I applaud Alex Shortle for striving to be open to the concerns of his constituents and to advocate on their behalf, as expressed in his guest column, "IU Student Association speaks out to students," Oct. 6. However, I would like to point out that IUSA is not, as Shortle claims, "the representative body of the students of IU." Rather, it should be considered the representative body of the undergraduate students of IU-Bloomington. The Graduate and Professional Student Organization is the representative body of the graduate and professional students on this campus has been since 2002, when the graduate and professional student body ratified a constitution endorsing that claim and the chancellor of the Bloomington campus recognized the organization as such. It is high time that other campus entities, including IUSA, realized that we have two student governments on this campus.
Elizabeth Rytting
Graduate student
Women take back the night
I feel that the author of Wednesday's staff editorial "Why are the boys in back?" missed the point of Take Back the Night. As clear as its title is, the event is for women to reclaim the night for themselves. This has been an issue for a long time and yet women have only been able to stand together like this in solidarity for their own rights for the past 25 years (the historical time frame of the event). In the current patriarchal structure of society, women asserting their rights by standing together without men overshadowing their actions is relatively new. All of this directly relates back to Take Back the Night. Yes, this is as much an issue for men as it is for women, and the partial integration of the event speaks to that. But most importantly it is women who are reclaiming the night for themselves with men showing their support for the women who assert their own power. This event symbolizes women walking alone in the streets at night, without needing assistance from men. We understand and are grateful for the support that caring men provide us and we are happy to incorporate them, but I don't feel there was a single man at this event who questioned his place in the march. Men have stood at the front of social change for many years, and this event asserts the right of women to stand up and speak out without the need for male protection. I think this is the best structure for the march. I ask that we allow women to hold their ground without men walking next to and ahead of them. In modern society, women have the right to claim as much power as they can without being controlled by men. Elisabeth CrumSeniorA practical solution to sweatshops
As a member of No Sweat!, I would like to respond to Patrice Worthy's Oct. 6 column, "Sweatshop Cutie," because it reflects some common misconceptions about our anti-sweatshop campaign. First, No Sweat! is not "attacking" IU or students who buy IU apparel. Instead, we are alerting students that we have a source of social power. As students, we can demand that our apparel be made ethically. The Anti-Sweatshop Advisory Committee, made up of Dean of Students Richard McKaig, a representative of our licensing corporation, several professors, and representatives from student groups, has already helped No Sweat! implement some anti-sweatshop protection at IU. Our new proposal would refine this project by requiring that licensees produce a certain percentage (25 percent as a start, but the percentage would increase slowly) of IU-licensed apparel at designated factories that have shown they offer living wages, the right of association for workers and decent working conditions. We are using IU as a tool to change the apparel industry. As Worthy points out, these changes are modest. They are far more likely to have an impact, however, than her personal goal of paying her workers "more than three cents an hour" when she becomes a designer. In fact, because No Sweat! works in cooperation with United Students against Sweatshop affiliates across the country, we expect that this proposal will be implemented in many universities. We can have an effect on the small portion of the apparel industry that makes collegiate apparel. We can show factory owners and employees that corporations can be forced to pay higher wages, and, as a result, we may be able to improve conditions on a broader scale. Although Worthy insists that we should focus on larger goals, such as changing the social pressures that promote consumption of fashionable clothes, our project at IU and around the country is a far more pragmatic and achievable goal. Ursula McTaggartGraduate student
Rokita's lost message
Indiana's Secretary of State Todd Rokita's comments about federal disaster relief have been taken completely out of context ("This is not the USSR," staff editorial Wednesday). Todd Rokita's point is not about whether or not the federal government should help disaster victims. The answer is that the federal government, in combination with private enterprise, should always provide disaster relief. Rokita made two points. First, the media has shouldered the confounded disaster relief on the federal government when it is first and foremost the state government's responsibility to address impending natural disasters and their aftermath. Second, his comment about the USSR was not about whether or not to give assistance. He was trying to make the point that the United States should not centrally fund and rebuild New Orleans. Any money loaned or gifted should be allocated locally without federal interference. Additionally, to expect the federal government to take care of everything disregards the American spirit of picking ourselves up by our own boot straps and doing it our own way. David WhiteSenior
Rokita's comments out of line
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita recently spoke on campus about how our federal government should not be responsible for responding to Hurricane Katrina. He said that responsibility should be placed on "citizens, churches and neighbors." While all of us should be doing what we can individually to help, there are two major problems with Rokita's position. First, one purpose of a government is to "provide for the common defense." Our people's enemies are not always human; nature itself can also cause our nation great destruction. It is the duty of our government to defend its citizens against such attacks, and that includes helping them to recover from such a natural disaster. The second problem with Rokita's position concerns the conservative viewpoint that "the people" and "the government" are two separate entities. While that argument would be logical if our government were a dictatorship, it is absurd given that we have a democracy. We, the people of the United States do not have a government, we are the government. As such, the government should express our highest ideals (such as reaching out to those in trouble) and not our most craven selfishness. Rokita is peddling selfishness. I am just sorry that IU students were exposed to such an immoral viewpoint from one of our elected officials. Stephen ChambersAlumnus
Comments out of context
Tuesday's staff editorial, "This is not the USSR," is a wonderful example of unprofessional journalism at its worst. It profoundly misrepresents the message Secretary of State Todd Rokita was conveying to the audience members at his speech last Wednesday night. The two quotes cited in the article are taken completely out of context. If a member of your editorial board that wrote the article had actually attended the event, he or she would have known that Mr. Rokita's message was not comparing the United States to the former Soviet Union, but was simply voicing a concern about the federal government's role in allocating resources and money in aiding the hurricane victims. His concern was that the media and public figures (i.e. Kanye West) were so quick to blame the federal government for not fixing the situation in New Orleans immediately, although the local governments should have been the first to respond to the situation. While both failed to respond quickly and efficiently, the blame was placed -- by uninformed journalists such as the one who wrote this editorial -- mainly on the federal government. No matter who is to blame for the situation in New Orleans, this topic was a very minor part of Mr. Rokita's discussion with students and Bloomington residents. Like I said before, if one of your editorial board members had attended the event, she/he could have written an informed article without making ignorant and politically biased allegations. I am extremely disappointed in the editorial staff for half-assing this assignment. I would expect better from what is, according to the Princeton Review, the ninth best college publication in the country. Megan MuellerJunior
Crossing the line of freedom
I wanted to comment about the two 17-year-old boys that stole the flag from the store of the gay business owner in town. First of all, I want to make it clear that I don't care where gay people work or if they are store owners. But I am completely outraged at the fact that someone would desecrate our American flag and put the rainbow colors in it instead of the red, white and blue. Isn't homosexuality just a sexual orientation? Why would they take out the colors so many men and women have died for to replace it with the colors of "diversity?" I have met gays who are good, hard-working people but I still disagree with their unnatural lifestyle. There is an element in the gay community with anti-American, radical left-wing ideologies and wish to reshape American values. They preach on "tolerance of lifestyles," of how fun and exciting the "drag" lifestyle is, but fail to clarify the realistic psychological and physical consequences of their actions. As far as the American flag goes, I am all for the right of free speech. But all freedom has limits. Without limits, free will reigns and anything and everything is allowed. I believe the two boys shouldn't have had to do this act because law enforcement should be able to fine the store owners or impose some kind of legal penalty but with the way the law gets distorted the distorted flag is allowed. It's a shame people aren't as disgusted as I am but it's the same society that is taking advantage of the freedom and luxuries that we in America have. I'll do my best to contact these two boys to contribute to their legal defense fund if necessary. Mark ChristianSenior
The truth about sweatshops
I am writing in response to Patrice Worthy's completely inaccurate portrayal of the issue of university apparel as it relates to sweatshop labor ("Sweatshop Cutie," Oct. 6). The point that people only think of the top brands as using sweatshops is just not logical. Of course people target big brands because when enough pressure is brought upon a big brand to change its practices, all of the smaller brands voluntarily comply. The smaller brands and retailers are just as much a target of anti-sweatshop campaigns, though they may not always be in the lime light. Fashion is "capitalism's child"? What does that even mean? Worthy is giving into an artificially created system of dependency on capitalism: "There's no alternative, so we have to make do." It is sad to see that she repeatedly says that she doesn't like sweatshops but automatically reverts to thinking there's no alternative. The point that we should attack the governments that allow sweatshops to take place is completely irrelevant. No normal person has the capacity to be publicly critical of the government of Indonesia, for example, and have it have an effect on their policies. The universities, collectively working on this new campaign, however, do have that power. Most countries where sweatshops exist have very strict laws banning the type of conditions that are prevalent in sweatshops, but they feel economic pressure from the big brands and retailers not to enforce them if they want to keep their business. If you source with a company that has fair labor practices, you get more orders. While those orders may not be huge, the effect on big brands such as Nike and Reebok, that are selling their brand more than their product, will be huge. It will force the big brands to reevaluate their practices, thinking it may be more profitable to advocate for good labor practices. And, in the end, you can't discount the thousands of workers making university apparel that would be affected positively by the changes proposed. I encourage Worthy, and everyone else, to learn more about the intricacies of the global apparel market as it relates to collegiate apparel and the new proposal to make IU apparel sweatshop free before they make judgments on the effects it will have. Philip SheltonSophomore
