks in a row for men, four for women. The CDC also reports that rates of binge drinking are highest among 18 to 21 year olds: 90 percent of the alcohol consumed by those under the legal drinking age is in the form of binge drinking. According to the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 44 percent of students attending four-year institutions in America binge drink on a regular basis, and that 44 percent consume 70 percent of all the alcohol purchased by college students.Alcohol has been a part of the human experience for millennia. Stone age jugs confirm that fermented alcoholic beverages were being intentionally produced and consumed as early as about 10,000 BC. Today, alcohol is consumed in nearly every culture on Earth for its relaxant effects, as a social lubricant, as part of religious rites or spiritual rituals, for artistic inspiration, as medicine and as an aphrodisiac, among other uses. It is possible to drink lightly and pleasurably, so why do some students insist on drinking to the point of memory blackouts and vomiting on a near-weekly basis?Excessive alcohol consumption and binge drinking — essentially, the collegiate drinking culture — has been acknowledged, celebrated, even glorified by movies like Old School, National Lampoon’s Van Wilder, Eurotrip, and Superbad, to name just a few. In many fraternities and sports teams, mass consumption of alcohol is often seen a rite of passage, an initiation task that will take you from submissive underling status to being seen as an equal among your heavy-drinking peers. Drinking has become a competitive sport: not only literally, with drinking games like flip cup and beer pong, but also figuratively, as students often fight to show dominance by one-upping each other with the amount of alcohol they can consume in a sitting. “Everybody wants to be the one with the best story the next day,” explains one student interviewed in “Haze.”Few collegians are ignorant of the effects of alcohol on the human body. Physically, alcohol causes damage to the liver, often resulting in conditions like fatty liver and cirrhosis in chronic drinkers. In fact, an accumulation of fat in the liver can be observed after just one night of heavy drinking. Alcohol also constricts brain tissue and depresses the central nervous system, sometimes shutting it down completely by stopping the heart and lungs in cases of extreme intoxication. Mentally, alcohol consumption results in euphoria, as well as slurred speech, lapses in memory, and impaired judgment. Yet, because many collegiate binge drinkers are underage, they are often afraid to call for help if a friend begins to show signs of serious alcohol poisoning. Furthermore, the pervasiveness of the drinking culture often leads students familiar with the effects of alcohol to assume that severely intoxicated individuals can simply “sleep it off.” This fallacy, combined with the dangerous, risk-taking behavior of people under the influence of alcohol, results in the frighteningly high levels of alcohol related deaths among college students.At the University, we are fortunate to have seen only a few of these deaths, but the reality is that we should not be seeing any. These accidents are easily preventable. It is possible to have fun and drink responsibly in college; it isn’t necessary to be inebriated to the point of vomiting and blackout to have a good time. Alcohol is and will continue to be a major component of the college lifestyle, especially among certain subsets, but it is possible to drink without becoming dangerously drunk. Even so, if you or someone you are with does become intoxicated to the level where they are severely incapacitated, a speedy 911 call could save a life and prevent a tragedy like Bailey’s.Michelle Lamont is an Associate Editor for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/31/09 5:42am)
Late one cool April night, you’re seated in the Amphitheatre surrounded by a few friends and hundreds of strangers. You hold out a hand in front of your face, but the night is so black that you can’t see anything as you wiggle your fingers. A few candles flicker in the hands of the students around you. Suddenly, a voice cuts through the darkness, timid at first but gaining strength with each new syllable: “I am a survivor of sexual assault.”Welcome to Take Back the Night’s candlelight vigil, one part of a week-long campaign to raise awareness of sexual assault at the University. The program, now in its twenty-first year at the University, is described by public relations chair Nora Eakin as “a highly public event that really speaks to the consciousness and awareness among students of the problem of sexual violence, and an active desire to prevent it.”Sexual assault is an issue that is all too easy to push to the fringes of our consciousness. It’s easy to think that it couldn’t happen to you, because you don’t drink that much, or you don’t dress in short skirts, or you’re always careful when you’re walking at night. Unfortunately, the reality is that sexual assault can happen to anyone, and that more often than not — as frequently as 7 times out of 10, according to United States Bureau of Justice statistics — the attacker is somebody that the victim knows. The fear of a stranger jumping from an alley is a real one, but what’s far more likely is a familiar face in a familiar place taking things just a little too far.Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 20 to 25 percent of college women will experience rape or attempted rape during their four years at a university. At the University of Virginia, a study done in 2006 of about 800 college women found that 19 percent were victims of rape while at the University, 10 percent victims of attempted rape, and 34 percent victims of unwanted sexual contact.These statistics are staggering, but considering the college culture in which we live, they’re less surprising than they seem at first glance. Our generation has been termed the “hook-up generation” for our tendency to shy away from serious relationships while remaining sexually promiscuous. This new style of courtship, to use the term quite loosely, grew out of the sexual revolution, when new forms of contraception, like the birth control pill, decreased stigma regarding premarital sex and the availability of legal abortion resulted in less anxiety about the consequences of casual intercourse. As a result, we no longer equate emotional connectivity and responsibility with sexual encounters.These “casual sex” situations can get messy quickly, especially when alcohol is involved, and one or both parties wake up with only a partial memory of what occurred. A girl may have no recollection of giving consent — and, technically, consent given while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not legal consent —and a boy may not remember if he used any kind of protection. And while these kinds of gray areas, which are often painful for both parties, are all too frequent, malicious sexual assault — such as engaging in sexual acts with a girl against her explicit wishes or while she is drunk, drugged, or unconscious — is still a disturbingly common reality at college campuses across the country. Take Back the Night is designed to help students understand the causes, consequences, and realities of sexual assault on college campuses. Last year, the candle light vigil alone was attended by over 600 students, faculty members, and community members. The vigil is proceeded by a rally with food and a capella performances and a march to demonstrate support and solidarity for survivors of sexual assault. Other campaigns include a panel on how to date someone who has been sexually assaulted in the past and a Sexual Assault Board mock trial that will help clarify the process involved in reporting a rape, attempted rape, or assault. “Hearing survivors’ stories makes sexual assault real in ways statistics and facts don’t — especially when those stories come from your peers,” said Eakin. “Getting people to realize that someone sitting next to them may have gone through this really makes one think twice about discounting our beloved Grounds as immune from these issues.”Too often, victims of sexual assault are afraid to speak out. They blame themselves: If only I hadn’t worn that outfit, if only I hadn’t had that last drink, if only, if only. Furthermore, these women are often scared to report their attacks because their attacker was someone they knew or trusted, they’re afraid of being labeled a “slut,” or they want to believe that the whole thing just “wasn’t that big of a deal”. The truth, however, is that sexual assault is never the victim’s fault. Reporting it does not label one promiscuous or careless. Take Back the Night strives to show survivors of sexual assault that it is not only safe but right to report the violence they have experienced, and that there is a large community of people willing to offer help, hope, and support. “We want to raise awareness and get people thinking about these issues, so they can support the survivors they know,” said Eakin. If you or somebody you love is a survivor of sexual assault, or if you’re simply moved by the frequency of sexual assault on college campuses, get involved in the University’s Take Back the Night programs next week.Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/24/09 6:27am)
The pictures have been splashed across the front pages of gossip magazines across the country: shock photos of Rihanna with swollen lips and black eyes, pictures of Chris Brown with his head bowed and eyes averted, bold black headlines declaring the state of their relationship, each one contradicting the next: “They’re Over!”, “She’s Taking Him Back!” The media frenzy following the fight in which Brown beat up his girlfriend Rihanna has essentially stripped both singers of their dignity, exposing their relationship for criticism and commentary from the informed and absolutely clueless alike. But if one good thing has come of the commotion, it’s that a dialogue has been opened about behavior that is unacceptable at any time in any relationship.Celebrities that commented on the fight mostly tried to avoid a hard line stance, refusing to align with one participant or the other. Singer Ashanti said, “There’s a lot of things that’s alleged. Nobody knows what going on . . . I hope everything’s all right for the both of them.” Mary J. Blige said simply, “They’re both young and beautiful people, and that’s it.” Only Roseanne Barr — never one to shy away from speaking her mind — was brave enough to say the truth: “Chris Brown’s lies and excuses make me want to beat the crap out of him . . . he uses the language of the perpetrator just like every sleazy [man] who ever smacked his wife, kid, mother or girlfriend around uses.”On March 18, the New York Times published an article in which they interviewed ninth-grade girls at Hostos-Lincoln Academy, a selective private high school in the Bronx. The girls overwhelmingly defended Brown, rationalizing his behavior by reasoning that Rihanna had somehow deserved the violence.Like many women twice their age or more, the girls blamed Rihanna for the attack. “She probably made him mad for him to react like that,” one said. Another added, “She probably feels bad that it was her fault, so she took him back.” Terrifyingly, these young women seemed angrier at Rihanna than they did at Brown, who, factually speaking, was solely responsible for the attack: it was, after all, he alone who turned the fight physical. According to the LAPD police report, he “shoved her head against the passenger window . . . [then] continued to punch her in the face.” The injuries she sustained required a stay at a local hospital. Yet, said one Hostos-Lincoln student, “I don’t think he’ll hit her like that again.”This mentality shows a disturbing trend among women young and old: a willingness to accept violent behavior by assuming that it was somehow provoked by the actions of the victim. This is the same rationale that blames rape victims by saying “they deserved it” because of their seductive dress or alcohol consumption. Accepting that terrible things may happen to people who did nothing to deserve them requires relinquishing faith in a just world. In addition, blaming the victim preserves one’s own sense of invulnerability by perpetuating the falsehood that it can’t happen to you so long as you don’t behave like her. The reality, which is considerably harder to accept, is that sexually, physically, or emotionally abusive relationships can and do happen to anyone, and that no matter how frustrating a relationship may become, violence is never the victim’s fault.Sadly, according to statistics from New York’s Teen Relationship Abuse Fact Sheet, nearly 80 percent of women who have been physically abused by their partners will continue to date them. And it’s hardly surprising, in light of the reactions of Hostos-Lincoln’s teenage students. The same mentality that causes young women to blame Rihanna for the abuse she suffered is the mentality that will cause girls who are caught in abusive relationships to believe that the fault is with themselves, and not with their partner. The reason is that it’s simply easier to think that the victim — in this case, yourself — may have caused the attack rather than accept that somebody with whom you once had a loyal, trusting relationship could be capable of such behavior. Relationships rarely start off abusive; a pattern of abusive behavior emerges over time, often long after a loving relationship has been established. Women too often feel that if they could change this or that tiny thing about themselves or their partner, it would be possible to return to the happy honeymoon phase of the relationship, and they would never have to face the reality that in this particular case their character judgement was off. Understanding this thought process sheds a light on why Rihanna and other young women like her so often find it difficult to leave an abusive boyfriend. The situation becomes increasingly complicated when the victim is married to her abuser, is dependent upon him for income, or has children with him. Financial and familial responsibilities give the victim numerous opportunities to put off leaving her abuser or facing his behavior as a pattern rather than a passing phase.Statistically, one in four teens will report being physically, emotionally, sexually, or psychologically abused, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention’s Department of Health and Human Sciences. It can happen to anyone: rich or poor, confident or insecure, sexually active or abstinent, young or old. If you are in an abusive relationship, as hard as it may be, leave it. You deserve to be happy. Women who are victims of abuse need help, not blame. Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/17/09 5:48am)
“Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident,” said President Barack Obama on March 9, following his decision to overturn the Bush administration’s policy restricting funding on embryonic stem cell research. Though Obama has faced some criticism from the religious community, his decision marks a long-awaited return to logic and science rather than religion and instinct in the White House. Bush’s policy was regressive and outdated; Obama’s new approach to stem cell research places science and logic ahead of emotion by acknowledging the tremendous advances that are possible with continued study. Controversial, embryonic stem cell research is a valuable medical avenue with the possibility of providing enormous medical benefit to a wide range of victims of disease and injury.Because stem cells are undifferentiated and can develop into hundreds of different types of tissue, they possess the unique ability to repair extensive tissue and organ damage. Ailments that are currently considered untreatable can be helped or even cured with stem cells - these include degenerate diseases, genetic conditions, and extreme physical trauma. Furthermore, research on these cells has given new insight into the development of cells within the human body, helping to understand why, in some cases, these cells develop incorrectly. Finally, stem cells are useful for pharmaceutical and research companies as a way of testing new treatments without the use of live animal or human subjects. Despite the promise that stem cell research offers, a number of groups have raised concerns about the morality of a treatment that destroys potential human lives.The controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research is concerned with the question: is destroying a days-old blastocyst, made up of about a hundred undifferentiated cells, akin to destroying a human life? Since modern science cannot determine absolutely the beginning of human life, the debate rages: is it at birth, conception, or some murky point in between the two? Is a three-day old embryo “alive”? If so, is it wrong to destroy that life in order to improve or save hundreds, thousands, millions of other lives? Religious groups who believe that life begins at conception necessarily believe that the collection of cells — which, if placed in a womb, would naturally develop into a human baby — is a human life that cannot be discarded. But this argument ignores the basic facts of embryonic stem cells.The embryonic cells used for research are typically leftovers from fertility clinic treatments that would otherwise be discarded. If not used for research, these embryos would be slated for destruction anyway; it makes more logical and scientific sense to use them for potentially life-saving research than to throw them away unused and unwanted or to leave them frozen forever in a vault. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research insist that no new embryos would be created solely for the purpose of research; research groups buy already-created blastocysts from companies that would otherwise destroy them. Therefore, the argument that stem cell research is tantamount to “murdering unborn humans” sets up a false dichotomy by wrongly implying that, were the embryos not being used for research, they would be growing up living happy lives with loving families. This is not the case; these embryos would be destroyed whether used in research or not.Secondly, to think of embryonic stem cell research as “destroying” unborn babies is deliberately misleading. A days-old embryo is no more a complete human life than is a single skin cell. These tiny clusters of cells have yet to differentiate into any form of distinct tissue — this is what makes them so useful, as they can be nudged in any number of different directions to create new tissue to repair bodies that have been badly damaged by injury or disease. Of course, embryos aren’t the only source of stem cells available for research; stem cells can also be collected from adult bone marrow or from the umbilical cords of newborns. These two alternate types of stem cell research have shown promise in the laboratory as treatments for a number of ailments, but they lack specific medical benefits that embryonic stem cells can provide. Firstly, embryonic stem cells are younger and more flexible than more developed cells, and can therefore be coaxed more easily into becoming a variety of different types of tissue from brain and spinal cord cells to retinal or liver cells. Secondly, embryonic stem cells do not pose the same immuno-incompatibility threats that transplanted adult stem cells pose — like a liver or lung transplant, a patient receiving adult stem cells may find that his body rejects the new, foreign addition rather than embracing it as new, lifesaving tissue.When one considers the science, embryonic stem cell research is a beneficial tool that must be taken advantage of. It has incredible potential to heal the victims of diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, as well as those who have suffered bodily or spinal injuries. Obama has acknowledged the concerns of religious groups, but has wisely followed logic and recognized the myriad of uses for this incredible path of scientific discovery. Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(03/10/09 5:36am)
Nearly six years ago, an American surge towards the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad marked the start of the war on terror and created a panic that left Iraq’s National Museum looted and destroyed, its hallowed halls dark and dusty and its displays empty behind shattered glass panels. In mid-February, though the museum was still far from fully restored and looked more like a prison with troops of armed guards atop its roof, Iraqi officials reopened it in front of a crowd of diplomats, historians, journalists, and civilians. The museum’s reopening should serve as a reminder to Americans that Iraq is a country that’s about a lot more than war.Amid the fierce fighting and insurgent activity, the precious artifacts at the museum were taken and sold on the black market to nearby countries like Syria and Jordan, as well as to far-flung locations like Peru and the United States. According to Newsweek, more than 15,000 items were stolen by thieves who used gunfire to cause serious structural damage to the museum before breaking in and looting the priceless items inside. American troops were widely criticized for allowing the ransacking of the museum to occur right under their noses, with little or no regard for the value of the ancient artifacts that were stolen. “American troops were but a few hundred yards away as the country’s heritage was stripped bare,” said National Public Radio’s Robert Siegel when the looting was reported in 2003.At the time of the museum’s reopening, 6,000 of the museum’s invaluable items from ancient Babylon, Assyria, and Sumeria, as well as centuries-old Islamic texts and rare Iraqi artifacts, had been recovered and placed inside 23 renovated halls and exhibit rooms displaying classic Islamic art and architecture. Up to 7,000 items remain missing, including 50 considered to be of great historic importance. Qahtan al-Jibouri, Iraq’s minister of state for tourism and antiquities, told the New York Times that he wanted visitors “to see that Baghdad is still the same as it was...[it] has not turned to ruins.”When most of the Western media coverage of Iraq tells stories of violence, bloodshed, warfare, and terrorism, it’s easy to forget how incredibly culturally rich this venerable nation is. It’s easy to envision an empty, endless dusty desert rather than a storied ancient world of treasures, art, jewelry, and architecture. Items in the museum date back over six millennia, to the civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia that flourished thousands of years before America was even a glint in the founding fathers’ eyes. The Iraq of today is a war-torn nation, to be sure; but it isn’t a desert wasteland that American troops should feel no guilt about virtually wiping off the face of the Earth. It has a much greater, richer, more complex legacy than terrorism. It is the birthplace of civilization, the site of the oldest human history in the world. Its inhabitants are devout Muslims, most of whom are dedicated to preserving their nation’s time-tested and valuable culture, and practicing the most widespread religion in the world.Remember the “Cradle of Civilization,” Sumeria, the Tigris and the Euphrates? That wasn’t a mythical place; it was located in what is today Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. The first governments, the first mathematical systems, the first spoken and written languages developed in this region. It was home to the world’s earliest literature and philosophy. The relics that are found today in Middle Eastern museums are a part of the global story of human history. They are priceless not just to today’s inhabitants of the Middle East, but to everyone who has ever done math, told time, or used any of the other countless contributions of the ancient Sumerians.Museums around the world recognize the value of artifacts, art, and literature: They remind us not just where we have come from, but inspire us towards new and innovative achievements. Even in a region riddled with strife and fighting, it is uplifting to see that people are still committed to preserving the legacy of human history. No matter how much these items may garner on the black market, their value as pieces of the global story of history is priceless. The looting of the museum was a powerful indicator of the chaos and disregard that followed the invasion of Iraq; its reopening serves as a symbol of commitment to progress, reverence, and improvement. Iraq is a nation with a rich cultural heritage and some of the most ancient history in the world. It is a land of people with an appreciation for their shared history. It may seem obvious, but its easy to forget when few headlines in the Western news media contain the word “Iraq” without the words “war,” “terrorism,” “Al Qaeda,” or “death” somewhere adjacent. Iraq is more than a hide-out for Osama bin Laden or a breeding ground for terrorism. There’s no question that today’s Iraq is a nation wrought with fighting and deeply torn along entrenched religious lines, but that doesn’t mean the Western media should write it off as nothing more than a battleground. It may be some time before American visitors are lining up outside the doors of the Iraq National Museum, but the artifacts that it houses are as valuable to us as to any other culture in the world.Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/24/09 7:03am)
IF YOU’RE an out-of-state student at the University, chances are that when you first arrived on Grounds you felt at least a tinge overwhelmed by the sheer number of students from Virginia. Of course, it wasn’t a surprise: the University is a public institution with a duty to serve the state that funds it, and out-of-state students come in knowing that they’ll be outnumbered. But a clause in the Virginia House Budget Bill, HB 2325, would establish an enrollment policy at Virginia universities that would require at least 70 percent of incoming classes to hail from within the state’s borders. HB 2325 failed in the senate on February 10, but it is just one in a series of bills that the state of Virginia has attempted to pass over a number of years. These bills are always contentious, but they don’t pass because Virginia’s public universities need not just the revenue but also the diversity that out-of-state students bring. Naturally, Virginia residents expect that their children will have the opportunity to attend any of Virginia’s prestigious public institutions. After all, Virginia taxpayer dollars make up a certain percentage of the University’s funding each year, and Virginia residents have the right of access to inexpensive, nearby public institutions of higher learning. But as Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Greg Roberts noted, the University of Virginia is a global research and educational institution that receives far more qualified applicants each year than it can possibly admit. “As a university, we strongly resist any quotas or mandates on the composition of our student body because our admissions process is based on a holistic, subjective, and complete review of each student’s application,” he stated. Mandating the percentage ratio of in-state to out-of-state students at public universities will likely cause more harm than good to both the universities and the students attending them. Firstly, choosing to attend a university is a decision that should be beneficial for both the student and the institution. This can be problematic, as universities benefit when students can pay full tuition costs, and students benefit by choosing the cheapest option. Out-of-state tuition at the University, which is more than double in-state tuition, makes up a significant percentage of the University’s funds. The truth is that the out-of-state to in-state ratio at the University isn’t too far off from 70 percent; in fact, according to University officials, 69.3 percent of the University’s current student body hails from somewhere in Virginia. Even so, raising the percentage of in-state students from its current percentage to a full 70 percent would cost the University $1.9 million each year, according to estimates from the Roanoke Times. Dean Roberts acknowledged the fiscal impact of the state-mandated quota, citing economic troubles as the main reason the bills continually fail and mentioning that expensive out-of-state tuition becomes more crucial as the state of Virginia systematically removes university funding in the struggling economy. The bill may award Virginia residents slightly easier access to Virginia’s elite universities, but in doing so it erodes the quality of the very prize these students seek by lowering admission standards and denying the University crucial funding.As an out-of-state student myself, hailing from sunny Southern California, crossing the country to attend the University of Virginia was a decision that broadened my horizons and bettered me as a person. The University is constantly championing the virtues of diversity, but diversity means a lot more than a brochure with four students of different ethnicities on the cover. Ethnic diversity is important, but equally important are diversity of ideas, beliefs, upbringings and opinions. Geographic diversity introduces students to unique and different lifestyles. Coming to Virginia, I brought with me my California upbringing: delicious In-n-Out Burgers, seeing celebrities in CVS, how to drive on 16-lane freeways, saying “the” before naming the number of a route (“the 210” versus simply “29”). My Virginia friends introduced me to the amazing tradition known as Beach Week, told me what Governor’s School was, served me sweet tea and taught me when it’s appropriate to wear a sundress (answer: always). And I made friends not just from all areas of Virginia, but from places as diverse as Georgia, Wyoming, New York, and South Africa. Each of these people introduced me to a unique perspective that was a combined product of their family life, personal experience, and hometown influence. That’s not to suggest that there isn’t variance among in-state students — of course there is, some of it quite significant — but attending the University is a truly global experience, and that should only be encouraged.The relationship between the University and out-of-state students is mutually beneficial. Out-of-state tuition provides valuable monetary support for the University, and the students themselves add geographic diversity to the student body while having the privilege of attending a prestigious, well-rounded university. Plus, high out-of-state enrollment increases the University’s national visibility as students take their school pride home to far-away states and countries and adds to the University’s worldwide appeal but raising awareness of the school’s prestige in areas geographically far from Virginia. Like all public institutions, the University has a duty to serve in-state students, but it also does a remarkable job of maintaining diversity in student attitudes and backgrounds. Bills like HB 2325 would hinder the University’s ability to remain a truly global research university. “Of course Virginians are the heart of this university,” Dean Roberts said, “but we believe that a diverse environment is best for everyone.” The University is an incredible institution that attracts students not just from all across Virginia, but from all across the world. The beauty, history, and tradition of this prestigious university is an incredible educational experience not just for Virginia residents, but for students from around the globe. In the end, even if HB 2325 had passed, it probably wouldn’t have done too much to change the make-up of the student body at the University. Even so, it sends the wrong message to out-of-state hopefuls. The University can still have the cream of Virginia’s student crop, but it should do so while continuing to encourage a diversity of student backgrounds and hometowns. The high out-of-state student percentage not only enriches the University fiscally, it enriches the experience of the students who attend this university looking for a truly global education.Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/17/09 7:11am)
I HAVE A love/hate relationship with the Amazon Kindle.If you don’t know what the Amazon Kindle is, Amazon describes it as “a wireless reading device.” It’s about the size and shape of a book, but it functions like a handheld computer to which you can wirelessly download magazines, newspapers, “e-books,” and other forms of electronic media. My mom got one of these little gadgets for her birthday last year, and I have since watched it and its magical “electronic-paper” display with a mixture of fascination, distrust, and outright detestation.On February 9, Amazon.com announced the release of the Kindle 2, an improved version of the original with a faster Internet connection, sleeker design, and upgraded interface. On their Web site, the Kindle 2’s creators state their ultimate goal as having “every book ever printed, in any language, all available in under 60 seconds.”The Kindle and its successor may seem harmless, but “electronic media” is not and will never be a substitute for a real, honest-to-god book that you can hold between your own two hands. Print media is quickly being replaced by the accessibility and ease of the Internet, but good, old-fashioned books, newspapers, and magazines are a venerable source of information that have more of a place than ever in today’s ephemeral world. They possess a timelessness and permanence that are becoming all too rare as we surge forward with new technology. It’s no surprise that electronic media is so popular. It’s quick, convenient, and available 24 hours a day with the click of a button. And I must give credit to the creators of the Kindle, because, as a voracious reader, I’m happy at least to see a product that seeks to make books more accessible and more easily available to the masses. But no matter how convenient the Kindle may be, I’m disappointed to see yet another sign of the coming of the print media apocalypse.It’s no secret that print media is in trouble. Don’t believe me? The last time you had to write a research paper, did you start with a casual glance at Wikipedia, or did you head to Clemons without even consulting the Internet? When you’re wondering what’s going on in the world, do you head to the newsstand or do you just type “BBC.co.uk” into Firefox? With the revolution of the pay-per-click online media industry, old-fashioned newsstand publications like magazines and newspapers are being radically outpaced. Their costly publication and distribution is no match for the instant, cheap, worldwide access granted to an article on the Internet. It terrifies me to think that there may be a day when the lights in the offices of the iconic New York Times suddenly flicker and the presses grind to a halt. Sure, the Internet is fast and convenient. It puts boundless information at our fingertips at all hours of the day and night, from the comfort of our homes. Instead of a time-consuming trip to the library and the need to once again re-learn the Dewey decimal system, it now takes only a moment and a few clicks to find out George Clooney’s birthday, Google the ingredients needed to make steak tartare, or find who invented CPR. But the Internet is totally unregulated. And while some reputable sources exist – drudgereport.com is widely credited with breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal – all it takes to be a “journalist” on the Internet is a few dollars to purchase your own domain name before you can start spewing your ignorant views out to a hungry, curious audience. Furthermore, Internet sources encourage lazy, uninformed news consumption. Using Google News to figure out what’s happening with the wildfires in Australia or the Casey Anthony trial may not always lead to the most reputable sources and obliterates the distinction between different newspaper and magazine “brands” that may have unique connotations. A magazine like The New Yorker or a newspaper like The Wall Street Journal can never be matched by dime-a-dozen online imitators, but the plethora of online options put them at danger of eventually being just another Web site, ignoring their rich and storied histories. Even their official Web sites leave something to be desired by somebody who loves the feel of pages between her fingers and wants a reading experience that doesn’t leave her with a migraine.Call me old-fashioned, but there is something about holding a book in your hands, smelling the unmistakable scent of its pages, and dog-earing each lovingly read chapter that can never be replicated by a world of online media and electronic books bought over wireless Internet connections. Newspaper front pages and magazine covers immortalize historical moments forever with their blazing bold headlines and photos. Great works of literature survive in their first, unabridged, un-edited volumes, still available in the rare book collections of libraries around the world as physical memorabilia of a time and place so unlike the world of today. Print media achieves a tangibility and immutability that can’t be found on the Internet; a book never suffers from a broken link. I appreciate the convenience of the Internet, but it will never be a substitute for the influence and timelessness of great literature and great journalism. Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/10/09 6:55am)
IT LOOKS like at least one good thing has come out of the economic recession: JuicyCampus.com, a message board that became a haven for anonymously posting rude, hateful, and ignorant speech on the Internet, ceased operations on Feb. 5. According to Web site creator and CEO Matt Ivestor’s blog, the site was forced to close because “In these historically difficult economic times, online ad revenue has plummeted and venture capital funding has dissolved. JuicyCampus’ exponential growth outpaced our ability to muster the resources needed to survive this economic downturn, and as a result, we are closing down the site as of Feb. 5, 2009.”If you’ve never heard of JuicyCampus.com, feel fortunate to count yourself among the lucky few untouched by this vicious rumor mill. For the rest of us, the Web site has been an occasional guilty pleasure, whenever boredom or curiosity about the University gossip just got too overwhelming to resist. The site was rarely filled with anything other than mean-spirited comments about a few unlucky individuals and a seemingly arbitrary and ever-changing system of fraternity and sorority rankings. Yet somehow, Ivestor wanted to defend it as a legitimate outlet for “fun, lighthearted gossip.”“Fun, lighthearted gossip” seems paradoxical. Most of us have been the victim or the instigator — or both — of a few nasty rumors at least once in our lives, and it’s anything but fun. JuicyCampus took the game to a new level by making posting anonymous, fast, and easy. Suddenly, all it took to start a damaging rumor was a few quick keystrokes and the press of a button. Worse yet, the rumors didn’t fade the way a few malicious words eventually evaporate and become forgotten with time; a search feature made it easy to look for rumors about specific people or organizations, no matter how long ago they were started. What’s lighthearted about that? But the most disappointing thing about JuicyCampus wasn’t the gossip; it was the attempts by Ivestor to defend the site against its detractors by redefining it as an outlet for free speech. In reality, the fight against JuicyCampus was never about censoring student opinions, it was about discouraging hatred, bigotry, and negativity.Not surprisingly, this libelous gossip machine was controversial from its inception. Tennessee State University became the first public university to block students from accessing it via the campus’ wireless Internet network, a move which inspired the shameless Ivestor to compare TSU’s actions with the People’s Republic of China censoring Google searches. Other campuses sponsored grass roots movements to diminish the site’s popularity, such as the George Washington University’s plan to get students to spam the message board with meaningless gibberish. Ivestor responded to the TSU challenge to his Web site’s legitimacy in particular by claiming that all those who opposed him were “spitting in the faces of everyone who believes in free discourse online.”Certainly, attacks against the site raised questions about First Amendment rights: aren’t we allowed to say whatever we wish to say, wherever and whenever we wish to say it, without being persecuted? When universities and colleges considered restricting access to the site, some wondered if banning “offensive” Internet content would be unconstitutional. Ivestor latched onto this concept, attempting to paint JuicyCampus and its users as a persecuted sect just trying to exercise their First Amementment rights. But the content of JuicyCampus wasn’t free speech; it was libel.In the days before the Internet, knowingly publishing unsavory lies about individuals or groups was punishable under the law. Even now, the authors of outrageous National Enquirer articles have to attach their names to their work – and face lawsuits from angry celebrities. Just because it no longer takes a reputable newspaper or magazine to publish lies doesn’t mean that we should consider them “free speech.” In fact, calling posts with titles like “Fattest Girls at UVA” examples of free speech is a perversion of the entire purpose of the First Amendment. The right to free speech was created so that people could have an open and fair dialogue of rational, informed points of view, not so that a few bored college students could elucidate their opinion on which sorority got the hottest pledge class this year.Unfortunately for Ivestor’s campaign to rebrand his site as a crusade for Internet freedom, it is possible to believe in free online discourse while still discouraging the shameless negativity of JuicyCampus.com and other Web sites like it. JuicyCampus represented the nadir of social interaction. The whole concept was cowardly and incendiary, encouraging users to post the “juiciest” (i.e., meanest and most offensive) rumors they could come up with about their fellow students by guaranteeing anonymity and allowing other anonymous users to repute or support posts. And while Ivestor is no Mother Teresa, the users of the site must accept responsibility for the hateful gossip that filled its pages. A guarantee of anonymity shouldn’t be a license to spew negative lies about our peers. In his farewell post, Ivestor wrote to the site’s contributors: “I’d like to thank everyone who has engaged in meaningful discussion about online privacy and internet censorship.” No matter how Ivestor may want to pervert the purpose of the site, the content of JuicyCampus’ many collegiate pages was anything but a “meaningful discussion.” JuicyCampus wasn’t about free speech and privacy; it was about insecure, angry people trying to bring each other down. The world of a college kid is hard enough without having to worry about your reputation getting tarnished on the online equivalent of the bathroom stall door. I’m all about supporting free speech as it pertains to differing worldviews and relevant social perspectives, but as for JuicyCampus.com, well, I won’t be missing it.Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(02/03/09 7:27am)
BACK IN THE fall, in the hectic heyday of the presidential campaign, Michelle Obama came to the University to speak outside of Newcomb Hall to a crowd of students and townspeople alike. At nearly six feet tall and clad in the fashionable dresses for which she has been so acclaimed, she certainly cut an imposing figure and spoke with poise and direction. But while Michelle’s speech was moving and powerful, it was her guest, the petite Lilly Ledbetter, who made the greatest impression on me that day. Ledbetter traveled for several weeks with the Obama campaign, discussing her experiences as an employee at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, where she worked for twenty years before discovering that she was being receiving significantly smaller raises than her male colleagues. Ledbetter took her case all the way to the Supreme Court, where, in a 5-4 decision, the justices threw out her trial by ruling that she should have filed a suit within 180 days of the first time Goodyear paid her less than her coworkers.On January 29th, President Obama signed the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” into U.S. law, rendering the Supreme Court’s argument invalid by stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing pay discrimination lawsuits begins anew with each new discriminatory paycheck. Watching Lilly Ledbetter speak outside of Newcomb — a thin, soft-spoken woman in her seventies whose passion for the issue imbued her voice with a resounding power — I was deeply moved by the struggles and victories of my gender. I was lucky enough to be raised by two highly educated parents with very successful careers, who told me from the youngest age that I was capable of achieving anything that I wished to achieve. By age 5, I wanted to be a novelist; by age 7, I dreamed of being the world’s first novelist-veterinarian-astronaut-President. Even as a college kid, as my friends will tell you with a snort and an eye-roll, I’ve harbored dreams of law school, medical school, and a Rhodes Scholarship while changing my major from English to Chemistry to Psychology to English again. In fact, until I saw Lilly Ledbetter speak, it had never occurred to me how not-very-far removed I am from the generations that couldn’t have been novelist-veterinarian-astronaut-Presidents, who made great strides for womankind just by showing up to work every day, and who fought ceaselessly against the male-dominated work world to demand fairness, justice, and equality.Especially in today’s economy, as President Obama himself said, “equal pay is by no means just a women’s issue — it’s a family issue.” This bill isn’t just about Lilly Ledbetter herself. It’s about the thousands of women across this country who, according to Obama’s speech, still make only 78 cents for each dollar that a man earns for the same work, many of whom are supporting not only themselves, but children, parents, and siblings as well. It also protects the rights of the many minority groups—African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, the elderly—who encounter discrimination in the workplace with dismaying frequency. I have written on feminism before, and on the assumption that I and many of my peers often erroneously make that we are living in a post-feminist, or even post-racist, world where equality has been achieved and any further struggle is just whining. Yes, the world of today is, mostly, a good place for a young girl to grow up, watching women like Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice making real, powerful impacts on global affairs. But let’s not forget that a mere forty years ago, a man would have been writing the column you’re reading right now. Back then, the University only allowed women into two of its five schools: Education and Nursing. As we celebrate this victory for equal rights in the workplace, let’s not forget to give thanks to all the men and women who worked so hard to achieve professional equality. Let’s not forget what a great step forward this law is for the thousands of people who face sexism, racism, and age discrimination in the workplace every day. Let’s not forget to thank Lilly Ledbetter and the hundreds of others like her who have stood up for their rights in the face of enormous opposition.Despite the passage of the law, Ledbetter’s case cannot be retried, and she will receive no compensation for the hundreds of thousands of dollars she was cheated out of during her time at Goodyear. Nevertheless, she retains a positive attitude. As she said on the campaign trail: “I never won so much having lost so much.”Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com
(01/27/09 6:21am)
WHEN I was in elementary school, there were two other kids in my class named “Michelle.” I was thus sulkily resigned to being known as “Michelle L.,” and I frequently complained to my mother that I wished I could feel as singular and special as the girl who sat in front of me in homeroom, whose name was “Destiny.” I was infinitely jealous of a family friend’s daughter named “Starlite,” and I fantasized that I would legally change my name to “Rose-Dust.” Then, my 10-year-old self thought ruefully, I’d never again have to look around to see if people really meant me when they called out my name. But I have never been so thankful for my relatively blasé name than I was last week, when I read an article about Heath and Deborah Campbell, parents to three children: Adolf Hitler Campbell, age 3, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, age 1, and an infant named Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. The state of New Jersey, where the Campbells reside, recently seized custody of the children after a neighbor reported suspicions of abuse within the home. The Campbells vehemently deny ever physically harming their children, and claim that the names of the children were meant only to honor the “history of the Third Reich,” not to promote a Nazi agenda. There has been speculation that the state only acted so quickly on the dubious allegations on account of the children’s names.Ignoring for a second the obvious implications of a child legally named “Adolf Hitler,” one has to wonder if the Campbells have ever read a history book. By “Hinler” did they mean “Himmler,” after Heinrich Himmler, one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany? “Aryan Nation” is also a questionable ideological concept, not a historical human figure. And how could they have assumed — in a world where my best friend’s mother, who happens to be named Robin Williams, can’t even escape jokes about the male comedian — that anyone could conceive of “Adolf Hitler” as a name totally independent of its historical connotation?I must admit that I am deeply conflicted on this issue, not on whether the Campbells are staggeringly ignorant — that much is obvious — but on whether what they did to their children should be punishable under the law. Assuming that their proclamations of innocence against the physical abuse charges are genuine, the Campbells have every right to give their own children distasteful names. It is legal in America to subscribe to Nazism, as well as countless other hateful and ignorant beliefs because we, as Americans, believe in the right to peacefully demonstrate our views no matter how unpopular or incorrect they may be. To police the naming of children would set a dangerous precedent about the government’s role in our personal lives. It would undermine the views about the freedom of expression, religion, belief, and speech that are central to everything that the Founding Fathers fought to establish in this country. Furthermore, there is no fair way to enforce legislation against parents with tendencies toward dubious nomenclature. At what point does a name cross the line from merely distasteful to offensive? Whose sensibilities must be offended? What if a mother wanted to name her child Osama bin Laden Smith? Jerry Falwell Thompson? Should we punish the parents of Joseph Stalin Brown? Charles Manson McGee? What about the slightly more probable example of a woman rumored to be named “La—a” (pronounced “LaDasha”) or the real-life case of a young girl in New Zealand named “Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii?”At the same time, however, “Adolf Hitler” is not simply another trendy baby name of questionable origin like Bronx Mowgli or Pilot Inspektor. It is arguably one of the most recognizable names in the world, and it can never be disconnected from the man who originally bore it. The question is less about whether or not Deborah and Heath Campbell’s rights would be violated in the government-mandated renaming of their children, but more about whether or not little Adolf Hitler Campbell’s rights were violated the second his birth certificate was printed.If Heath Campbell wanted to legally change his own name to Adolf Hitler, it would be well within the range of the law, even if it would lie miles and miles beyond the range of good taste. However, bestowing the name upon his infant son condemned the child to a life of judgment and discrimination. Little Adolf’s name might get him banned from certain schools, limit his job prospects, and hinder his college admission, not to mention earn him countless schoolyard beatings. Shouldn’t parents who knowingly cause their child this sort of harm, who are most certainly not acting in the best interests of their children, be reprimanded in some way? Doesn’t this sort of emotional distress constitute some form of abuse?Ultimately, I can find no answer that respects the rights of both Adolf and his parents. Though my heart goes out to little Adolf, and I feel for the scrutiny he has suffered and will continue to suffer, taking legal action against his parents would, in the end, do far more harm than good to the rights of Americans.Michelle Lamont’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(12/02/08 6:24am)
ON THANKSGIVING Day, I was relaxing on the couch channel surfing when I happened upon a Christmas classic, “Miracle on 34th Street,” on the Turner Classic Movie channel. Okay, I thought to myself, it’s a bit early for Christmas, but this is a great movie.At the first commercial break, I was bombarded by a series of advertisements for everything from department stores to auto insurance featuring Santa Claus and piles of gifts under the Christmas tree. Thinking that perhaps the Christmas advertising onslaught was a result of the fact that I was currently watching a Christmas movie, I switched channels to the Detroit-Tennessee game. Once again, every commercial somehow managed to include poor old Kris Kringle in its pitch for auto parts or winter sweaters. Plus, every third commercial was a department store practically begging me to head on down at the crack of dawn to save on Christmas “door-buster” specials.Unfortunately, this year the term “door-buster” got a little too literal when a Wal-Mart employee in Long Island, New York was quite literally trampled to death when impatient shoppers stampeded into the store at 5 a.m. Elsewhere, at a Toys-R-Us, two men got into an altercation that involved gunfire in the crowded store. (Authorities say the dispute was unrelated to the toys, but nevertheless, the two men were undoubtedly in the store in hopes of catching some massive after-Thanksgiving deals.) “Black Friday,” the Friday after Thanksgiving when all the Christmas sales begin, has been an American tradition for as long as I can recall. But it seems that every year the Christmas holiday descends upon us just a little bit earlier than it did the year before. Don’t get me wrong, I love Christmas music, Christmas lights, and the scent of Christmas trees just as much as the next person, but it seems that less and less time is devoted each year to the Thanksgiving holiday. As soon as Halloween is past, up go the Christmas decorations in all the storefronts, all fake snow and pudgy Santas and red-and-green candy canes. It cheapens the Christmas spirit to reduce it to some fake window frosting in a CVS in mid-November. Christmas should be kept in December, for just the few weeks where it can be truly appreciated and celebrated; it should be a special and short time of year that can be eagerly awaited by children nationwide, instead of a near year-long excuse to sell old merchandise for rock-bottom prices.The holiday shopping season is always chaos, but in recent years it has been reaching a fever pitch of insanity. Perhaps it’s only because I’m older, and no longer eagerly believe in the various incarnations of the TV Santa Claus in all the ads, but I feel disheartened by the commercialization of the holiday season. It may be cliché to say that the holidays shouldn’t be about the gifts, but it is especially relevant in this year of economic downturn and financial hardship. This year, advertising was particularly heavy in light of fears that families would be reverting to traditional Christmas values like spending time with each other instead of buying and anticipating expensive gifts.Are Christmas and holiday gifts really so integral to the season that we’re willing to literally stampede store employees to be the first to get the hottest new toy for our children or our little siblings? Is it really about the gifts? I can remember as easily as anyone how it felt when I was a kid and I was greedily unwrapping everything under the Christmas tree in hopes of finding the My Little Pony I so desperately wanted. But what I remember even more vividly is the feeling I got when my dad’s eyes welled up with tears as he unwrapped the hand-painted mug that I’d made for him, or the way my mom’s face lit up when she saw the card I’d drawn in crayon, in spite of my numerous spelling mistakes. And even more fondly still, I remember just being with my family, racing down the stairs with my brother at 8 a.m., eating the Spritz cookies my mom made every year, sitting with my dad by the fireplace listening to the Christmas classics on the old cassette player.As a college students, most of us see a lot less of our families these days than we did in years past, so the holidays are a time to really appreciate being at home. I don’t know about you, but I won’t be swayed by the weeks-old advertising telling me my Christmas won’t be complete without a new car with a big red bow on top. This year, the greatest gift I can receive is time with my family.Michelle Lamont’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/25/08 10:10am)
THANKSGIVING: the all-American holiday where we gorge ourselves to the point of near-stomach-rupture and Mom and Dad have always let you try just a little bit of the champagne. It’s a time to enjoy good food, remember good times and revel in the company of your family or friends.This Thanksgiving, while you’re sitting at the table laughing at Grandpa’s odd mannerisms and helping Dad carve the turkey, don’t just snicker when Mom tearfully begins the traditional roundabout discussion of what you all have to be thankful for this year. The year 2008 in particular has given us, as Americans, an awful lot to reflect on while we’re enjoying our cranberry sauce and cornbread.Thanksgiving is a uniquely American tradition that, according to myth, arose from a rare moment of peace and companionship between the Puritan settlers in New England and the Native Americans, who taught them techniques necessary for survival in the unfamiliar terrain of the New World. It celebrates the harvest season with a feast that borders on excessive, and reminds us to be thankful for all of the modern conveniences of the first world that we enjoy as the heirs to all of America’s tumultuous history.As such, Thanksgiving is an appropriate time to reflect on what it means to be an American, and what legacy our heritage has left us as young people growing up, learning and working in this nation. This year has seen a lot of differing international opinions towards America. In the blink of an eye, we have gone from being an international joke, the target of near-universal disdain abroad, to being cautiously but enthusiastically congratulated by nations all throughout the world who watched with empathy and hope as President-elect Barack Obama took the stage to deliver his victory speech on Nov. 4. Throughout it all, we have remained a people of surprising dignity, pride and belief in ourselves and our ideals — though by no means perfect — and that has enabled us to transcend even the most frightening of prospects: a downturn in our economy, the threat of Islamic extremism, even bigotry and hatred within our borders. The word “unpatriotic” got tossed around a lot during the 2008 election. Obama was unpatriotic because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel, claiming that it was an empty gesture standing in for real patriotism. Sarah Palin critized Joe Biden for suggesting that wealthy Americans should consider their higher taxes patriotic, calling the tax hikes fundamentally unpatriotic. Anyone who dared to disagree with the policies of the Bush administration ran the risk of being “unpatriotic” and anti-American. Don’t support the war in Iraq? You must not really love America. But really, what does it mean to be a patriot?Patriotism is about supporting our country — and sometimes, supporting our country might mean disagreeing with our leaders. Patriotism isn’t about blindly following inept leaders, standing by outdated and ineffective policies, or submitting oneself completely to the will of the government. America was founded on the principle that we all have the right — indeed, the duty — to stand up and fight for what we believe is right. Patriotism isn’t about remembering every word to the Pledge of Allegiance, wearing an American flag pin on your coat, or warbling “I’m proud to be an American” over an eardrum-popping guitar riff. It’s about really considering every nuance and every option, and expressing your opinion, whether support or dissent, through your vote, your words, your rallies or your protests.Our forefathers fought and died so that we could have the right to disagree. They committed the principle of free speech to paper in the very first article of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, the document that has guided the progress of this nation for over 200 years. In other countries, you can be imprisoned or killed for disagreeing with the government; here, it’s a fundamental right and a founding pillar of our nation.This Thanksgiving, give thanks to be an American. In the months to come, much is going to change as we install a new president, new senators and representatives, and a new cabinet. Being a patriot doesn’t mean you need to blindly support every one of their decisions — if you disagree, make it known. That’s not unpatriotic; that’s the very foundation of our country. America became a great nation because it was born from the minds of many great thinkers, not from the vision of one king or dictator. So make your voice heard, and be thankful that you live in a nation where that voice matters.Michelle Lamont’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/18/08 5:00am)
IMAGINE you or someone you love is suffering from a chronic, painful illness. When the pain becomes intolerable, you head to your doctor, begging for something to ease your suffering and restore your quality of life, something to make you feel like your old self again. Your doctor offers you two options: a synthetic, potentially addictive narcotic, or a natural remedy derived from a plant. The choice seems pretty simple — until you realize that the first option is the popular painkiller Vicodin, and the second is the illegal drug marijuana.Though the federal government has consistently opposed a law to make medical marijuana a legal option for patients suffering from specific conditions, this month Massachusetts and Michigan became the thirteenth and fourteenth states to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Research has consistently shown that cannabis is safe and effective in reducing pain and relieving nausea, even where more conventional remedies have consistently failed. Yet marijuana is still currently classified under the federal government as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and has no acceptable medical use — a definition fundamentally in conflict with state laws already in place that validate the medical benefits of marijuana. It’s time the government recognized what over a dozen states already know: The ongoing fight to keep marijuana illegal ignores proven medical benefits and is a waste of valuable time and resources.Many studies have proven marijuana is an effective painkiller in cases where conventional medications have been ineffective or their ill effects have rendered their positive qualities useless. Recently, studies have suggested that cannabis is highly effective at reducing neuropathic pain, which is common in HIV/AIDS patients as well as those suffering from multiple sclerosis. Other medications, including highly addictive opiates, have proven useless against these types of suffering. Marijuana also helps ease nausea and vomiting, common complaints of those undergoing chemotherapy, without the unpleasant side effects of synthetic anti-nausea medication.Relative to other painkillers available on the prescription market, like OxyContin and Vicodin, marijuana is a tame option for pain relief. Mankind has been safely ingesting marijuana, both for leisure and for healing, for thousands of years, dating back to ancient civilizations in Egypt and India. In fact, I could go down to Wal-Mart right now and pick half a dozen legal items off the shelf with more lethal potential than marijuana: cough syrup, aspirin or acetaminophen, to name just a handful. So why the hesitation to make marijuana a viable medical option for the thousands of patients who could potentially benefit from it?For one thing, many worry that legalizing marijuana, even medicinally, is a step towards broader legalization of other, more dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroin, but the slippery slope argument is inherently flawed. The legality of alcohol and tobacco, mood-altering substances that alter brain chemistry, hasn’t led to the legalization of other, more psychoactive drugs. Far more harmful drugs like heroin, a highly addictive opiate, share almost nothing in common with marijuana, a mild sedative; the only reason we even think to lump the two together is because both are currently illegal. Clear and explicit legislation would remedy any concern that the law could be misinterpreted to include other drugs. The government has already legalized dozens of other medications with a high potential for illegal abuse — like morphine, Vicodin and Percocet — that are associated with far more serious effects than marijuana.In fact, marijuana itself is less dangerous than its two very common and very legal alternatives: alcohol and tobacco. It isn’t associated with cancer, like cigarettes are, and there’s no risk of a fatal overdose, though hundreds of people die each year from alcohol poisoning. The misconception of marijuana as a dangerous, addictive drug began decades ago with propaganda predicting a “reefer madness” that never materialized. While marijuana is by no means a perfect panacea, it offers hope to many who have found no relief in conventional treatment, and any potentially negative effects associated with its use are well within the range tolerated for other drugs. Modern science has proven that adults can safely use marijuana in moderation with no ill effects to themselves or to society. If I can walk into my local drugstore and medicate myself with dangerous, potentially deadly medications with overdose potential like aspirin and cough syrup, I should be able to get a prescription for the safe, effective pain relief of marijuana. I applaud Michigan and Massachusetts and the 12 other states where medical marijuana is legal for recognizing the value of this largely untapped natural resource as an alterative to harsh synthetic drugs, and I hope that the federal government will follow in their footsteps.Michelle Lamont’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/11/08 5:00am)
TWO weeks ago, I wrote a column expressing my distaste for California proposition 8, a measure intended to amend the California State Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby invalidating a California Supreme Court decision to allow marriage between same-sex couples. The proposition, I wrote, was fundamentally discriminatory, hateful and anti-American.Yet last Tuesday, my dear home state of California passed the proposition banning gay marriage by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, despite the fact that California voters chose President-elect Barack Obama 61 percent to 37 percent.For the queer and allied community, Obama’s victory was bittersweet. Though Obama has never fully supported the movement for marriage equality — he has explicitly stated that he favors same-sex civil unions to same-sex marriage — his message of progress has always included the progress, however slight, of the gay community. In his victory speech on Tuesday night, he thanked his supporters, “black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight ... we are and always will be the United States of America.” The failure of the public to protect marriage equality in a state as progressive as California is a major setback to the gay rights movement. The promise of progress and equality that has been the crowning jewel of the Obama campaign, that spoke to Americans of all races, genders, and sexual identities, suddenly rings hollow in the wake of Proposition 8’s passing. On the very same day that America elected the first African-American president, making huge strides to repair a painful and still very fresh history of discrimination and hatred, California — as well as Florida and Arizona — voted to curtail the rights of a different minority. How could one person cast his ballot for the promise of unity and change that Obama has espoused, then scroll down and vote yes on a discriminatory and regressive proposition that seeks to undo one of the greatest steps towards genuine equality in recent history?At his birth, Obama’s own parents’ interracial marriage wasn’t legally valid in most American states. At that time, when interracial marriage was as contentious an issue as gay marriage is today, only 4 percent of Americans supported couples of different ethnicities and 94 percent favored making their unions illegal. Fortunately, no one put that measure up on a ballot. It was a slow, painful process getting Americans to recognize the rights of the African-American population. It required much intervention by the court to force people to comply with unpopular changes like integrated schools and African-American suffrage. Though it is not a perfect comparison, the similarities between that movement and this one are striking. A mere 145 years ago, Obama himself could have been owned as a slave; now he is arguably the most powerful man in the world. Regressive, intolerant people fought to undo the gains of African-Americans at every turn, yet equality, rationality and fairness always triumphed in the end because of the powerful language of this great nation’s founding creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” All men, black or white, gay or straight. Undoubtedly, many who voted for Proposition 8 did so because they, like Obama, do not support gay marriage but are in favor of civil unions. However, the very concept of the “civil union” is insulting. The allowance of same-sex marriage would leave no distinction between the love of a gay couple and the love of a straight couple, but civil unions render the two institutions fundamentally separate and therefore fundamentally different. Separate is inherently unequal. In fact, a major worry of the Proposition 8 supporters was that allowing gay marriage would force schools to teach their children to see gay people as equals. It’s not so hard to imagine parents fretting over a similar worry a mere 50 years ago, as they complained that integrated schools would force their children to accept African-Americans as equals. Imagine, schools teaching equality and tolerance. Oh, the horror!America, it’s time to practice what we preach. We elected Obama because we were moved by his message of change, unity, and progress, and in doing so, we shattered racial barriers and proved that tolerance and acceptance can prevail over centuries of bigotry and hate. Now we — and Obama — need to stand by that belief, and apply that unity, tolerance, love and equality to all our fellow citizens, regardless of sexual preference.Michelle Lamont’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(11/04/08 8:18am)
“FEMINISM” has become a bit of a dirty word amongst the members of my generation. The word has come to mean militancy, whininess or a tendency to see oneself as a victim. Recently, even Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin refused to identify herself as a feminist in an interview with Brian Williams. But why? Do we truly believe that the battle for equal rights between the sexes is over? Do we ignore the fact that women are still paid less than men for performing the same jobs? Do we overlook inadequate daycare options for working mothers, job discrimination against pregnant women and the prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace? Feminism is the movement that recognizes these inequalities and fights to reverse them. Why don’t we want to be a part of that?Those worries — about unequal pay and child-care options — might seem far away to those of us who haven’t entered the career world. But sexism is just as rampant in college, only it’s so pervasive that some of us have started to totally overlook it.Sexism takes on a certain uniqueness in college, when young men and young women are free to interact socially and sexually for the first time without the interference of moderating adults. Sex is a big deal in college, and gender roles dictate that men and women look at and react to it differently. Men are the conquerors, women the conquered. Events such as those at the University of Richmond illustrate the problems of this unequal sexual world.Recently, the University of Richmond recommended suspension after the Kappa Sigma recruitment chair circulated an e-mail advertising a party. The e-mail, and others like it discovered by university officials, used graphic sexual imagery and offensive language to describe the potential behavior of women at the party. The e-mails went on to refer to women with derogatory names and slurs. “To say that the content of the e-mails was offensive to women would be a gross understatement,” wrote the fraternity brother in a public apology.Some people might say it’s an overreaction to take offense at these e-mails, but words like “slut,” “whore,” and “bitch” aren’t really a joking matter. When they’re not said in jest, they are the words most often used to justify rape, murder, torture and other sexual violence against women. They perpetuate a disturbingly common sentiment that scantily clad women get date-raped because “they deserved it.” They espouse a belief that women are objects, unworthy of respect. Is there even one equivalent insult for a sexually promiscuous man? Even “man-whore” has its roots in the female slur; “pimp” is usually used as a compliment. These words are designed to make girls feel guilty and embarrassed for engaging in natural, normal acts that they should in no way feel ashamed to participate in. They reinforce outdated gender stereotypes that dictate that women should be pure and virginal while men are allowed to revel in their sexuality. While I believe that college girls should be able to enjoy the same sexual freedom that college boys enjoy, the reality is that many girls who do act with sexual liberty are persecuted by both boys and girls alike. The double standard continues: The sexually promiscuous boy is high-fived by his awestruck friends; the sexually promiscuous girl is shunned by her peers of either gender. While it’s certainly respectable to choose to abstain from sexual activity, a major purpose of feminism is to grant women the right to enjoy sexuality without being forced to endure degradation. That reality has yet to materialize.Feminism is about equality. It’s not about hating men or thinking women are better than men. It’s about recognizing that everyone, regardless of gender, deserves to be treated with respect. Why should we be hesitant to embrace this label? Why should we shy away from a movement that acknowledges and fights gender inequalities that still persist, not just at Richmond, but at schools, businesses and homes across the nation? If the events at Richmond aren’t enough to convince you that we don’t yet live in a gender-blind world, just start listening to the way people talk the next time you’re out at a bar or a party.Are we living in a post-feminist world? Absolutely not. Feminism today is still as relevant as ever to any woman who’s even been made to feel ashamed of her body, her choices, or her sexual history. While perfect equality between the sexes may never materialize, young college women deserve more respect from their collegiate peers.Michelle Lamont’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/28/08 5:56am)
NOV. 4, voters in California will have a chance to make national history when they cast their votes for Proposition 8. The proposition, which aims to amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and explicitly define a valid marriage as only between one man and one woman, came about following the May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling that stated homosexual couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution. So far, three state supreme courts — those of California, Massachusetts and Connecticut — have issued rulings allowing marriage between same-sex couples, arguing that not even civil unions are acceptable substitutes for the real thing. Proposition 8, and Florida’s similar Proposition 2, is regressive and intolerant. It is fundamentally divisive and discriminatory and seeks to restrict the administrative and legal rights of a group of people simply because they belong to a certain social subset. Restricting the rights of homosexuals on a state or federal level is the exact opposite of everything this country was founded on: the promise of equality for all, even the people you disagree with.Proposition 8 supporters want to claim that it’s not an attack on the gay community because it doesn’t aim to repeal the rights of homosexuals to civil unions, which have all the same trimmings as marriage. But didn’t we learn anything from segregation? Separate is inherently unequal. Civil unions aren’t enough, because there is no valid reason for homosexual couples to be denied marriage. Yes, marriage was originally a Biblical tradition, but it now often takes place miles from the nearest house of worship, in a courthouse, between atheists or agnostics who in no way associate their union with a Christian God. Civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions, and I am not suggesting forcing individual churches to perform ceremonies that go against their teachings. Certain churches may choose, on an individual basis, to restrict their wedding ceremonies to straight couples only, but America isn’t a theocracy: Federal and state law isn’t subject to the will of religion.Some ads supporting Prop 8 are sponsored by a group called ProtectMarriage.com, which defines itself as “a broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life.” But does being pro-family necessitate being anti-gay marriage? Is it impossible for a gay couple to have a normal, loving, healthy family life? Some parents are panicked that their children will be exposed to a homosexual lifestyle, as though being around homosexuals might somehow influence their children to become homosexual. It’s not exposure to poverty or abusive parents or sexual exploitation or neglect that troubles these parents about the state of the American family — it’s homosexuals. Yet study after study has shown that children raised by gay parents are no less happy or well-adjusted than their more traditional peers; the data consistently shows that it’s the love and communication between a parent and a child that matters, not the parents’ genders. Isn’t it possible to wish to “protect” families and promote a pro-family agenda while still recognizing that a gay household can be just as loving and healthy as a straight one?The prominent tone of ProtectMarriage.com’s ads is fear, appealing to worries that children will be forced to accept gay people as equals in school and that churches will be seen as intolerant for refusing to acknowledge the validity of the homosexual lifestyle. Their Web site frets that “schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage ... this undermines the value of marriage.” This is an argument frequently made by those opposed to gay marriage: that somehow, traditional marriage is rendered invalid by the allowance of gay marriage. How does recognizing the validity of a relationship between two people of the same gender somehow devalue a relationship between two people of different genders? Gay marriage is not a threat to “traditional” marriage. A divorce rate greater than 50 percent is a threat to traditional marriage. Shotgun weddings for pregnant teenagers are a threat to traditional marriage. Emotionally and physically abusive relationships are a threat to traditional marriage. But a loving gay couple who want to reap the benefits of making their union official under the state? Not threatening. How, in 2008, decades after the civil rights movement, decades after the feminist movement, can we even be entertaining the idea of restricting the rights of group of law-abiding American citizens just because they’re “different”? There are hundreds of reasons that gay couples should be granted all the exact same rights — including the title of “marriage” — that heterosexual couples are given, but I haven’t the space to do them all justice in this column. Proposition 8’s proponents suggest that gay marriage is a danger to traditional marriage and traditional families, but if they’re really concerned with the family, shouldn’t they be spending more time focusing on the things that really harm us?Michelle Lamont’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.
(10/21/08 4:49am)
AH, MID-OCTOBER. The leaves are falling, the weather is changing, and you’re finally starting to get back into the rhythm of school. Odds are, you’ve already signed your lease for next year.Just as you’ve begun to settle into your new apartment this year — you’ve found the perfect place to hang up those posters from the Student Bookstore, and you finally agreed on which shower curtain to use in the bathroom — the landlords are already asking if you’ll be back next year. When you sit down with your current or future roommates to discuss next year’s possibilities, everything seems to be up in the air. You’re not even sure if you like your apartment yet. Plus, you don’t know where you’ll be next year. What if you want to study abroad? Then you’ll be scrambling to find a sub-letter — maybe somebody you don’t even know. As bothersome as leasing is for upperclassman, it’s even worse for new students. If you’re a first-year or a transfer student, you’re probably just starting to find your friends and get comfortable with yourself as a University student, but you may not have found your perfect niche yet. Plus, your social landscape is constantly changing and will be drastically altered if you choose to pledge a Greek organization or join a new club in the spring. Amid all this uncertainty, mere weeks into your college career, you’re being asked: Do you want to live in apartment? A house? On-grounds? Off-grounds? With whom? How much should it cost? Where should it be? There’s no reason that any of us, first-years or otherwise, should need to have answers to these questions by October. “The housing rush is really an artificial one,” said Student Council president Matthew Schrimper. “The problem is mainly propagated by students. It’s a vicious cycle that we put ourselves through.” We feel pressure from our landlords and our peers to have it all figured out earlier and earlier every year — and why? The early leasing season may not be the biggest issue facing University students, but it is a stressful situation that’s entirely unnecessary and could easily be changed without harming anyone. Worries about finding roommates and studying abroad could easily be avoided if housing contracts were signed later, when plans for the coming school year are firmer. This year, Student Council unveiled a new initiative called “Don’t Sign It!” which attempts to persuade students to hold off on signing apartment and house leases, pointing out that there are still dozens of unleased properties every spring semester. Representatives have visited first-year dorms, educating new students on their housing options and encouraging them to wait to enter into leasing contracts. Within three years, the initiative hopes to have students pledging to hold off on lease signing until later in the year. Citing changes made at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin, Student Council has been in talks with the Charlottesville City Council to pass an ordinance that would prohibit landlords from advertising a unit until a certain number of days after the unit’s lease begins, effectively pushing back the dates that contracts become available to students. “We are managing our expectations,” warns Schrimper, who acknowledges the landlords’ concerns about their free-market rights. However, pushing back the leasing season won’t lessen demand — the demand will just come later.The problem with student housing in Charlottesville is that demand far outweighs supply. Students who want to wait it out are all too aware that if they don’t grab that great four-bedroom apartment right away, someone else is right behind them in line. Rental companies don’t help by setting up poster boards in Newcomb Plaza on October 1 and warning about how they only have so many apartments left in their posh new complexes. Further exacerbating the issue is the fact that applications for on-Grounds accommodations are available as early as September, prompting students to sign early to maximize their chances of getting their first choice — creating the same rush that students signing off-Grounds leases experience. The University is forced to continually move the leasing date for on-Grounds housing up because of competition from off-Grounds housing. Despite a 45 percent increase in the availability of off-Grounds housing in just the last three years, every October students are still scrambling to get the choicest apartments and houses, feeling pressure from their peers who are competing for the same spots. If the process is going to change, landlords must realize that offering leases in the spring semester instead of the fall won’t harm their business, and students must realize that waiting to sign a lease won’t leave them stranded miles from Grounds or homeless come next August. Starting the housing rush just weeks into the school year puts an unnecessary burden on students who’ve only just gotten used to the nuances of this year’s housing. The early leasing season benefits no one and creates an atmosphere of competition and rivalry as students pick their housemates and start apartment-shopping. Starting the housing rush later in the school year would give students more time to weigh their options and make the best decision without harming business for the landlords, and the whole process would be changed for the better. Michelle Lamont’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.