TAKE BACK OUR CAMPUS!

Lawsuit-free since 9/14/05

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Send Us Your Essays-- TBOC!'s First Contest

Because we've gotten no responses to this post, we decided to announce a contest.

For those of you who didn't know, Margaret Kent Bass' class, entitled "10 Ways to Fight Hate on Campus," has had numerous in-class discussions about Take Back Our Campus. The students were also assigned to write essays about us-- who we are, what we do and why they think we're doing it. Needless to say, not a one bothered contacting us, though we're always available at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Not that we're unflattered. As the immortal (though apparently imprisonable) Wilde wrote, "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about...." But we'd still like to know what they're saying.

Thus, we've decided to up the stakes and sponsor a contest. Our original offer of an interview still stands. We're even willing to do a live conference call with class. (If the class is interested, e-mail us and we'll set up a time.)

Without further ado, we proudly present TBOC!'s first contest: The Ineluctable Fact That We'll Get Your Essays Competition.

The rules are these-- send us your essays at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com (your names aren't important, you can leave them off the papers and send from anonymous accounts) and we'll pick the two we like the best. [We'll probably choose an attractive young female who happens to mention that I'm cute.-- CE. No we won't. The size of your ego already makes our web-hosting bills nearly unmanageable.-- Ed. Fuck!-- CE.]

First prize is Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (fourth edition. Second prize is The Political Science Student Writer's Manual (fourth edition) by Gregory M. Scott and Stephen M. Garrison. Best of all, both volumes will be autographed with a personal message from TBOC!'s very own ace grammarian, Christian Evangelist. [This is exactly what I mean.-- Ed.]

To ensure your anonymity, we'll send the books and our choices to Margaret and she can dole them out in class. We are completely serious about this.

Send away to: takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Happy mailings!

Thursday, November 25, 2004

A Thanksgiving Prayer and One Thanksgiving Fact



"A Thanksgiving Prayer"

"Thanks for the wild turkey and
the passenger pigeons, destined
to be shit out through wholesome
American guts.


Thanks for a continent to despoil
and poison.


Thanks for Indians to provide a
modicum of challenge and
danger.

Thanks for vast herds of bison to
kill and skin leaving the
carcasses to rot.

Thanks for bounties on wolves
and coyotes.

Thanks for the American dream,
To vulgarize and to falsify until
the bare lies shine through.

Thanks for the KKK.

For nigger-killin' lawmen,
feelin' their notches.

For decent church-goin' women,
with their mean, pinched, bitter,
evil faces.

Thanks for 'Kill a Queer for
Christ' stickers.

Thanks for laboratory AIDS.

Thanks for Prohibition and the
war against drugs.

Thanks for a country where
nobody's allowed to mind their
own business.

Thanks for a nation of finks.

Yes, thanks for all the
memories-- all right let's see
your arms!

You always were a headache and
you always were a bore.

Thanks for the last and greatest
betrayal of the last and greatest
of human dreams."

--William Burroughs

A Thanksgiving Fact--Ratio of the number of pardons George W. Bush has issued turkeys to those he has issued human beings-- 4:1
(Updated from the November 2002 Harper's Index.)

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Anatomy of an Administration Warning

Exactly one week ago, we received a letter from a student (using her real name) alleging that there is "bad and cut cocaine" on campus. "Hell's bells," we thought. "This woman simply needs to get a better dealer. If she doesn't trust her dealer, she may as well be snorting Nutrasweet." But that's not all. Our correspondent informed us that this "bad and cut cocaine" is "cut with heroin, speed, and adderall" and that "cocaine dealers... kill students with bad drugs." Needless to say, we had the good sense to ignore her letters-- all nine of them.

Why? Heroin is almost never cut with substances designed to kill the user. The same goes for cocaine. It would be especially stupid to combine the two, as cocaine is an upper and heroin is a downer and the resulting mixture would leave the user tired and strung-out, but certainly not feeling anything good.

Further, it would be almost impossible to keep a consistent color and granule size while mixing cocaine and heroin. The result would look like a powdered and clumpy batch of sugar with dashes of cornmeal added. Indeed, why would "cocaine dealers" (we prefer to think of them as "free-market capitalists") want to "kill students with bad drugs"?

However, we don't flatter ourselves as being the only outlet to which this crusading student appealed. Some persons are easily excited by sensational urban legends-- Dean M.L. "Cissy" Petty, for instance.

The good dean replied to the student with a promise of an investigation-- "i hope you will have the courage of your convictions to tell them [Rance Davis and Security Chief Patrick Gagnon] what you specifically know regarding drug use on campus. we will begin to investigate the claims that you are making, [student's name redacted by TBOC!]." In a later e-mail, the always stalwart dean wrote, "we'll start doing informational programming about cocaine right now...and too, start an investigation." We ask that our readers note Petty's weird use of ellipses.

Gagnon, perhaps confusing actual knowledge with silly myths of spiked cocaine, told the concerned student that he (in her words, stated in a letter to Dean Petty), "has known for a week about the rumors of large amounts of dangerous cocaine that has been mixed with other drugs." In a November 11 e-mail, Dean Petty undermined her colleague somewhat, writing, "i do not know why he [Gagnon] said he has known about large amounts of dangerous cocaine on campus...we have not talked about it." Again, please note the incorrect use of ellipses.

This hunt for dangerous and imaginary cocaine culminated with the above mentioned "informational programming" as well as a campus-wide e-mail from Patricia Ellis, Student Health Service Director. If one wonders why sexual assault is treated like a joke at SLU, one might conjecture that the reason is the administration chooses to spend its time hunting for "bad and cut cocaine" "cut with heroin, speed, and adderall" and "cocaine dealers... kill[ing] students with bad drugs." All this effort expended on behalf of one young woman's fantasies.

Let this be a lesson to all students at SLU-- if you want to see the most idiotic and dreamed-up charges become "informational programming," simply send an e-mail to Dean M.L. "Cissy" Petty. Complain about absolutely any stupid thing you want-- the sudden influx of vampires on campus, that the tooth fairy has been absent of late, that 2000 years ago a nice Jewish carpenter had to die to absolve you of your sins, even that the misuse of ellipses causes you rashes and sores and other scrofulous gestures-- and you're sure to find some "informational programming" delivered to your door, courtesy of Cissy and the gang.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

A Reply to My Critics, Part II: When Did Feminism Become "Politically Neutral"?

There will be no rhetorical meandering posing as an introduction. I'll simply get on with it:

part 1-
While it is impossible to remain completely apolitical in any situation. A group such as the WRC, in cases concerning victims of sexual violence, should strive to maintain a more politically neutral stance. Even if the group as a whole is not apolitical, the group’s aim is to provide a service to ALL women. Take Back the Night is a program set up to empower victims of sexual violence not to alienate them. Sponsoring a highly political speaker, despite how much fellow left oriented thinkers would enjoy this, would ultimately alienate some of the women that need the opportunity to speak out. Through making this a political forum rather than an empowering event, the possibility of re-victimizing the victim is created. Making the victim feel that because they believe something different their voice does not matter potentially causes more damage. There is a time
radicalfeminist
part 2-
and place for political speakers, in this situation the WRC's choice to maintain some semblance of an apolitical environment is well based.

At the same time I do agree with promisebreaker’s comment, it is the responsibility of the WRC as a resource center to provide information concerning structural sexual violence. However, this would be more effective if approached as another event. While it does have strong links to Take Back the Night, and sexual violence, this is not the intended purpose of the event. If one of the women chooses to stand up and state political feelings that is her right, but the WRC should not blatantly alienate women by making this only about political views.

I realize that my point will inevitably be disregarded in favor of counting the number of grammatical mistakes I have made. Regardless, here is something to think about.
radicalfeminist
The ironically named "radicalfeminist" suffers from a simple logical fallacy, one from which many of our correspondents also suffer. Issues are divided into the categories of "political" and "non-political." "Non-political" issues are viewed acceptable while "political" issues are generally seen as both unnecessary and unacceptable.

For example, these individuals distinguish "sexual violence" from reproductive rights, as though the two have never met. Thus I will make the case that forced pregnancy is a form of sexual violence. A pregnant woman without the right to abortion is sentenced, against her will and without her explicit consent, to nine months of painful extra weight, exhaustion, dizziness, high blood pressure, back aches, nausea, and difficulty breathing. (However, this is rarely considered by religious zealots, already fond of the hair shirt, which doesn't begin to compare.) Additionally, the woman sentenced must spend at least two months unemployed due to her sufferings. Let's hope she has enough money to keep her and the fetus housed and fed during her tenure of zero-income.

During the actual birth, a 6-9 pound (on average) child is forced through the victim's vagina, causing rips and gashes to the vaginal area (stitches are often needed), as well as mortifying pain to the (again, unwilling and unconsenting) victim. Go here for some horror stories about this. In the event of a Caesarean section ("C-section") the victim's belly is sliced open, hardly a less violent option.

[To my critics-- as a science experiment, try fitting your head into a child's glove. Then you might have some idea as to the violence done to an unwilling and unconsenting woman forced to give birth. (Afterward, please apologize to the child for destroying his/her glove.)]

Whether her vagina or her stomach is made gory and stitched, the victim has now has a choice to make (if she has not decided prior to the birth). She can either adopt out her child (and subsequently deal with mind-fucking post-partum psychosis and ensuing feelings of guilt for the rest of her life) or become legally responsible for the child's upbringing for the next eighteen years. In this case, as the time involved is so much, she may as well forget about finishing/continuing her education and about any career that involves spending over eight hours a day in the office. As the rise in wages is (politely) never commensurate to the rising cost of raising children, the (likely single) victim can also assume a life of poverty.

Now-- why are some forms of sexual violence (e.g. forced pregnancy) set apart from others (e.g. rape or physical abuse)? As I see the two as similar, one would have to address that to my critics. I will address this to my "feminist" critics-- if you so blindly accept the religious-right's dogmatic notion that forced pregnancy is not sexual violence, why not take to heart all of Christianity's tract's belittling women? For example, take God's punishment of Eve's "sin" of eating the fruit of knowledge: "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'" [Genesis 3:16]

In furtherance of this point (in which I really live up to my moniker), I offer a few quotes (the teachings of Christ's disciple Paul) also held as gospel by those who oppose abortion:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [I Timothy 2:11-12]

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto the Lord... as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. [Ephesian 5:22-24]

A man should not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [I Corinthians 11:7]

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience... And if they will learn any thing let them ask their husbands at home. [I Corinthians] 14:34-35


The focus of the Take Back the Night rally should be community-building as well as education. It would do the young women of SLU a disservice to further abuse them with the notion that the opposition to abortion is anything but the expressed misogyny of a Christian patriarchy.

I await with baiting breaths the response of my critics.

A Reply to My Critics

[For any new readers, go here to see the original post about the Women's Resource Center and the comments that ensued.]

I must admit that I agree strongly with my critics. However, my agreement would be much more so had I actually written any of the remarks they attack.

This is normally the case when one writes of politics. My critics have taken quotes out of context and invented simple arguments in order to build a misogynistic straw man they are capable of destroying. While I find flattering the burning of my effigy, I would much prefer that my "feminist" correspondents engage with what I actually wrote.

Thus, I'd like to take the time to correct the authors of these epistles and offer a few admonishments of my own. Now then, out of the introduction and into the fray:
part 1:
- ok:
"While this may seem like a timely topic, especially for the promiscuous and careless students at SLU..." -you're implying that abortions are only given to "promiscuous" girls. right... because most unplanned pregnancies don't happen to girls whose birth control has failed them or anything.
Anonymous
Cheerfully, you're wrong on both counts. I implied none of the misogynistic sentiment you ascribe to my writing. I wrote that a lecture on reproductive rights would be especially helpful to the "promiscuous and careless students at SLU" (i.e. most of the student body), as they would be further at risk for an unplanned pregnancy (as well as scrofulous viruses-- but that's neither here nor there) than those students careful and chaste.

Further, (and I promise to explain one day to my readers the difference between "further" and "farther") your conjecture that unplanned pregnancies occur because birth control fails is not so unscientific as it is imaginary. Birth control failure rates range from around 10% for latex condoms (no spermacide) to less than 1% for oral contraceptives such as the pill. [See this report from the Food and Drug Administration for the actual data.] However, these rates (based on laboratory testing) don't always correlate to the real world. A study in the British Journal of Family Planning found that one-fifth of the women referred for an abortion claimed to be taking oral contraceptives. See Ann Furedi's "The Causes of Unplanned Pregnancy," in which she argues that this rather alarming discrepency is due to not the failure but human error causing the misuse of birth control-- a likely event in the case of the promiscuous and careless students at SLU. You stand corrected.

Moving on:
part 2:
bringing judith degroat in the middle of an article criticizing the girls of the wrc makes no sense- the incident with judith (her misspelling, which is probably the fault of the hill news) is from 2003. also, picking apart someone's grammar rather than their ideas is a weak way to argue. take back the night aims to bring women of all backgrounds together. making it political sends off signals (whether or not they're meant to be there) that women who identify as republican and who have been sexually assaulted or harassed are not recognized as being legitimate victims of sexual violence. sexual violence trancends political views, that's for damn sure.

all in all, a poor article.

-a SLU feminist (we actually exist, contrary to popular tboc belief)
Anonymous
Thanks for the letter. I always appreciate a self-advertised "SLU feminist" who refers to the young women of the WRC as "girls." Perhaps (at least in your case) the "popular tboc belief" is not so removed from your "contrary"?

But enough with the snipes. Allow me to attend to your gripes. That the members of the WRC (this caveat for the third time-- with one or two brave exceptions) denied a speaker as "too political" for the Take Back the Night rally codified their shift from the leaders of the SLU feminist movement to their current position as timid haus fraus.

Thus it extremely apropos to mention WRC advisor Judith DeGroat's tepid and unfunny (and grammatically incorrect) 2003 letter to The Hill News. [Free Registration Required] My earlier remarks about the letter can be found here. However, as you insist that DeGroat's error "is probably the fault of The Hill News," I am obligated to respond. The point in question is "[a]s far as." The correct phrase would have been "[a]s for." You are assuming that The Hill News staff edited her letter in any way, which would defy their normally lazy behavior. However, my ultimate point in mentioning the letter was that DeGroat, as one of two Women's Resource Center advisors, taught her students much in assuming only moronic and inconsequential political causes during the fall of 2003 (i.e. attacking an unfunny t-shirt slogan rather than protesting SLU's treatment of sexual assault on campus).

Your final point ("sexual violence trancends (sic) political views") strikes everyone as obvious and your folksy final oath ("that's for damn sure") made me laugh. It is unbecoming (to say the least) that you affect a colloquial locution to bludgeon us with the righteousness of your obvious point.

Moving on:
Two more comments went on to agree with my detractors (as they had similarly misread or not bothered to read my original post), including Take Back Our Campus' own "Promisebreaker," acting as his own liberal apologist. As we have said before-- there are a diverse group of people running Take Back Our Campus!. The contributor known as "Promisebreaker" is simply the sniveling Alan Colmes of our collective.

[This post will be continued tomorrow in a piece entitled, "A Reply to My Critics Part Two: When Did Feminism Become 'Politically Neutral'?"]

Friday, November 12, 2004

Recent Challenge to Reproductive Rights in US-- WRC Curses and Admits We're Right

Today's verdict in the Laci Peterson case left us with ambiguous feelings. "What the hell are you talking about, you newly southern crank addict?" ask our readers. "What is 'ambiguous' about convicting a man who killed his wife and unborn child?"

Just hear us out. First, the term "unborn child" is akin to "unwritten novel" or "unrequited love." All three refer to something that does not actually exist. Next, we find no fault with the first part of the verdict. We are totally against killing one's spouse. Scout's honor. If killing one's spouse was a movie theater, we would never go there unless it had Dolby Surround Sound, plush seats, and was showing a film festival featuring the talented and alluring Natalie Wood, in which case we couldn't be blamed. (Who could?)

However, the second half of the verdict genuinely baffles us. Scott Peterson was convicted of second-degree murder "in the death of the son she [Laci Peterson] was carrying" as the Associated Press dutifully reports. The California court and jury obviously followed not the law, but instead the "life begins at conception" epithet hurled by America's self-proclaimed moralists. (In less than four years life will be ordained by these loud fools to begin not at conception, but at the moment one ogles the pert wiggle of a slut's hams.)

What bothers us is not that Peterson was convicted of second degree murder but that he was convicted of a second murder at all. Murder as a literal act must involve the death of a person. From a previous legal standpoint, a fetus was not considered a person. Hence, abortion remains legal while euthanasia remains criminal. In the past, the unlawful destruction of a fetus has been charged not as murder (of any degree) but under a broader term known as "mayhem."

This shift in criminal charges may stem from lead prosecutor Joseph "Rick" Distaso. He relied heavily on the "killing" of a fetus in his statements to the jury: "The reason he killed Laci Peterson was Conner Peterson was on the way." To affect a conspiratorial pose-- could it be that Distaso's choice of charging Scott Peterson with two murders rather than the usual murder and mayhem had anything in common with his Italian heritage and subsequent choice to attend the Jesuit Loyola Law School? Alas, the role of religion in this case remains unapproached by the mainstream media, at least in the case of Distaso. At least one devout Catholic was dismissed from the jury for maintaining a strong moral stance against the death penalty (one more sign into the Right-Wing agenda of the case).

By any measure, tonight's verdict defined a fetus as a person rather than a clump of cells, a ruling sure to have chilling effects on the legality of abortion. With the caselaw established in California, any challenge to the Constitutionality of the right to privacy in reproductive matters (pronounced: "women's bodies") is sure to find an easier time than ever before in abridging our freedoms.

We hope this may cause TBOC!'s favorite gaggle of apolitical party-girls to reconsider-- "Shit! Where did we leave that speaker's number?"

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Women's Resource Center? Define "Resource"

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single woman in possession of good fortune, must align herself with identity politics. And like Austen’s famously single-minded heroines, she must concern herself with no actual politics and instead shade her character lines with solipsism and self-aggrandizement.

Such explains the current predicament of the Women’s Resource Center. The students there (with one or two brave exceptions) rejected a speaker for the next Take Back the Night rally. Their reason—said speaker, an employee of Planned Parenthood (who never asked for any remuneration, including gas money for driving thirty-five miles round-trip) planned to speak about reproductive rights in light of Bush’s reelection. While this may seem like a timely topic, especially for the promiscuous and careless students at SLU (Kinsey's definition of a nymphomaniac: "Someone who has more sex than you do"), it was rejected by the burgeoning Emmas of the WRC.

This is no surprise. The ostensible feminists of St. Lawrence University rarely rise for causes of import. See WRC advisor Judith DeGroat's 2003 bold letter to The Hill News [Free registration required]. The issue in question was an Outing Club t-shirt slogan-- "Penetrating Mother Nature for 25 Years." The humor of the apparel, bearing only a single entendre, is pitiable.

DeGroat's response is equally uninteresting. "As far as (sic) the Oedipal implications contained in the declaration 'Penetrating Mother Nature for 25 Years,' I think it is preferable to leave that to each individual t-shirt designer and his/her therapist of choice. Cheerfully, Judith DeGroat."

One can almost see the "cheer" of DeGroat as she confuses "far" and "for." However, her smugness in referencing Freud's Oedipal theory baffles us. Surely she (as a Professor of Gender Studies) is aware that the grossly unethical Freud silenced the charges of Viennese girls who were sexually abused by their bourgeois fathers (who rewarded Freud handsomely) with his theories of Oedipus and Electra.

Thus it comes as no surprise that the residents of the Women's Resource Center (again, with one or two brave exceptions) would believe that theirs is a cause apolitical. Their advisor has a flimsy purchase of English grammar and is prone to spouting the ideas of an incest-assisting and stogie-fond quack in an attempt to appear witty. By example, she has taught her advisees to assume none but the most perfunctory and unimportant of causes.

To all readers who are interested in women's rights, we direct you here. For once, perhaps, the women of the WRC could be bothered to burden themselves with the cause of women's rights.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Something's Rotten in the State of Denmark

In the first scene of Hamlet, three soldiers in the company of a nobleman encounter a ghost. Marcellus implores, “Thou are a scholar; speak to it, Horatio.” Yet the scholars of SLU, while speaking much about us, have not bothered to speak to us.

One example-- a SLU administrator informed us that the distinguished deans of St. Lawrence University recently held a meeting with the persons of the Student Life office. The purpose of the meeting (which, it should be mentioned, occupied far too many work-hours of those whose salaries are paid by the ever-increasing SLU tuitions) was to figure, with all the collective intelligence (in the less flattering “agent/enemy” conception of the word rather than the “cognitive ability” understanding) available, exactly who is in charge of the internet-facetiae known as “Take Back Our Campus!.” Needless to say, we now know every detail of the meeting, but we ask that you invite us next time.

However, we must offer one correction to the administrative huddle— the Svengali (to borrow from du Maurier) of the site is not the Canton native and SLU alum (albeit a transfer student) to whom you have given credit. This does a disservice to the many who have worked hard to establish a readership among the notorious bibliophobes at Saint Lawrence University.

To the kind administrators of St. Lawrence University—our source (primary, no less!) is one of the attendees. We beg of you-- please affect a McCarthyite stance and immediately dismiss and/or ostracize the person who may have done such a disloyalty as to inform the foxes of the hunt. One caveat—as most of you have occasional liberal/left stances, you may find yourselves with closeted sympathies toward our site. This will serve to make your knives all the longer, as the role of university administrator is normally played by Janus-faced sycophants.

Please begin your search for the administrator who e-mailed us about the proceedings. Dig deep into you memories—who at the meeting seemed shifty? Who seemed too eager to denounce the left? Who said nothing at all? Suspect all of them.

If such things are fuzzy, know that rosemary is for remembrance. We have no doubt that your entire escapade will end as Hamlet.

Full of pansies? Send us your thoughts at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.