University of South Carolina Libraries
Quote, Unquote ‘From an academic point of view, I am against censorship of any kind.’ Michael Rowls, associate professor of literacy and education Whe (Bamecock ^ | Serving the Carolina Community since 1Q08 Editorial Board Sara Ladenheim • Editor in Chief Kenley Young • Managing Editor Emily Streyer • Viewpoints Editor Corey Ford • Assistant Viewpoints Editor Brad Walters • Editorial Contributor Kiki McCormick • Editorial Contributor SG move for closed sessions breaks law I* n attempting to “enact... rules and procedures to govern the conduct of any impeachment and trial proceeding,” Sen. Adam Dawkins, on behalf of the judiciary committee, has proposed legislation to curb the right of The Gamecock to attend “court of impeachment” sessions. While the court of impeachment claims that it is within its right to bar the press and public from the meet ing in a potential disciplinary action, no actions are mentioned in any charges presented against student body treasurer Elizabeth Fordham. Disciplinary rules and regulations apply to the breaking of laws, as was the case with former student body treasurer Su sanne Newman. Fordham’s charges involve failure to attend meet ings, return phone calls or keep offtce hours, which currently does not violate S.C. law. The proposed legislation would not only infringe on her his toric right to a fair and public trial, but it would also blatantly vio late the speech and press rights that supercede any legislation pro posed. Impeachment of an elected officer isn’t a student judicial matter comparable to the university’s disciplining of students for violating university regulations. Both the press and the public have every right to know the exact nature of these meetings. Student Government should be reminded that outside of the university system, it’s not legally recognized as a legislative body. Senate lacks the authority to suspend a state law that it didn’t cre ate. Barring a reporter from Monday’s court of impeachment meeting is impermissible, according to the S.C. FOIA and existing SG legislative codes. In taking this action, the court of impeach ment essentially began to hold a secret trial and secret trials are not what this university or this country are all about. Warning necessary before loss of loans Starting next school year, college students in South Carolina will have an added incentive to avoid drugs. Already, to re ceive the LIFE scholarship, students must have drug-free records. And soon, the Palmetto Fellowship and even need-based grants might be contingent upon a clean record. These restrictions are understandable, as the above awards are essentially gifts from the state to promising students to help them finance their educations. The state shouldn’t feel compelled to give money away to people who don’t comply with its laws. However, in a rule that will go into effect next fall, students will lose even federal student loans for a drug conviction. A first possession offense would bar a student from one year of aid, a sec ond, two years, and with a third, a student would lose aid perma nently. Punishment for drug sales convictions is more severe.The suspension of students’ loans for a single possession conviction is extreme. A large percentage of college students try drugs, espe cially the soft drug marijuana, but very few get caught; a small mi nority will be punished for something most get away with. But the consequences for people with actual drug problems are even worse. It makes no sense to keep someone with a drug problem from being able to go to school, where they could find direction. In short, while we think these rules might act as a deterrent after the first offense, we think that there should be a warning so that students can clean up their act before being told they must inter rupt their education. Once leaving school, most don’t go back. Discouraging a student’s pursuit of higher education is unwise. » _ _ The Gamecock is the student newspaper of The University of South Carolina and is published Monday, Wednesday and Fnday dunng the fall and spring semesters and nine times dunng 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. Adores* The Gamecock 1400 Greene Street Columbia, SC 29208 Offices on third floor of the Russell House. SruoeH MEDU Area code 803 Advertising 777-3888 Classified 777-1184 Fax 777-6482 Office 777-3888 Gamecock Area code 803 Editor gckedOsc.edu 777-3914 News gcknewsOsc.edu 777-7726 Viewpoints gckviewsOsc.edu 777-7181 Etc. gcketcOsc.edu 777-3913 Sports gcksportsOsc.edu 777-7182 Online www.gamecock.sc.edu 777-2833 Submission Policy Letters to the editor or guest columns are welcomt k from all members of the Carolina community. Letters should be 250-300 words. Guest columns should be ai opinion piece of about 600-700 words. Both must include name, phone number, profes sional title or year and major, if a student. Ha ndwntten submissions must be personally delivered to Russell House room 333. E-mail submissions must include telephone number for confirmation. The Gamecock reserves the right to edit for libel, style and space. Anonymous letters will not be pub lish 3f. Photos are required for guest columnist and car be provided by the submitter. Call 777-7726 for more information. TV* Gamecock Sara Ladanhaim Editor in Chief Kanlay Young Managing Editor Emily Strayar Viewpoints Editor Kevin Langston Brock Vargakis News Editors Clayton Kale Associate News Editor Rachel Halwig EtCetera Editor Todd Money Jared Kelowiti Sports Editor Kristin Freestate Copy Desk Chief Sean Rayford Photo Editor Rob Lindsey Encore Editor SruoefT Mkma Ellen Parsons Director of Student Media Susan King Creative Director Kris Black Julia Burnett Betsy Ma>.n Kathy Van \4ostrand Creative Services Will Gillaspy Online Editor Corey Ford Asst. Viewpoints Editor John Huiett Asst. News Editor Ann Marie Miani Asst. EtCeten Editor David Cion ing or Asst. Sports Edita Greg Farley Asst. Photo Edita Casey Williams Asst. Online Edita Brad Walters Graphics Edita, Copy Edita, Editorial Contributa MacKenzie Craven Charlie Wallace Philip Burt Senior Writers Lee Phipps Advertising Manager Sherry Holmes Classified Manager Carolyn Griffin Business Manager Erik Collins Faculty Adviser Jonathan Dunagin Graduate Assistant \ College Press Exchange WWttwcitUTOOM of m,\mn went® k piece of m hefe/" Social Issues Abortion rhetoric shrouds truth Abortion is a topic I try to avoid, not only because it is unpleasant, but also because there just isn’t that much left to say. Alas, everyone else seems happy to blab about it ad nauseum, especial ly now, as we ap proach an election year. So 1 thought A U II1UIVV (A pit emptive strike and respond to the tired rhetoric we’ll be hearing in coming months. 1 know, I’m talking to myself. No one out there approaches abortion with an open mind. So no matter what I say, I’ll get let ters saying the following: • “The issue is choice, not abortion.” They use this word because it puts a pos itive and trivializing spin on the subject. Feminists are very defensive of their cho sen euphemism. Just the other day, John McCain was asked a question about abor tion, and was quickly “corrected” by a fem inist who insisted he say “choice” instead. And that’s not the only intellectually dis honest term they mandate. The maga zine Ms. last year bragged about its suc cess in shaping the debate so it revolves around “reproductive freedom” and “choice” instead of something more apt but less savory, like, say, “baby killing.” They are also very proud they’ve gotten us to use the word “fetus” rather than “ba by,” as using a word with fewer positive images and connotations further distances us from the reality of abortion. All this is beside the fact that abortion is not necessary for even their definition of reproductive freedom. One makes a choice to become pregnant, or not. Of course women should have the choice of whether or not to bear children—before they allow themselves to conceive said children, so no lives are at stake. • “You’re just using inflammatory rhetoric.” The next step, after insisting that we use benign language, is to say that peo ple who use the real words are sensation alizing. This also goes for images. They can’t stand to see pictures of aborted fe tuses, for instance, because they look (sur prise) like dead babies. They become in dignant when faced with the reality of the thing they are trying to defend, because they know reality weakens their case. • “You’ve never been in the situation, so you can’t imagine how hard it is, etc.” Ahem. Former unwed pregnant teen-ager here. I had just completed my freshman year when 1 found out I was pregnant. My “situation” threatened my lull academic scholarship. But, like anyone who is both responsible and sexually active (and oth er combinations can be deadly), I had a game plan for taking care of said situation, and obviously, I didn’t quit school. Once you get over the initial shock, life goes on. You deal. • “Abortion is a constitutional right.” As even a pro-abortion scholar on the Con stitution will admit (if she is intellectual ly honest), Roe vs. Wide has no basis in the Constitution. It was a politically mo tivated decision, and that is no secret. • “We shouldn’t make people bring children into the world unwanted or dis advantaged.” The feminist Elizabeth Fox Genovese addresses this excuse in her book, “Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life”: “To the extent that the pro-choice forces acknowledge the claims of babies, they in sist, with astonishing presumption and no less astonishing absurdity, that no self-re specting baby would want to be bom de formed or poor.” What brand of logic re veals that babies are better off dead than poor? And wouldn’t logical consistency require the bombing of housing projects? Please, people. Intelligent, thoughtful feminists (who do occur outside the radical elite) are start ing to realize that there is something wrong with a position that can only be defended by dishonesty. Even Naomi Wolf has ex pressed discomfort with radical feminists’ rhetoric, and with abortion itself. She still says she supports abortion rights, though with so many restrictions and reservations, I think she may in reality be more repelled by the idea than myself. There is a way to be both intellectu ally honest and pro-abortion. My best friend introduced me to it, as she won’t lie, yet wants abortion to be legal in case she gets “in trouble.” First, you must admit it is the killing of a human being, who is no less an individual than you or me. Second, you must admit that it is possible to avoid becoming pregnant, meaning that having full reproductive choice does not require legalized abortion. Third, admit Roe vs. Wide is a farce. Fourth, it is absurd to say someone is better off dead than poor, or even “unwanted.” Then, when you have come clean, say that though the above is true, you don’t give a rat’s ass. Admit that you put your concerns above the very lives of other human beings. Sure, I’ve ignored the other side of the abortion debate. But that is because my primary pet peeve is intellectual dishon esty. Sure, anti-abortion rhetoric can be grating. I’m tired of hearing moralizing about sex that gets us no closer to reduc ing the number of abortions. But the anti abortion folks have the advantage that they don’t have to lie. When they speak, they make us uncomfortable — but that is the least we should feel about an act as heinous as abortion. Friday. She can be reached via The Gamecock at gckviews©$c.edy Letters University libraiy must heed the Bill of Rights To the Editor Although I’m confident that the arti cle,“Constitutionality of prayer questioned," [letter, Oct. 20] will spark a lively, valu able and thorny debate, I feel compelled to write not to enter that particular dia logue, but to echo Professor Songer’s call for “the university [to] be very careful to make its actions consistent with the Con stitution.” While prayer at state-funded institu tions is an important issue, the students and faculty of this campus are daily confront ed with a much more blatant and danger ous violation of their constitutional rights at the door of the Thomas Cooper Library. The universal backpack searches at the libraiy exit are a clear and insuffer able infringement on our Fourth Amend ment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. While the so-called “war on drugs” has often led to dangerous cir cumscription of our Fourth Amendment rights, these cases have always been con cerned with public safety — not the pro _c_~ ~ iit__ i_ WUluij l/vunj/• In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in New Jersey vs. T.L.O. that school officials at secondary schools could search a student’s belongings only if they have reasonable suspicion that that particular student had violated the law (i.e., absolutely no uni versal or arbitrary searches). This ruling guaranteed protection for secondary school students, children whose privacy rights are generally much more tenuous than those of the'adult population on university cam puses. Perhaps it is a sad testament to human nature that university libraries have to de fend themselves against theft in the first place, but there is no amount of property that is worth the human liberty lost by the complete disregard of constitutional rights. John Pope English Graduate Student Effort to understand Christianity appreciated To the Editor About a month and a half ago, Gamecock columnist Jeremy Touzel published a column entitled “Heaven: not what it seems” [Sept. 8], In this col umn, Mr. Touzel expressed his dislike for Christians and told of how he per sonally disagrees with many Christians’ beliefs. As a Christian, this column made me angry for a number of reasons, in cluding the fact that I felt he unfairly stereotyped Christians and showed that he had little knowledge of our religion. 1 wrote a letter to the paper in response to his column and told him in this letter that he should leam more about us be fore he writes a column about us and our beliefs. I told him that he should try go ing to some of the religious organizations on campus. That’s why I was very pleased by what I saw in Mr. Touzel’s Oct. 27 col umn. In this column, he writes about his visit to the Fellowship of Christian Ath letes. I really admire him for having the courage to attend a Christian organiza tion and learn more about our religion, especially after he expressed his dislike for us in his earlier column. I feel that he should be commended for keeping an open mind and. learning about those with whom he disagrees. I am glad that Mr. Touzel enjoyed his initial trip to FCA, and I hope that he will try other reli gious oiganizations on campus. I under stand his displeasure with a few FCA members. A minority of Christians can be quite overbearing, although they have good intentions. I am glad that Mr. Touzel realized that we are not all like that and that it is only just a few of us. The only thing that I would like to call into question is Mr. Touzel assertion that all Christians believe that Hindus, Bud dhists, etc. will go to hell. I feel that this is not man’s place to judge, but God’s, and so I have no opinion on this matter. I have many Christian friends, however, who feel that the religion is not as im portant as being religious, because most religions are based on the same values and ethics. I hope that Mr. Touzel will continue to try to learn more about our religion and that he will visit other religious or ganizations on campus. He will find that while we all have the same basic belief in the Bible, we differ considerably in other areas. I hope that Mr. Touzel will visit the organization that I attend, R\LM (Partnership Among Lutherans andMethodists) at 728 Pickens Street. I am sure that he will be welcomed by everyone there, including myself. Jason Cromer Computer Science Sophomore Economic Issues Mergers squeeze out choice « Mergers, buyouts, monopo lies, oh my! Merg ers, buyouts, mo nopolies, oh my! Meigefs, buyouts ...OK, you get the point. Now, let me tell you why this is the scariest thing in the United States this Halloween.With Netscape and America Online ' Mario Ona writes every other Friday. He can be reached via The Gamecock &3M. gckviewsOsc.edii connecting (.pun in tended), Chrysler and Mercedes merging, NCI and Sprint becoming one, and huge companies taking over large companies, it seems we are within a few mergers or buyouts from ending up with one compa ny and no choices as consumers. Wfe’re be coming communist As alarming as it sounds, there seems to be no other way of saying it Every time there is a merger, our choices become con densed. Through this logic, at least in prin ciple, we are becoming communist. What else would you call a place where you can either install Microsoft Windows or Microsoft Windows? Where you can choose either BellSouth or BellSouth as « i i ■ 1 n y\jui luvai ^uuuc piuviuci . The beauty of our country is that we have the unalienable right to pursue hap piness and the freedom of making economic decisions: What do I want to buy? Who do I want to sell it to? Do I want to open up my own business? In a capitalist country, the right to be happy is closely related with the right to make as much money as" you can. Unfortunately, the richer we become, the poorer someone else becomes. And as provided earlier, the richer we become, the more buyouts and mergers we will engage in; thus, the more we will take away peo ple’s decisions. When, for example, will Bill Gates feel like he has enough? It is his right to get as fat and happy as he can get, but does he know that by doing so, lie. comers the mar ket and removes millions of people, with the entrepreneurial spirit, out of compe tition? Someone may have the freedom of competing against Gates — as much as someone has the freedom to face a pack of wolves or jump off the edge of a cliff! While Gates may be getting rich, our choices are condensing because he is giv ing us all of our choices. Everything is Mi crosoft this or that. It seems our unalien able right to be happy may justify being as greedy as you can, without considering the consequences. Gates is only one example of how one’s economic freedom can infringe on anoth er’s. What do you think will happen to our beloved Purple Cow country store if a Wal Mart opens up near USC? The cow will be slaughtered and sold by the pound, Whlly Wal-Mart will have enough money to buy his 12th airplane and we, the consumers, will once again have to forfeit our freedom to choose between the Purple Cow and Ufal.Mort It doesn’t seem long before we’re left with one producer: the Widget Company of America. They will make our can, our clothes, our computers and our toilets. Our choices will be limited to what Widget of fers. Ironically, through our convenience and economic habits, we will have con tributed to the rise of Widget, which si multaneously will be the demise of our choices. If that this isn’t scary, here’s the best part: Guess who will become president when Widget reigns the American con sumers’ wallets? By using the present as a predictor, it would seem the owner of Wid get would become president. It seems the only presidential candi dates we are being left with are those who can afford to campaign. No wonder even Donald Trump is looking in his wal let and saying: “Well, if Ross Perot gave it a shot and Steve Forbes continues to try, I might as well get in on the action!’’Trump, Forbes, Perot, oh my! Trump, Forbes, Per ot, oh my! This is scary stuff. The bright side to all of this is that as consumers, we reign and will always reign in the United States. We choose who we want to buy from. And we can choose to give our money to the little guy instead of fat, happy big guy. Wfe have the consumer choices to keep mom-and-pop businesses alive and prevent monopolies. Buy at the Purple Cow, give Skippie’s Microgeek processing system a shot, keep our choices open, prevent monopolies! t (