Southern Appalachian Digital Collections

Western Carolina University (20) View all

Western Carolinian Volume 60 Number 25

items 12 of 20 items
  • wcu_publications-15713.jpg
Item
?

Item’s are ‘child’ level descriptions to ‘parent’ objects, (e.g. one page of a whole book).

  • Western Carolinian April 20, 1995 Editorial Faculty Members Speak Out: Address Open Letter to Chancellor Come away, O human child! To the waters and the wild With a faery hand in hand, For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand. —W.B. Yeats As a result of the rape incident that occurred last week in a dormitory on the campus of Western Carolina University, one young girl will never be able to return entirely 'to the waters and the wild/ as Yeats poetically envisioned. Insofar as the accused in this crime is a member-of the WWCU staff, and insofar as this staff member was the same WWCU employee who harassed several other female employees of the station in the past, one has to wonder about the situation as well as the oppressive conditions that lead women to resign from employment at WWCU. Although a limited disciplinary action was alleged to have followed one harassment incident at WWCU, we are compelled to question the severity, intentions, and outcome of such 'discipline.' The responsible admininistrative officer's claim that sexual harassment policy, when followed, works well, is dubious, if not also reflective of moral insensitivity. Clearly, this policy has not protected females on the WCU campus. Even more astounding is the fact that this WWCU staff member was interviewed as a possible candidate for the General Manager of WWCU for the next academic year. All of this leads us to query: does our administration wish to hide behind the letter of the law and vague phrases, such as 'policy and procedures,' or does it accept the moral responsibility inherent in confronting sexual harassment? "when god made man..." he made him crude and politically incorrect, in class last week i referred to the human race as "man." it wasn't very p.c. of me. i am sorry, i didn't mean to do it. i was just quoting a religious poem the class was discussing, i will try to fix it. "man" means you have a penis, if you call the human race "man" you are bad because you are assuming that people aren't equal, you cannot encompass a whole society of equal people under only one term, because then you are not making them equal... you see? you need many, many titles and classifications to show how one group of people are equal and the same, it works like this; by classifying everyone into little groups such as "man," "woman/' "black," "white," "christian," "vegetarian," etc. you can then know who is equal to whom. terms like "man" or "mankind" cannot be used to mean everyone, though it has been done on occasion throughout history, phrases like "one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind" are not p.c. it should be changed to "one small step for a person; one giant leap for people-kind" (then of course you may be leaving out the handicapped who can't make steps or giant leaps), the constitution (-or was it the declaration of independence?) started out "We The People...", which was pretty p.c, but then it went into something about the inalienable rights of man. it should have said "the inalienable rights of any individual, regardless of race, creed, gender or zip code." in class i said something like: "when god made man... i was wrong, i uttered two major no-no's: i not only referred to humanity as "man" but i also failed to recognize other religions (that part wasn't my fault since we were discussing Christianity), even so, what i should have said was "when whatever deity you choose to believe in— if you do—made a race of individuals which we are forced to classify as homo sapiens for scientific reasons, though varied they may be..." i guess i wasn't thinking, someone told me i should think about it since i am in a university environment, i have thought about it. i see how wrong i was. i hope my mistake will save some of you from making the same one. perhaps my lesson has taught us all more about the fine art of being politically correct, now that we all know the right things to say and what classification we are in we can all be friends ... maybe one day we can even drop the titles. The university had several opportunities to educate a seriously confused young man in the behavior befitting a morally mature adult. Apparently the appropriate university officials underestimated the serious nature of these incidents at WWCU and proposed inadequate responses. As concerned faculty, we join with caring students who have sounded alarms on these matters specifically and about the campus climate in general. We demand that people in the WCU community take sexual harassment most seriously and demonstrate moral respect for their student and faculty collegues. Undoubtedly, Yeats is right that the world is more full of weeping than a child can understand. As concerned faculty and parents desiring to understand, we wish to express our strong moral outrage and disapproval of the handling of these incidents during the past year(s). Given the number of complaints one hears about student, faculty, and administrative apathy at WCU, it has been refreshing to hear the large number of student voices prodding WCU faculty and administrators to become a more positive, diversified, and caring community. Perhaps some genuine moral vision, compassion, and integrity can emerge from this time of weeping. Respectfully submitted, Concerned Faculty of WCU John W. Moore Dr. Daryl Hale Gael Graham Curtis Wood James McLachlan Carrie McLachlan Scott Sportsman Paul Brandt Suzanne Rountree Paul Klaczynski Mary Norton David Kennedy Kathleen S. Wright Susan Brown-Strauss Max R. Williams Clifford R. Lovin James A. Lewis Michael Jones Betty Farmer John Slater Alice Weldon Perry The First "I Hate Scott" Letter Arrives .. . Scott, In response to last week's column, we have a thing or two to say. First, what we agree on. Freedom of religion and being able to walk across campus without being harassed should be every student's rights. Also, there are ways to get your point across without aggravating people. By the way, there are also ways for you to get your point across without aggravating people. The "Hari Krishnas" thing was a bit much. You're complaining about this because it's religion. But, there are other ways people try to force their views on you. For instance, we hate country music. This is our right as music-listeners. However, last year when big deal country music star Travis Tritt came to WCU there wasn't a place on campus we could go without posters or other means of promotion. Not to mention the peer pressure. And, what about all those credit card and AT&T representatives that set up in the UC and the cafeteria, infringing upon our right to eat in peace and not own a credit card or use long-distance phone service? Also, these "Hari Krishnas" were hardly passing out tracts or speaking in tongues. They were promoting a concert. Period. Much in the same way that other concerts and activities are promoted. Also, we'd like to point out some of your freedoms and rights. No one forced you to listen to Brother Birdsong. If nobody listened to him, he wouldn't preach. If you feel so compelled, you have every right to promote your own religious views. You and your dad could stand up there with your buffalo and preach about the Happy Hunting Ground. Keeping with the notion of freedom of religion, we don't begrudge him the right to voice his views—the same way you wrote your article and we're writing this letter. The only problem we have with him is that we think that he is preaching a skewed version of Christianity. Somehow he left out the love. This letter was written in hopes of a CD and a chia pet. You can, however, keep the autographed "I hate Scott" dart board. Consequently, this "prize" is simply encouraging the religious fanaticism you are trying to argue against. Rebecca Litaker and Susan Yergler
Object
?

Object’s are ‘parent’ level descriptions to ‘children’ items, (e.g. a book with pages).