The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, December 05, 2001, Page 4, Image 4
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