Newspaper Page Text
■ QUOTABLE
4 * Th« Red and Black « Thursday, May 14, 1992
OPINIONS
The Red & Black
Established in 1993 - Incorporated 1990
An independent student newspaper not affiliated with the University of Georgia
Lance Helms/Editor in Chief
Angela Hornsby/Managing Editor
Melody Willis/Opinions Editor
■ EDITORIALS
Perpetuating differences
Education ain’t what it used to be. Ursuline College,
a women’s college in Ohio, has changed its curriculum
to a more “woman-oriented” program - no beastly lec
tures, no overbearing professors, no arguing with obsti
nate men. Rather, the focus is on support groups that
help women relate their personal experiences to the
material they’re learning.
Ursuline uses a new feminist theory of learning ad
vocated by Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan and
others. The emphasis isn’t on aggressive, independent
research. Rather, classes focus on group participation
and cooperation.
But if Ursuline’s goal is to make women more pro
ductive members of society, it’s hard to see how perpet
uating their differences from men will close the gap be
tween the sexes and shatter those glass ceilings. By ac
knowledging and then teaching to those differences, the
schools could perpetuate the problem they ostensibly
are trying to solve.
The key to overcoming educational differences be
gins with changing how we are socialized to perceive
others. Why not teach men to work in teams as well?
Modern management theory says teams (task forces,
committees, boards) are the management tool of the fu
ture. This is a direct result of society’s new emphasis,
bom in the turbulent ’60s, on democratic, not dictatori
al, participation in decision-making processes.
Women are said to bring to the table a unique con
cern for the welfare of the entire working group, and
they’re often more willing to compromise than men.
As Athens-Clarke CEO Gwen O’Looney has said,
“People are fed up with government that doesn’t care,
and I think people believe women care.”
Deconstructionists may cringe at this approach to
feminist education, but in the future, it could actually
lead to a deconstructionist approach to working groups
that teaches compromise and aggressiveness as equally
valuable tools to be used in the proper context.
R.I.P. motor-voter
One vote short of the 60 needed to get the
Democratic Party’s “motor-voter” bill to the floor, the
U.S. Senate had to kiss increased access to the voting
process goodbye Tuesday.
Senate Republicans blocked the bill from getting to
the floor after Democrats killed their amendment limit
ing the punitive damages courts may award to con
sumers in product-liability cases.
The bill would have allowed people to register to
vote when they apply for driver’s licenses, welfare bene
fits or unemployment.
As high-speed information transmission becomes the
societal rule rather than the exception, the Republicans’
inability to recognize such an imminent shift poses an
unforgivable threat to the evolution of democracy.
One unfortunate consequence of the Information
Age is that the average citizen has far less time to de
vote to civic activities like registering to vote.
Gone are the days when you put on your best
clothes, journeyed to the county seat and ceremoniously
registered to vote. Here to stay are the days of faxes,
modems, satellites. Coming soon are the days when our
social security numbers are personal phone numbers
and we conduct transactions from lap-top computers
the size of paperback novels.
But you can’t blame Republicans for wanting to
keep the people they ignore - the poor, the unemployed
- from registering to vote. But we certainly blame them
for keeping the fast, free flow of information - the most
powerful democratic force imaginable - out of the hands
of the citizenry.
STAFF
ADVERTISING: 643-1791
NEWS: S43-1809
r Dm Shurting
Mam: Cotaan Broofcs.
DaMiguai. Abbay Doll. Chad Ealy.
in. Kiratan Rrtanbafg,
Pataraon. KaRh
Fnday fan thoutfi spring
by Tha Mad
tha univafsRy of Qaorfa, 123
i. Oa 30601 Third oiass
PubNsnng Company Inc. Ml rtf* a
‘SAC could be an Influential group In the budget and give teach
ers higher pay."
William Perry, recently elected president of the Board of
Regents Student Advisory Council
OP COURSE
THE PRESIDENT
SHOULD BEAR
MUCH OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE RIOTS IN
LOS ANGELES.
©IWl SAHC»KeCH*iiCMTaia>Nfi
c«ht. NfcWJ s4Bv.cC
sm
TROUBLE IS,
LBJ IS
DEAD...
Abortion may be in a woman’s self-interest
Since the Supreme Court is presently deal
ing with a case that could effectively overturn
Roe v. Wade, 1 though it would be a good time
to attack the so called pro-“life” position. I wish
to take to task a keystone premise that both
sides of the abortion issue hold that “human life
should be preserved at all costs.” I do not hold
this out of context premise and though I am not
associated with any pro-choice organization,
that is my position.
We are never told what is meant by “life", so
I will show how if “life" is taken to mean “exis
tence” then the proposition is abhorrent, and if
“life” means more than existence then the state
ment is a contradiction.
First existence. Putting human existence as
a primary is a formula for slavery. Such a sys
tem would advocate that a person, no matter
what their mental, physical or moral status has
a right to the time, money and services of ev
eryone else if it is to be used to keep them alive.
From Hitler, to Stalin, to the murderer who
killed your spouse and children, to the person in
an irreversible case of total agony, “human life
should be preserved at all costs.” The morality
of this is called altruism, putting the welfare of
someone else before your own. The basis of this
is a hatred of life and the values required to live,
and the results of this would be slavery, social
ism, totalitarianism and death. Any simple
thought experiment or practical situation where
“existence” is an unqualified primary leads to
total disaster.
So, since “life” cannot mean existence and be
tenable, can life be defined as something else
and still claim “preserve it at all costs” as an ax
iom? No. Life is chosen. Your attitudes, goals,
ideas, accomplishments, etc. all begin with a
choice. The process of evaluating, selecting,
choosing, assessing and judging are all volition
al and mental. To live, whichever way you wish
to, requires that you think and act upon your
thought. But, if this is the case then “preserve
it at all costs” is nonsensical. It amounts to a
(nonjmoral imperative “think!”. Your thought
cannot be commanded, no one else can think for
you, no one else can live for you and no one else
can preserve your life if you don’t want it, or
more likely, don’t want it their way. “Life, lib
erty and the pursuit of happiness” means that
you may pursue your life as long as you do not
impose it upon others, and others may not im
pose their life upon you.
A woman has a right to her life, that is the
primary. Any obligation towards another per
son, bom or unborn, must be voluntarily as
sumed. A fetus has no rights because imple
mentation of said rights would first necessitate
violating the rights of the mother. I respect the
right of a woman to choose the way she wishes
to live her life. By what right do I force a wom
an out of her chosen profession to carry a child,
to feed a child, and to work to support a child;
this is her life, I do not own it and neither does
a fetus. A woman is the one that bears the bur
den of a child, and she is the one who must de
cide if she is to accept the burden. Just as I op
pose the enslavement of a person for the sake of
another, I oppose the enslavement of a woman
to a fetus.
Women are not cattle, they are not baby ma
chines. Adoption may be an option, but it must
be voluntary, and for most babies who are not
healthy, white, blonde & blue-eyed males it is
very unlikely, despite what George and the TV
imply. What group could call itself pro-“life" and
advocate that women forsake their chosen fu
ture to become incubators for unwanted chil
dren who most likely will live a life of poverty
and ignorance right along side of their strug
gling parents? It comes as no surprise that most
pro-“life"ers believe that you really start living
only after you go to heaven, i.e. after you are
dead. This is the sacrifice of what is, to a po
tential, this is unqualified existence for the sake
of existence, suffering for the sake of it. Pro
life” groups do not emit love, compassion and
understanding. Instead, they emit terror, ha
tred, violence and threats of otherworldly tor
ture. I find it hard to believe that all this mo
tion is directed towards a fetus. Historically, the
same religious fervor has been directed at sex in
general, at other beliefs, at books, at music, at
art, and at science, i.e. at human life. So it con
tinues.
In conclusion, existence for existence sake is
“wholesale death." “Life” is a volitional process
and is therefore immune from imperatives.
There is no such thing as a “right" to violate the
right of another. Let women keep their lives,
don’t overturn Roe v. Wade.
Todd Fantz is a senior philosophy major
Animal research defended
■ FORUM
■ The Red and Black welcomes letters to the editor and prints them in the Forum
column as space permits. All letters are subject to editing for length, style and li
belous material. Letters should be typed and doublespaced, and they must in
clude the name, address and daytime telephone number of the writer. Please also
include student classification, major and other appropriate identification. Names
may be omitted with a valid reason upon request. Send, letters by U.S. mail or
bong them in person to The Red and Black's offices at 123 North Jackson Street
Athens. Georgia 30601.
Kate Blane (Letter, May 5) can
not refute any statement I made in
my April 21 article, so she accuses
me of faulty logic. However, the
bulk of Blane’s arguments are emo
tional rather than logical.
If Blane and other activists
“care deeply” for the suffering of
human and non-human animals, it
is not “logical” for them to oppose
further attempts to cure diseases
and alleviate pain.
The past success of animal re
search in medicine is not a justifi
cation for its future use, but only
an indicator of its future success.
Supporters and opponents profit
from animal research every time
they receive medical care. Blane
will someday eat her Bambiphilic
words if, despite her vegan
lifestyle, she becomes ill or injured.
I’m sure she will not refuse life
saving drugs or procedures that
were developed using animals, be
cause no animal activist ever has.
In suggesting animals re
searchers have “carte blanche" to
conduct experiments, Blane again
demonstrates her ignorance. If
Blane’s profession were regulated
as mine, she would tediously pre
pare an application describing in
detail every routine in every com
puter program she proposed to de
velop. She would have to provide
evidence that no one had ever writ
ten a similar program before, and
justify why using an abacus or cal
culator wouldn’t be an effective al
ternative. She would have to sub
mit the application to a panel of fel
low programmers for approval,
thus revealing her programming
techniques. Her peers would like
ly require modifications in her
methods before she could conduct
preliminary coding. If her propos
al was first rate, and she had direct
evidence that her programming
was first rate, and she had direct
evidence that her programming
goals could indeed be accom
plished, she would then have a 25
percent chance of obtaining finan
cial support, from another commit
tee of her peers, to perform her de
velopment work. Her application
would remain on file for opponents
of data processing (People for the
Effective Treatment of Algorithms)
to use as propaganda tools.
I do not anticipate a “pro
nouncement" that animal research
is no longer necessary. This will
gradually become apparent as our
biological knowledge increases in
future decades, but only if activists
such as Blane do not have their
way.
Martin Q. Hulsey
Research associate, department of
foods and nutrition
Animal rights defended
My apologies for this late reply
to Martin Hulsey’s response (April
9) to my letter. When I say that
Hulsey’s attempts to indict animal
rights advocates by comparing
them to Hitler is ridiculous, I am
not trying to deny that Hitler was
either against vivisection or was a
vegetarian. What I am saying is
“So bloody what if he was.” The
comparison is irrelevant and,
therefore, irresponsible. Is Hulsey
claiming that animal rights ac
tivists hate Jews and those with
African or Asian ancestry? Can
one indict that teachings and ide
als of somebody like Christ simply
because many self-professed
Christians (Catholics, Episcopals,
Baptists, Born-agains and so on...)
supported the massacre of over a
hundred thousand Iraqis? I find
Hulsey’s attempts to associate ani
mal rights advocates with Hitler
and then to try to prove guilt by as
sociation akin to the gutter politics
that George Bush relied on in his
1988 presidential campaign (and
will probably enlist again this
year).
As for Hulsey’s statements
about vitamin B-12, they may be
true. I have read conflicting claims
about what are reliable sources of
B-12 and how much one needs to
avoid deficiency. I have read that
if one ate regular servings of ani
mal foods before eliminating them
all together that he or she may
have a storage of B-12 that could
last 20-30 years. Some studies
claim that vegans absorb B-12 bet
ter than those who eat animal
foods. The verdict is still out on B-
12 and one should take the precau
tions they feel are necessary.
Some final questions for Hulsey:
In lieu of how much vitamin B-12
you feel humans need and the fact
that it is stored in the body, and
also in lieu of what science tells us
about the connection between ani
mal foods and diseases such as can
cers, heart disease, and osteoporo
sis, how much animal food is
enough? A pound a week? A
pound a montn? A year? How do
you feel about human beings being
the only species that takes milk
from another species? How can
you say that animals don’t have
the capacity to make moral deci
sions when humans, are in fact, an
imals? Different societies establish
different rights for humans, and
within some of these societies cer
tain humans have no more rights
than those given to other animals.
Jonathan Kenny
Athene
Abolish death penalty
The Ceorgia Death Penalty
Abolitionists is a coalition of indi
viduals representing various
groups that are advocates of hu
man rights and social justice.
The purpose of this coalition is
to once and for all bring sanity and
civilization to this world, by abol
ishing the death penalty, as a first
goal.
The Georgia Death Penalty
Abolitionists are completely con
vinced that most people who study
the facts of execution will want to
expunge the diseased notion that
by ordering the authorities to take
the life of an offender, we make the
world somehow safer.
We believe that executions sat
isfy only the cultivated craze for
revenge for victims and relatives of
victims of brutal offenses.
Further, executions provide an
almost guarantee of a long political
career to elected officials who are
willing to play upon the fearfulness
of the emotionally inclined.
Executions also provide an avenue
for people in several industries to
legally rob the public coffers.
The recent history of executions
will clearly show that executions
are most often imposed upon the fi
nancially helpless of the unloved
minorities and, in most cases, both
conditions fit the same individual.
We believe that the the citizens of
Georgia should immediately stop
throwing tax money into the dark
hole of this non-solution and sen
tence all offenders to an indetermi
nate terms of life or until rehabili
tated.
This is not 2000 B.C., nor is it
100 A.D., but we are approaching
the 21st century. In this advanced
stage of awareness, it is absolutely
unthinkable that we continue to al
low these archaic concepts of jus
tice to lull us into the false notion
that by executions we do some
thing serious about the control of
crime.
For more information about the
Georgia Death Penalty
Abolitionists, write to G.D.P.A.,
Box 17852, Atlanta, Georgia
30316. Those wishing to partici
pate in local action groups in the
northern, western, or Piedmont ju
dicial districts, writ* to LaRamon
Durham, 130 BeaverTrail,
Winterville, GA 30683.
Note: The counties represented
in the three judicial districts men
tioned are:
Northern District: Ebert,
Franklin, Hart, Madison, and
Oglethorpe
Western District : Clarke and
Oconee
Piedmont District: Banks,
Barrow, and Jackson
Information that will help a per
son become a fully informed aboli
tionist is available.
LaRamon Durham
Oglsthorps County