University of South Carolina Libraries
IN OUR OPINION Search for Six deserves praise It’s admirable to set one’s goals high, and the Search for Six is no exception. Yes, perhaps they set their goals too high in hoping to grab Steven Spielberg or Colin Powell (sorry, we don’t think the war in Afghanistan is all that’s preventing him from coming to USC), but it was noble of them to try. In fact, it reflects well on the committee members that they made the effort in the first place. The initiative of the student members shows that Search for Six’s record of success shouldn’t be marred by lack of participation from chosen alumna Leeza Gibbons. students aren t as apathetic as some think. And faculty and administrators are to be commended for giving their time to the project. Though they might not have gotten the biggest names on their list to visit campus, they’ve done a good job of getting some high caliber celebrities to drop in. Pat Conroy, always willing to visit and make a speech, was still a notable achievement. Getting Patch Adams to come also was no small task. Both events had good student turnout and were truly enjoyable, a tribute both to the committee and to the Carolina community.. Though the Dalai Lama didn’t come, the monks’ exhibit was informative and entertaining—a big hit for students and Columbia residents. However, we’re disappointed with Leeza Gibbons, winner of the alumni category. Having won out over an impressive list of names that included Darla Moore and former South Carolina governors, Gibbons should have been honored to come and eager to set up an event. Instead, she has yet to publicly set a date. That she was chosen as the alumna who most represents the Carolinian Creed makes her hesitancy all the more galling. Overall, though, the committee has achieved most of its goals, and its drive to advertise and put on interesting events is commendable. But it’s a shame Leeza Gibbons has yet to commit herself to taking part in Search for Six, to taking part in her alma mater’s Bicentennial celebration. GAMECOCK CORRECTIONS Monday’s staff editorial incorrectly said faculty senate will vote on the sexual orientation clause on Monday. It will vote today at 3 p.m. in the Law School Auditorium. In an article about USC women's basketball, a player's name should have been spelled Shaun Gortman. The Gamecock regrets the errors. If you see an error in today’s paper, we want to know. Write us at gamecockviewpoints@hotmail.com. ABOUT THE GAMECOCK Martha Wright Editor in Chief Mary Hartney University Editor Olnny Thornton Asst. Univ. Editor Victoria Bennett The Mix Editor Justin Bajan Asst. The Mix Editor Chris Foy Sports Editor Preston Baines Asst. Sports Editor Elizabeth Swartz Online Editor Aaron Hark Photo Editor Andrew Rogers Asst. Photo Editor Oreg Hambrlck City Editor Alicia Balentlne Asst. City Editor Brandon Larrabee Viewpoints Editor Rene Moffatt Political Cartoonist/ illustrator Candl Hauglum Graphic Artist Page Designers Mackenzie Clements, Crystal Dukes. Katie Smith, David Stagg Copy Editors Crystal Boyles, Jason Harmon, Jill Martin, Carolyn Rowe CONTACT INFORMATION Offices on third floor of the Russell House. Editor in Chief: gamecockeditor@hotmail.com University Desk: gamecockudesk@hotmail.com City Desk: gamecockcitydesk@hotmail.com Viewpoints: gamecockviewpoints@hotmail.com The Mix: gamecockmixeditor@hotmail.com Sports: gamecocksports@hotmail.com Online: www.dailygamecock.com Newsroom: 777-7726 TO PUCE AN AD The Gamecock 1400 Greene Street Columbia, S.C. 29208 Advertising: 777-3888 Classified: 777-1184 Fax: 777-6482 STUDENT MEDIA Erik Collins Faculty Adviser Ellen Parsons Director of Student Media Susan King Creative Director Carolyn Griffin Business Manager Sarah Scarborough Advertising Manager Sherry F. Holmes Classified Manager Creative Services Todd Hooks, Jennie Moore, Martin Salisbury, Beju Shah, Advertising Staff Betsy Baugh, Caryn Barowsky, Amanda Ingram, Denise Levereaux, Jackie Rice, Stacey Todd Gamecock Community Affairs Karen Yip The Gamecock Is the student newspaper of the University of South Carolina and is published Monday, Wednesday and Friday during the fall and spring semesters and nine times during the summer with the exception of university holidays and exam periods. Opinions expressed in The Gamecock are those of the editors or author and not those of the University of South Carolina. The Board of Student Publications and Communications is the publisher of The Gamecock. The Department of Student Media is the newspaper's parent organization. The Gamecock is supported in part by student activities fees. One free copy per reader. Additional copies may be purchased for one dollar each from the Department of Student Media. pp^ COURTESY KRT CAMPUS Silent majority is on my side PHIL WATSON WATSONPHIL@YAHOO.COM PC jockeys need to simmer down about my adoration for breasts. Dear Phil, I always read The Gamecock and enjoy its sometimes sarcastic, very controversial columns. I often read yours, and thought that you were a very talented writer with good ideas before today. The article you wrote about WOST classes makes me sick. I’m sure that you're going to begetting many e-mails from very angry females, so I won’t berate you on your ignorance, crudeness and stupidity. You were trying to get a reaction, and you got it. The talented writers of today who want their writings to get attention do not get it by belittling females and their studies. Maybe you should grow up and use your writing "talent’’for something that's worth reading. As a whole, I’m disappointed with The Gamecock staff for even printing such a lame article written by a homy boy trying to get a reaction from his readers. You make me sick, and I will never read your articles again, and I’m extremely disappointed with the entire Gamecock staff. (I won’t include this young lady's name for her privacy) First-year student, Moore School of Business That’s an e-mail I received about my last column, in which I declared an undying adoration for the boobies. I got a lot of response about that column — some good, some bad. I try to compliment women on something, and they get as mad and bitter as a Clemson fan at the Humanitarian Bowl. Just look at the other column on this page. It’s from a women’s studies professor who calls me a “boy” and thinks I’m as sexist as Sir Mix-A-Lot. Even one of my good friends told me I wasn’t PC enough in my column. “Don’t be sexist. Broads hate that,” he said to me. (Don’t hate me for that; I’m just the messenger.) My anonymous WOST informant, whose code name is “Jugs,” told me about how my breast column was bashed in her class. This double agent I’ve got working on my side said her fellow students knew someone in the class had revealed the secrets of the WOST breast fondling assignment to the chauvinist scoundrel Phil Watson. My informant listened to the conversation and heard her fellow students spitting out vile lies about the origins of my last column. Rumors spread like wildfire. Some of the angry women’s studiers said I wrote the column two weeks before it went to press. Jugs, knowing the rumors were untrue, played It cool like 007 and didn’t correct the angry feminists. That could have blown her cover. It sure is easy to offend people in the Unies (evidently, that’s what some people are calling this decade — there you go, Ryan). Unless you’re making fun of white males, everybody gets mad at you. But I don’t bash people in my columns, with one notable exception earlier in the semester. When I wrote my breast column, I wasn’t trying to bash WOST. But people these days are overly sensitive. When you mention anything people are sensitive about in a joking manner, even if it’s not a direct insult to the sensitive issue, they go nuts and release the hounds on you. My breast column didn’t offend everybody. I think I have the silent majority on my side. Many people, male and female, told me they liked the column. So take that, you humorless, breast-lover hating, overly sensitive'PC jockeys. Someone needs to give you all a sense of humor for Christmas. Or maybe baking some cookies or playing with your breasts and writing a detailed journal about it will put you in the Christmas spirit. IN YOUR OPINION txpianation or aas is disappointing I have often wondered why The Gamecock continued to run ads for Maurice’s establishment, particularly when these ads featured a Confederate flag, and, well, we all know Maurice. No need to go there again. I was disappointed by the explanation offered this week, that The Gamecock is open to a lawsuit if it refuses to run the ads. I don't know where you're getting your legal advice, but federal district courts have upheld the refusal by student publications of political advertising (and if Maurice is making the argument of free speech, that's exactly what it is). The courts have stated that it is not a First Amendment issue because the content is decided by student editors, and tne supreme uourt agreed with that by refusing to hear the appeal. See Yeo v. Lexington, First Circuit 19%, or Leeds v. Meltz, Second Circuit 19%. Then, tell Maurice what he can do with his "political statement" and stop running the ads. KRISTI COGSWELL FOURTH-YEAR STUDENT COLLECE JOURNALISM AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS Editor's note: Thanksfor sending those along. However, there are other cases where courts have decided that prohibiting ad publication is an infringement on First Amendment rights, such as Lueth v. St. Clair County Community College. Also, it's incorrect to say Maurice 'sadis politicalijjfivertising—he's promoting his barbecue and his book, which has a Confederate flag on the cover. Unless the university decides it's time to remove Maurice 'sad and is prepared for the lawsuit that will follow, the ad will stay, but it will always be paired with The Gamecock's disclaimer. Sanford’s comments just to look better I'm writing in response to gubernatorial hopeful Mark Sanford's comments in the Nov. 19 issue of The Gamecock, specifically, the comments about the educational funding redundancy of Central Carolina Technical College and the USC Sumter campus. First, I was really ticked off because I felt personally assaulted. I am a 2001 graduate of Central Carolina Technical College (CCTC). I agree with Mr. Sanford that both USC Sumter and CCTC offer similar courses, but that's where the agreement ends. On the educational side, CCTC is a two year technical school, whereas USC Sumter, for the sake of argument, is a four-year college. Yes, the schools offer similar courses, but the courses are generally taught to different degrees. At CCTC, my major was computer technology and Internet working. My core courses were similar to the ones I will have here at USC (my major is computer science). But CCTC's instruction is centered on hands-on experience rather than theory. On the other hand, my core courses here at USC will probably focus more on the theory than on hands-on experience (for the sak«(of argument). CCTC’s mission is to produce competent students who can go into the work force after graduation, workers who know their jobs inside and out. If Mr. Sanford didn’t know, USC Sumter and CCTC have joint programs, such as the nursing program. Not all nurses would like to or can afford to go to school and obtain a four-year degree in nursing. This way, future nurses can get two-year degrees and still be certified as nurses. On the economic side, CCTC's tuition is lower. So, it's easy for students to go to CCTC or a two year school and take courses and then transfer to USC Sumter or another four-year school to continue their education. It is a common practice among college students, but then again, I guess Mr. Sanford didn't have a problem having his education ftmded. If he has so much to say nhrmt CCTC and TTSC Cnmhr why didn't he mention Morris College, which is less than five minutes away from both schools? Morris offers similar courses as CCTC and USC Sumter. Or, even in Columbia itself, what about Allen University and Benedict College? If it's a matter of physical distance, then a few miles should not matter in Mr. Sanford's equation. The comments make me more and more irate when I think about it, because Mr. Sanford is saying them only to make himself a "better-looking” candidate for governor. If Mr. Sanford wants to understand higher education, he needs to go back to college for a year or so and then tell us all what he thinks about his comment then! RAY JEFFERSON JR. SECOND-YEAR STUDENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND* INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY No excuse for silly columns I__1 LEE DAVINROY ELLISED@GWM.SC.EDU Feminists can take a joke, unless it’s about women being objects. I’ve heard that we’ve seen a slew of silly (or ironic) columns lately in The Gamecock is to provoke us into a response. This explains but doesn’t excuse the steady stream of columns that have talked about campus women as though they are objects of ridicule, sexually available to anyone or merely body parts such as breasts. Mr. Prashaw and Mr. Watson admit they’ve never taken a Women’s Studies course. This explains but doesn’t excuse their recent columns advising students to take a WOST course for an easy A or reducing a WOST classroom exercise about breast self examination (because we actually have to learn to do it effectively) to a fantasy. If Prashaw and Watson and * boys with their view of women are reading this, they’re likely to be resorting to a boy’s stereotypical response: Women, especially feminists, have no sense of humor (probably because no guy will go out wim us, so we re oilier ana sexually frustrated). We can’t take a joke. And they’re partly right. I can’t take these jokes. I can’t because they offend me and remind me too much of other jokes we have become civilized enough not to spread anymore—jokes that mock and degrade blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Italians, the retarded and other groups who no longer have to pretend to be entertained by such rubbish. I’m not laughing because jokes have consequences. Last Wednesday, how many young women on campus first read an irritating juvenile essay about feeling their breasts and then had to put up with young male jokesters asking them if they 're taking WOST 113 and if they need help studying? And where were those jokers looking when they asked this question? How many USC students will never take a Women’s Studies course now because they think the intellectual content and requirements are simplistic: If you’re female, feel your breasts and write about it; if you’re male, repeat the mantra that men suck and you’ll make an A. Unfortunately, those students will miss something wonderful. Because a Women’s Studies course isn’t about hating men (most feminists even like men and * find them useful occasionally), and it’s not about a “feel-good" experience masquerading as academic material. WOST courses are about majorities and minorities and the power relations between them. They’re ahnnt thp wavs in which race. socio-economic class, sexual identity and gender are represented and regarded in our literature, history, art, families, faiths, education systems and politics. They’re some of the most engaging courses on campus. They’re courses about social justice and making a real difference in the world. What you learn in a WOST course are things you’ll take with you when you leave this campus. And because we study complex issues and have high expectations of students, our courses aren’t easy. If you’re looking for a bunny course, you need to look elsewhere. So I’d like to invite Mr. Prashaw and Mr. Watson and any other students who have not yet done so to take a WOST course. In fact, I invite you to take my WOST course: I’m teaching WOST 111 on Mondays and Wednesdays from 2 p.m. until 3:15 ♦ WOST, SEE PAGE 7