To the Inattentive Public:

We write to you in response to the overwhelming amount of apathy the public has begun to slip into.

For as long as man has lived, so have his ideas, thoughts, and passions, all sprung from his own being. From the moment he is brought into this world, so is a pristine new life. A man whose thoughts, emotions, and ideas are his own, not bending or wavering to the needs of the masses. Notwithstanding the fact that it is difficult for one to disagree with the aforementioned statements, man is also born with the capacity for passivity, submissiveness, and incompleteness.

The community in which we live forces individuals to abdicate their own personages in order to appease a broken system. We cannot have true ownership or responsibility for anything. Even our own thoughts are being usurped; we are indoctrinated relentlessly to accept unquestioningly the fact that all people are equal. This fact, since day one, has been foolishly oversimplified to allow for laws, rules, and legislation to be passed which undermines the individual.

We need to accept the fact that we are different and that we will always be different. However, rather than allow these differences to be divisive, we should seek to make our differences the strength of our unity. We, now more than ever, have the responsibility to accept everyone who shares our point of view concerning indifference, regardless of dissimilarities.

It is not a question of whether or not we are all equal, for we are not. Our equality ends as soon as we begin to speak. However, this is not to say that we should not be treated equally, for we must recognize that every human being should be treated as such.

Realistically, it is no longer permissible to simply remain indolent and passive in a semi-comatose state and allow this crippling passivity and indolence to dictate our actions. The time has come where we need to open our eyes and take a long hard look at ourselves and each other, as we are also crippled by restraints accumulated through the centuries. It is only after we remove the blindfold of discrimination, cast off the shackles of prejudice, and rend the veil of illogical stereotypes that we will have the ability to see the numerous and nefarious host of problems massing and swarming all around us.

In times like these, men have often sought enclaves in order to communicate contrary opinions to such irresponsible behavior. We are just one of these factions, hoping to ally man not only with his brethren, but also with his true self. It is difficult at first to comprehend the idea of such a guild, in which man can speak freely without fear of judgment or bias; a guild wherein a man can express his personal beliefs without the having to suffer harsh belittlement from others. However, such a guild exists, and it exists right here at Gettysburg College.

History teaches us that revolutions are promulgated and encouraged by groups of dissatisfied citizens or angry individuals, that they are unrestrained vehicles of death and destruction. We are taught that they topple the mighty, redistribute the wealth, that they right all wrongs, and that they are the panacea for all of society’s ills. We are taught to revere the leaders of certain revolutions and fear the leaders of others.

What we are not taught is that eventually they become what they hate, succumbing to the very forces that motivated them to anger, that they collapse into the same bastion of corruption and quagmire that originally filled them with rage. So, logically, the central question, the perplexing enigma, the riddle which has baffled and eluded comprehension for centuries must be why do humans even have revolutions? Generations of philosophers, scientists, sociologists, and scholars of all stripes have repeatedly failed to define why humans again and again resort to revolution.

It is, therefore ironic, that the answer should be provided by college students, members of society who are seen as intellectually immature compared to their adult brethren. Yet, for all their alleged superiority, many of these erudite adults fail to see the answer simply because they have lived in the system far longer than we have and are therefore more indulgent of its more nefarious aspects.

This must change.

This is why a group is vital to sustain such independent thoughts of respect, responsibility and self. But such a group is only as strong as its patronage and is limited by its methods of communication. This dialogue helps people understand one another. Only by engaging in dialogue with others will we be able to comprehend differences. Rather than being forced to believe what is right or wrong, we begin to know one another, ultimately achieving what man has desired since the inception of humanity

After a late Sunday morning and a few hours of work I picked up the Gettysburgian this week to find a piece titled “Anonymous Gburg Forum Article Sparks Controversy.” I read all three submissions and then the submissions on the Gburg Forum, including an alumnus’ words and the editor’s words. We need to address the issues that these voices brought to light but did confront.

The language used in all submissions is filled with judgment, anger, sarcasm, jabs and self-defensive reactions to the same language from the other side. I am seeing my peers act and react in fear of a label, in fear of each others’ perceptions. I see a community composed of multi-faceted, intelligent, ambitious members wounding each other, building walls around the ‘others’ and then defensively entrenching themselves. In a campus as small and as potentially tight-knit as Gettysburg has the luxury of being, we cannot even watch and listen to our neighbors’ lives with acceptance despite disagreement.

What kind of community are we when a voice self-censors her/himself because s/he fears judgment? What kind of community do we foster when that fear is confirmed? How are we able to responsibly build community through our current and future endeavors when we cannot even respect other members of a relatively (globally speaking) homogeneous neighborhood?

I am typing in tears. Students, alumni, leaders of every sort are cutting rifts between each other because mutual miscommunication or shear, total lack of communication has degenerated into surges of hate. I turned to an article two pages before the ‘Mr. Fraternity Controversy’ in the Gettysburgian and there is a voice crying out from isolation and loneliness on our campus, declaring these the products of our small campus (‘Schocking Opinions’, Nov 16, 2006). This language and this rejection cannot persist in our community, in our home. I am not addressing an issue of Greek or Independent, pearl earrings or Allies button, LaX or X-C, but instead an issue of open communication pathways to shape an accepting community – forged by ALL sides, groups, and individuals.

Our community here is what we chose to make of Gettysburg. So let’s use language wisely. Let’s respectfully listen to our neighbors and when we chose to disagree, let’s do it with that same respect. Let’s create the atmosphere that we know to be peaceful, to be encouraging, to be positively productive.

Thank you.
Best,
Miriam Parson

By Gretchen Hansen

“Anonymous,” I am a sorority girl who has been “taught the importance of diction when expressing oneself verbally,” and I believe the unintelligible sound you hear is the echo of deafening BOO’s in your direction regarding your latest opinion piece: “A Grecian Tragedy: Mr. Fraternity.” I’d commend you on the clever title, but unfortunately my sorority status has rendered me too stupid and too drunk to comprehend intelligent humor. (I’m not sure, but isn’t that called sarcasm?) I can only hope it’s true that by attending Mr. Fraternity, you have been inspired to start drinking. If I learned anything of substance from your piece, it would be that perhaps you need large, highly alcoholic beverage to relax. I’d offer you a drink, but surprisingly, I don’t have any booze in my possession. I suppose the seventeen “flasks” I had hidden under my letter shirt to smuggle into the event were confiscated at the door. Along with my excessive amounts of alcohol, I’m guessing security also robbed me of my pearl earrings. That’s correct; I am a sorority girl without a drinking problem OR pearl earrings (or necklaces or bracelets.) I do, however, have blonde hair and breasts. I sincerely apologize if these features offend you, but it’s nothing a little duct tape and hair dye won’t fix. From your highly detailed review of Mr. Fraternity, I can only assume you were present for the entire duration of the event. Security was only supposed to commandeer alcohol, not sequester your right to free will. Instead of wallowing in your metal chair of disbelief for the entire show, you could have just as easily shown yourself out. But, as they say, every party has a pooper, and anonymous, that’s why we invited you. Perhaps you should enter Mr. Fraternity next year, and instead of swing dancing or lip syncing, your talent could be a demonstration on how to perpetuate negative stereotypes of Greek life! Instead of holding up my lighter to encourage you, I’ll simply use your gburgforum submission as a flaming torch. I called the local strip joint, and unfortunately, they are not looking to hire intelligent women who enjoy participating in harmless and fun dances to support a charitable cause. They are, however, interested in attracting a particular clientele: Young, disgruntled writers with too much free time who aren’t getting laid. (Oooh, sarcasm and subtlety from a blonde haired sorority girl. It must be a side effect of all the crystal meth I’ve been abusing!) I was particularly amused with your ability to read the minds of fraternity men, whom you assumed were thinking: “Way to fuck it up for every else you over-achieving prick” in response to the swing dancing talent of Mr. Phi Delt. Since you have mastered the “talent” of brushing your teeth, I’d suggest you wash the offensive language out of your mouth out with a bar of soap. I expected more than obscenities from you, anonymous, but I suppose the only thing particularly “cavernous” is your hollow vocabulary. So, who are the real winners of the competition? Is it Greek life, for trying to have an enjoyable time on a Friday night? Is it Chi-O, for raising thousands of dollars for the Make-A-Wish Foundation? Perhaps the real winner is you, anonymous, for proving that you belong to the elite group of “Everyone-in-the-world-who-leads-a-worthwhile-life.” Congratulations, you’ve won two free tickets to next year’s Mr. Fraternity. I hope you and your guest Debbie Downer have a fantastically miserable time.

Not so anonymously yours, Gretchen Hansen

Dear Readers,
Recently, an article was published on this site, A Grecian Tragedy: Mr. Fraternity, as an anonymous opinion piece. As editor in chief, I would like to address several issues that the article has raised.

The first being that this article was sent to me via campus mail with no handwriting on it. It was submitted to the editor in chief of gburgforum.com. Most of you know how easy it is to acquire someone’s campus box number, so in reality it could have been any member of the campus who sent it to me (personally, no one has considered that the writer may in fact be a disgruntled member of the Greek community). I do not like to publish anonymous articles for the very reason that you should stand behind your beliefs, but in some situations writing under a pseudonym or pen name is the best way to go about voicing a very radical opinion. I can tell you with a hundred percent honesty that I did not write the article, but I can understand the writers desire for anonymity. That being said, I am not going to question any writer on my staff to determine who wrote it, nor am I going to pressure anyone to come out or publicly vocalize this opinion. For whatever reason the writer felt the need to hide his/her identity. That in itself may be a larger issue that needs to be addressed.

On behalf of the forum editorial staff, specifically the publisher and myself, I would like to address what was said in one of the Letters to the Editor, which pointed out the aspect they found most disturbing was how the article was advertised. This was in no means intentional and the language was meant to encourage readers to check out the site. We usually spotlight our most controversial articles, in hopes of getting a response from campus, and respond you did. The article does not reflect the opinion of the staff writers, contributing writers or editorial staff.

Moreover, as the editor of this publication, and the person that posted the article, I will not apologize for publishing this article. Yes, I wish it had a name on it, but I can understand why the author wished to remain nameless. Put yourself in the same position: would you have the courage to write an article that so obviously has half the campus up in arms?

So finally, the article has been published and I stand behind the work of this writer and his/her wishes to remain anonymous.
Sincerely,
Kim Tenure
Editor in Chief, gburgforum.com

Dear Anonymous~

On behalf of the Chi Omega Sorority, I would like to thank you for the $5 donation to the Make a Wish Foundation that you made by attending Mr. Fraternity. Your charitable donation, along with the other $4,700 Chi Omega raised, will surely make some terminally ill child’s dream come true. If you would care to see where the money goes, please visit www.wish.org.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps you didn’t realize that Mr. Fraternity was indeed a philanthropy event, and not a “hybrid pageant-burlesque for all Greek Life on campus”. However, if you did believe it was the latter of the two, then why exactly did you attend? What kind of pageantry were you expecting? Clearly these are collegiate men, not American Idol contestants. If you want to be wowed, go see an Andrea Bocelli concert.

Moving on to quite possibly the most stupid comment of your commentary (although there were quite a few to choose from), the issue of the commercials. Clearly, the dances are called commercials because they break up the different portions of the competition, much like commercials break up the beginning, middle, and end of a television show. I, like many others, assumed this made sense, however that must have been the crystal meth going right to my head. My bad. If you can think of a better one-word name for them please let us know so we can consider using it for next years event.

My only question for you is why you continued to sit through two hours of this torture. Based on your op-ed, it truly must have been a terrible experience. Perhaps you didn’t drink enough, or do the right drugs. Or perhaps you just lack a sense of humor and have a huge chip on your shoulder. Once again, I’ll go with the latter of the two. And as much fun as it is writing to an anonymous individual, do yourself a favor and grow a set. These are big words for someone who can’t even be a big enough person to back them up.

Sincerely,
Catherine Manners

Dear Kim and advisor,
Kim, first off you know that I respect you profusely for all the work you do for the Gettysburg community with res life and with all the work you’ve done with the Forum in past years. I also know that a lot of my sisters have commented on the anonymous article written in regards to Mr. Fraternity. I have to tell you that I had the same severe reaction to this article. But, what upset me worse than the article itself, was the fact that you all, as the Gburg Forum, advertised it on the Student Digest for all to read under the subject, “Mr. Fraternity

This is addressed to the author of the op-ed article entitled “A Grecian Tragedy: Mr. Fraternity.”

Dear Anonymous,

For the intent and purpose of this response I am going to call you… hmm, let’s say Aeschylus (my personal favorite ancient Greek author of tragedies). My dear friend Aeschylus, “any idiot can play Greek for a day and join a sorority or write a tragedy,” well, at least you proved the latter (and I don’t by any means deny that the former has some truth to it). The real tragedy is your op-ed piece. Why you may ask? Where to begin…

Oh, let us start with your opening paragraph. You introduce your obvious disdain for the charitable event with a remonstrance of “The unintelligible sound of hundreds of girls screaming at the tops of their lungs…” While I agree with you about the annoyance factor of various groups chanting in a large room already made loud by the chatting of the rest of the audience, you nearly killed me with the closing sentence of your introduction. “Clearly, the chanting sorority girls had never been taught the importance of diction when expressing oneself verbally.” Like, oh my God… (I, being a “sorostitute” myself, am well versed in the sorority dialect) I hope by diction you mean enunciation. While you are correct that diction (more commonly used when referring to word choice) can be utilized as a synonym for enunciation, it is not right in the context you seek to use it (ha, irony, often found in great tragedies…impressive Aeschylus!). Diction does not work in your application because it pertains to “the accent, inflection, intonation, and speech-sound quality manifested by an individual speaker” (Random House Unabridged American Dictionary). My life would be complete if you only chose to use “diction” after consulting the Microsoft Word thesaurus (I checked, diction does pop up)! I mean I could go on and on about your various grammatical mistakes. Hey! It is okay. I’m not the best at grammar myself, but for god’s sake when you are trying to assert your intelligence in the form of a witty op-ed article please, please, please proof read! “…far too many pearl earring…” What? Are you kidding, did you even use the spelling and grammar check on your computer? Pearl Earrings are worn as a pair. A pair implies two, and is thus plural. Earrings buddy, earrings. Another personal favorite, “Phi Psi, Phi Sig, and FIJI all performed groups dances. I-… what-…Who…” First of all, “groups dances?” I send a silent prayer to the Gods of Grammar that you are not an English major. Oh, and you single handedly destroyed my favorite punctuation mark, the ellipsis. A … is not to be followed by a -. I mean I know you wrote this trying to sound witty in order to prove yourself to be higher on the intellectual food chain; but really, can you at least proof read before you send something like this in to be published?

ATTENTION ALL READERS: just as our friend Aeschylus wrote “A Grecian Tragedy: Mr. Fraternity,” to appear witty in the degradation of Gettysburg’s Greeks, I am writing this as a smug asshole who wishes to degrade my dear friend Aeschylus and, perhaps secondarily, stick up for my brethren of Gettysburg Greeks. I’m sure you all will find plenty at fault with my grammar or diction (and here I mean word choice), but like at least I’m totally not um, pretending to be what I am not (unless for satiric purposes).

Forgive me, I have a tendency to be verbose (and no, I do not, did not and will not use a thesaurus to sound ‘smarter’, but I’m just now embarking on the main event. Ladies, Gentlemen, and especially you Aeschylus, would be insulting the intelligence of any member of Greek life by assuming that Mr. Fraternity is in some way meant to be taken seriously by the audience or by those involved (oh wait, A. that is exactly what you are trying to do). Did you not see our illustrious faculty judges laughing hysterically the whole time? The event, which made almost $5,000, is smart in that it plays into the stereotypes of Greek life. It is an excuse to get drunk, act stupid (this applies to the contestants) and laugh a little bit. It ingeniously plays upon the human attraction towards the proverbial “train wreck” that you just can’t keep your eyes off of. It is spectacle, it is laughing at someone else in order to take focus off one’s own self consciousness. In response to your disgust over the commercials, do you think any of those girls took themselves seriously? I speak from experience; I did a commercial when I participated in Mr. Fraternity as a sophomore. Maybe commercial is the wrong word to use (Ah! A problem with diction once again!), it is not meant to advertise as you suggest, but rather it is used to break up the pageant into segments to offer time for changes and what have you. Well, maybe it is advertising something, the fact that we (sorority girls) don’t always take ourselves like so seriously, duh! I cannot, for my life, shake my ass, drunk or sober. Did I think I looked sexy on the stage? Are you kidding? I was drunk and just being goofy for a good cause. Did the guy who walked on stage wearing nothing but a pink string bikini bottom leave little to be desired? Yes. And while I can’t speak for him, I am willing to wager that he will not look back on his college career and see that as a crowning moment. But hey, at least his willingness to take part in the embarrassment afforded the Make a Wish Foundation the ability to do a wonderful thing for a child.

As for the talent portion, just because “Wonderwall” is not particularly complex does not imply that the Lambda Chi brother does not have talent. For all you know he is a guitar virtuoso who smartly chose to play a song that would engage the audience. I don’t know your personal musical aesthetic, but would you rather him play, oh let’s say the more complex “Son of Sam” by Eliot Smith that few would be able to appreciate? Give these guys a break, they were not taking the pageant seriously, they were providing drunken entertainment and nothing more, nor did they ever imply that this event was to be representative of true character. The event was held for its ability to attract a large audience based on its entertainment value, and while your contribution of the $5 it cost to attend is wonderful; you need not have stayed if you found that it did not fit your entertainment style.

Love,
Your Dear Friend: a pearl wearing, shot taking, chant singing, honor society member and Sorority girl.

The unintelligible sound of hundreds of girls screaming at the tops of their lungs echoed through the cavernous room. Was it a horror film? Was it a nightmare? No, much worse, much more terrifying

Letter to the Editor of the opinion section of the Gettysburgian in response to “The State of Bigotry Part II.” Writers wished it to printed in both publications. It has been submitted as is and the editor they address is the opinions editor Jaimie Schock.

Dear Editor,
We are writing in response to the article printed last week entitled “The State of Bigotry Part II.” After our initial shock and admitted anger we decided to research what was mentioned. We found the claims unfounded and the general tilt of the piece to be narrow-minded as opposed to the open mindedness it claims. Facts are important in all opinion pieces and the facts were unavailable for verification in yours. Shooting hate from either side of the political spectrum is still shooting hate.

First, you addressed the possible addition of the letters A or I into the acronym GLBT. Though you immediately say that GLBT will be sufficient for use in the column so, it is unnecessary to even mention the A or I. Furthermore, despite hours of research we were unable to find any recorded information on the possible addition of an A for AIDS. We would love to know where you got this information, because if it was just talk amongst friends, it is not needed or warranted or viable in an opinion piece when it is treated like fact.

The addition of a hermaphroditic sub-category or addition of an I is not the main issue or contention, rather it is the addition and seeming support from the writer to add an AIDS acronym or A. The addition of this category would be disastrous. The gay community has worked for years through activism and education to show and prove that AIDS is not a “gay disease.” It effects both the homosexual and heterosexual communities and is blind to sexual orientation. Furthermore, besides perpetuating an outdated and uneducated view on the disease you would make it unfair to people who are homophobic and suffer from the disease. It would add more shame to a disease that is struggling to find support and teach education in mainstream America.

Regardless of political affiliation, everyone has to deal with mainstream America at some point. Also, the addition of AIDS to the acronym would be disastrous in terms of raising money and negates the support groups that are forming in third world countries. It would invariably slow disease recognition and treatment in third world countries because of the stigma that would be associated with the disease. Adding an A would set AIDS education back decades.

Now, in regard to your use of the word “transsexual” we would like to point out that, in fact, this is the incorrect term to use in this instance. First of all the T in GLBT does not mean “transsexual;” what it stands for is “transgendered.” This of course leads to the question: Well, what is the difference? Transgender is an umbrella term used to include all transsexuals, transvestites, intersexual people, etc. Transsexual is a specific term used to discuss a person who, either pre-op or post-op, feels that their mind (gender) does not match the body they were born into (sex). This sort of close-mindedness is exactly what people who are a part of a marginalized group in society have to struggle against for their whole lives in addition to the emotional and psychological problems that come along with being truly transsexual.

Past this, which may simply be a lack of research, a larger problem, which is inherent in the language that you use in your published article, is the fact that you refer always to the possibility of a transsexual student. This, my friends, is an assumption of the grandest degree. First and foremost what must be understood is the sheer size of the decision to undergo the process of changing your sex. It is monumental. It is life-changing. The risks are not by any means negligible; it is a dangerous process, one in which people can still die, either because of medical complications or by their own hand. And, the greater danger still, making the choice and realizing that you were wrong. The idea that a student, let’s say an average student, between the ages of 18 and 22, would be a transsexual is far-fetched to put it lightly. To know, with any certainty at this age, that you want to change your sex is hasty at least and suicidal at most.

However, putting aside all the emotional and psychological readiness, the timing of the process simply would not work out for a student to be in attendance at this college and be undergoing a sex change. The first step in changing one’s sex is extensive sex hormone therapy, which the patient is not allowed to even begin until they are no longer a minor. This hormone therapy is a long process because essentially the patient is regrowing their body; the bare minimum for this process is two years. Then, taking into consideration the possibility of a need for cosmetic surgery, the next several years of the person’s life is taken up by learning how to live, both with themselves and in society, as the other gender. Then finally, years after the process has started the final genital surgery takes place, which requires, as we can imagine, extensive healing. At this point, there is no way an average student would still be enrolled at Gettysburg College, they would be on their own living with people who understand and can care for them.

If, for some arcane reason you remain unconvinced, consider this: because of the extreme stigma that is attached to being a transsexual many people have families that do not or would not, if they knew, support the person in their desire to change themselves. Most transsexuals must support themselves entirely and the process, as again we can imagine, is not by any means inexpensive. To fund both a sex change process and an education at a private four-year institution like Gettysburg College would be impossible for the average student.
Now, we speak on behalf of the campus to the claim that “Granted there would be a select few to help and befriend this person [the transsexual]—but somehow I think it wouldn’t be enough.”

Let me ask you how many close friends do you let know about your sexual preference/activities. For most people, it is an intimate group, and the more people does not mean it’s better; that goes for whether you are gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or even practicing bestiality. I think that you need to re-examine some of you own stereotypes before you preach from your soapbox about the alleged “conservative campus.” This campus may be classified conservative but by far it is more apathetic than any one affiliation (and that in itself is a different problem). We are an apathetic and not an activist or concerned campus. The generation of the reverse bigotry against conservatives and people who may just not have any experience dealing with someone who is or would be transgendered does not make them hateful. After all we live in Gettysburg, not the sprawling metropolis of New York City, where coincidently the is still hatred. College is about learning who you are. I cannot emphasize this enough: Conservatives do not equal hate. We do not sit in our living rooms and discuss what ways we can take down minority groups. This misconception is false, and I would challenge you to get to know some of the conservatives on campus, drop the holier-than-thou attitude and you may get to know some of the best people I know.

In our opinions one of the most offensive parts of your article was your conclusion in which you openly offer your “pity” to anyone wishing to attempt to be both a student and a transsexual. What makes you think that your pity is either wanted or needed? Pity is the absolute last thing that anyone who is involved in a lifelong, life or death struggle with both themselves and society as a whole, needs. If there is any pity to be doled out, let it be from us to you, dear Editor, for your misconceptions and your inability to propose even a partial solution to the problem you so avidly describe. For your perpetuation of stereotypes that you think you are breaking and for your extreme hypocrisy as you place stereotypes on others even as you condemn bigotry, we also, accordingly, pity you.

Sincerely,
A Conservative and a Liberal

I wish to respond to the recent Letter to the Editor submitted by Mandi Magruder. It is in some ways useless to argue the first and main point that she makes in her letter that I, “missed of misconstrued several key points of Michelman’s lecture.” I attended the lecture with an open-mind and reacted appropriately and accurately to her language, key points, and delivery.

Let me also address that sarcasm is a perfectly legitimate tool that writers often utilize. I think this point is well illustrated, judging by the popularity and wide appeal of writers like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore, who make their careers off of sarcastic commentary. As someone who is quick to point out the sarcasm in my opinion piece, you might want to also examine your own letter which is dripping with it. I was particularly interested when Ms. Magruder wrote that, “one attends a lecture in order to hear another’s point of view, not to hear two different sides presented, although Michelman certainly did encourage discussion.” I was under the impression that one attends lectures in order to better understand the larger issue; regardless of viewpoints. I know that is why I was in the audience. I was under the same impression as Nicole—I expected a lecture focused on the issues, not an attack. As for interviewing more students with opposing viewpoints, the room cleared out really fast, but I did talk to Luke, Leanne, and Michelman herself.

Regarding my labeling her three examples as extreme, these types of situations represent a small percentage of why abortions are performed, so I felt her introducing them as the norm was unfounded. I find the argument hypocritical when Ms. Magruder commends Michelman for discussing abortion in a personal aspect as opposed to a political one, and then criticizes the audience for asking personal question, which she felt were unnecessary.

Addressing Michelman’s criticisms of both parties, telling one party that they need to embrace the pro-choice issue and another party that they need to get a life is vastly different in my opinion. She did point to extremist on the right wing controlling the Republican Party as well, and made it appear that the whole party is anti-choice. She did mention others issues in passing, but really they were only effective in making snide comments about the Republican politics.

Michelman did not explicitly answer Ryan Stauffer’s question because he asked her when she felt life began, a valid question regarding abortion. She circumnavigated the question by discussing other opinions and beliefs, not her own. Michelman personalized the lecture, so I don’t understand why she wouldn’t respond. Furthermore, the claim that Michelman came to speak about NARAL and the politics of the issue further contradicts the statement that, “Nothing is more personal than the decision to have an abortion, and that Michelman did not spend all her lecture focusing on the politics of abortion shows her to be a woman not completely immersed in the politics of a situation at the expense of the people around her to be a women not completely immersed in the politics of a situation at the expense of the people around whom the issue necessarily revolves.” She personalized the lecture, so a personal question is not crossing the line; she not only should have entertained it, but also should have provided response, which I think would have added to the lecture. Even though we might have had different viewpoints I would have respected her for saying, ‘well I think that life begins after the first trimester.’

Finally, about the statement that “criticized the groups that are against abortion as the same people who preach abstinence instead of prevention,” this was a criticism that Michelman made during her lecture, and here is where she included more attacks against the Republican standpoint; she finds it contradictory that a party that doesn’t support abortions also doesn’t support welfare, birth control or sex ed, according to Michelman’s characterization. This is a complete misconception about conservatives. Some may be pro-choice, and many support sex education in school. I agree that sex ed. should teach abstinence as well as protection and is important in schools. These are not “liberal” programs. This was a broad assumption made that was not correct.

Once again, I must point out the sarcasm with which you address this point. Michelman addressed other issues of sex ed., contraception, and welfare in a polarizing viewpoint and she commented on how the same group that though didn’t support abortion and supports “state enforced parenthood, and then ignore the cause of welfare. Again I find this a gross exaggeration.

The L&J Society should, in my opinion, have brought in two speakers to speak about the issues, one from each side of the political spectrum. They could have both discussed legal ramifications and really enriched the lecture. Also two speakers would have brought more views to the issue.