The Pioneer » Letter to the Editor

A test post to demonstrate styled elements

admin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:26:13 +0000

Images captions will look like this. Ideally images will be in the second paragraph so as to not mess with the dropcaps.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

Images captions will look like this. Ideally images will be in the second paragraph so as to not mess with the dropcaps.

Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas est etiam processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem consuetudium lectorum. Mirum est notare quam littera gothica, quam nunc putamus parum claram, anteposuerit litterarum formas humanitatis per seacula quarta decima et quinta decima. Eodem modo typi, qui nunc nobis videntur parum clari, fiant sollemnes in futurum.

And here’s an ordered list:

test element
just to show off what happens when you insert an ordered list

And then an unordered list

this is an unordered test element
and another test element to show off the styles of the unordered lists

This also should appear to the right as a pullquote, fancy that. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

Heading 1

Heading 2

Heading 3

Heading 4

Heading 5

Heading 6

Enough with the greek bashing

Unknown Author — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:00:16 +0000

EDITOR,

ENOUGH with the greek bashing. I know, I know, you were really pressed for time this week. Let’s see…I know! I’ll write an article about the greek system! That way, I don’t have to waste any time actually checking my facts, and I can practice my self-righteous indignation, which needs work anyway.

I’ll start with the easiest and most obviously misrepresented fact. Panhellenic wants to add another sorority in order to make each chapter smaller. Each group currently has about 90 members. Most sororities at campuses across the country are around 60 or less. Panhellenic would seek to maintain the same number of women in the greek system, but each sorority would take a smaller pledge class.

The next misleading allegation is that recruitment would be intensified in order to “convince women who would have otherwise opted for an independent lifestyle to join a sorority.” Unbeknownst to many independents on campus, we have very explicit and very strict rules for recruitment. Each female freshman section gets one Recruitment Counselor who is disaffiliated during recruitment (meaning she doesn’t reveal her particular greek association). Beyond that, and the three recruitment events (Activity Day, Philanthropy Day and Closing Day), no affiliated member of a sorority is allowed to be in a freshman dorm that they do not live in, nor spend time with freshmen (excluding siblings, class and things like sports teams). These rules will stay the same. Panhellenic can advertise for recruitment all they want, and the Recruitment Counselors can do their best to convince girls in their sections to rush, but ultimately it is each freshman’s decision.

Which brings me to my next point: the author admits that he spends a lot of time with a certain group of friends, but says that “it is my decision to do so, not that of a socially limiting hierarchical structure whose implementation I pay for.” Well, guess what? It is my decision to be a member of a sorority, and it was hands-down the best decision I have made at Whitman. Socially limiting? Don’t pretend like you hang out with everyone on campus. Personally, I don’t consider a social network of over 90 incredible women “socially limiting.”

You want to talk about exclusivity? One could just as easily pin exclusivity on the Outdoor Program, which is not dictated by a national hierarchical structure but by the socio-economic (that’s right, I can use big words too) pressures that determine whether or not someone can afford to have the entire Patagonia winter collection. Or the drama program, or varsity athletics, or the Young Dems, or whatever group you want. Human beings naturally form groups in order to socialize.

Whenever I read articles bashing the greek system, I think the same thing as I do when reading pro-life editorials: If you don’t like [abortion, sororities] don’t [get, join] one. The only reason greek life is “mystified” is because people outside of it find it easier to make assumptions and spread false rumors about our practices than go out of their way to find out the truth. I challenge anyone to ask me a question about the greek system and my sorority. I think you’ll find that we’re more open than you think we are.

- Alice MacLean ‘11

Radicalism has strong merits in our political environment

Unknown Author — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:00:11 +0000

EDITOR,

In his op-ed piece from April 23, Spencer Janyk claims, “Radical actions are far from productive, on the contrary, they invite their perpetrators to be smacked down by the policy pros who actually know what they’re doing.” I believe that in making this judgement Janyk fails to note the significance of radical action. Though Janyk is eager to point out that our “constitution [was] designed to secure rights for everyone,” apparently he feels that radicals are wasting these rights. He is forgetting that our country was founded by radicals who wanted to make sure that anyone, even those who held contentious and radical beliefs, could enjoy the right to freedom of speech. Clearly this instance—the founding of this country, one which Janyk lauds for being founded on a form of government “designed to secure rights for everyone”—is a perfect example of radical action come to fruition to benefit many.

In response to Janyk’s claim that left-wing radicals destroy “any chance of gaining conservative allies” I present the example of the radical environmental group EarthFirst!. This organization was fully aware of, and even embraced the fact that their extreme actions—such as placing metal spikes in trees so that loggers could not cut them down for fear of severely damaging their equipment—would make other environmental groups such as the Sierra Club seem more moderate. This means that they had the power to push the political center left, thus moving closer to the accomplishment of the goals of environmental groups in general. This is clearly not futile radical action.

Janyk claims that if “a clear majority of the American public believed in radical values[…]there would be profound disagreement all the time [and] we would need to rethink our basic approaches to foreign and domestic policy on all fronts.” To this I say, is profound disagreement necessarily an evil to be avoided at all costs? Are complacency and uniformity of thinking any less dangerous than active—and dare I say radical—debates taking place? And have we not needed to seriously rethink our foreign and domestic policy for the last eight years anyway? Perhaps if more people had been willing to take to the streets during the Bush administration we would not be suffering the woes of a faltering economic system and two failing wars today.

- Adrienne von Wolffersdorff ‘09

Medak-Seguin gets greeks wrong

Unknown Author — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:00:09 +0000

EDITOR,

Though I am absolutely flattered that Mr. Medak-Seguin believes sororities to be so omnipotent as to attract a significant number of women who otherwise would have remained independent simply by adding a fourth sorority, it is unfortunately a false assertion. The goal to be attained by adding a fourth sorority is to deal with increased interest in sorority membership. At current levels, the existing three sororities cannot continue to accommodate the large number of women who want to be greek. Our chapter facilities are above full capacity and our pledge classes are large even by state school standards. Adding the fourth sorority would cause there to be four medium sized chapters as opposed to three huge chapters. If the number of greek women ever gets to 50 percent of the women on campus it will be because 50 percent of the women on campus want to be greek and not because Panhellenic added a fourth, or even fifth sorority.

Medak-Seguin proposes a campus wide binding vote to determine whether the greater Whitman community wants to allow the addition of a fourth sorority. The problem with this proposal is that the people who would be affected most by this addition are contained within the sorority system itself. The potential for changes within the sorority system caused by a fourth sorority is high in comparison to the potential for changes for the Whitman community at large. For example, the sororities would have smaller pledge classes which could make the bonds between pledge class members stronger at the expense of a larger group. The bottom line is that whether a sorority system is composed of three or four chapters is of no consequence to those outside of the system. The vast majority of the significant changes caused by the addition of a fourth sorority affect only those within the system, which is the strongest argument for keeping the decision to within the system as well.

Medak-Seguin also staunchly maintains that greek women have no time for anything but school and greek events. I vehemently disagree. Greek organizations work hard to instill both interpersonal and leadership skills in all their members and thus hold some of the most important and influential, not to mention time-consuming, positions on campus. Greeks are ASWC Executive Council Members, Pioneer editors and reporters, varsity athletes, club officers, as well as more than half of the ASWC senators and numerous Resident Assistants. One would be hard pressed to find a group on campus without significant greek membership and leadership.

However, the most problematic assumption in the article in my opinion is the pervading belief that greek culture is simply objectively bad. Medak-Seguin mocks the feeling of instant connectedness one feels as a result of joining a greek group. Connectedness is something that all people strive for whether it is as a member of an athletic team, freshman section, club or performing group. The greek system is simply another, possibly more traditional, way to be connected to a greater community. It is completely up to a potential member to decide if the greek system is a system she wants to be connected to. If she chooses to become a member, she can make her membership as time-consuming as she wishes it to be—a choice that should be free from the condemnation of the rest of the Whitman community.

- Rachel Constantino Wallace ‘10

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:00:32 +0000

EDITOR,

I find this article to be in bad taste and hold little merit. Janyk believes the Peace Corps was developed as an instrument of American imperialism, equating volunteers to brainwashing missionaries of poverty. What is their crime? Apparently helping people “start businesses, build roads,” as if these are modern inventions, is a grave wrong doing. The truth is that undeveloped nations are in fact undeveloped. Many people in these nations live in poverty. I’m not talking about Janyk’s so-called American definition of poverty, the lack of an iPod or Big Mac. No, I believe poverty is suffering brought about by a lack of money. The common expression, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime” is certainly applicable here. The United States gives billions in foreign aid to developing countries to alleviate poverty. Some of this aid, in the form of food, has a onetime effect. The work of the Peace Corps is a lasting effect. A business provides a family with sustainable money that could lift them out of poverty.
The United States did not create poverty and underdevelopment, and its origin is the subject for a different debate. What is clear is that without money and technological assistance, developing countries will suffer horrible poverty. It is not America’s role to tell people what to believe, how to act or how to run their lives. The volunteers of the Peace Corps do not send this message. Surviving in a rapidly expanding world requires some change, but I believe developing countries can achieve this while maintaining their culture. Capitalism has certainly had ill effects, but the attack on the Peace Corps is ridiculous and unwarranted.

- Matt Liedtke ‘12

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:00:35 +0000

EDITOR,

I recently read your article on gender-neutral bathrooms and thought I would chime in on the issue. It seems to me that the Whitman community often looks at these situations from the wrong end. Instead of completely renovating the bathrooms, spending large amounts of money and putting others into uncomfortable situations (more on that in a second), why don’t we strengthen gender-variant awareness? We are supposed to advocate acceptance of people who may live different lifestyles from our own, so why not make them feel welcome to use any bathroom? Money isn’t going to solve the issue, and we certainly don’t have the means to back it up if it did. So let’s use our candor and brainpower over our wallets to ensure they do not feel uncomfortable when choosing a bathroom they associate with most closely. Give them the right to choose as they please. There has been several laws enacted in a few states recently that allow transgendered people to choose from either bathroom, free from any legal implications. This is MUCH more cost-effective for the short term, and it allows people brought up in sex-segregated bathrooms to adjust to the idea.

Now, back to what I was saying before. I know the article has the best intention of making gender variants feel at home, but we also have to acknowledge the discomfort of many others should there be gender-neutral bathroom (provided there is more than one stall) instituted throughout Whitman campus. People aren’t used to doing their business with the opposite sex in public bathrooms. Many people feel uncomfortable in the presence of ANYONE, even their own sex. Do you really want to impede on another groups comfort zone for another’s? There has to be another way, something akin to what I mentioned above.

My experience with close friends who lived in Douglas was something along the lines of straight men and women often avoided each other when the other was using the facilities (shower/toilet, toilet/toilet). Should this happen (and while you may not act this way, I guarantee you some people do), this would make people uncomfortable to use the facility. The reform would prove useless in these situations because people may end up waiting for the other to leave (not to mention awkward post-business hand washing conversations if they stayed) and that would further the waste of multiple stall bathrooms. Plus ladies, while you may gain a friend or two to have “girl”-chat in the bathroom, it wouldn’t have much of a point anymore!

I guess my point is we have rarely ever been successful bringing change to this country by forcing legislation/new mandates down people’s throats; this is simply not the best way to make people “get along” and be “comfortable”. History has proved that we are a society best changed over time, privy to wide turn-angles instead of acute ones. So while we must maintain gender variants’s comfort factor as a priority, I implore we entertain different, more cost-effective, and plausible solutions for the near future.

- Reese Ishmael ‘09

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:00:26 +0000

EDITOR,

We are very excited to have been a part of creating a new structure for programming on campus. We believe that the new board, which combines all Student Activities groups (CAB, Coffeehouse, Steven’s Gallery, and Arts & Crafts) and ASWC Programming into a new umbrella organization, is a productive and necessary change for campus programs. The new structure will streamline scheduling and communication, open participation to the whole student body, and give many leadership opportunities to students. We are thrilled and genuinely enthusiastic that ASWC has agreed to install this board into their bylaws.

During the meeting yesterday we had a couple of reservations. We believe that the programming chair’s responsibility and priority should be programming, not ASWC and decisions outside of programming. As an elected position, the programming chair would sit and vote on the Executive Council. While we understand the importance of elected positions and the accountability that goes along with them, we fear that ASWC responsibilities will interfere with the chair’s effectiveness and the primary goals of this programming board. This is a lot of responsibility for one person – we would have rather seen a chair communicate effectively with ASWC but be held accountable by students’ response to the programs he or she puts forth.

On another note, we were not impressed with the behavior of our senators during the senate meeting. We, as students and programmers, came to the meeting in order to give our opinions and advice on how we would like to see this board implemented. We felt that our opinions and comments were noted, but not duly considered. As students who elected these senators, we had hoped that they would represent, or at least consider, our insight.

On the whole, this is a very exciting opportunity for the whole student body to approach programming in a new and more effective way. We hope that you, the students, will help us make programming great in the coming year.
Get excited!

- Matt Coleman ‘11,
Coffeehouse Manager
- Mimi Cook ‘10, CAB Co-Marketing Chair
- Kali Stoehr ‘10, CAB Chair

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:00:25 +0000

EDITOR,

On March 10, Congress passed legislation to make birth control affordable again for millions of American women who obtain contraceptives at community health centers and college clinics – including Whitman college students. The provision was included in the 2009 omnibus appropriations bill that passed the U.S. Senate March 10 and the House of Representatives two weeks prior.
In 2005, Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which restricted eligibility for nominally priced drugs. In doing so, Congress inadvertently cut off safety-net providers and every college and university health center from obtaining contraception at a low cost, and passing on those savings to their patients. As a result, many women have been paying up to 10 times more each month for basic contraception, leaving them at risk for unintended pregnancies and some health risks that contraception can alleviate. The campus health center at Whitman was no longer able to provide birth control to its patients, sending them to local pharmacies or Planned Parenthood for birth control.

Leading the fight were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Representatives Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and David Obey (D-WI).

The passing of this legislation is a victory for women’s health and especially for women who have struggled to afford the rising costs of basic contraception in these tough economic times. Approximately 14,000 Americans losing health coverage every day. According to the Guttmacher Institute, women of childbearing age spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, in part because of reproductive health-related supplies and services.

Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other reproductive rights organizations began nationwide grass roots campaigns to restore affordable birth control in 2007. These organizations mobilized people across the country to reach out to members of Congress through letters, phone calls and lobby visits to Capitol Hill in an effort to raise awareness about the need for a commonsense fix. At Whitman, students signed petitions, wrote letters to the editor and articles, and conducted community outreach in Walla Walla.
The legislation is now en route to President Obama for signature. President Barack Obama has been a strong supporter of the legislative fix; as a senator, he sponsored legislation to restore access to affordable birth control.

Once the law is signed, the affordable birth control provision will immediately go into effect. To assure pharmaceutical companies that they may once again offer all eligible health centers nominally priced drugs if they so choose, we asked Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Baucus (D-MT) to submit a colloquy (a conversation for the record, demonstrating congressional intent) to that effect. Planned Parenthood is also reaching out to pharmaceutical companies, asking them to communicate with their distributors so affordable birth control can be back in the hands of those who need it as soon as possible.

- Cora Davidson,
Public Affairs Field Organizer, Planned Parenthood of Central Washington

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:00:31 +0000

EDITOR,

We, The Secession, are indeed an “object of excessive suspicion.” While this is an undeniably exciting thing to be, the anger caused by said suspicion confuses us. A suspicious stranger in a dark alley may cause sensations of danger and fear; a suspicious bi-monthly publication should provoke a non-threatening brand of curiosity, for it presents no chance of physical harm (save paper-cuts ;P ) and a lesser chance of emotional harm than would a mugger.

The Seccession has never claimed to be nor has any intention of being a newspaper (though we invite news-oriented contributions :} ). As such, if one expects news, one might be disappointed.

Certainly, The Secession has a rather fluid definition, which has unfortunately failed to extinguish the fiery response to our first issue. However, we encourage our critics to see such fluidity as a distinguishing and positive characteristic rather than a fault. We believe that a lack of structure will only open the portal to the Creative Dimension. :-0
It has been said that the “vast majority” of our contributors have not “participated actively” in the other on-campus publications (Letter to the Editor by Anastasia Zamkinos, 3/12/09). It has also been said that The Secession is “really good!” (Alden, Sonderman, Spiering, 3/30/09). We would like to point out that while many of our contributors are budding flowers of the Whitman publishing community, others are not. We proudly count among the contributors of Sec 1.1 current Pioneer and Quarterlife staff members, in addition to an abundance of Blue Moon rejects and Pioneer quitters.

With the benevolent winds of the Associated Students of Whitman College ($$$$$) and the guiding stars of the Whitman creative community, we embark on a nautiphorical adventure which could take us anywhere. We sail not as pirates but as a motley crüe of creatives.

Concerning purpose, this is but the thoughts of three contributors. We urge you to read the publication and decide for yourself, and/or contribute to upcoming issues if the purpose you discern suits you.

- Iris Alden, ‘10

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:00:29 +0000

EDITOR,

I graduated from Whitman College in 1993, and like most alums I have very fond memories of my Whitman experience. Two years ago, I moved back to Walla Walla with my family, and for the last two seasons I have helped out with the men’s and women’s cross-country teams. I consider myself a part of the Whitman family, and it is in that position that I write to express my concern with the change in direction that Whitman appears to be taking with respect to varsity athletics.

The recent decision to eliminate the varsity skiing programs brought my concerns into sharper focus. I understand that we are in the midst of a recession, that Whitman’s endowment has dropped by over $100 million, and that this has resulted in a decrease in the college’s operating budget. I also understand that Whitman, like other businesses nationwide, is struggling to figure out how to tighten its fiscal belt, and that ultimately the administration must make some difficult decisions for the college’s long-term well being. I do not envy the administration’s position, and I am quite certain that there have been many sleepless nights over at the president’s house. However, the decision to cut the varsity skiing programs pains me in that it meant cutting two of our family members loose (here I refer to the coaches—one of whom has been at the college for almost two decades—although ultimately we may also lose other family members in the form of students who transfer to another institution) in order to preserve and strengthen other athletic programs. While I know that times are hard, I do not believe we have reached the point where we are forced to choose between family members; rather, it seems that in addition to economic factors, this decision was made as part of a larger agenda to change the athletic culture at Whitman.

In his letter to the Whitman community explaining his decision, as well as in his public discussion on March 11, President Bridges emphasized the difficulty that the skiing programs have competing against NCAA Division I schools that can offer athletic scholarships. This lack of competitiveness is contrary to President Bridges’ stated desire of strengthen[ing] our athletic programs with the goal of achieving an increased level of excellence that enriches the competitive experience of our students and the reputation of the college.

In order to achieve this “increased level of excellence,” the college is willing to sacrifice some programs in order to emphasize others. Thus, not all of the savings from eliminating the skiing programs will be used to help the college tighten its fiscal belt; rather, $40,000 of it will be reallocated to other programs that better fit the college’s new athletic agenda.

My concern with this new athletic agenda is that it is a significant departure from the Whitman culture that I have always known. When I first came to Whitman in 1989, I joined the varsity soccer team. I had been a decent soccer player in high school, but I was overweight and came from a very small town that lacked any real competition. I quickly learned that my athletic skills were not on par with the majority of my teammates. Nonetheless, there was a place for me on the team. Despite the fact that I did not play at the highest level of excellence, I was allowed to participate, and by doing so my Whitman experience was greatly enriched. Two years later, I switched from soccer to cross-country. I had taken up running in the summers in an effort to get in shape for soccer, but I had never run competitively before. Once again, there was a place for me on the varsity team. Whitman recognized that participation in athletics can be rewarding in and of itself, regardless of whether you are the most competitive athlete on the field. During my two years on the cross-country team, I am not certain whether I ever impacted our overall team score; however, I still consider my college running experience to be an enriching success. Running on the cross-country team helped shape my life after Whitman—that overweight freshman who entered Whitman in 1989, still runs and will soon be heading to Boston to run his second Boston Marathon.

I have always respected the emphasis that Whitman has placed on being inclusive in everything it does. Whitman’s new emphasis on strengthening the athletic programs that it deems have the most chance of being successful, at the expense of others, is a move away from this unique inclusive culture. Whitman seems to be forgetting that success is not always about the end result—there are many athletes at Whitman who are successful, but who may never be all-Americans, may never win conference championships, and may never even count in their team’s overall score. Whitman’s athletic culture is changing, and not necessarily for the better. We just lost the skiing program. I fear that by abandoning our culture of inclusivity, we stand to lose much more.

- Damien J. Sinnot, ‘93