To the editor:

 Uncategorized
Mar 032004
 
Authors:

This semester has witnessed a flurry of coverage for the College

Republicans. This is fine – as a campus organization, they deserve

to have their voices heard and events publicized. What bothers me,

though, is their incessant attitude of being a victim. They are

constantly pitting themselves as David versus a liberal

Goliath.

Earlier this semester I saw a flyer for the group claiming, “You

are not alone!” and goes on to invite other conservatives to the

club. I have to admit I found it humorous – of course you’re not

alone! You have the presidency, Senate, House of Representatives,

28 governors – not to forget that seven of the nine Supreme Court

Justices have been appointed by a conservative president. That’s

alone?

Even though conservatives hold all the political cards, they

have the audacity to be incensed by a cartoon tacked to an office

door or a spot of spray paint on a retaining wall. I don’t think

anybody finds vandalism acceptable, but the fervor behind the

College Republican’s “Campus Insanity” campaign is ludicrous and

misplaced. They should spend their energy stumping for their

president’s reelection – after November they might have a valid

reason to cry.

Tony Sciascia

Senior, English and journalism

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Mar 032004
 
Authors:

I have a question about the front -page article in the

Collegian.

The article goes on and on about this Web site with pictures of

the anti-Republican graffiti and such…

What Web site are you talking about?

The article must mention it 10 times but there is no hint as to

where you might find that site.

Wouldn’t that have been a good thing to include in the

article?

James Cizek

System Administrator Colorado State University

Academic Computing and Networking Services

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Mar 032004
 
Authors:

In response to the article about Playboy’s Spring Break Girl

2000, I have just one question: Why can’t Miss Fox take

responsibility for herself instead of blaming Playboy, who

supposedly “took advantage of a young, 18-year-old girl?”

As a high school graduate, she is under the legal drinking age

of 21. Had she obeyed the law and not been drinking, she would have

known what she was getting herself into.

Drunk or not, Miss Fox should not have signed any papers that

she did not understand; I would hope that this is just common

knowledge. Again, if she was not under the influence of alcohol,

she would have been able to coherently read and understand all

“hundred papers” that she had signed.

Instead of blaming a large company, or even the “nice guy,” why

can’t Miss Fox just accept that she made a mistake, and that

mistakes are okay? It’s called responsibility… take it.

Rachel Pantalion

Junior, sociology

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Mar 032004
 
Authors:

 

I’m writing in response of Max Karson’s column entitled “Sexism

corrupts sports.” I found Karson’s column to be confusing and

completely void of a single significant argument. Karson argues

that a sport team is sexist for naming its team after a male

animal. Sports are meant to be full of strength and ferociousness,

and that is the basis for naming teams. It has nothing to do with

the gender of the animal; any team would rather be mustangs than

donkeys.

He thinks Chicago is sexist for choosing to be the Bulls rather

than the Cows. There is definitely a reason why cows are milked and

bulls are ridden. Furthermore, I think an all female team would

rather be known as the bulls than the cows, as that would supply

people with a lot to make fun of.

Karson claims that team names discourage girls from

participating in sports. His proof is that there are no female Ram

football players. Firstly, I personally have never heard about a

female that chose not to play a sport solely because of a team

name, and Karson certainly didn’t provide one in his column.

Secondly, females are allowed to participate in NCAA football. A

former female CU kicker has been in the news for the past week. The

reason why there aren’t many females playing NCAA football is

simply because it’s extremely difficult for a female to get big

enough and strong enough to compete against male football

players.

Most importantly, Karson becomes completely hypocritical in the

end of his article by becoming EXTREMELY sexist himself. He says he

would strongly support a bikini football team so he could watch

their “…breasts and buttocks.”

Rather than stressing female participation in actual football,

he just wants them to mess around in bikinis so he can watch their

bodies. I found that to be really unnerving. I hope the editors of

The Collegian become more selective in the future when choosing to

publish student articles.

Matthew Wasko

Freshman, business

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Mar 032004
 
Authors:

I usually read the Collegian for Letterman’s Top Ten, but I now

look forward to articles from Max Karson as a source of laughs. His

March 2 article “Sexism corrupts sports” was nothing but comedic

genius. The article asked such questions as, “Why are women always

pushed to the sidelines?”, “Why are the names of so many sports

gender-specific to males?”, and “Why is our football team called

the Rams?” I will pretend, for a moment, that the article was not

satirical wit-that these questions were not asked in jest-and that

Max actually sought some insight. Well, here it is:

To quickly dispatch the idea that women don’t have a fair chance

at participating in sports, I will simply ask you to review the

effects of Title IX and mention the fact that women and men are

physically different and, as such, should not play on the same

competitive sports teams. Now, to provide insight on the more

comical issue of gender-specific sports names… Mascots are meant

to instill fear in opponents-you know, something mean and tough.

Bulls are mean and tough. Cows are nice. Cowboys are rugged.

Cowgirls are sweet. Rams butt heads and fight. Ewes are

passive.

These aren’t socially ingrained misconceptions; they’re facts of

nature. What about a mother ewe protecting her young, you ask?

True. Maybe we should change our name to the CSU

Mother-Ewes-Protecting-Their-Young. What about lionesses? Not

enough live near Fort Collins.

The best part of the article-why I now look forward to Max

Karson rather than Letterman-was the line about teams needing to

“stoop to the level of using a phallic…symbol.” There are teams

with phallic symbols? The Rockets? The Sabres? The Pistons? I’m

curious.

Ryan Fredricey

Graduate student,

Mechanical engineering

 Posted by at 5:00 pm