Letters to the Editor

The proper place for Mickey

However, there was something in the September 30 edition of The Hornet which greatly concerns me. Page A4 of the paper featured an article entitled, "Mickey Mouse, not Just a Cartoon." While the article was well-written, I failed to find any newsworthy content in it. Ms. Moll's message seemed to be that easy classes are an unmistakable part of college life, and here is a list of the ones to take at Sac State.

I seriously doubt that it is a college newspaper's job to advertise "Mickey Mouse" classes, and it appalls me that The Hornet would do so. I understand that easy classes exist on every campus, but I wish that my school's paper would have been news-conscious enough to take some initiative and explore the reasons why Sac State is afflicted by them. Absent any quotes by students or teachers of the so-called "Mickey Mouse" classes, the article seemed better suited for the Opinion Page rather than placed alongside informative articles about the Biology Department's animal salvation projects and the Health Center's birth control counseling.

The "Mickey Mouse" article did not advocate higher learning, but rather advocated playing the system. What happened to journalism that tried to make a difference? What happened to exploring the realities beyond the surface level? How about asking students how often they deliberately try to load up on easy classes and finding out professors' reactions to their classes' breezy reputations? Where did the list of "Easy-Cheesy Classes" come from, anyway? And why are educational challenges good only in moderation? Aren't we here to be challenged? As my grandmother used to say, if you can't take the heat, get your butt out of the kitchen.

I'll admit that the occasional easy class does lighten the burden of a college student's life, but stacking your schedule full of them can only hurt you in the end. A college career full of bubble tests and mindless essays will not create a stronger student or a stronger person. Without challenges from life, we do not improve as individuals; without challenges to improve our minds, we do not improve as scholars.

The "Mickey Mouse" article was a thinly disguised PR tool to benefit the students on this campus who are too lazy to face the challenging courses offered at CSUS and too afraid to put themselves up to any real test of their intellect.

I was embarrassed to find the article within the pages of The State Hornet, and I hope more attention to journalistic integrity will be given to subjects such as this in the future.

--Rebecca Gardner
Government/Journalism/Humanities Major
Senior

Leaps in logic a detriment

First off, Ms. Kunert's response (published last week) didn't even get my name right: It's Jessica Higgins. The first rule in an English essay is to know your subject.

I think it's important to establish the "rules" of written argument: I am a firm believer in a "fair fight." People who don't often write for argumentative purposes may not recognize the errors often made in that type of persuasion. If one reads my editorial keeping these thoughts in mind, then perhaps they will understand better what I was trying to accomplish.

First off, as I explained to a member of Sigma Pi on the phone (and I was disappointed he didn't write a rebuttal to my article) I don't do Ad Hominem arguments -- attacks of the character of the arguer himself.

Secondly, I don't do Non Sequitur arguments, which is a breach in logic. In Ms. Kunert's argument, for example, there is no logical correlation between my spiritual condition and the T-shirt a frat member wears. I also do not like Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc arguments, as they establish an unjustified link between cause and effect. Again, in Ms. Kunert's case, she assumed that my egotism and apparent lack of Christian upbringing (and I say apparent, because, after all, she really doesn't know anything about my religious faith) is what motivated my article on the fraternity and their shirts.

There is no proof or apparent proof about the correlation between the two: In other words, one does not cause the other. My ego was not the issue; the meaning and connotation of the word "pimp" was. Amongst other violations of logic, her argument also contradicted itself:

If she says that I am guilty of the sin of arrogance, then she also is guilty, as she arrogantly called me several names, questioned my relationship with God, called me a hypocrite, as well as called me egotistical -- and she has never met me (although, coincidentally, she is right; I am quite arrogant. But that had nothing to do with my editorial).

Lastly, she stated that if I would deflate my ego I would realize that I have done things that are just as stupid as the fraternity did (paraphrase). In my last paragraph of my original editorial, I stated that the fraternity simply didn't think through their actions. It could happen to any of us.

It is important to establish that I was not attacking the fraternity themselves. I was questioning the consequences of their actions, namely the term "pimp." I also was questioning all of us as a society who accept the slang term of a word as socially acceptable when in fact the word has a denigrating, violent meaning to it. The fraternity was really just an example -- not the problem per se themselves.

As it turned out, I talked with a member of that fraternity and I feel that we came to an understanding with each other. We talked about the motivations each of our groups had by our mutual actions and reactions to the situation, and acknowledged each other's perspectives. We had even talked about writing a joint article together.

I have a lot of respect for this young man who called me prior to publishing his frat's response because of two reasons: 1) He called me to ask my motivation for writing the article instead of blindly attacking my perspective and character and 2) He listened to what I had to say and gave me the opportunity to listen to him, so that I could better understand why they did it. We discussed the issue, and he was supposed to write a fair (see rules I outlined above) response. This is the adult way to handle differences of opinion.

Unfortunately, there was no response written. And I have been told that his frat brothers continue to wear their shirts. Oh, well. So much for adult discussion and logic. But at least I know that one member of their fraternity is mature enough to try to come to a mutual understanding and to at least use logic in an effort to see another perspective. From our conversation, I began to understand their original motivation, and I truly believe that they did not mean to offend women per se. They just wanted to have a sensationalist reaction from the campus, thereby bringing attention to their organization. I can understand that.

Of course, the boys who are still wearing the shirts (and I am not sure this is a fraternity action or that of the individuals involved -- the fraternity never published a response to my editorial and I do not have a clear understanding as to their "official" position) are undeniably acting in order to offend and degrade.

They know my position, as well as many other people on campus, and I have explained in both writing and verbally why this word is a direct violation of women. Even their own international chapter was offended, according to the article in the Hornet.

Sigma Pi's campus chapter president, Stephen Dean, said, "The word means absolutely nothing. What reasonable person would be offended?" Apparently, Mr. Dean finds many people on this campus, as well as Mr. Briscoe from his international chapter, unreasonable. As far as the word meaning absolutely nothing, I am afraid Oxford and Webster would disagree.

I fully support freedom of speech, as this freedom is what allowed me to write the editorial article in the first place. In writing this article, I had a chance to educate the community about how we use language recklessly without considering the damage it can do. Some would argue that words do not hurt; but I argue that the power of the pen is perhaps greater than that of the sword.

The response to my original editorial is a classic example of that. My words apparently angered Ms. Kunert very much -- and perhaps many other people too. I can only damage one person at a time with a sword -- but with words I can affect a whole community. That's why we have to be careful with what we say.

When we cry "free speech" in order to justify our actions, we should be prepared to be held accountable for the effect our words have on other people. If we can't face that responsibility, then we shouldn't open our mouths (or in this case, pens) publicly. Again, I am disappointed that the fraternity did not publish a rebuttal because I think it would have been a good article, and I really wanted them to express to the public their side of the issue. I guess direct confrontation is not their style.

And in response to the boys wearing the t-shirts still, I can only advise that those of us who don't appreciate their actions to simply ignore them. These boys know how we feel; they know what the word means; they know why and how it hurts people. To claim ignorance and innocent intentions would be a ridiculous defense at this point.

They cry for attention, but I have better things to do with my time -- like trying to solve domestic violence issues, issues of racial injustice, issues violating human rights. Or washing my dog -- either way, my attention and energy will be better spent.

Furthermore, let there be no misunderstanding that I am all for free speech. I respect the right of other people to express their opinions freely and in writing -- even if it means calling me names and assaulting my moral character.

I just ask that you please get my name right!

--Jessica Higgins
English/Women's Studies Major