April 24, 2009

Letter to the editor

From Amy Goergen

     I was excited to see my submission about a pair of St. Kate's twins published in the April 3, 2009 issue. I was not as excited by the title The Wheel gave it: Double Trouble. The cliche of mischievous twins suggested by the title undercut the article's purpose, which was to show how the Sigtermans twins defy many of the stereotypes we have about twins. I would have liked to see a title that cooperates with the content below it, such as "Individually Identical," the title I originally gave it.

Feb. 20, 2009

Letter to the editor

From Kelsey Huberty (senior)

     I found Issue 8's "Cup of Justice" piece a bit hard to swallow (pun completely intended) for many reasons:
    First, the gay rights movement has, traditionally, been a safe space for people to explore alternate sexualities. People often get caught up in this image of the movement and it has been detrimental to a lot of different causes of the movement. Think of the image many people have of homosexuality &endash; people who are sexually deviant and only have relationships based on physical, sexual interaction. This image has been detrimental to the movement's attempt to secure rights (both legally and socially) for those of us within it.
    Gay marriage is a hotly contested issue both within and outside of the gay rights movement. While the author raised valid points, I found it done in an elementary and insulting way. I doubt it was her intent but, as Shvonne Johnson says, "intent does not equal impact".
    The movement for gay marriage is not about attempting to "heterosexualize" a relationship. If people within the LGBT community wanted a heterosexual relationship...they would be in one. It is also not about making a statement that we think monogamy is ideal. How many instances of marriage have not been monogamous? More than any of us can fathom.
    Gay rights activists do seek state sanctioning of a relationship through marriage. It is not about wanting more governmental control in our lives. It is about being recognized as equal citizens deserving of equal lives. Marriage is a flawed institution, but it is still an institution. While I would agree that we, as a society, should seek alternatives to marriage, this is not the current reality of our situation. One cannot live outside of the government and social institutions. Everything we do is impacted by it. We seek social approval by obtaining a college degree. We participate in the government through being employed and spending money. So, if you can't beat it, join it. Social movements have a rich history of working outside of "the system" to seek social change but there have also been instances of people entering the system to combat it. Such is the story of Harvey Milk.
    The reality of our current situation is that state marriages provide couples with many benefits. It is economically advantageous to be married in the eyes of the state (see list of benefits at http://www.religsioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm). While I am not in support of marriage as an institution, I am completely in support of equal access to rights, privileges, and benefits afforded, under law, to all members of a nation. If I had the choice, I wouldn't get married. But at least it would be my choice.

Oct. 31, 2008

Letter to the editor

From Cecilia Konchar Farr, Professor of English and Women's Studies

     Out of the brouhaha over political speakers visiting our college a few surprisingly good things have materialized.
    First, I just got to use the word "brouhaha" in print–a rare opportunity for an academic and one that, truthfully, pleases me a bit too much. I confess: I'm a word nerd.
    Second, and far more importantly, the St. Kate's faculty had the chance to come together and affirm the foundational commitment to open inquiry that supports our teaching. Two weeks ago, we unanimously approved the concept of a resolution objecting to the practice of turning away speakers from St. Kate's (with some reservation from a little less than half of us). The resolution inspired good discussion, and we spoke our truths to one another with passion. It was a terrific moment to be a faculty member.
    Third, and perhaps most significantly, I got a front row seat to my students' work around this issue, and they were at least as impressive as my colleagues. I see these students every day in class, in the halls of Whitby and in my office, but two weeks ago I saw them in a new light — as articulate activists and courageous leaders. If you haven't had a chance to read the documents your fellow students wrote, you ought to. Even the button, "We don't live neutral lives," was exceptional–direct, concise, inspired. But the letter the student leaders wrote to the faculty, inviting us to work with them in their activism (at the risk of sounding overly folksy, even Palin–esque) knocked my socks off.
    Writing the first draft of our faculty resolution (remember–word nerd–I'm always volunteered for the writing tasks) I couldn't find better language anywhere than what I found in the letter they wrote to us. So I quoted them. "Colleges and universities create rare spaces to engage in ideas with intellectual inquiry and critical analysis," and "a policy eliminating this . . . closes the entrance to the intellectual process and throws away opportunities for community growth and intelligent conversation." One of the premises of our resolution was all theirs: "Whereas, in the words of the CSC students, this policy limits the term 'political' to candidates and parties when, 'in reality, politics are infused in every idea promulgated or discussed, in every action taken or not taken.'" Brilliant! I really want to claim, true or not, that my teaching contributes to such bold and beautiful writing!
    Our students led us in our community's response to the political speaker brouhaha (twice!). I, for one (and I am certainly not the only one), was honored to listen to and learn from them. I am honored to be a part of a community that nurtures student leaders like these. I am honored to be their teacher.

Oct. 28, 2008

Letter to the editor

From Erin Ring (senior)

     I am writing in response to the Senate meeting that was held this afternoon in the Jeanne D'Arc Auditorium. Today, Sr. Andrea Lee stated that she has not once received any emails from students regarding the issues on the "laundry list" of grievances. Although I first found this hard to believe, I am one of the guilty students who did not explicitly voice my opinion. I never emailed the College President, because I never expected a reply. I assumed that I would be placed on the back burner, while alumnae and trustees received priority. However, I assumed wrong. Sister Andrea emailed me back within 6 hours, and provided me with very helpful feedback addressing my issues and concerns.
    As a student, I want to be a priority, and I want to feel appreciated, just as the alumnae and the trustees are. I want to be recognized and appreciated for the work I do — whether that work pertains to my on — campus jobs or my academic accomplishments. As students articulated today in the Senate meeting, I want a voice. Today I did not have a voice in the meeting, but I did have that voice when I emailed the College President. I encourage others to email their concerns to our President, as well, for we all know after this week that "a group of concerned students" does not include 5 to 8 students. It includes many more.
    I asked for answers to my questions in the email to Sr. Andrea, and that is what I received. However, I have realized that it is not necessarily the answers that I seek. What I really hope for is action.
    Although I would like to see changes that address all of the grievances, I want change for one grievance in particular: When our student body is recognized for our accomplishments in April at the Honors and Awards Ceremony, I want our President to be there. Yes, we may be stubborn at times, and we may stir up controversy by prompting news stories, but we also speak to the mission of the College — and will speak to the mission of the College in the future. This is our College, and this is our home. I feel as though the meeting today was a step that needed to be taken, and I look forward to the opportunity to collaboratively address the grievances with both the student body and the administration in the future.

Oct. 25, 2008

Letter to the editor

From Kelsey Wefald (sophomore)

    The mission of the College of St. Catherine is to form leaders to be socially responsible, who "think critically and creatively; communicate and interact effectively within groups; and exercise power appropriately." The college strives for a diverse population, an atmosphere where diverse ideas can be heard.
    The college prides itself on testing its students with innovative concepts and enriching the students' knowledge with challenging ideas. It is an environment that empowers women to think with determination, encourages students to form and communicate opinions, and to be open to others' ideas.
    The classrooms are constructed around discussions, open communication and active listening. Our learning, however, is not limited to the classroom; encouragement to be involved with the community contributes to vast learning opportunities for St. Kate's students.
    As a student, I am ashamed of current actions from the administration; their willingness to put a damper on political discussions - an activity that is key in social responsibility, is saddening and contradictory to its mission statement.
    I ask the leaders of this campus to reflective upon their duty, communicate with us, let the students be aware of policies that affect our learning environment, let us be challenged by new and different ideas, and trust our abilities to think critically and creatively. Let us be a leader in the community by promoting and nurturing open political dialogue, and give us a chance to be proud of the values this school has established.

Oct. 23, 2008

Letter to the editor

From Carol Tauer, Emerita Professor of Philosophy

    I was saddened to read in the Star Tribune (October 22) that St. Catherine's has refused to allow political speakers on campus during the current election cycle.
    Over the forty years when I was on the faculty, I can recall many election cycles when St. Kate's welcomed political candidates and/or their surrogates on campus. Candidates spoke on campus, set up campaign tables in St. Joseph's Hall, and came onto campus to meet and greet students. None of these activities were assumed to represent the College's endorsement of a particular candidate.
    I believe that the upcoming election is a crucial one. For students to be promised that they can hear presentations about the issues and the candidates AFTER the election, or perhaps in some other year, sounds bizarre.
    The College's explanation of its position, as reported in the Star Tribune, is not persuasive.
    (1) The administration claims that it wants to make sure a balance of views is presented to students so close to Election Day. If this is the College's interest, how does preventing ANY views from being presented achieve that goal? (I realize that there are discussions and forums moderated by on-campus persons. However, I agree with John Stuart Mill that views are most effectively presented by strong proponents of those views.)
    (2) The administration claims that fairness requires it to host the exact same number of presenters supporting each party or candidate. This interpretation of fairness seems to lead to an absurd policy. For example, some candidates will be interested in coming to St. Catherine's, and others will not. Must the first group be banned because the second group did not want to participate? I believe that fairness requires being equally OPEN to candidates of all viewpoints, not in counting the numbers who actually choose to appear.
    (3) The administration fears that the College's tax-exempt status could be endangered if it allowed political speakers on campus. I am not aware that any college or university has lost its tax-exempt status because it allowed political speakers near election time. In fact, the Star Tribune article specifically notes that Macalester recently hosted Michelle Obama, and that the University of Minnesota, which is not only tax-exempt but tax-supported, hosted the Hillary Clinton event that St. Kate's refused.
    The statements by the two students who were interviewed for the article were a credit to the education they have received at St. Catherine's, and I commend their thoughtfulness.