T H E D A I LY TA R G U M
OPINIONS
PA G E 1 0
OCTOBER 26, 2009
EDITORIALS
Blind exposure N
ext time you brew your morning cup of coffee make sure you keep your pants on. A 29-year-old Virginia man was charged with indecent exposure Thursday morning when he walked downstairs in only his birthday suit at 5:20 a.m. to make coffee, according to Fox News. Eric Williamson, who does not deny the nudity, happened to catch the eye of a mother and her 7-year-old son walking down a nearby path, who then called the police. A Fairfax County Police spokesman said officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe he wanted to be seen in the buff. Williamson, who has since moved out of the home, said he was stunned by the allegation of bad intentions, explaining he didn’t think anybody would have seen him at such an early hour. Police have been going door to door, handing out flyers and canvassing in an attempt to find out if anyone else had seen him in the nude. Is this taking it too far? What does not count as a crime these days? Apparently not much. While Williamson, the father of a 5-year-old girl, should probably be more conscious of his surroundings, he should not be held responsible for bearing it all even before the rooster crowed. The residence was suburb-based, but even in a town like New Brunswick, where pedestrian traffic is heavy, there’s a simple solution: close the curtains, it could easily curtail such incidents. The original purpose of clothing was to protect you from the elements, so they’re not entirely necessary in the home. But even at 5:20 in the morning, you can never be certain you are alone. But what if Williamson happened to be a female? The exposure likely would not have warranted a call to the authorities or unintentional exposure would still be a consideration. Police say they would not have looked into the situation of inadvertent exposure was a possibility. Williamson, who continues to maintain his innocence, plans to meet with a lawyer to fight the misdemeanor charge. If convicted, he could face up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The final verdict — shut the blinds.
Co-ed evasion P
rinceton University’s recent policy revision to allow co-educational housing for upperclassmen has sparked some interest here at the University. While students can live in the same housing unit or residence hall in on-campus Rutgers housing, the units are single-sex. Princeton’s pilot program looks appealing at first glance, but it could cause more trouble than it’s worth. University Housing and Residence Life may have used the housing shortage as an excuse to evade the question at hand: Is a co-ed policy going to be a consideration in the near future for the University? College students should generally be capable of conducting themselves as adults, but this is easier said than done. If couples apply to live together, there is no telling if they will still be together during move-in. Not to mention, should a mid-semester break up occur (we’re in college — it’s nearly inevitable), the responsibility to find additional housing for displaced students post-relationship failure should not be placed on the University’s shoulders. Some students think conflicts between mixed-gender roommates are more severe and more difficult to settle than those of same-gendered roommates, but this is not necessarily true. Have you ever seen a catfight? They can be downright vicious. Another argument against co-ed housing is that it promotes pregnancy and domestic violence. Realistically, having the sexes separated does not deter couples from engaging in sexual activities. It’s a given that having your own room would make it easier, but there is no policy that restricts somebody from sleeping in a member of the opposite sex’s bed. Should the University ever approve co-ed on-campus housing for incoming first-year students, parental reaction would be unfavorable, at the least. College is — on the surface — about adjustment, branching out and meeting new people. While not every student would opt to live with their significant other, those that do may not fare as well in the college setting. Some parents already have trouble sending their children off to college knowing the pressures that already exist. Adding in a roommate of the opposite sex will not exactly alleviate these concerns. One suggestion is a revised policy awarding the option of co-ed oncampus housing as a privilege for upperclassmen. Select residence halls could be used as a pilot, comparable to Princeton’s program, to see if it has a chance at success. The policy may even attract more students to apply to the University. Is there even a demand on campus for co-ed housing? Many students are happy that they are actually granted housing that doesn’t involve the word “displaced” or a shuttle to a Somerset hotel. Still, all students have the opportunity to find off-campus co-ed housing close to the University no matter their class year, even though it is difficult and expensive. Princeton’s program will likely be criticized — the only question is whether the criticism is constructive or disapproving. For now, the University does not look like it will be following suit any time soon, but it should not be out of the question.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“It’s ironic that domestic violence knocks on our own doors.” Sara Afayee, Undergraduate Social Work Organization vice president, on the murder of Krystal Skinner STORY IN UNIVERSITY
MCT CAMPUS
Hate has many sources T
tough questions. Does hate he past week has speech run deeper than seen numerous speech that is intentionally ar ticles about the used to harm others? Is the visit that the University will defining aspect of hate soon receive from the infaspeech the malicious intent mously anti-Semitic, antithat lies behind it or is it the Catholic and anti-gay malicious effect that it has Westboro Baptist Church BEN WEST upon its subjects? Does hate Wednesday at 8:45 a.m. outspeech include speech that is side Rutgers Hillel. used loosely and uncritically, even jokingly, in conAt first, I was hesitant to address this topic, as it versation but which is both insensitive and diswas clear that so much has already been said, but paraging to its subjects? And what about the false upon examining The Daily Targum and the numerassumptions that lie behind hate speech and may ous counter-protests that have been planned on exist even when hate speech is not articulated? Are Facebook, I realized that a very broad point regardthese assumptions not as dangerous, if not more ing hate speech on campus has been entirely overdangerous, than the speech that follows? looked in our ongoing dialogue about the subject. There is a reason that I ask about the relevance of But before I make my point, I would like to applaud the intent that fuels hate speech, the effects of hate Hillel for its tireless efforts to send a unified message speech and the assumptions that underlie hate against hate to the protesters and to the community at speech. Depending on what we regard as relevant, large, and to highlight the importance of the diversity we too may all be guilty of perpetuating hate, either that the University embodies in a manner that is both through our intentions, through the effect of our peaceful and positive in nature. I also would like to speech or actions or through the assumptions that encourage every University student to follow the lead we hold, share and pass on to others. If we see the of Hillel and the Rutgers University Student intention of, effect of and assumptions behind speech Assembly, which have both worked to encourage stuas relevant, we should begin to examine our speech dents and supporters to wear the University’s scarlet more critically. color on Wednesday as a sign of soliIt is extremely doubtful that any darity against a group who, through “Depending on members of the University’s relatheir extreme actions, seeks to provoke in others the hate that they themwhat we regard as tively progressive community use hate speech with malicious intent, selves exude. relevant, we too as the members of the Westboro Having applauded the efforts of the Hillel and RUSA, I would like to may all be guilty of Baptist Church do; but it is not uncommon to overhear insensitive move for ward and begin a more far-reaching and perhaps contro- perpetuating hate ...” and sometimes hateful phrases that have a malicious effect on the subversial dialogue about hate speech jects of the speech or see inconsidat the University. erate and untrue assumptions go unquestioned. I think that we can all agree that hate speech can Examples of speech that is hateful in effect are be defined as a term for speech — verbal, written plentiful at the University. Many students still use and symbolic — that is directed toward a person or “retarded” and “gay” as synonyms for “stupid.” No group of people with malicious intent. The goal of matter how mindlessly these verbal tools may be hate speech is to defame an individual or group of employed, the equation of these words with stupidpeople, either because of membership in a particuity implies that those who are mentally handilar social group or because of unalterable biological capped are idiots and suggests a total disrespect trait. We know that those who use hate speech toward members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and attack race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, relitransgender community, whose social identity, gay, gion or lack thereof, sexual orientation, gender is being called stupid. “No homo” is jokingly used identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social by men in our University community to tell other class, occupation, appearance and mental capacity men that sexual advances are not welcome, yet it as liabilities and flaws that can be justly ostracized. also perpetuates the stereotype that gay men do This is the type of hate speech, speech behind consistently seek to prey on all men that they see, which lies a malicious intent, that the University will while also suggesting that advances made by one stand united against on Wednesday. But to be fair to ourselves and those around us, we must delve deepSEE WEST ON PAGE 11 er into this subject matter and ask ourselves some
The Red Lion
Due to space limitations, submissions cannot exceed 750 words. If a commentary exceeds 750 words, it will not be considered for publication. All authors must include name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Anonymous letters will not be considered. All submissions are subject to editing for length and clarity. A submission does not guarantee publication. Please submit via e-mail to oped@dailytargum.com by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day’s publication. The editorials written above represent the majority opinion of The Daily Targum Editorial Board. All other opinions expressed on the Opinions page, and those held by advertisers, columnists and cartoonists, are not necessarily those of The Daily Targum.