4 STUDENT LIFE | FORUM
Senior Forum Editor / Daniel Milstein / forum@studlife.com
FORUM
WEDNESDAY | APRIL 19, 2006
Our daily Forum editors: Monday: Chelsea Murphy cemurphy@art.wustl.edu
Wednesday: Nathan Everly Friday: Tess Croner neverly@wustl.edu tacroner@wustl.edu
To ensure that we have time to fully evaluate your submissions, guest columns should be e-mailed to the next issue’s editor or forwarded to forum@studlife.com by no later than 5 p.m. two days before publication. Late pieces will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We welcome your submissions and thank you for your consideration.
STAFF EDITORIAL
SWA sit-in still sets admirable example T
he Student Worker Alliance arrived in the Admissions Office last April, armed with sleeping bags, laptops and “Living Wage Now” T-shirts, committed to improving workers’ rights and pushing Washington University to implement a living wage. The sit-in participants paid no heed to Student Life, Student Union and administration requests that they vacate South Brookings Hall. A Student Life poll revealed immense disapproval of the sit-in among students; 71
as a courageous example of dedication to ethical principles in the face of adversity. They remained in the Admissions Office until they had seen positive changes to workers’ rights. And, academically, that commitment had a positive effect on the entire University campus. The SWA sit-in forced students, faculty and staff to confront immensely challenging economic and ethical issues, creating a unique and exciting atmosphere of intellectual inquiry and debate. Instead of asking SWA to
workers now receiving a minimum of $8.25 per hour. Workers without health insurance can now receive medical services at La Clinica. MetroLink passes will lower transportation costs. Whether you consider these changes illogical economic policy or necessary steps to improving workers’ rights, the success of SWA’s tenacity and dedication is indisputable. We commend SWA’s decision to disregard our demand that they end the sit-in, choosing instead to stand out
dedication…Now, however, the event has gone on entirely too long, and seems rather fruitless.” (“SWA, Stand Up!” Staff Editorial, April 20, 2006). One year ago we were asking SWA sit-in participants to stand up. Today, we stand corrected. Less than two dozen students entered the Admissions Office wanting to change this campus; one year later, we know they succeeded. The administration has raised the University’s floor wage for all workers by 20 percent, with all campus
percent of students approved of SWA’s mission but not their tactics. The campus, initially intrigued by the novelty of a sit-in at the University, became critical of a movement that pushed the right issues in the wrong way. This editorial board had had enough with SWA at this point last April. As SWA headed into its third week of the sit-in, we commended them for their “laudable efforts” but put our foot down. “Enough is enough,” we claimed. “At fi rst, the sit-in organized by the SWA showed
stand up, today we ask that the rest of this campus take a stand and diligently pursue the causes that they are passionate about. SWA showed us that students do indeed have the potential to create concrete and tangible change on this campus. Yet students have remained relatively passive over the past year: putting laundry machine payment plans on campus ID cards seems a far cry from pressuring the University to completely revise its vision of workers’ rights and wages. Let’s re-energize this campus.
KARL IMPROV AND RACHEL TEPPER | EDITORIAL CARTOON
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Put the mother’s health first Dear Editor: In his Monday letter, Steven S. Hoffmann justifies requiring women to carry pregnancies to term even if they will end the life of the woman by saying that if all lives are equal, we should protect the weak, or in this case, the fetus. I am not going to debate Mr. Hoffmann’s classification of the fetus as a life, although I and many others do not agree with it. Rather, I would maintain that even if a fetus is a life, Mr. Hoffman’s argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, has much bigger implications than simply making abortion illegal. Imagine a scenario in which a small child will die unless they receive one of their parents’ hearts. Many parents would undoubtedly give their life so that their child could live; you might even say this is reasonable to expect of them. But no state in the union legally demands that a parent give their own life so that their child can live. To the contrary, while states do legally require that parents protect their children, this obligation does not extend to doing so when it would require endangering one’s own life or health. This means that legally, parents cannot be required to undergo any sort of medical procedure to protect their children, even in cases where the surgery would be non-life-threatening to the parent, such as a kidney or bone marrow transplant. As it stands now, the law simply does not require parents to give up their own life or even risk their own medical health to protect their children. Maybe this law is unfair, and if Mr. Hoffmann would support changing the obligation of both parents, mother and father, in all circumstances, I would still disagree but would find his logic sound. It is not fair or consistent, however, to keep this general rule intact and make pregnant women the only exception. Such an exception sends the clear mes-
sage that a woman’s life can legitimately be taken in the interest of a child while a father’s cannot, a message which is clearly inconsistent with ideas of equality. -Annasara Purcell Class of 2006
Pre-med grading system doesn’t reward hard work Dear Editor: Last Monday’s article, “What do low test means really mean?” failed to address the most demoralizing aspect of the pre-med grading system. It is not the low or high mean score that is frustrating so much as the feeling that it is not what one knows, but what others don’t, that gets one good grades. After a chemistry or biology test, students are often frustrated by a sense that knowledge of test material has little bearing on their grade. One could get a 69 percent and have an A (as on the latest Orgo test), or a 90 percent and have a C (as was the case in last year’s Biology 3050 final exam). Low means replace the pursuit of understanding with meaningless competition. As to the claim that low means and low grades somehow weed out those “unfit” for certain professions, the article ignores the impact low grades have on those that do continue. With means set in the low Bs, a huge portion of the class achieves grades that tank their GPA and damage their prospects for medical school. Just ask the members of the Facebook group “Thanks Vlady, Now I’ll Never Be A Doctor.” Instead of rewarding excellent teaching and hard work, the current system masks poor instruction and discourages diligent students.
The rights of a fetus By Melissa Miller Staff Columnist
I
-Rebecca Morey Class of 2008
disagree with Steven Hoffmann’s belief that fetuses’ “lives” are more important than women’s lives. Hoffmann neglects the fact that fetuses are only potential humans. Any eighth grade biology textbook will tell you that, even with today’s medical advances, only about 85 percent of pregnancies result in live births. A fetus only has an 85 percent chance of becoming a human baby. Are living humans less important than potential humans? Would you sacrifice a living human for a potential human? Would you even sacrifice one human for one hundred potential humans? (Why I think that Hoffmann believes that this “new life” is more important than a female life would be another tangent entirely...) But that’s not the main point. The point is that humans only have rights in our society if they are capable of fulfi lling certain duties. If someone/something can’t fulfi ll duties to society, we
should consider its welfare but aren’t obligated to grant it any rights. Consider a dog. Dogs can’t really contribute to our society. They can’t pay taxes, go to jury duty, or vote. They can’t break the law and go to jail. Even if someone argues that there are working dogs or dogs that contribute to society by “making people happy,” dogs can’t understand basic principles of morality. Dogs can’t take responsibility for their actions. We’ll consider their welfare and try to ensure that they aren’t abused, but because laws don’t really apply to them, neither do rights. A more relevant, less ridiculous example: a person in a coma. A person in a coma can’t do anything. Because of their state, if they aren’t physically/ mentally capable of participating in or giving to our society, why should they receive any of the benefits of living in our society? Yes, we should consider their welfare, but because they literally have no voice, they also legitimately have no rights. When it comes down to it, I don’t believe that anything
has the right to live unless it can sustain its own life—unless its heart can beat and its lungs can breathe on their own. I don’t believe that you can “kill” something that’s not alive. I don’t believe that you can kill something that might only become alive at a later point in time. Once a fetus is viable, and can exist without assistance outside the womb, when it’s no longer only a potential baby, that’s when it has the right to live...because it can live. If we examine the way our society functions, it’s easy to see that we operate on the “we only get if we give, we only keep if we have” system. As children get older and can understand and do more, more is expected of them and more is given to them. Only when children hit their teens can they start being accountable to the law—and even then there’s a distinction between juvenile and adult court. The presumption is that juveniles deserve different treatment because they have an incomplete grasp of right and wrong. Rights come with responsi-
bility in our society, whether we like it or not. If you disagree, then, when you grant infants the right to vote and let’s also give a kid screaming in TGI Friday’s a citation for disturbing the peace. Better yet, let’s arrest a two-year-old for sabotage and vandalism for running off and pooing in the corner of TOYS-R-US. Let’s give the kid a month of community service and a $500 fi ne. Or let’s assume that a fetus, something not yet even alive, something that only has an 85 percent chance of becoming alive, has the right to live. Even better, let’s argue that this potential human (that is not yet capable of living on its own and that can neither possess an understanding of morality nor accept any responsibility for its actions) is more important than a woman (who is both living and capable). You have to give in order to get. You have to possess in order to keep. Melissa is a senior in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at mjmiller@artsci. wustl.edu.
YOUR VOICE: LETTERS AND GUEST COLUMNS
OUR VOICE: EDITORIAL BOARD
OUR WEB POLICY
Student Life welcomes letters to the editor and op-ed submissions from readers.
Editorials are written by the Forum editors and reflect the consensus of the editorial board. The editorial board operates independently of the newsroom.
Once an article has been published on www.studlife.com, our Web site, it will remain there permanently. We do not remove articles from the site, nor do we remove authors’ names from articles already published on the Web, unless an agreement was reached prior to July 1, 2005.
Letters to the Editor One Brookings Drive #1039 St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
News: (314) 935-5995 Fax: (314) 935-5938 e-mail: letters@studlife.com
All submissions must include the writer’s name, class, address and phone number for verification. Student Life reserves the right to edit all letters for style, length, libel considerations and grammar. Letters should be no longer than 350 words in length. Readers may also submit longer articles of up to 750 words as guest columns. Student Life reserves the right to print any submission as a letter or guest column.
Editor in Chief: Sarah Kliff Associate Editor: Liz Neukirch Managing Editors: David Tabor, Justin Davidson Senior News Editor: Mandy Silver
Senior Photo Editor: David Brody Senior Forum Editor: Daniel Milstein Forum Editors: Tess Croner, Nathan Everly, Chelsea Murphy, Jill Strominger
Why do we do this? Because Google and other search engines cache our Web site on a regular basis. Our thought is this: once an article has been published online, it’s too late to take back. It is irrevocably part of the public sphere. As such, removing an article from our site would serve no purpose.