TAKE BACK OUR CAMPUS!

Sexual Assault Week at TBOC

2005-10-31T21:05:00.000-05:00

In honor of the upcoming Take Back the Night rally, we've decided to do a series of articles about sexual assault at St. Lawrence University.

E-mail us if you've got something to share.

We've got a lot to share.

Thanks.

New Writers Sought

2005-10-02T23:06:00.000-04:00

Yep. We're looking for new writers. E-mail us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. We promise it will be fun.

A Few Clarifications

2005-09-21T20:07:00.000-04:00

After reading through some of the press Take Back Our Campus has been getting, I'd like to offer a few clarifications. I'd also like to add that my clarifications would be entirely unnecessary if any of the journalists from the three television stations had bothered to contact me instead of reprinting St. Lawrence University's baseless allegations against Take Back Our Campus.

From CBS and Newswatch50: Macreena Doyle, a spokeswoman for St. Lawrence University, said the decision was made after determining the most troubling postings had been removed from the Web site called, ``Take Back Our Campus.''

In fact, no postings were removed from the site. St. Lawrence is obviously trying to claim some small victory from this embarrassing and unbecoming episode.

The site frequently posted ``serious allegations,'' including accusations of drug abuse by named students and faculty.

"'[S]erious allegations'"? Why is this in quotes? Whose quotes are these? And when did TBOC ever accuse any faculty of drug abuse? I remain, as ever, mystified.

From News10Now: "We made the determination that since those postings that we were particularly troubled by had been removed and there didn't seem to be a continuing basis for us to pursue legal action. It made sense for us to make the request of the court to withdraw the lawsuit and that request was granted," said Macreena Doyle, spokesperson for St. Lawrence University.

Again, this idea that TBOC removed any posts. We did not. We removed the four pictures over which we were being sued. We did this because the pictures were only graphics to accompany the stories-- in my estimation, not a big deal. The pictures were removed but all text ever printed on TBOC remains on the site. I hope (though without holding my proverbial breath) that corrections will be forthcoming.

What is interesting, though, is President Dan Sullivan's campus-wide e-mail stating that the suit had been dropped because SLU couldn't discover our identities. Couldn't these people at least make their stories consistent?

Regardless, we're far from done. At the moment we're working on some stories about sexual assault on campus. Any tips/suggestions would be greatly appreciated and can be mailed to takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. We promise to keep your identity secret unless you specify otherwise.

Inside Higher Education Article

2005-09-19T20:20:00.000-04:00

There was an article about us today in Inside Higher Education. I always hate the way I sound in interviews, but that's almost certainly my fault. Enjoy.

Thanks to reader "Charlie's Helper" for passing along the link.

Re: The Lawsuit

2005-09-15T23:41:00.000-04:00

It's over. We won. SLU dropped the lawsuit. You can read about it here, an article in the Watertown Daily Times written by the lazy (and in my experience, kind of pissy) David Winters, who didn't even bother e-mailing me to ask for a quote.

Regardless, I'm looking for a replacement. Why? I won. I beat the stupid and self-important people of the administration. I proved that it can be done.

Anyone interest in joining the new generation of Take Back Our Campus is encouraged to e-mail me at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

An Open Letter to Dan Sullivan

2005-08-08T21:31:00.000-04:00

In Which I Reveal My Identity

"A working-class hero is something to be."-- John Lennon

Dear President Daniel F. Sullivan and his cronies--

Though you've served papers on whatever ISP address I used to post on TBOC, you're absolutely not even close to confirming my real identity. That's why I'm about to make a real offer here:

You want it? You got it. But it's going to cost you.

But that's never been a concern for you. After all, you've been more than happy to waste tuition dollars (more than $15,000 so far) in an effort to uncover my identity. This time, however, it's going to cost you.

What do I want? It's simple, really. I want $30,000 added to the budget of the Higher Educational Opportunities Program for the 06/07 academic year. I want this money earmarked as personal spending money for the HEOP students. Why? Because the Heop students have an unfair deal. Coming from lower-class families, they don't have credit cards from their Westchester and Connecticut mommies and daddies.

And that sucks. HEOP students have to work demeaning student jobs (taking time away from their studies) where they are treated with typical upper-class disdain for labor by their fellow students. You know the behavior I'm talking about-- the lack of eye contact, the refusal to greet a fellow student by name, putting their money on the counter rather than touch the hand that makes their food, et al ad nauseum.

HEOP students have to think and plan and worry about finances for every little luxury like buying a compact disc, going to the movies, having a meal off-campus, getting a new shirt, picking up a dime bag or purchasing a book for pleasure reading. And that sucks.

Here's how the donation breaks down:

If the prep work for the case has cost $15,000, how much will the trial fees be? I figure you can get $20,000 if not $25,000 easily. Just cut that much out of this year's budget. You'll find the ledger marked, "Finances for Legal Bullying."

Here's the hitch, Dan-o-- I want the rest to come from the finances of you and your cronies. At least $5000 in toto must be personally donated to HEOP by Dan Sullivan, Cissy Petty (recently fired-- I'm sure, for reasons that had nothing to do with the investigative reporting of TBOC) and whoever else has such a mean interest in discovering my identity. Call it blood money, call it whatever you want. But I'm young, I'm angry, I have no respect for authority-- and you've treated me very rudely by banning Take Back Our Campus and filing a frivolous federal lawsuit.

You can save St. Lawrence University the time and money of further litigation by agreeing to this. Just drop me a line at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com saying "yes," send me confirmation that the $30,000 is in an escrow account waiting to be given to HEOP and I'll send along my identity. Oh my stars and garters, I'll even send an autographed picture to everyone who donates.

You can end this, Danny boy, and save SLU a bunch of cash. The onus is on you.

Best,
Christian Evangelist
Editor-in-Chief, Take Back Our Campus

I'm Back

2005-08-06T06:14:00.000-04:00

If you're reading this, then I sincerely apologize for my extended vacation. I promise to write more in the coming week, but right now I've a black eye and a broken heart and nothing but vodka and stolen lorazepam with which to ameliorate these injuries.

Thanks for reading. We've got some great stories coming in the next few months, including a full expose of St. Lawrence University's treatment of sexual assault on campus plus more on the lawsuit against Take Back Our Campus.

In the meantime, please read Inside Higher Education's article about us, found here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/05/13/lawrence.

My favorite sentence is "Many of the site’s posts, of which St. Lawrence has not disputed the veracity, are based on apparently leaked documents." It serves to show that the lawsuit is based on nothing more than legal bullying on the part of the SLU administration, simply because we blogged the truth.

Election Debauchery Like It's November 2000!

2005-04-04T18:58:00.000-04:00

In case you've been living under a rock, or simply delete listserv e-mails indiscriminately, there's an election going on for the Thelmo position of Student Delegate to the Board of Trustees. For more information on the position, look no further than the official Thelomathesian website (and you have to love that hi-tech sound the flip-down sign makes). In summary, this person sees to it that the student body gets to hear what goes on at the Board of Trustees' treehouse meetings.

To quote Adam Sandler from The Wedding Singer, "WHOOPIDY DOOOO!"

Currently, a select handful of students are running for the position, from liberal sissies to right-wing nut jobs. But, like an episode of The OC, it wouldn't be complete without drama, sexual tension, drinking, surfing, and the like. Well, not the last few on the list, but it gets good. First, we saw Jason DeRosa disqualified for his campaign manager, not himself (he's in D.C.), circulating campaign fliers via our CMRs. The rules clearly state that there is no circulation of campaign materials allowed in the Student Center. Whoops.

So, after the math, nine minus one, and we're down to eight. But wait! Someone threw the challange flag. Upon revisitation of the rules, the campaign manager isn't mentioned in the rules, and the decision became at the discretion of... uh oh. Wait, let me check my facts again. Oh right, Adam W. Casler. So DeRosa was allowed back in, pending a vote this coming Thelmo meeting.

Now, what are the chances we'd see two disqualifications in a few short days? Better than you'd think, actually.

But first, I wish to discuss an epiphany I had sitting behind the slightly-radioactive screen of my computer. What can be done in 19 seconds? Once, I tried eating as many Saltines as I could in 60 seconds, and it took about 19 seconds for me to realize I wasn't going to pull it off. Similarly, ask any attending physician in the emergency room of any hospital, 19 seconds can be the difference between life and death. In this instance, 19 seconds was the grounds for disqualifying Carla Hunter herself from the election.

To summarize what was passed down to the Larrys and Muffys of SLU by the Thelmo election board, she was disqualified for using a SLU logo on her campaign materials (specifically, part of a parking pass) and not knowing the value of 19 seconds. In the campaign rules, every candidate is allowed a certain number of e-mails distributed via the "listserv" system that can potentially reach every student on campus. To directly quote, "[a]ny new placement of campaign material (visual, physical or e-text) after 11:59 on the eve of the commencement of the election" is prohibited. If you've ever tried sending e-mails out this way, it takes time for those e-mails to go through. She would have been in the clear if it was time-stamped by 11:59:59 Sunday evening, Eastern Standard Time.

12:00:18. Oops.

So now we have the problem of actually taking her (sic) name off the ballot. For anyone who doesn't go to Thelmo meetings every Wednesday like some of us feel this sense of obligation to do, we dropped a few G's on this glorious sytem called eBallot that was supposed to be available to all clubs and organizations. As seen before in last year's election scandal, eBallot is garbage. It's full of bugs and, at first, did not allow voters to NOT vote for particular candidates. Plus, it was inaccessible to Thelmo-recognized clubs and organizations. This year, tech support couldn't make a new ballot sans Carla Hunter's illustrious name or simply revise the old one, we're back to PEN AND PAPER. Jeb Bush himself couldn't have planned this one out.

What's next, literacy tests?

If you feel this has gone too far, go talk to your Thelmo senator , they're your voice in the established representative government we have here at SLU. Tell them you think the voting process needs to be revisited, and tell them the drain in the 2nd shower on the 3000 floor of Sykes is clogged again. Make sure you vote this week, too.

Until next time.

SLUVigilante@yahoo.com (your e-mails will never be shared with anyone without your permission)

We Get Letters! We Get Lots and Lots of Letters!

2005-03-31T22:52:00.000-05:00

Peter Bailey Doesn't Like Us, Misspells Some Things, Pretends to Be a Legal Scholar and Doesn't Have a Sense of Humor

We recently received this bit of unclever (or even well-reasoned) invective at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Dear Take Back,
One difference between Margaret Kent Bass and Rob Loftis and TBOC is that those two people take complete personal responsibility for the intellectual/ideological positions they articulate. Another difference is that they don't hide behind cute pseudonyms, nor do they personally attack students whose positions differ from theirs and defend that activity as "satire." They also know that "a clever mixture of news, wit, satire and commentary" creates nothing but rhetorical confusion, allowing its perpetrators to cloak expressive irresponsibility behind claims of freedom of speech. And now TBOC is suing Professor Bass for exercising her right of free speech in using the blog as a subject for class debate. Great--welcome to revengeland. You understand, I hope, that some liberals in the country would argue that there are larger issues for a publication like yours to be taking on than the SLU administration or the Canton chapter of Young Republicans? Seriously, guys, it's time to graduate from SLU. Your litigation is a nuisance suit, and you know it, and one
that reduces to hypocritical mockery your testimonials to the sanctity of free speech.

Peter Bailey
Professor of English
SLU

[In the interest of full disclosure, I must mention that the above text is the second draft of the letter Dr. Bailey sent to TBOC. Being a sport, I replied to his original message and offered him the chance to fix his spelling and grammar errors before his mild bit of rage was put on public display as a silly testament to the politics of tenured professors. He was nice and did so immediately]

But onto the (unbecomingly thick and imprecisely sliced) meat of his message. Bailey first points out the difference between Margaret Kent Bass, Rob Loftis and Take Back Our Campus. Some might call this point needless. After all, no one has ever compared Margaret Kent Bass or Rob Loftis to TBOC. "But what the hell," Bailey must have thought in his safe Carrollian Wonderland of academic outrage. "'Why is a raven like a writing desk?' Why is a raven not like a writing desk?"

Onward now, following Bailey's blunt form: One difference between Peter Bailey and Take Back Our Campus is that we respect the intelligence of our readers, trusting them as capable of separating news from opinion from satire. Another difference is that we don't believe the lack of a punchingly blatant frame "creates nothing but rhetorical confusion." We trust our readers to distinguish a joke from an argument and trust that when our writing (as it often does) injects humor into more serious polemics, our readers will accept the gags in the spirit in which they were offered.

Seriously now (and Petey-- do those words suitably indicate that the following paragraph contains a different point? I'm unsure how much more obvious I can be, but I wouldn't want to add to your "rhetorical confusion"), Bailey seems to think that Dr. Bass' violation of TBOC's copyright is protected by the umbra of "free speech." Though Bailey might claim "fair use" (which would also be a mistake, as Dr. Bass wasn't free to reproduce our work in print form for the purposes of her class), but "free speech" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

[Am I the only one who sees a problem in at least two members of the English department not knowing (or deliberately ignoring) the basics of copyright law? Perhaps the administration can use this as a "teachable moment" and hold some kind of remedial seminar for them.]

While it's certainly arrogant of Bailey to presume to speak for the voiceless masses (his group of "some liberals in the country"), I was puzzled by his reference to TBOC as "a publication like yours...." TBOC is a blog about St. Lawrence University and the surrounding area. We always have been. We provide an alternative viewpoint, one not found in University-sponsored publications. We are going to write about SLU issues. While I am solipsistic enough to assume that the world is clamoring for my views on Social Security (Bush is looking to privatize Social Security to boost a failing Wall Street and raise the economic indicators just enough for Republicans to win in 2008), Iraq [our next target is either Azerbaijan, Sudan, or (again) Venezuala-- just follow the oil], or Terri Schiavo (only her body died today-- her brain's been dead for fifteen years. And who decided that a woman with an eating disorder would wish to have a feeding tube?)-- for now TBOC will continue writing about St. Lawrence and the surrounding community. However, it is obvious that the subtext of Bailey's argument is that we should cease the deserved scrutiny of the administration and SLU Republicans. Why? It makes him a little nervous. While academics and their administrative bosses (Saul Bellow here: "wasn't a college dean a kind of executive?") ostensibly encourage debate, occasionally support free speech and rally to issues both politically correct and politically unimportant, they detest personal accountability. "Why, oh why," they lament in successive fugues (an example of which can be found here, which I will be sure to expound on in coming days). "Must we be held accountable for the things we do and say? Can't everyone just be nice and let us do whatever we want?"

While I found humorous Bailey's invocation of the uncharming staples of Grade Seven forensics (e.g. "Seriously, guys..." "and you know it..."), I was mystified by his inability to understand a joke. Why didn't Bailey, the author of a well reviewed book about Woody Allen, understand that my announcement of a lawsuit against Margaret Kent Bass and St. Lawrence University was a bit of parody meant to highlight the betrayingly illiberal and unacademic nature of SLU's lawsuit against TBOC?

In the hopes of nudging him a little further to the punchline, I sent Bailey a nice note, asking what he thought of SLU's lawsuit against TBOC vis a vis TBOC's lawsuit against SLU. Hoping to establish a friendly tone (he had, after all, addressed the TBOC staff as "guys"), I addressed the letter to "Petey," asked his opinion on Woody Allen's latest feature and wrote "Personally, I've always thought that Interiors was Woody Allen's funniest movie." [For non-Allen fans, Interiors is a stark drama that doesn't even have music, much less any jokes.]

At the time (and no, I hadn't mirthfully been smoking hashish by myself all evening while reading Jonathan Safran Foer's latest novel, which I highly recommend), I thought Bailey might have been charmed by this bit of insousiance. I was so wrong. The next day, I received this:

Christian Evangelist,
I responded to one e-mail addressed to "Petey," but if you want to have serious discussions about significant issues with adults, you need to cut out the sophomoric, wiseass forms of address and the "I-think INTERIORS-is-Allen's-funniest-movie" bullshit. Then we'll talk.
Peter Bailey

Michael Chabon (in The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay) wrote about the latter titular character, "[l]ike all of his friends, he considered it a compliment when somebody called him a wiseass." I'll follow Sam Clay's lead.

If Peter Bailey refuses to discuss an issue without first being addressed in whatever hierarchical manner he deems appropriate (inconsistent with the colloquial tone he originally established by addressing the TBOC staff as "guys"), then he can continue to jabber at whatever sycophants will use his title. But at TBOC, we've always ignored self-important and hierophantic behavior, instead choosing to address the merit of the argument. Indeed, that's the only way to impose on the artificial power structures built by academia.

But in spite of all the evidence, journalistic balance forces me to write that Peter Bailey's probably a nice guy who might even have an argument if he bothered to coalesce his thoughts into something more coherent than his folksy use of "bullshit." Just don't try to tell him a joke.

TBOC Set to Sue SLU for Copyright Violations

2005-03-24T09:30:00.000-05:00

US Code Title 17 Chapter 1,111(b) Secondary Transmission of Primary Transmission to Controlled Group.— Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (c), the secondary transmission to the public of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509, if the primary transmission is not made for reception by the public at large but is controlled and limited to reception by particular members of the public....

So it would seem that the "primary transmission" of Take Back Our Campus, the fragile existence of which rests on Blogger (owned by Google) to provide us with free web-space in exchange for posting third-party ads (most often from the Republican party or some conservative think-tank), is only on http://tboclives.blogspot.com (as described in the "controlled and limited to reception by particular members of the public" statement). We gladly provide our work to the persons who visit http://tboclives.blogspot.com, free of charge, and have never asked for any more remuneration than your comments on our efforts.

However, our "primary transmission" (via Blogger) has been infringed upon. Margaret Kent Bass, in her Fall 2004 class "10 Ways to Fight Hate on Campus," felt free to make print copies of our work (on at least two separate occasions) and distribute the illegal copies in her class. She even assigned her students to write essays about our articles.

The situation is exactly the same as if Dr. Bass had taken a chapter from a book (a "primary transmission"), photocopied it and distributed it to her class ("secondary transmission to the public of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission"). That Take Back Our Campus exists in a digital rather than printed medium is not a factor. At the least, Dr. Bass should have asked TBOC for permission to reproduce our works for the purposes of her class. Though we would have gladly given reprint permission (in exchange for a fair donation to the charity of our choice), Dr. Bass decided to ignore all our rights (and our entitlement to reprint fees) and declined to even send us an e-mail telling us that she had assigned our work to her class.

Thus, we feel more than free to exercise our legal right to file suit against St. Lawrence University for Dr. Bass' obvious "secondary transmission to the public [i.e. her class] of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission [i.e. http://tboclives.blogspot.com]," which, as the above quoted text states, "is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509...."

We never wished to engage in the ugly and unbecoming business of litigation. For a time, we were willing to ignore Dr. Bass' violation of our rights. We encouraged her students to send us their essays about TBOC. We even sponsored a contest for them. But as the SLU administration has chosen the lesser path of legal bullying rather than engaging us in dialogue, we've no option but to respond in kind with our own more meritorious lawsuit.

Indeed, our case against SLU is much more firm than theirs against us. They can't possibly claim "fair use," as an academic class is not a journalistic outlet, or "innocent infringement," as Dr. Bass and any other professor or administrative figure knows the proper procedure for reproduction of a work for the purposes of an academic class. (Would it be fair to say they've infringed upon our "reproductive rights"? Probably not, but I wouldn't want to be accused of losing humor in fury.)

As for Dr. Bass and the rest of the SLU Administration, well, let's call this a "teachable moment"-- don't throw stones when your Ivory Tower is made of glass.

Still More Coverage of Take Back Our Campus

2005-03-20T12:01:00.000-05:00

And some unbecoming rambling about the nature of blogging

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about-- and that is not being talked about." --Oscar Wilde

Some of us idly Google our names wondering what those on the internet are writing about us. There's nearly nothing concerning my real name on the internet, but Googling "Take Back Our Campus" brings more coverage than I can physically read.

Tonight, I found this short piece (again, by one of those wily Canadians!) about SLU's lawsuit against TBOC:

It seems to me that copyright was never intended to act as a lever in this way - but with special dispensation for content owners, it serves as a conduit otherwise inaccessible in most civil and criminal matters. File this one under 'abuse'.

It's interesting and worth linking to-- still, I worry about my habit of reading what is written about me (or written about my secret identity). Today I had the awful vision of Peter Parker, in a vespertine and desperately intoxicated moment, typing "Spiderman" into Lexis-Nexis for the anxious pleasure of reading about himself. Cazart.

Though, unlike some lesser-read and more vainglorious bloggers, I've usually refrained from writing about myself, I couldn't help but wonder about the nature of blogging. Is it unbecomingly like Kafka's Conversation With the Supplicant, in which a young man persists in making a spectacle of himself before a public altar?

When confronted by the narrator, the young man confesses:

"'There has never been a time in which I have been convinced from within myself that I am alive. You see, I have only such a fugitive awareness of things around me that I always feel they were once real and are not fleeting away. I have a constant longing, my dear sir, to catch a glimpse of things as they may have been before they show themselves to me. I feel that then they were calm and beautiful. It must be so, for I often near people talking about them as though they were.'"

Like the supplicant, do I nightly clack at my keyboard and fill my ashtray just to reaffirm that I actually exist? Is blogging nothing more than vain efforts? If that's true, then why am I so anxious every time I check my look at TBOC or check my e-mail? It's not the lawsuit (which is utterly frivolous and has left me firmly unawed), but rather, the fact that what I write may actually matter.

It is a wonderful thing to aspire to the "calm and beautiful" but for now I subsist on knowing that I write about things real and as they are-- always desperately hoping for "as though they were."

Steve Horwitz Claims TBOC Harasses Students

2005-03-13T21:00:00.000-05:00

Confirms that Sullivan Lied

I recently came across this 3/6/05 post from SCSUScholars.com. Steve Horwitz, Professor of Economics and Dean of the First-Year Studies program, wrote a letter responding to SCCU's earlier coverage of Take Back Our Campus:

This blog is not just a "criticize the administration" blog. If that were it, so be it. The problem is that they have attacked and harassed other students by name. What they're doing is in violation of our student conduct policies. The decision to block access was an attempt (feeble yes) to protect those students from harrassment. The lawsuit is not designed to shut down the blog, but for discovery to find out with certainty who the students are behind it. If the president wanted to shut them down, he would have gone to the ISP.

How interesting, then, was the timing of SLU's block of TBOC-- mere weeks after we first began attacking administrative policies. And the lawsuit was filed shortly after we first reported the ban on TBOC and leaked President Sullivan's secret memo to the faculty council chair announcing the block.

However, if Horwitz is going to charge us with "harrassment," it would be kind of him to spell it properly. (Steve-- the SLU Writing Center is open six days a week and the nice tutors are always happy to look over your drafts.--ed.) After all, Horwitz himself is no stranger to ad hominem attacks on students. In particular, he's fond of leveling baseless charges of "anti-Semitism," the most reviled taboo of the 20th century, in an attempt to silence those with whom he disagrees.

In the fall of 2003, the students of SLU's Students for Justice in Palestine invited scholar (and critic of Israel's imperial policies) Norman Finkelstein to speak on campus. Horwitz (without having read Finkelstein's work) wasted no time in leveling unsubtle charges of anti-Semitism at Finkelstein. Then, not having attended Finkelstein's lecture, Horwitz proceeded to claim "anti-Semitism" on the part of the students who brought Finkelstein to SLU's campus. After being confronted as to the veracity of these charges, Horwitz wrote here (scroll down for second-to-last post): "The students who invited [Finkelstein] are not anti-semitic for inviting NF (although they could be for other reasons)."

The curious phrase "although they could be for other reasons" is an accusation in furtherance of which Horwitz declines to cite any evidence. It reminds one of nothing more than the dirty tactics used by Karl Rove in the 2000 Republican primary. During the 2000 South Carolina primary for the Republican Presidential nomination, pollsters hired by the Bush campaign conducted a poll in which voters were asked if they would support John McCain if they knew he had fathered an "illegitimate" Black child. The question was ridiculous-- McCain had never fathered a Black child, "legitimate" or not-- though the suggestion seemed plausible to South Carolina voters, as McCain had recently been campaigning with his daughter, an adopted Bangladeshi. Rove knew that the accusation against McCain was false-- but that wasn't the point of the question. The point was to plant the suggestion among the voting populace in order to distract them from the issues with ad hominem attacks.

Similarly, Horwitz's caveat "although they could be [anti-Semitic] for other reasons" continues his stream of personal attacks against the individual students who brought Norman Finkelstein to SLU. The "I have no evidence for this, but it could be true..." formulation is the most transparent, lazy and irresponsible form of criticism in which Horwitz could waste his credibility as a faculty member and administrator.

However, we owe Horwitz some thanks. After all, his letter clearly states: "The lawsuit is not designed to shut down the blog, but for discovery to find out with certainty who the students are behind it." Despite the syntactically vexing "for discovery to find out with certainty," Horwitz has made evident that President Sullivan and the administration misrepresented their case to a federal court. The lawsuit, ostensibly filed for copyright violations [in which we posted non-copyrighted pictures from SLU's website, but rather than ask us to remove the photos, SLU copyrighted the pictures (one of which was of Horwitz) and decided to sue us] has nothing do with copyright protection-- after all, we've already taken down the photos. The suit, as Horwitz explained, is to discover our identities. The administration can then avenge their hurt egos and use their vicious power to attack in any way they like.

More Coverage of Take Back Our Campus

2005-03-09T22:13:00.000-05:00

This Time, Closer to Home

Assistant Professor of Philosophy Rob Loftis has recently written about us on his blog, Big Monkey, Helpy Chalk. The first entry (defending our anonymity) can be found here. He goes on to mention us here and here and writes a full post about us here.

Dr. Loftis was kind enough to send me a link to his post, to which I offered a correction and a clarification. Loftis was then nice enough to sort through the not one but two opium-addled e-mails I sent as a way of murky reply and post the correction here.

Though Loftis offers his own criticisms of Take Back Our Campus (calling us "ill-behaved young people, who... seem to think it is cute when they correct other people's grammar, rather than just annoying"), he ultimately supports our efforts and our right to free speech. He also agrees (with everyone else in the blogosphere) that SLU is unreasonable with their lawsuit against TBOC.

We thank Dr. Loftis for openly supporting us, for engaging us with his own criticisms of TBOC (rather than denouncing us-- as other faculty have chosen to do-- as faculty meetings and over the fac/staff list-serv, to which students don't have access), and most importantly, for being willing to stand in support of academic freedom.

[Dude, mention what I told you to write.--ed. Keep it in your pants, mate; I'm getting around to it.--CE.]

Loftis, as an untenured faculty member (and currently not even tenure-track) deserves hearty congratulations for his courage and unwavering adherence to the principles of academia in taking a stand against the unjust policies of his employer.

[Dude! Get it out there!--ed. Fine. If it will make you fucking happy, here goes.--CE]

My gin-fueled editor has asked me to mention that, "this guy's balls deserve odes, bee-yotch!" In that spirit, he has composed the following limerick:

There once was a doctor named Loftis,
Who challenged his school's panoptic,
With balls made of brass,
Rhythm and class,
He savored his job 'til he lost it.

[That's the shizzle! That's gotta get all the ladies knowing I'm a sensitive poet/rebel. Mo' poontang for the editor!--ed. (Sigh) Indeed. As Shelley wrote: "What is all this sweet work worth/ If thou kiss not me?"--CE. Who? But holla at ya, Kizzy Ev, my work is really *sweet*!--ed. So "sweet" it could be confused with dental rot.--CE]

Anyway, thanks to Rob Loftis. To our readers-- take his classes, give him good evaluations and get him a tenure-track job at SLU. He deserves one.

Whither Pinocchio?

2005-03-07T21:21:00.000-05:00

Sullivan Fibs to Faculty

At a recent faculty meeting, President Dan Sullivan assured SLU's faculty that (among a few other whoppers) the sole purpose of the lawsuit against Take Back Our Campus is to discover our identities. However, the minutes of the meeting reflect almost none of Sullivan's statements. In fact, the minutes don't say anything about Sullivan's responses. This elision is either (kindly, now) curious or (frankly, now) mercenary.

Why is this noteworthy? Because the brief filed makes no mention of discovering out identities except as a means of pursuing damages for copyright infringement. The brief states: "This is a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement under copyright laws of the United States...." (It stands to mention that we've already given them the "injunctive relief"-- we removed the four pictures in question from our site.) In contrast, Sullivan made it clear to the faculty that the purpose of the lawsuit was to discover our identities. Sullivan made similar statements during a Thelmo question and answer session and at the protest held in support of free speech and Take Back Our Campus. News 10 Now (in conjunction with the Central New York Business Journal) reported:

St. Lawrence is using federal copyright law in an ongoing lawsuit. The school is suing unknown people who posted copyrighted photos on a website called "Take back our campus." The lawsuit will help St. Lawrence to find out who's behind the site.

In short, the real reason for the suit remains unknown. What we do know is that Sullivan misinformed the faculty and students in an attempt to placate their activism and inquiry, or instructed his attorneys to misinform a federal court about the true purpose of SLU's lawsuit. Regardless, he lied to either the trustees, faculty and students-- or to a federal court.

Adlai Stevenson once offered a bargain: "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." If I were a lesser man, that offer would already be on the table. But I have no desire to make any such offer to Dan Sullivan. By unilaterally (without consulting the Information Technology Advisory Board, the faculty or the students) issuing the new AUP, with its draconian surveillance of e-mails and personal files and the Stalinist trickle-to-downpour restriction of information access (as everyone on the SLU network, with the possible exception of IT and a few administrators, is currently blocked from reading Take Back Our Campus), Sullivan has made a mockery of the classically liberal principles of free inquiry on which any university stands. By using SLU funds to file a frivolous federal lawsuit against Take Back Our Campus, Sullivan has shown that he's unafraid to waste precious tuition dollars and abuse the court system in order to silence those who might disagree with University policy.

But as I told the Central New York Business Journal when the lawsuit was first filed: "We have no plans to discontinue the site. It’s always been our plan not only to produce a great publication, but to train budding journalists in the art of muckraking." Thus we continue.

Sullivan has claimed that the cost of the legal action against TBOC is nearly negligible. However, we already know that the University has spent more than $3000 removing old hard drives and searching them for clues to our identities. This includes having some hard drives removed, replaced and shipped from Kenya to Canton. (In statements at the rally for free speech and Take Back Our Campus, Sullivan confirmed that hard drives had in fact been shipped from Kenya.)

As for the legal fees involved, it's no secret that Bond, Shoeneck and King is one of the most expensive law firms in Syracuse, paying third-year law students a starting salary of $68,000. [Wowsers! And what did the Take Back Our Campus staff get last year?--ed. Um... I think I gave everyone a pack of duty-free cigarettes and a copy of A Critique of Pure Tolerance.--CE.] One North Country lawyer we spoke with estimated that the legal action thus far has cost the University "at least $12,000."

That brings the University's total tab to over $15,000 so far. That doesn't even include any forthcoming trial fees. Jury selection (as SLU has demanded a jury trial) is sure to jack that up even further. And don't forget the five-hour round trip drive (sure to be billed at normal rates) for the Syracuse-based attorneys.

So it seems that when the egos of Dan Sullivan and the administration have been wounded, no expense is too small to silence the offenders-- assuming, of course, that it's the University community footing the bill.

For fun, let us know on what you think the University should have spent those thousands. Just post in our comments section or drop us a line at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. We'll post the responses (of course, keeping your identities secret if you'd like) and let our readers vote on the best use of the money. The winning entry will be featured in our upcoming contest.

More Coverage of Take Back Our Campus

2005-03-05T22:48:00.000-05:00

Thanks to the Lawsuit, We're Bigger Than Ever

[Editor's Note: For past media coverage of TBOC, check out this link.]

"Ms. Lock responded that the university's response is not a long-term, wise strategy suggesting that blocking the web page is not going to be very effective. Mr. Sullivan noted that it has been very effective so far."-- From the minutes of a 1/20/05 Faculty Council Meeting

It seems that Dr. Lock has been proven correct.

You probably saw News 10's coverage of Saturday's protest in support of free speech and Take Back Our Campus. If you were in the Pennsylvania or West Virgina area recently, you might have caught my radio interview with Rustbelt Radio.

But what's even more fun is that we've had an outpour of support from fellow bloggers, none of whom we even knew existed before they wrote about us. Jayaprakash, a blogger based in India, mentions us in here: http://blog.as2max.com/archives/2005/02/blogs_reach_inc.php

A Canadian blogger's thoughts on SLU and Take Back Our Campus can be found here: http://heartofcanada.typepad.com/randomthoughts/2005/02/campus_protest_.html and http://heartofcanada.typepad.com/randomthoughts/2005/02/administrators_.html. We particularly appreciate the blogger's final comment: "So, in many ways, I suppose the students have already won. Administrators, here's your cue in this scene: exeunt."

A blogger from California mentions us here: http://www.calblog.com/archives/004222.html

SCSUScholars.com mentions us in this posting: http://www.scsuscholars.com/2005_02_01_scsu-scholars_archive.html#110901721379344108.
SCSU notes that FIRE has already won a case similar to ours at UC Santa Barbara.

SCSU also points us to Jeff at Quid Nomen Illius, who writes about us here: http://jvc-comments.blogspot.com/2005/02/by-pouring-their-derision-on-anything.html. Both Quid and SCSUScholars point us to conservative blogger Academy Girl, who supports our right to free speech here: http://academicgame.blogspot.com/2005_02_18_academicgame_archive.html#110874246652991921, writing, "[w]hile I don't support everything for which these students stand (i.e., their politics) or for which they are advocating, I can't help but smile at their bravado in publishing a blog that airs their views about university administration."

A blogger for Salon.com mentioned our exemplary journalism here, but that was back in December, which is approximately 40,000 years in internet-time. [That was also before we were being sued.]

In the category of "why?" can be found these three sites:
Something called the Policy Value Calculator links to the News 10 story about us.

Here: http://www.mp3board.com/comments.html?id=91138

Also, a professor from the University of Delaware links to us as part of his "Information Technology Applications in Marketing" seminar.

We'd like to thank the blogosphere for supporting us in our time of need.

But the biggest thank you goes to President Dan Sullivan for suing us. By filing a federal lawsuit against Take Back Our Campus, we've become international news and our criticisms of the administration are now heard by a wider audience than ever. From us at TBOC to Dan-- thanks for making us famous.

SLU to Make SATs Optional

2005-02-25T19:27:00.000-05:00

Unsurprisingly, Take Back Our Campus Not Cited

In a press release earlier this week, SLU announced that the SATs would be optional for admission in the fall of 2006. Explaining the decision, the announcement read:

University staff has noted much concern from guidance counselors, admissions professionals and families about the SAT Reasoning Test (formerly the SAT-I), ranging from lack of confidence in the scoring system to worries that the skills tested on the exam do not relate to the skills needed in college.

We at Take Back Our Campus think this is a great idea. After all, we suggested it.

On May 15, 2004, Take Back Our Campus posted article detailing the racist origins of the SAT as well as its present outcome (still racist, in case you were wondering-- Blacks and Latinos score lower than their White counterparts even within the same economic class). We also suggested (in retrospect, with language heavy-handed and a little silly), "[i]f SLU wishes to shed the racist skins of yesteryear, it must be rid of the SAT." We continued through June 2004 to host a debate on the subject, with our (at the time, very small) readership.

Though we're pleased that President Sullivan and the administration have taken another of our suggestions, we're a little vexed as to why TBOC is still banned on the SLU campus. If, as the administration suggests, TBOC cannot possibly be used for research purposes (unlike, as the President Sullivan claims, websites for pedophiles and neo-Nazis), why are they taking credit for our ideas? After all, they can't claim not to have read our articles. They surely came across our SAT scribblings while looking for excuses to sue us.

But we owe the administration a (we admit, not ungrudging) congratulations. They've taken a big step toward ending the discrimination inherent in the pursuit of higher education.

Now then, if the administration is still taking our suggestions, about that lawsuit...

SLU Goes From Stupidity to McCarthyism

2005-02-22T22:32:00.000-05:00

And it doesn't come cheap!

The SLU Administration can be accused of many things. Stupidity (sure), indolence (fine), arrogance (that's certain)-- even more specifically a lack of tolerance for the lower classes, a lack of compassion (or even basic duty) to victims of sexual assault, topped with Cissy Petty's strange commitment to proselytizing to Jewish student-workers for conversion to Christianity.

But they can never be accused of discretion or thrift. Besides hiring one of the most expensive law firms in Syracuse to file suit against us, they've spent more than "$3000 to have hard drives replaced with new ones, re-imaged, and the old ones shipped back here from one of our abroad programs (kenya?) because they suspect some of the posts are coming from there."

Hoo boy! But the dudgeon of the administration extends even beyond that. It seems that they're keeping dossiers on most of the liberal/leftist students, staff and faculty, fitted with reasons about why each might be involved with Take Back Our Campus. There are currently three lists of names-- one extends to over three typed pages. Gimme an H! Gimme a U! Gimme an A! Gimme a C! What does that spell? To be sure, something resembling the wasteful and paranoid activities of the SLU administration.

How do I know this? I received an anonymous letter yesterday detailing the expenses and lengths that President Dan "Sullen" Sullivan, Cissy "Convert to Christianity!" Petty and the rest of their cronies in the SLU administration have gone to uncover the identities of those at Take Back Our Campus. For your fun, dear reader, I've reprinted (most of) the letter below:

While SLU doesn't have enough money to pay employees
well or buy necessary equipment, there is plenty of
money for this investigation.

They've spent > $3,000 to have hard drives replaced
with new ones, re-imaged, and the old ones shipped
back here from one of our abroad programs (kenya?)
because they suspect that some of the posts are coming
from there.

Several people high up really hate you and don't care
how much of the student's tuition they waste to
permanantly shut down TBOC. I don't think they have
enough to win any law suits and I think they know
that, but if any of you are current students, you
should seriously think about transfering.

Once they know who is involved, they will receive the
wrath of the frustration caused by those that SLU's
administration can't touch.

I really don't think that anyone in a position to
really help you would want to and even if there are
any sympathizers, if they're in a position to be of
any help, they've been around long enough to know that
if they are even suspected of betraying the
administration, they're totally fucked.

I am in a unique position such that I occasionally
come across bits of usefull info. Anything I can
provide to you I guarentee is reliable but the
frequency at which I come by the info could be
described as sporadic at best.

Also, I don't really have a reliable way of fishing
for specific info. If there's anything specific you
want to know, feel free to ask but don't hold your
breath.

You're the only one who has this address and I left my
memory at a Dead show somewhere so I can't guarantee
that I'll remember to check regularly.

I'm not sure what it is but you've touched on a
subject that they really don't want brought to the
public's attention and are willing to do just about
anything to keep secret. I've heard vague references
being whispered and everybody involved in the
conversation knows what it is but nobody ever says the
words. I've overheard a few such conversations but I
couldn't even begin to guess what they're talking
about.

Also, I don't know who it is but you attacked the
daughter of someone very rich and powerfull and daddy
has been "encouraging" SLU to make sure it never
happens again.

I got a brief glimpse of a list of current students
that they suspect of posting. I only recognized three
names on it: Carla Hunter, Rayluca (don't remember her
last name but I'm pretty sure there's only one Rayluca
on campus) and Anton M.

There are actually three lists they have going...
Chezum's past students that don't like him, Security's
suspects and "the main list". The first two lists are
each less than a page. The third is about three
pages. I have no idea what the criteria are to get
placed on the second or third list.

I fucking hate the incompetance, corruption and
favoritism that defines the way SLU is run so I'll do
what I can to help.

If you think these funds may be better spent say, improving HEOP and reinstating Upward Bound, well, so do we. But fear not and keep reading. In the next few days, the very kind people at Take Back Our Campus will be sponsoring a contest that we guarantee you'll find most intriguing.

Dogs, Dregs and the Dastardly Quietus of the SLU Admins

2005-02-16T23:16:00.000-05:00

Well, the dogs of the administration have set to their work, ripping and tearing flesh with bare and white incisors fit only for that kind of sanguine business. It wasn't enough to simply ban Take Back Our Campus from the University network-- now they're using University monies to sue us.

For what are we being sued? Copyright infringement. It seems that SLU has no idea about the concept of fair use. Further, it seems that they have suddenly objected to our use of several images from the SLU website. However, if all they wanted was for us to take down the pictures (which we have voluntarily done), they could have sent us a nice cease and desist order. They did no such thing. President Sullivan and his administration, in ordering the suit, are not concerned with protecting SLU's copyright (which we never actually challenged). They want revenge.

While some might say the timing of the suit is curious, I would term it bare-fanged. A short timeline for those unfamiliar:

SLU blocked Take Back Our Campus from being seen on the SLU network on 12/22/05, in response to our criticisms of the administration slashing Upward Bound, a program meant to encourage children from lower-class backgrounds to pursue higher education.

However, when we reported on the ban and more importantly, on President Sullivan's unilateral change to the Acceptable Use of Computer Resources Policy, which allowed Sullivan to order monitoring of e-mails and personal files of any student, staff or faculty member, we were suddenly hit with a lawsuit.

The lawsuit (for copyright infringement) came without any cease and desist letter, which is the norm for any website using images under "fair use." And even if "fair use" is in dispute, SLU's lawyers should be aware of "innocent infringement," found here: http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001114----000-.html
"Innocent infringement" would only necessitate that we take down the pictures in question (which we have already done).

Thus, in persisting with the lawsuit against Take Back Our Campus, it is clear that Dan Sullivan and the SLU administration are interested in one thing: revenge.

We criticized them for valid reasons: for Dean M.L. "Cissy" Petty's proselytizing to Jewish student-workers, for the classist implications of eliminating Upward Bound at SLU, for the Stalinist monitoring and restriction of information access that is (a unilateral work of Dan Sullivan) the new AUCRP, etc.

But it was not enough for them to ban Take Back Our Campus. Now they've mobilized SLU's lawyers (and expended precious University funds) because they can't stand to be criticized. Edmund Spenser himself never imagined any beast so single-minded and vicious.

Look! We're On TV!

2005-02-12T23:10:00.000-05:00

Okay, so we're not actually on television (we still have to keep our
identities secret). But they are talking about us.

There's a front page story in the Central New York Business Journal,
found here: http://www.cnybj.com/fullstory.cfm?article_id=1980&return=frontpage.cfm

There are also two television news stories, which can be found here:
http://www.wwnytv.net/72k/full-story.asp?uid=6908&area=home+page

http://www.news10now.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=36765

The legal complaint against us can be found here:
http://www.newzjunky.com/record/slu1.htm

More updates to come tomorrow. Thanks for continuing to read Take Back Our Campus.

Tell the Truth But Tell It Slant

2005-02-07T23:21:00.000-05:00

Some of our readers have expressed consternation that we have not been updating recently. We ask them not to worry-- we've had some troubles with which to deal. We'll be back in full form this weekend.

As Emily Dickinson wrote, "The truth must dazzle gradually or every man be blind."

Thank you for your patience. We assure you that the dazzle will be worth your while.

TBOC!-- "Valid research and educational purposes"

2005-01-17T21:28:00.000-05:00

Salon.com Gives TBOC! the Shout Out

"The voice of reason is small, but very persistent."-- Words found on a Vienna memorial to Sigmund Freud

President Dan Sullivan, in a memo to SLU faculty and staff (which we've kindly provided a copy of here), mentions the on-campus block of Take Back Our Campus but refuses to mention our site by name, as he did in an earlier, even more secretive memo. His quietus of Take Back Our Campus is conspicuous; it should give any intelligent reader the indication that Sullivan is trying to hide something from the St. Lawrence community, but I will return to this momentarily.

However, in his latest memo, Sullivan includes a curious passage. "[W]e value and have a duty as a free and open university to facilitate access to any and all resources faculty, staff and students believe will be useful for valid research and educational purposes...." Is Take Back Our Campus a "resource... useful for valid research and educational purposes"? Not only are we funny, we also have important things to say. And we're not the only ones who think so.

--In the fall of 2004, "10 Ways to Fight Hate on Campus," a seminar taught by Dr. Margaret Kent Bass, spent several weeks discussing the site. Dr. Bass even assigned her students to write essays about our work.

--TBOC recently (12/4/04) received a nice compliment from Salon.com. [Go here to see the article.]

Writer Richard Bartholomew, in an article about the death of Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia founder Reed Irvine, cites this TBOC! article on the fascist ties of AIM and ex-AIA head (and SLU Republican favorite) Dan Flynn.

--But what's even better than that? The way Bartholomew introduces our blog [along with our Leninist cousin, Ethically Abhorrent (which was blogging about TBOC! in the post to which Bartholomew links)] to his readers. "One aspect of AIM that the reviewers all miss is a rather dodgy connection brought to my attention by blogs Ethically (Abhorrent) and Take Back Our Campus." By "the reviewers," Bartholomew includes none other than the New York Times.

Which campus publication received recognition by a national media outlet? And which campus publication received praise from a national media outlet for covering a story ignored by the New York Times?

The Hill News? Nazza. The Stump? Unless the story was the blind publication of masturbatory poetry, not likely. It was Take Back Our Campus. In ten months, without any kind of funding from SLU (or even a benign attitude-- last Spring, two of our ex-editors were frog-marched by security to isolated offices and forced to give separate written statements about the site without being told exactly which University policies they had violated or what charges were filed against them) our work has been taught in an academic classroom and nationally praised for the caliber of our reportage.

Is there any doubt that Take Back Our Campus is a "resource... useful for valid research and educational purposes"? Want a few more examples?

--This Take Back Our Campus article about the racist origins of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. (Click here to view it.)

--When SLU's Global Studies department was attacked in a FrontPagemag.com article, did anyone on campus bother to investigate the claims? Take Back Our Campus did. And we proved the article a sensational work of intellectually dishonest opportunism. (Click here to read our coverage.)

--When the same FrontPagemag.com article was reposted by the ironically named Students for Academic Freedom, Take Back Our Campus was the first media outlet to expose the link between the self-proclaimed "non-partisan" SAF and the College Republican National Committee. (Click here to read our scoop.)

--When SLU eliminated Upward Bound (a program meant to encourage lower-class children to pursue higher education), we offered a number of articles. (Click here, here and here for our coverage on this tragedy.)

With all that our site has to offer, it seems curious that President Sullivan would choose to impose an on-campus block on TBOC. If this site were really as horrible as he implies, why would he not allow the members of the SLU community to freely access our site and decide for themselves whether or not to continue reading? Surely that would better accord with SLU's stated principle of liberal education.

Instead, the administration has taken a Stalinist stance and rather than respond to criticism or engage in open debate, has attempted to silence any voices critical of SLU policy. The question we must ask ourselves is not whether TBOC will continue (most assuredly, we will), but rather, who's next? Who will next be targeted by a vindictive administration uninterested in free speech and information access? SAGE? The Women's Resource Center? The SLU Republicans? The Sociology department?

By banning TBOC and monitoring e-mails and other personal files, SLU has set a dangerous precedent for academic freedom on campus-- unless the students, staff and faculty of SLU take action.

We Won't Be Going Anywhere

2005-01-15T02:58:00.000-05:00

"...shall we cut away our hands like thine?
Or shall we bite our tongues, and in dumb shows
Pass the remainder of our hateful days?
What shall we do? let us, that have our tongues,
Plot some device of further misery,
To make us wonder'd at in time to come."

Dear Reader,

Once you're back on campus, you likely won't be able to read this for some time. Of course you musn't think we've given up; instead we are busily planning for times ahead. We have much in store, but we wouldn't want to spoil the surprise. We have always been resourceful, and even the darkest tragedy for our organization might yet be turned to our advantage.

Get ready.

Yours,

collars_down
Christian Evangelist
Istillhaterichpeople
promisebreaker
bushbuster
AbhorrentlyEthical
Muffy Stuart Robinson Shea
Carla Hunter*

(*Not actually a TBOC! contributor or signatory to this letter)

Cissy Petty Takes SLU Parents on Crazy Trip Through Time, Logic

2005-01-13T22:30:00.000-05:00

Most of our students do not abuse alcohol or drugs. Yet every student is affected by this problem. Just one student in a residence hall who drinks too much, too often, ruins the atmosphere for everyone. Just one student who comes to class with a hangover, unprepared at best, belligerent at worst, ruins the climate for learning. If your student is home when you receive this letter, please share it. Use this letter as a jump-start to conversation. Let your student know what to expect when the spring semester begins.

Quite the cliffhanger--and exactly how Dean Petty ends her most recent letter to parents about alcohol and drug abuse on campus. DP (not to be confused with m1 and Stic.man) has made it a point to keep parents constantly updated through letters with the news that while there is no drug or alcochol problem on campus, she is doing everything in her power to solve it.

How? Simple: "We believe that the time to take a revolutionary multi-pronged approach to our health and wellness programming is upon us." That's why SLU's Student Life division is officially endorsing and affiliating with the Church of Scientology. Okay, not really. But what does this mean? For that, we'll have to play the waiting game. Dean Petty's not about to just divulge her winning strategy for beating our very minor, but nonetheless troubling, drug and alcohol problems.

In fact, most of the letter is spent, in the true fashion of all bad sequels, rehashing the originals. In fact, nearly a page worth of material (five and one-half inches of a printed page) of the three page letter consists of Marcia revisiting some quotes from a highly regarded figure on the matter: herself. Have a look-see:

In July 1999, for example, I wrote to parents:

“Since my arrival a year ago, I have been discouraged most by the level of disrespect students show toward themselves, their classmates, and our campus as a result of alcohol abuse. Now, let’s be clear: alcohol abuse among college students is a national problem. Alcohol on college campuses is a factor in 40 percent of all academic problems and 28 percent of all drop-outs, according to a national survey conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health. Each year, college students spend $5.5 billion on alcohol (mostly beer). This is more than they spend on books, soda, coffee, juice and milk combined. [Editor's Note: If you find out where to get beer that is cheaper than soda, coffee, juice, and milk, do let us know.] On a typical campus, the average amount a student spends on alcohol is $466 a year [Editor's Note: Less than many typical SLU students spend on books in a single semester].

“Alcohol abuse contradicts respect…. The reality that some students drink to excess, harming themselves, disrupting the lives of their friends, showing disrespect to their teachers and our neighbors, is true [Editor's Note: It's true. Haven't you ever attended an event hosted by Dan Sullivan?].”

and

That was in 1999. We had already launched the Alcohol Initiative and had directed a group of faculty, staff and students to propose ways we could combat the national trends at a local, campus level.

In January 2000, I began my letter by talking about the Sunday evening sessions at my house, called “That’s Life.” Here’s what I said then:

“I just asked them to share what was on their minds and in their hearts. Week after week, they raised their concerns and fears regarding alcohol abuse. Our students worry a lot about losing a friend to alcohol poisoning or in an alcohol-related traffic accident…. I invite you to help us change student drinking patterns…. Partner with us to teach your child to enjoy college in responsible, trustworthy ways.”

and

Later that year, I quoted a passage from author James Belasco:

“It's not going to be as easy as it sounds. Empowering change is difficult. I'd be lying to you if I told you it was easy. You know it isn't easy and I know it isn't. But not only is it possible--it's absolutely essential."

and

Fast forward to summer 2001. I reported:

“Another idea we had over two years ago…is new ways to decrease high-risk behaviors associated with alcohol consumption. We began in 1999 with a grant from New York State to measure the norms of alcohol use among our students as well, importantly, as the perceptions of alcohol use among our students…. Our efforts at a multi-aspect program, including increased campus weekend events and heightened communications, have resulted in a 75 percent decrease in high-risk incidents from fall (sic) 1999 compared to spring (sic) 2001.”

So aside from Dean Petty's difficulties with structuring a letter, everything is fine. After all, there has been "a 75 percent decrease in high-risk incidents from fall (sic) 1999 compared to spring (sic) 2001." And, as Dean Petty says, "We had made progress." But wait--what's this? "Alcohol abuse has grown worse in the past year and we counsel more students who are abusing marijuana, illegal and prescription drugs."

Oh.

But overall, things are still getting better, no? "At a public forum during the week we were searching for Adam Falcon, one student stood before the president, the chief of police, our director of security, Dean Cornwell and me and said, 'We are going to drink irresponsibly. It’s your job to keep us from getting hurt.'"

Well, maybe not.

What can't help, of course, is the SLU administration's Bush-like abstinence-only attitude towards the use of marijuana and underage drinking. Rather than accepting the fact that students will drink under age and use marijuana--a substance far less harmful than alcohol--and encouraging moderation and safety, these substances are instead given the alluring label of increasingly forbidden fruit.

Perhaps if Dean Petty spent half the time she wastes on binge-drinking greeks, and the harmless stoners that frequent the Java barn on weekends, on instead prosecuting sexual assault cases (as opposed to simply suggesting assault victims consider "studying abroad"), the campus might actually be a safer place. Hell, with the other half of the time, perhaps she could help launch a campus-wide literacy campaign for our swaths of prep school kids and fortunate sons, or dump some cash into demonstrating how to properly wear one's shirt collar.

[Editor's Note: One thing Petty has made progress on is the proper use of ellipses. Send her a congratulatory email at mpetty@stlawu.edu.]

New Sullivan Memo to Faculty and Staff

2005-01-12T21:23:00.000-05:00

For Fun, Get Out Your Red Pen and Mark the Grammatical Mistakes

[Editor's Note: For extra fun, note Sullivan's hypocrisy as he charges that Take Back Our Campus "chills the climate for teaching and learning on campus"-- an accusation of which his recent draconian repeal of privacy and academic freedom, as well as his Soviet-style restriction of information access are apparently free of guilt.]

MEMORANDUM

TO: St. Lawrence University Faculty and Staff

FROM: President Daniel F. Sullivan

RE: Acceptable Use Policy

DATE: January 11, 2005

Now that many faculty who were away for the holidays are back on campus I write to say that, on the advice of University legal counsel, I have made several revisions to the Acceptable Use Policy which is posted now, in its revised form, on the University web site. I informed the chairs of Faculty Council and ITAC of these changes on December 22 and urged them to share this information with their committee members. I also told them that this memo to all faculty and staff would be forthcoming at a time when it would not likely be overlooked.

The revisions to the Acceptable Use Policy most important to call
to your attention have to do with clarifying necessary rights the University must retain as the owner of our computing resources; giving greater weight than in our former policy to the right of others to be free from intimidation, harassment and unwarranted annoyance; including among prohibited uses those "which violate University policy;" and permitting the President to authorize access to personal files not only in response to a judicial order or other action required by law, but "when access is considered necessary to protect and/or promote the legitimate interests of the University."

In addition, I want you to know that we have blocked access to a web site that was persistently harassing and intimidating specific members of the St. Lawrence community.

We have done this because all resources owned and managed by the University exist to support the academic mission. We have the right to deny access to the campus those influences that harass, intimidate or threaten individuals who study, teach and administer programs here. The external web site to which we have blocked access has been, for several months, an active instrument of anonymous harassment against targeted individuals, interfering with the right of those individuals to pursue their academic goals in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

I am sure there will be much discussion about these changes and actions as we reconvene for the second semester. As in so many difficult situations, this one involves important institutional values that are in tension--we value and have a duty as a free and open university to facilitate access to any and all resources faculty, staff and students believe will be useful for valid research and educational purposes; and we also value and have a duty to protect members of the university community from anonymous outside harassment against targeted individuals of a kind that creates a hostile environment for them and chills the climate for teaching and learning on campus. Neither value is absolute. We must use our judgment to find an appropriate balance. I have sought to do so in the policy changes and actions announced in this memo.

"Vice President the University"-- SLU Still Can't Get It Right

2005-01-12T20:39:00.000-05:00

SLU's Acceptable Use of Computing Resources Policy was recently revised. The page's header reads, "Revised 12-22-04," but I think it's been changed even more recently.

The delegation of Stalinist power if President Sullivan is unavailable originally read, "...or if the President is unavailable, the Vice President of Academic Affairs...," a position entirely imaginary, as I noted in this 1/1/05 post, guessing that the language referred to Grant Cornwell, Dean of Academic Affairs and Vice President of the University.

Upon rereading the "Revised 12-22-04" AUCRP, I noted that a slight change had taken place. The above selection was altered at some point between 1/5/05 and now, 1/12/05. It now reads, "...or if the President is unavailable, the Dean of Academic Affairs and Vice President the University...."

Yes, I did transcribe that accurately-- "Vice President the University." Some SLU administrator (who apparently still has access to TBOC!) read my 1/5/05 post, realized I was right about the "Vice President of Academic Affairs" being a made-up position, and immediately and unilaterally changed the language of the AUCRP, a sticky wicket when proper procedure for changing University policy is considered. Despite all that, the administration still managed to make a stupid error.

[They went to all the trouble of changing the AUCRP and still fucked it up! Do the administrators all ride to work on the same short bus or something?--Ed. I was going to put it less bluntly, but yes, that's the general point.--CE No thanks necessary.-- Ed. Or offered.--CE]

Top Secret Sullivan Memo Leaked!

2005-01-11T23:46:00.000-05:00

TBOC! Saves Sullivan the Trouble of Sending Memo to Entire Campus

[Editor's Note: President Dan Sullivan will be sending this memo (or a rewritten version of it) to all faculty, staff and students shortly after school resumes. We ask that our readers note the gloss applied to the restriction of privacy and academic freedom. As a secondary matter, we ask that our readers note Sullivan's hopeless confusion of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. As a tertiary matter, we ask that Sullivan notes his hopeless confusion of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. In addition, we ask that Sullivan stop referring to himself in third-person, as "the President." It's not incorrect, it's just creepy.]

MEMORANDUM

TO: [Redacted]

FROM: President Daniel F. Sullivan

RE: Acceptable Use Policy

DATE: December 22, 2004

On the advice of University legal counsel, I have made several revisions to the Acceptable Use Policy which is posted now, in its revised form, on the University web site. In addition, you need to know that I have asked that access be blocked to the Take Back Our Campus (TBOC) web site from workstations connected to the University’s network. I will be sending an all-campus announcement on changes to the Acceptable Use Policy after the break, but wanted you to have this “heads up” which you can share with members of your respective committees.

The revisions to the policy most important to call your attention to have to do with clarifying necessary rights the University must retain as the owner of our computing resources; giving greater weight than in our former policy to the right of others to be free from intimidation, harassment and unwarranted annoyance as against the rights of individual users to privacy; including among prohibited uses “uses which violate
University policy;” and permitting the President to authorize access to personal files not only in response to a judicial order or other action required by law, but “when access is considered necessary to protect and/or promote the legitimate interests of the University.”

As indicated above, we have also blocked access to the TBOC web site. When asked our reasons for doing this, we will respond with the following statement:

All resources owned and managed by the University exist to support the academic mission. We have the right to deny access to the campus those influences that, in a persistent way, harass, intimidate or threaten individuals who study, teach and administer programs here. We have blocked access to an external web site that has been, for several months, an active and persistent instrument of anonymous harassment against targeted individuals, interfering with the right of those individuals to pursue their academic goals in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

I am sure there will much discussion about these changes and actions as we reconvene for the second semester. I wanted you to know about them now, as leaders of key University committees.

We must note the curiosity of this memo's timing. It was issued on 12/22/04, only five days after we first criticized President Sullivan for eliminating Upward Bound at SLU. Retaliation from our sullen and thin-skinned President, perhaps?

In any case, the above private memo stands in stark contrast to a very public 3/22/04 memo issued by President Dan "Sullen" Sullivan and Vice President Grant "Cornfed" Cornwell. All members of the SLU community should bear in mind Sullivan's "passion" and "commitment" to free speech as they enjoy Orwellian monitoring and a Stalinist restriction of academic freedom and information access:

We believe it is our duty to protect the rights of all members of our community to think and speak freely and to foster the conditions that make dialogue possible. We expect members of our community to be passionate about ideas; in fact, we would be troubled if they were not. But passion and commitment only serve our purpose to the extent that they promote lively engagement, not shut it down, to the extent that they foster compelling expression, not impede the capacity to listen.

Has President Sullivan's order to block TBOC! from all University computers "promote[d] lively engagement, not shut it down"? No. Has President Sullivan's order to block TBOC! from all University computers "foster[ed] compelling expression"? No. Has President Sullivan's order to block TBOC! from all University computers "impede[d] the capacity to listen"? Yes, to the detriment of every member of the SLU community who freely chooses to read Take Back Our Campus.

SLU Violates Students' Rights-- Just Not in the Way You Think

2005-01-10T20:54:00.000-05:00

"The political locus of tolerance has changed: while it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it is made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies."-- Herbert Marcuse, "Repressive Tolerance," A Critique of Pure Tolerance, 1965

"Fuck the harder way/ We doing this the smarter way."-- Talib Kweli, 2004

One of our readers has insisted that SLU banning on-campus access to Take Back Our Campus is a First Amendment issue. As much as one would hope it is, it's not. St. Lawrence University, as a private institution, is free to do as it pleases (or as the mercenary and mercurial Dan Sullivan pleases) on campus. Clunkily-- as SLU owns the network, it reserves the right to control what is accessed via that network. [See Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), which ruled that workers do not have the right to protest their employer on private property, for relevant caselaw.]

But, your inquiring minds must be asking. If SLU isn't subject to Constitutional law, to what code is the University subject? The answer can be one of two things. Some courts have found that contract law applies to the relationship of the student to his/her University, while others have found that the law of associations (a little looser than contract law) applies to the relationship. But the differences between the two don't really matter. As the Student Press Law Center notes, "[w]hile the legal theories vary slightly, the general notion is the same: where a private school voluntarily establishes a set of guidelines or rules, it must adhere to them. Otherwise, there exists a breach of a legally enforceable promise for which a student may obtain legal relief."

In other words, SLU is obligated to follow its own policies as a condition of the contract it has entered into with a student. By altering the Acceptable Use Policy midyear, SLU has committed what is known in contract law as a unilateral change of contract. This can be acceptable if the original contract allows for one party to change the terms of the contract without the consent of the other. In order to have unilateral change available as an option, SLU would have to explicitly reserve that right in the student handbook. In this instance, however, there's a small problem:

SLU doesn't do that.

What does this mean for the block on Take Back Our Campus and the Stalinist repeal of privacy in the Acceptable Use Policy? Essentially, the changes are invalid. While the changes could be applied to the fall semester, SLU doesn't have the right to institute these changes midyear without the consent of the student body. By doing so, SLU has violated the contractual rights of its students.

Editor's note: For more on contract law and the law of associations as applied to private universities, use LexisNexis to look up the following cites courtesy of the Student Press Law Center.

Contract law: Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992); Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School, 371 N.E.2d 634 (Ill. 1977); Zumbrun v. U.S.C., 51 ALR3d 991 (Cal. App. 1972); Univ. of Texas Health Science Ctr. at Houston v. Babb, 646 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982); Stanoch v. Breck School, No. CT 02-019852 (Dist. Ct. Hennepin County Nov. 21, 2002)

Law of associations: Clayton v. Princeton Univ., 519 F. Supp. 802 (D.N.J. 1981); Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 404 N.E.2d 1302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980); A. v. C. College, 863 F. Supp. 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Abrariao v. Hamline Univ. School of Law, 258 N.W.2d 108, 112 (Minn. 1977); Baltimore Univ. v. Colton, 57 A. 14 (Md. 1904)

Update: If any of SLU's legal beagles want to bark at us, please send an e-mail to Takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Dan Sullivan Leaves Giant Cleveland Steamer on Student Body's Chest

2005-01-06T23:59:00.000-05:00

Was it as good for you as it was for him? Email Dan and let him know at dsullivan@stlawu.edu.

When You Get Back To Campus...

2005-01-06T18:28:00.000-05:00

...they'll almost be done installing Net Nanny to keep you safe from us. Here's how you're going to stay updated with a constant stream of articles from TBOC! and news about how to access the actual site:

Go to http://groups-beta.google.com/group/takebackourcampus/subscribe and sign up for the TBOC! google group. Note: If Sully & IT have banned this site by the time you get back to SLU and you still want to sign up, send an email to takebackourcampus@yahoo.com asking us to sign up your email address.

UPDATE: We'll also be setting up a screen name. That way, we can IM you fine folks our daily articles and site updates if that's more convenient for you than the email list. Just send your screenname to takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Dan Sullivan Looks Forward to Reading Your E-Mail, Other Personal Files

2005-01-05T20:00:00.000-05:00

TBOC! Blocked, IT's Acceptable Use Policy Changed

At the behest of President Dan Sullivan, the University recently blocked access to Take Back Our Campus from all computers on campus, even those privately owned by students using the SLU network. In addition, parts of the Acceptable Use Policy-- which governs student, staff and faculty access to campus-wide computing facilities-- were changed.

However, while drastically altering (see below) some parts of the document, the University either forgot or was too lazy to reread the document as a whole, leading to a schizophrenic final product. For example, consider this statement at the beginning of the AUP:

Acceptable use is governed by the following broad principles: the enhancement of the University’s academic mission, the academic freedom of users, the reasonable privacy of users, and the maintenance of the integrity of computer resources.

Read it alongside these words from the (now-changed) "Privacy" section:

The University will make every reasonable effort to respect a user’s privacy. However, faculty, staff and students do not acquire a right of privacy for communications transmitted or stored on University resources.

Interesting, our readers may be saying. What exactly does this lack of privacy entail? Read on, as it does get scarier:

The University will make every reasonable effort to respect a user’s privacy. However, faculty, staff and students do not acquire a right of privacy for communications transmitted or stored on University resources. In addition, in response to a judicial order or any other action required by law or permitted by official University policy or as otherwise considered reasonably necessary to protect and/or promote the legitimate interests of the University and the University community, the President (or if the President is unavailable, the Vice President of Academic Affairs) may authorize the Vice President of Information Technology, or an authorized agent, to access, review, monitor, and/or disclose computer files associated with an individual's account.[Emphasis added.]

In plain English, if the invasion of your privacy may serve the (intentionally) vaguely defined "legitimate interests of the University and the University community," President Dan Sullivan may authorize IT to investigate your personal correspondence as well as any files you may have stored on the University network. If President Sullivan is unavailable (golf, banjo lessons, etc.) this power is granted to the "Vice President of Academic Affairs," an entirely imaginary position. (Assumedly, this is meant to refer to Grant Cornwell, Dean of Academic Affairs and Vice President of the University.)

SLU is very fond of "teachable moments," real life situations that can be used to illustrate academic concepts. Perhaps this instance can be used to teach students the meaning of "Orwellian."

Update (1/5/05, 11:08 p.m.): The administration has blocked all network access to Take Back Our Campus. Even students with their own computers cannot access our site on campus. We are working hard to circumvent this. Please use these proxies to continue reading our site and stay tuned. Story Developing!

Update: SLU Imposes Ban on TBOC! From Public Terminals

2005-01-05T01:39:00.000-05:00

These Fuckin' Hatas Breathin' Down Our Necks

SLU has imposed a block on students, staff and faculty accessing Take Back Our Campus from computers available in SLU labs and in the Owen D. Young Library.

We encourage all students, staff and faculty to access our page using the anonymity-giving sites listed in this post.

Thankfully, the University community is still able to visit the following (apparently non-offensive, according to the SLU administrators) sites listed here via SLU computers:

RapedTeens.com-- The name of the deranged and profit-loving site speaks for itself.

The North American Man-Boy Love Association-- An organization that openly advocates for the legalization of pedophilia ("paedophilia," for our British friends).

Stormfront: White Pride World Wide-- The internet home of anti-Semitic neo-Nazis.

While Take Back Our Campus has been deemed unacceptable by the SLU administration, students are free to access the propaganda of Osama Bin Laden. Are we really worse than voyeuristic rape-fantasists, pedophiles, Nazis and Al-Qaeda? Why does the University object to our right to free speech? Why is the administration so fearful of what we have to say?

Let us know in our comments section or at Takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

TBOC! Tutorials Presents: "How to circumvent the ban"

2005-01-05T01:09:00.000-05:00

Well, maybe.

As you may have noticed, some members of the SLU administration are not too happy with our site. It would seem they are set to ban access to it from all university workstations. However, there probably is a way for you to painlessly circumvent this ban from those same workstations: the anonymous web proxy. Go to one of the following sites, punch in tboc.cjb.net in the site's URL bar, and voila. Well, maybe. It should work fine, but we won't know 100% until we come down to the wire. We'd say try it on a site that SLU already bans, but to our knowledge there aren't any.

Here is a list of just a few of the many fine anonymous web proxies you can use:

http://www.anonymizer.com

http://www.proxify.com

http://www.anonymouse.ws

http://www.the-cloak.com/login.html

http://www.guardster.com/

Feel free to email us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com if you have any questions.

SLU Set to Ban TBOC!- Book Burning Enters the Digital Age

2005-01-03T22:05:00.000-05:00

All the Fucking Hatas Get on Our Backs-- Story Developing!

We recently received a letter from one of our sources in the administration. President Dan "Sully" Sullivan has issued orders to the Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) to block all "University work-station" (i.e. SLU computers found in labs and the library) access to Take Back Our Campus!. Sullivan's memo to the entire SLU community is forthcoming, expected shortly after school resumes.

Despite the clearly Stalinist implications of blocking student access to a website, we are most upset about the reality of the situation. While the edict from Sully's on-high will not preclude students rich enough to buy their own computers (or have their daddies buy a Dell laptop for them) from viewing our site, the poor students who lack rich daddies (or White sugar daddies, which we highly recommend) to buy them computers will no longer see our site unless they view it in the room of a PC-owning friend.

If any of our readers are upset by SLU's upcoming restriction of free speech, please send an e-mail to President Dan Sullivan.

Threnody for Upward Bound

2004-12-28T23:41:00.000-05:00

SLU Says, "Sorry, Toots-- Not Anymore."

[Editor's Note: The following is a poem written by an Upward Bound student about her experience in the SLU Upward Bound program. It is currently displayed on SLU's Upward Bound website as an example of past student work. Recently, SLU, apparently in the service of Mammon, canceled the program and passed it off to the already underfunded SUNY Canton, a move that will surely weaken the program as well as decrease the likelihood of lower-class North Country teenagers ever applying to a private University like SLU. We at TBOC! would like to say, "Thank you for everything, SLU."]

One world.
One school.
One group of friends.
One lost girl.
One missing identity.
One summer changed it all.
One change and my world is upside down.
One new life.
Many new directions to turn.
Many new people to know.
Many new friends.
Many new changes and things to do.
One new positive outlook.
One new person.
One found me.
Thank you for everything.

Anonymous Upward Bound Student, 2003

SLU Takes Back Its Campus-- From Poor Children

2004-12-24T00:40:00.000-05:00

As most of our readers know, SLU recently cut funding for Upward Bound and the program will be forced to move its headquarters to SUNY Canton in the early Spring.

Why? The cash-strapped University may have been seeking to cut costs to provide greater services to its students. But according to this SLU press release "[f]unding from the U.S. education department covers approximately 92 percent of the program's costs, with the balance coming from institutional funds, New York State and the United States Department of Agriculture."

In plain English, Upward Bound cost the University virtually no money to run. So why the shift?

In a memo (issued in tandem with SUNY Canton President Joseph Kennedy), SLU President Dan Sullivan stated, "SUNY Canton is positioned extremely well to serve the Upward Bound Program, given its thoughtful and comprehensive services in remediation and its experience in the New York State version of this program, Liberty Partnership."

[One quick grammatical note for Sully and Jo-Jo-- the phrase "given its thoughtful and comprehensive services..." refers, in your statement, to the "Upward Bound Program" (its actual name is simply "Upward Bound"-- you don't have to capitalize "Program") rather than your intended institution, SUNY Canton. Read Take Back Our Campus! every day and learn a little something about the English language, kiddos.]

The word "remediation" is very curious. The word itself is a fairly recent invention, business jargon normally used when a corporation is forced to repair ecological damage caused by unlawful practices-- perhaps, in this case, the capitalist repression of education for the poor. The root is from "remedial"-- "concerned with the correction of faulty study habits." About both notions SLU freely (and sadly) admits it no longer cares and that a poorly funded SUNY college will better provide the service.

The Upward Bound program is (in the words of the frontispiece to SLU's Upward Bound page) "designed to generate in participants the skills and motivation necessary to complete high school and to enter and succeed in college." Indeed, what better way to encourage poor children to pursue academia than to let them know they are no longer welcome among the expensively manicured lawns of our private University? "Shush, dear, and wipe the dirt from your face. A mostly vocational school is a better option for you. SUNY Canton's Mortuary Science program is one of the better ones. And being poor, don't you deserve a career among the dead?"

The classist implications of the decision are clear. Rather than allow disenfranchised children to feel comfortable (for a few weeks each summer) at a private university, SLU decided to exorcise the entire program. Rather increase the likelihood that poor children would have the academic skills as well as the "audacity of hope" to apply to a private University, SLU has decided to relegate the waifs to the confines of an underfunded state school.

Rather than buck up the pittance required to run the Upward Bound program, what has our proud University spent its money on? Allow me to provide a few short examples:

First, the new Student Center-- $15 million and 60,000 square feet. The structure will remain unnamed until a donor provides $7.5 million, half the building cost. [I hope that one of my homophobic and functionally illiterate detractors (who can be found here and more recently here) gets his rich daddy to donate the money. I'd love to see the "Christian Evangelist is a Big Fucking Fag and Needs to Take It Up the Ass Student Center."--CE. In one of our rare points of agreement, I'd like to see that, too.--Ed.]

In the past few years, the SLU Board of Trustees has pledged $2 million as part of the Canton Initiative. The purpose of this initiative is to provide money for such projects of laughing importance as the Heritage Grist Mill Association. Money has also been pledged to "[n]ew parking and plans for expansion of parking" within Canton. Those last monies invoke the question-- in a town that requires barely fifteen minutes to walk from end to end, when has parking in downtown Canton ever been a problem?

As part of the same initiative, SLU has been more than happy to throw free money (and your tutition dollars) at for-profit businesses such as:

--The Partridge Den: the Canton home of overpriced bagels.
--Hackett's: A sporting goods store whose owners run very profitable franchises in both Ogdensburg and Massena.
--Shear Designs: A beauty salon for the terminally ugly and soulless.
--The Glass Onion: An establishment where faculty, administrators and rich students alike can get drunk without the company of the fearsome Canton "townies."

While terminating a program that encourages higher education for poor kids, SLU simultaneously gives mass amounts of money to those who would exploit the labor of those childrens' parents. It is heartening to know that SLU chooses to perpetuate the old adage-- the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

URGENT CALL TO ACTION

2004-12-23T01:28:00.000-05:00

URGENT CALL FOR SUPPORT!!! (this call was submitted to TBOC! for posting by a recent SLU Alumn)

My friend Jamie (BORK) Loughner is currently sitting on a 5-story high ledge in City Hall in Washington DC. She climbed onto the ledge at 11 AM on Tuesday to protest the sale of the Randall School which was a homeless shelter in SW DC until Nov. 3rd when the Mayor closed it in preparation for selling the building to the Corcoran Art Museum. This is the most recent in a long series of actions aimed at reopening the Randall School Shelter, or getting a replacement in that immediate region. Bork is planning on staying on the ledge and continuing her hunger strike until the city agrees to open a viable alternative to Randall school shelter. Please support Bork and the DC Homeless community by sending a christmas card giving bork encouragement and showing city hall that the country is behind her!

(You can learn more by visiting www.maydaydc.mahost.org or www.dc.indymedia.org and looking at any post related to Randall School Shelter)

Sample Christmas Card to Bork...(this is just a quick sample i wrote, please alter and personalize as you feel fit!)

TO: Jamie Loughner: 1350 Penn Ave, fifth floor atrium, DC 20004

Dear Jamie (alternatively you can address her as “Bork”)

I just wanted to write and wish you a very Merry Christmas, I heard about your hunger strike on the Ledge at the Wilson Building and wanted to congratulate you on a fantastic job.

I would like to add my voice to yours and demand Mayor William's and the DC City Council immediately open a homeless shelter in Downtown South West DC to at the very least replace the 170 beds lost when they closed the Randall School Shelter on November third.

The first homeless person of the season recently froze to death on the streets of DC, and we must stand together to do everything we can to make sure no more share that terrible fate.

Sincerely,

NAME
CITY, STATE (return address if you feel comfortable)

Faculty Spotlight: Brian Chezum

2004-12-20T23:40:00.000-05:00

Name: Brian Chezum

Department: Economics

Title: Assistant Professor of Economics

Better Known as / Favorite food group: Cheese

Claim to Fame: Assaulted a young girl who was peacefully blocking a Hepburn door during the SAGE shut down protest against the IMF / World Bank. While there were two other entrances that most others chose to use, Cheese Stick chose to make his patented brand of pugilistic political statement by knocking over a young (and svelte!) girl barely past her eighteenth birthday.

Econ 101 with Chezum: “Minimum wage is the root of all evil.”
On Blacks: “They don’t know what’s good for them.”
On favorite fast food: “McDonalds' Big Mac with extra cheese.”
On practices of the billion dollar giant: “Where do most Blacks and minorities work? McDonalds, yes, that’s correct. “
On Unemployment: “It can be eradicated – we could employ all the blacks we wanted if only the minimum wage were brought down to $4 or something.”
On Solutions: “Who opposes minimum wage removals? Blacks. They’re the problem.”
On His Baseball bat: “Keeps them folks in line.”

What’s the rumor on the block? We asked 5 randomly selected SLU students and faculty (unedited):
“Cheese Doodles has no compunction about assaulting young co-eds.” – our beloved Christian Evangelist.
“Condescending prick.” – A fellow colleague.
“Very smart man.” – A Blonde.
“Jesus, he likes his cheese.” – A bulimic student traumatized by Cheese Crackers.

Petty's List

2004-12-18T19:46:00.000-05:00

Marcia Lou Petty, better known as Cissy Petty to our campus, loves Jesus. In fact, the only thing she loves more than Jesus himself is making others love him too! Take Andrew Barron (left). Andrew used to be, in his own words, "a nice Jewish boy," observing Pesach, going to temple, and trying to decide if the whole "phylactery" thing was for him--but not anymore, thanks to our very own Cissy Petty!

The first person who told me about loving God was my Hebrew school teacher. I was 10 years old when I began attending cheder after school. We had a class of about 25 boys and girls which met twice a week. Our teacher was also the synagogue cantor. I don't remember his name but I do remember that he told us he loved God. I hadn't ever thought of God as someone to be loved.

Andrew may not remember the name of the first person who taught him about loving God, but he sure remembers Marcia's:

In college, I became friends with Dr. Cissy Petty. Cissy was the director of student activities and my boss. I did part-time office work to earn a little extra pocket money. One day she told me that Jesus was my Saviour. At first I thought she was crazy, but then I realized that she probably didn't realize who I was. Therefore, I informed her that I was Jewish, expecting that she would immediately realize her mistake. But she still thought that Jesus was my Saviour! ... She gave me a Bible towards the end of my senior year: the inscription was dated May 20, 1981. I accepted it only to avoid hurting her feelings.

Why wouldn't Andrew just give in to his savior's love? We're a naturally stubborn people, so perhaps it had something to do with a formative experience in his childhood. He relates, "Once I had visited a Catholic church and wondered if being there would somehow make me dirty." Of course, it wasn't being there that was dirty, just what inevitably happened while he was, assuming he went to confession. Having been raised Catholic, I can tell you that while most of the goys I knew may have been used to that kind of treatment, deep-throating and anal play are not things that come naturally to YHWH's Chosen Ones. They're much more into Leviticus than the Jesus folks.

Being the dumb shiksa that she was, Cissy never did get the whole "Jew" thing--but she did get Andrew Barron, who was, by the time, working for Martin Marietta (never let anyone tell you Jesus doesn't love nukes), thus saving him from an eternity of fire, brimstone, and overbearing Jewish mothers. Yes, thanks to Cissy Petty, the gentle gentile who put the O in Andrew's G-D, this poor soul is now free Friday nights to eat as much pork as he likes.

Andrew doesn't have as much time as he used to for building "space shuttles"; that is, not now that he's devoted his life to proclaiming the glory of Jesus.

Cissy had challenged me to think about spiritual matters. But somehow, it took other Jews who believed in Jesus to help me overcome my prejudices. When I realized I could be helping my people discover the Messiah, building space shuttles, exciting as it was, no longer seemed like a career for me. I can't be angry with people who tell me to get a "real job." If they'd just look to God with an open mind, they'd know that the job of proclaiming his Messiah is very real.

No, Andrew, it's not--unless your official title is Dean of Student Life.

What about you? Have you been converted by Dean Petty and want to share your witnessing experience? Email us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Shabbat Shalom, motherfuckers.

St. Lawrence University Cuts Program for Poor Kids

2004-12-17T23:25:00.000-05:00

After Thirty Years, Upward Bound No Longer at SLU

Upward Bound, a tutoring and assistance program for underprivileged area high school students, will no longer be operating at St. Lawrence University as of January 15. At that time and in perpetuity the program will be managed (and ostensibly) funded by SUNY Canton. This recent development continues the ongoing trend of the administration cutting back academic programs and services, demonstrating its commitment to its mission of "provid[ing] an inspiring and demanding undergraduate education in the liberal arts to students selected for their seriousness of purpose and intellectual promise".

Now, St. Lawrence reveals the depth of its commitment to the community where it resides and improving the educational opportunities of the underprivileged. It is known to all that the North Country is the poorest region of New York State with St. Lawrence County one of the top two poorest counties in the state with a per capita income less than $17,000. It speaks volumes to the level of concern for this impoverished community that St. Lawrence University, an institution which costs more than double the per capita income of an average North Country resident, would abandon a program which assists poor area high school students with education.

To be fair, the St. Lawrence recently after thirty years of administering the program, discovered that a North Country state school would be "positioned extremely well to serve the Upward Bound Program". Meanwhile this wealthy private school is spending its supposedly perpetually ‘meager’ resources on important matters such as providing our Dean of Residential Life a new house, our administrators new office buildings in our multimillion boondoggle Student Center, and new SUVs for campus security. Of course these items are important to advancing a liberal arts education!

Transferring Upward Bound to the management of the State is also good idea judging by past experience with the State of New York trying to annually cut HEOP and other underprivileged student financial assistance programs. Constantly struggling for resources might be what our administrators mean by "positioned extremely well". In short, this is simply a more politically correct way of annihilating a program from existence. It would be poor public relations if the administration simply cut the program, instead they will transfer for it to the cash-strapped state with a history of cutting financial assistance for college education.

Congratulations are in order for the ingenuity of our administrators. It takes a lot of effort to find new and unusual ways to stick it to the underprivileged, and we all know the people of the North Country haven’t had enough kicks in the head.

Faculty Spotlight-- Steve Horwitz

2004-12-15T01:08:00.000-05:00

Name: Steve Horwitz
Department: Economics
Title: Professor of Economics, Associate Dean of the First Year
Why Mike Owen and John Jaunzems Should Look Up to Him: After only fifteen years here, Horwitz is a full professor.
On Second Thought, Why No One Should Look Up to Him: His Rush fan page.
Description of Rush, Unintentionally Funny: "This is a band that plays rock that demands to be taken seriously."
Description of Rush, Childlike in Its Innocence: "They do indeed touch the heart."
Description of Rush, Slightly Erotic: "When Geddy sings (in 'Presentation'): 'Just think what we might do,' it sums up everything that 'touches' me about their music."
Description of Rush, Celebratory Sign-Off: "The love-in shall continue!"
Fun Fact About Horwitz: He has never read Norman Finkelstein's work, yet maintains it is anti-Semitic.
Bonus Fact: He will accuse you of being anti-Semitic at the drop of a hat. For example, if you're concerned about the neo-fascist impulses of the SLU Republicans, he'll probably call you anti-Semitic.
Extra Bonus Fact: He once referred to TBOC! contributor Christian Evangelist as a "narcissist."
Why Christian Evangelist Is Upset By This (unfortunately, in Christian's own words): "Horwtiz does not understand the Greek mythology he chose to employ. I am not in love with myself, as was Narcissus. Rather, I adore the online creation known as 'Christian Evangelist,' an arrogant grammarian and general know-it-all. If Horwitz bothered to read anything besides self-aggrandizing Libertarian tracts about the glory of the 'free market' (the market being 'free' only for capital and not for labor, a fact the Greek-ignorant Horwitz chooses to ignore) he would have properly invoked Pygmalion."
[Editor's Note: Why did we bother writing this? It's impossible to satirize a man whose Rush fan page is a parody of itself. We could have just linked to that and saved ourselves half an hour.]

Faculty Spotlight-- Mike Owen

2004-12-14T03:11:00.000-05:00

[This past summer, Take Back Our Campus published a number of Faculty Spotlights that we felt received too little attention. We are now reposting them. Gladly, we are newly accepting nominations for members of the faculty and administration who deserve his/her own Faculty Spotlight. Please e-mail us with gossip and reasons at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.]

Name: Michael Owen
Department: Geology
Likes: Rocks, racial separation, governments controlled by white minorities, soil samples.
Dislikes: Leftists, most things that aren't rocks or white people.
Hobby: Staunchly defending the white race.
Other Notable Features: Hasn't published anything since the late 1980s. Consequentially, has yet to become a full professor after 21 years at SLU.
Best Moment: During a faculty meeting in the 1980s, SLU Professors voted to divest the University's holdings from the racist regime of South Africa. Dr. Owen rose and gave an impassioned speech against the anti-apartheid movement.
Why He Made the Spotlight: It's not like racism is a controversial issue. Most people are opposed to a legalized racial hierarchy. That's why TBOC is proud to spotlight those who, for some reason, aren't.
[Editor's note: It's good that Black people know geology is for virgins and losers-- otherwise they might have to take a class with Michael "Don't Criticize Apartheid" Owen.]

Contact Information:
Office: Brown 148
Office Phone: 229-5975
E-mail: mowen@stlawu.edu.

"Hearty" thanks in order

2004-12-13T21:55:00.000-05:00

Who would have suspected we'd hear from Mr. Hearty again so soon? Relish these, dear readers, as I suspect we'll not be so entertained were Bush to "choke" on another "pretzel."

(Dramatization) Dear TBOC,
Thank you very much for the grammar lesson. I was quite surprised at your posting the email. I have no idea who you are but firmly believe that all persons are entitled to their beliefs, one of the great benefits of living in this country of ours. In fact i actually really do not have any connection to any political party and do not really get involved in the political scene. I did not vote in the recent election and really have very few opinions of George Bush or his counterparts. I hope you regarded my message as a joke, as did i when i sent it. I would greatly appreciate it if you removed my email from your site. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
J.J. Hearty

Dear J.J.,

We appreciate your hearty thanks. More than that, we appreciate the copious hearty laughter you have provided us with so generously, yet again. What separates your email from "a joke," as you suggest, is that jokes are *intentionally* funny. However, since your first email was such a great "joke," we've decided it stays.

Congratulations, J.J. You've just taken your first inadvertent, but appropriately "hearty" step into the "political scene."

Sugar & spice,
TBOC

We heard back from J.J. sooner than we expected, but were a bit confused by a sudden change of heart. His initial email was a joke no more. Our own Christian Evangelist scratched his chin, paused, and exclaimed, "Backtracker!"

Dear TBOC,

Touche. What is evident to me is that my name is public and your is not. I would gladly support you keeping my letter up, and whatever else you want to print if my name is removed, or you reveal who you are. The fact is that my comments came off as a lot more ignorant then i intended them to be, you can say i was just trying to "fuel the fire." If you actually knew me you would see that i was not actually backtracking in the previous email but telling the
truth. In response to your post script, i had no previous knowledge of your website before the list of people was published and a bunch of people pointed it out to me.

Sincerely,
J.J. Hearty

Dear J.J.,

You aren't in a position to bargain. The letter stays. Question: Just how ignorant did you intend your comments to be? To be sure, they expressed an ignorance at least as "hearty" as your name.

Cuddly Kittens,
TBOC

We Get Letters! We Get Lots and Lots of Letters!

2004-12-12T21:31:00.000-05:00

To all our kind readers—
We recently received a letter (via e-mail at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com) that was simply too humorous not to print. The epistle was from the wonderfully named J.J. Hearty, a boy with some strong opinions whose rather Dickensian surname attests to his large amount of cardiac rather than cranial muscle.

Dear waste of space on the internet,
Exactly why are you trying to take back this campus? It does not belong to you. This college has long stood as a pillar/beacon of education success for rich kids. If you want to leave so bad i will have my father write you a check to where ever you want to go. Why dont you stop wasting your time on your stupid internet sight and go get a job. I voted for bush in 04, i will remain conservative for the rest of my life, and am proud to say that those people that say money is the root of all evil don't have any. I am appalled that i am not on your internet site.
Sincerely,
J.J. Hearty

It never ceases to astonish me that the favored sons of America cannot speak or write a recognizable and correct form of English. “Education” is easily conjugated into its adjectival form with the simple addition of “al.” Similarly, “bad” can be made into a correct adverb if it is accompanied by “ly.” Hearty’s sporadic capitalization and lack of apostrophes and hyphenation will go unmentioned, except in my previous clause. I will recommend that he add a question mark to his interrogative sentences, such as “Why dont (sic) you stop wasting your time on your stupid internet (sic) sight (sic) and go get a job. (sic)”

As a grammarian, I disagree with Hearty’s statement “those people that say money is the root of all evil don’t have any.” Hearty’s sentence clearly implies (as the pronoun “any” refers to his noun “evil”) that “those people that (sic) say money is the root of all evil” don’t “have” any “evil.” The exact metaphysics of the sentence (that any person could “have” “evil”) make my head spin. Can a person “have” “evil”? As a diligent student (though not adherent) of the (sometimes conflicting) works of Kant and Hegel, I still have trouble making any construction of a human “hav[ing]” “evil.” For a better discussion than I can provide, I recommend Peter Singer’s latest book, The President of Good and Evil, the introduction to which goes into detail about President Bush’s use of “evil” as a noun rather than an adjective.

However, even sans the language needed to construct a coherent sentence, I still understand the intended meaning of Hearty’s sentence. If my interpretation is correct, I must inform him that even people without money are still people. He should employ the nominative “who” rather than the objective “that.” Hearty, with the predictable callousness of his class, probably disagrees with me.

But my favorite part of the letter was the "pillar/beacon of education (sic) success" conundrum. Hearty, with his hearty amounts of privilege and (almost certainly) private schooling, could not choose which awful cliche he wanted to use. Ignoring redundancy, he decided to use them both.

J.J. Hearty, be "appalled" no more. Both your missive and your hatred of the lower classes have found their way into the hallowed letters of Take Back Our Campus. Please write again soon.

We’ve Found...Conservatives

2004-12-09T11:23:00.000-05:00

We’ve Found...Conservatives

What should you do with this list? You should protect yourself from these individuals. They might be armed with legal assault rifles among other things.

Stay safe and stay protected,
istillhaterichpeople

Kevin Ackley
Stephanie Marie Adams
Nick Alena
Nathaniel Amendola
Harold Anderson
Allison Avrich
Lyndsey Bacon
Wesley Ballantyne
Tripp Bartlett
Brandon Bates
Derek Benavides
Megan Bernier
Sara Bernier
Aaron Blair
Megan Bosch
Liz Boyd
Jasper Burch
Peter Burke
Tucker Burr
Cooper Carbone
Adam Casler
Drew Clancey
Michael Colmo
Jason Condro
Bill Courtney
James Cox
Brent Davis
Deana M. Dennis
Amanda Dudley
Christopher Ebinger
Ryan Edmonds
Christian Ehrhardt
Kate Farrell
Jared Furnia
Colby Gargano
Shawn H. Golley
Megan Groves
John Gursky
Justin Haacke
Rachel Hall
Brandy Hearn
Audrey Hillman
Phil Hollinger
Eric Holtz
Carla C. Hunter
Brett Huras
Joe Jablonski
Chapin Jacob
Jay Jacobs
Christian Jock
Kristin Kacewicz
Michael Kaplan
Robyn Kennedy
Evan Kivlen
Paul Kloek
Danielle Kmetetz
Drew Kolb
Francie Krebs
Marty LaVigne
Tim Leroy
Josh Lynch
Tim Malisa
Jay Manning
Monica Marois
Frank Mastrovito
Shawn Mayo-Pike
Kathryn McAndrews
Lauren McGovern
Kelly Meisch
James Merrill
Chris Motta-Wurst
Ashley Mousley
Lindsay Muetterties
Michael M. Murray
Kim Myers
Wes Oakford
Eric Osborn
Caroline Palmer
TJ Rance
Mary Rogers
Michael Romagnoli
Charlie Roraback
Marrielle Van Rossum
Tanya Rotolo
Charles Rouse
Andrew Ruhs
Mallorie Rulison
Karen Salek
Katherine F. Schaumburg
Jake Shea
Peter Snedeker
Jonathan C Solomon
Chris Summers
Eileen Svendsen
Cynthia Thorburn
Majken Tranby
Mia Vachon
Joe Vele
Matt Vredenburgh
Chris Wall
Liz Wardell
Melissa Wells
Lindsey Wetmiller
Michael Wetzler
Ashley White
Michael Wieneke
Mary Beth Wood
Wescott Woodacre

We have a new favorite band!

2004-12-06T23:05:00.000-05:00

TBOC! brings you a very special article from the other home on the net of ethical abhorrence.

Go on and ask yourself, what could be cuter than Mary-Kate and Ashley? Well, how about if they played folk music? Not only that, how about if they were white supremacists? It is in this spirit that I give you Prussian Blue.

The girls (Lynx and Lamb) took the name for their duet after the color of the residue left behind in the gas chambers from Zyklon-B canisters. Totally cute, right? What's even cuter is the interview that National Vanguard--the press arm of the National Alliance--did with them about their new album. In it, our two Aryan princesses explain the meaning behind some of the songs off their new album, Folk the System. You see, most of the songs are not original, but rather clever folk adaptations of hatecore tracks by bands like RaHoWa (Racial Holy War) and Skrewdriver, like the song Victory Day. That track, the girls say, "was origionally recorded by Rahowa. My mom said she always thought that it should be sung by children. This is one of Matt Hales favorite songs and we think of him when we sing it. We trade off singing on this one and both sing on the chorus."

Another doubtless classic is the track Sacrifice, a song that "is an original that Lamb wrote with our mom. It talks about the sacrifice that so many men have made for their race. We mention Ian Stuart, Rudolph Hess, Bob Mathews and Dr Pierce. It is sung from a perspective that it is in the future and our Cause has been successful. Lamb sings the main part and Lynx sings on the chorus." Can this shit get any cuter? So cute it would make Hitler weep and/or pop a tent pole! Check out the track Victory (not to be confused with Victory Day), which is, according to Lynx, "a song that Lamb wrote all by herself. the song is set in the future when we have won."

You can read the whole interview for yourself here. If there's one thing you can glean from it, it's that they get a whole lot of ideas and support where they should: their mother! Also known as "Odin's Shieldmaiden," Lynx and Lamb's mom is a regular on the Stormfront messageboards. In fact, that's the place where she broke the news about their name. Unfortunately, no one told the other band already using the name Prussian Blue.

Ultimately, no one can tell where this musical life will lead Lynx and Lamb, but I sure know where I'd like to see it lead. It can be summed up in two magnificent words: snuff porn.

I now leave you with a few words of wisdom from the girls themselves: "A lot of young people like to dress in a way that gets them attention because they don’t know any other way to feel proud of themselves and special. Sometimes the way they dress doesn’t make them look as attractive or handsome as they could be. We think that they should work to look as good as possible by working out and dressing nice to show that people who are White Nationalists are not scary, but good people. The way that you look and act is activism in a way because you represent your family your beliefs and your race. You are a walking talking advertisement and our young people are the best advertisement so they need to realize this."

(c)opyleft 2004 protestboy

Get your own damned blog

2004-12-06T21:29:00.000-05:00

Some of our readers think we're too cynical here at TBOC!, and feel we should be running things a tad differently. Yet, not one of these readers ever sends us a submission despite our frequent attempts at soliciting an alternative perspective. That's why today I took the 67 seconds required to set up a blog just for you, dear unhappy readers. It's a place for you to respond to TBOC!, or, if you like, just tell it like it is: SLU is actually a great place! You can find your blog at EverythingIsFineAtSLU.blogspot.com.

Just let me know which one of you bad boys or girls wants to be the first to sign on, and I shall promptly turn over the keys to the kingdom. Anyone?

A few error-riddled words from "Outsider"

2004-12-05T03:25:00.000-05:00

(The part of Outsider will now be played by Anthony Trollope circa Barchester Towers) I’ve now won four bottles of wine since my initial comment here and I’ve yet to even apply myself to the wagers. It’s not that you’ve intentionally made it easy on me, you’ve simply conformed to the same stereotypes that have done what you think you’re doing for generations.

There’s no “our” in campus as far as you’re concerned. The campus is what it is, and it continues to evolve, thanks to the people who decide they’ll be a part of the community. It never was yours to take back, and no one’s giving it to you based on the pabulum you offer here. You can’t even live by your own rules when someone gets under your skin.

...The guys playing Beirut and the girls shaking their heads but watching them; the women who are raising the feminist consciousness on campus; the hockey players who are attempting to be more than hired mercenaries; the Thelmo senators who give their time to the necessary minutia of sustaining a community; the SLU Democrats and Republicans who believe the world isn’t a collections of subtle shades of gray and aren’t afraid to acknowledge it; the Outing Club members who take advantage of a once in a lifetime chance to experience the North Country, the theater people who provide incredible and largely ignored art; the singing groups who connect with tradition to as an opportunity to enjoy their collective talents; and all the other factions, groups, cliques and individuals who define our campus. It’s theirs, not yours. You’re not taking it back; they continue to grow it, and live real lives, without you....

...They write, produce, direct and act in the daily productions that define SLU for what it is, and what it will become. You, on the other hand, are those two guys who show up on syndicated TV late at night – you know when you’ve had that shot of tequila you should have passed up and that’s why you’re watching cable instead of sleeping toward a hangover- who give their thumbs up or down to the latest movies.

SLU GOP endorses WRC, WAG

2004-12-04T13:55:00.000-05:00

CANTON, NY -- Even less expected than the recent consolidation of the SLU Republicans with the Dems was an announcement that came early this morning from the SLU GOP regarding the haus fraus of the WRC. In light of the decision by the WRC not to feature a speaker from Planned Parenthood, the SLU Republicans have formally announced their endorsement of both Take Back The Night, and the WRC/WAG (formerly FMLA).

Questions remain as to why this endorsement was made on the weekend. Critics suspect it is because most people do not follow the news over the weekend, making it an opportune window of time in which to bury a lead, a tactic of which the Bush administration has always been fond. One can only speculate that SLU GOP were merely trying to emulate their great leader, although we may never know for sure.

President of the SLU GOP, Evan Kivlen, announced the decision early this morning. In the statement, he said, "We were very encouraged by the decision of those organizing Take Back The Night to no include a speaker from the genocidal baby-killers of 'Planned Parenthood.' As with the SLU Democrats, we realized that coalition-building is the way of the future, and we wish nothing more than to continue this constructive policy for the betterment of the campus."

Kivlen continued, "We Republicans have much in common with the fine gals at the WRC, like our love of vibrators, booze, and knitting. More importantly, we understand and identify with the fundamental position of the WRC and WAG, that it's not what you believe that makes you a feminist, but rather having lock-n-loads, promoting identity politics, listening to Ani DiFranco, and knowing that women have both the ability and the God-given right to be just as domineering and brutally exploitative in our modern society as men."

TBOC! has still not been able to reach the WRC for comment as of the publication of this article.

More to follow.

Take Back the Night? First Take Back the WRC

2004-12-03T23:47:00.000-05:00

The evening of Saturday, December 4, a Take Back the Night rally sponsored by the Women's Resource Center is scheduled on the SLU campus. Strangely, the event will feature a banner made by the massively homophobic and anti-abortion (as anyone privy to their list-serv knows) MASV ("Men Against Sexual Violence"-- a bold stand for those young Christian knights. Perhaps they could next be convinced to condemn child abuse or something equally controversial).

The march after the event will feature chanting around campus. However, the groups will not approach any fraternity houses or even bars, both sites of likely sexually assault. Why? The party-loving co-eds of the Women's Resource Center wanted to keep the event "non-political." Indeed, the rally neglects (well, worse than "neglects"-- see below) that the right to abortion/privacy should be counted among the rights afforded to women.

The Women's Resource Center rejected a speaker for the event, declaring her "too political." The speaker, an employee of Planned Parenthood, wanted only to briefly lecture on reproductive rights in light of the younger Bush's reelection. (Or perhaps his first election.)

When we first wrote about this, many WRC "feminists" were extremely upset. For any readers new to the issue, we can gladly provide the following links to our articles tracking the controversy:

Women's Resource Center? Define "Resource"

Recent Challenge to Reproductive Rights

A Reply to My Critics-- Part I

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

We encourage all our readers to attend the rally and remind the ladies of the Women's Resource Center that the lack of abortion rights (to use our more accurate term, "forced pregnancy") is a brutal form of sexual violence featuring a 6-9 pound object being forced out of a woman's vagina without her consent, indeed a very bloody act.

Wear your "Roe v. Wade" shirts, make signs reading "Forced Pregnancy = Sexual Violence" and do whatever you might to make the rally attendants understand that the right to abortion is an integral part of the continued campaign against sexual violence. It is sad that the students of the Women's Resource Center, ostensibly the SLU home of feminist politics, so deeply kowtow to the religious Right.

After this, our dear readers, please march and chant around the frats and bars.

Update (12/4/04, 1:15 p.m.)--
Dear radicalfeminist--

Have I mentioned how ironic your name is? I laugh every time I see it.

By listing off the "accomplishments" of the WRC, you've made my point for me. The whole of the WRC's contribution to campus has been to take the money they were given by the administration and give this money to people who wanted to go to Massachusetts and Washington.

You mention these trips regarding my "criticism that the WRC does not support education of abortion" (your clunky words). Quite the contrary. The WRC has always been willing to involve itself in the issue of reproductive rights, especially when the involvement features free vacations to Massachusetts and Washington.

I appreciate that the WRC is "working against an unreceptive community." (Listen, toots-- if you think you have it tough, try having the administration hold secret meetings to uncover your identity so they can expel you.) But I have yet to see any attempts "to educate the campus on a number of issues," unless you count WRC "Lock'n'Loads" and "White Trash" themed parties as education. Even your Take Back the Night programming panders to the lowest common denominator of the religious Right.

Speaking of which, MASV is donating a banner to the Take Back the Night rally. Did you have to assure them you wouldn't mention anything about abortion? The fact that the WRC does not consider forced pregnancy to be sexual violence and backs away from any (even potential) controversy about reproductive rights suggests that you ladies would play very nicely with the contrite little virgins of MASV. Maybe the two groups can have a dance together and then go steady and exchange class rings and kiss on the lips without any tongue. And if any controversy does arise, you can always bury yourself in your boyfriend's letter jacket.

Call me when you learn what it means to be a feminist.
--CE

VH1 shares a very special sneak peek with TBOC! contributors

2004-12-03T20:35:00.000-05:00

If there's one thing we like at TBOC! besides miscegenation, it's a good episode of VH1's popular series, Behind the Music. And so, dear reader, you can only imagine our surprise when we found that SLU's own Jake Shea would be the subject of one of the coming episodes in 2005. Indeed, it was an experience akin to Christmas morning (or in this contributor's case, one of the many mornings of Channukah).

At first, we didn't get it. "Jake doesn't perform any music," we conferred amongst ourselves. So we decided to contact VH1, who were kind enough to speak to us. The program's executive producer told us, "You see, lately we've been shifting away from our focus on the whole 'the music' part of the show's title. That's not really why people watch. Mostly it's just about all the drugs people use, and, well, more of the white stuff has gone up Jake's nose than Eric Clapton, David Crosby, and Rick James combined." She continued, "As with every episode, we'll follow the format of drug addiction, to overcoming the addiction, to relapsing into the addiction, to overcoming it yet again, and finally to becoming a preacher/family man/music producer/figure on our other show 'Where Are They Now.'"

VH1 not only allowed us to speak with the producers of the program, but also granted us permission to see a sneak peek. In one portion, an interview with Deana Dennis, Dennis relates one time not so long ago, when Shea approached her asking if she could root out some nose candy for him. "I tipped him off to some girl in the I-House," Dennis recalls. "Turns out my tip wasn't so good, and the girl told him to 'go away,' and then basically slammed the door in his face."

One SLU alum who lived in the same hall in '03/'04 as Shea's girlfriend is also featured in the program. In one of the episode's more memorable moments, she relates a frightening experience in which Shea went on an apparently extreme coke binge, shooting off the fire extinguisher on the floor. "When Security found out about the fire extinguisher, they told us they were going to fine the entire floor for it since Liz's boyfriend wouldn't come forward and admit it was him." Shea never did come forward to admit guilt.

In one of the most comical moments, one current student recalled how Shea stole the giant stuffed M&M that was being raffled off by the Pub. Pub workers, it seems, were rather unhappy about the affair. "I'll return it," she heard him say to someone on a cellular phone. "Of course I didn't really believe him," the girl says, "It's like he always said, though: 'Rules don't apply to me. I can buy my way out of trouble.'"

But could he? From trouble over his marks to that over a racist email ("Big Black... Boat") he sent to the Crew listserv that got earned him a stern reprimand by the coach, Shea's time at St. Lawrence, albeit brief, has been surrounded by controversy. Unfortunately, this is where our sneak peek ended--without resolution, but with a cliffhanger.

"What about the final recovery where he becomes a preacher or something, like Hammer?" we asked after viewing what progress had been made on the episode thus far. "Umm," said the executive producer, "are you f***ing kidding? We haven't even gotten to his first recovery yet."

The folks at VH1 are predicting the episode will be one of the most highly anticipated of the season. To be sure, we can't wait either--but we can sure waste our time while we do.

To Our Fond Friend at IP Address-- 24.39.85.199

2004-12-03T01:51:00.000-05:00

Interestingly enough, IP addresses show up in our comments. You just don't see them. Thus, when you make a comment impersonating a contributor, we not only know it's not us posting--we know it's you. Any such comments will be deleted, except when the reader know as "Outsider" impersonates himself. Our normal editorial policy is to leave any comments unaltered. This policy will remain.

To our eager little pippins too willing to impersonate us-- we know the IP addresses from which you post. We know the times at which you post. Are there any secrets about you, which you thought none would ever find?

c_d & CE

P.S. To all our readers-- stay tuned for our next post. All that is cryptic will become concrete.

Porn Gets Progressive

2004-12-01T23:05:00.000-05:00

As a young man, the (extremely pale, though not thin-lipped) online persona known as "Christian Evangelist" didn't know absolutely everything about anything, as he now does. At the tender age of nineteen, when he began a romance with a Trinidadian model, he was confronted with a rather difficult question-- How should a man kiss a woman whose lips are bigger than his?

At first, he looked to his regular source of all proper information about politics, religion, economics, literature, etc.-- hardcore pornography. However, with the exception of a few Max Hardcore scenes (which he found baffling at best), he remained bewildered. However, the young Christian Evangelist quickly learned to love the feeling of submission in having his lips and tongue virtually swallowed by a woman's kiss, but only after a few flusters. Luckily, this unbecoming behavior will never have to be suffered by any man (and hopefully, suffered even less by his patient Caribbean girlfriend).

The adult film star Vanessa Blue (featured in the above picture and known in her directorial roles as Domina X) has recently signed a contract with Hustler to produce a series of videos featuring starlets such as Jada Fire, Chloe Black and Carmen Hayes.

The aim of the videos (as well as Vanessa Blue's web site, FemDomX.com)? "[C]reating a destination for an audience appreciative of the sexually aggressive ethinic female," according to the Adult Video News.

"I'm interested in videos where a woman-- real women with curves and big breasts-- can show what she's going to do with a dick.... What I strive to do when I direct is to empower the female performers in my scenes to take control and do what turns them on," Blue said in an interview with the Adult Industry News.

"As a performer turned director," Blue stated to the Adult Video News. "I believe in shooting the sex that was never allowed to have on camera-- female superior."

We at Take Back Our Campus enjoy that some bold persons are still willing to practice the sin of Lilith. We are charmed and made hopeful by the on-screen depictions of Afro-Caribbean, Latina and Asian women sexually dominating White men. We hope much success for Ms. Blue in her endeavors.

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

2004-11-30T18:45:00.000-05:00

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!

Sites to watch out for

2004-11-29T18:54:00.000-05:00

If there's anything you can learn from thefacebook.com, it's mostly stuff we already know. Despite this, facebook is a real up-and-comer on the net, and one of the many rapidly growing ways for college students to simultaneously avoid human contact and waste their time, beyond simply throwing away endless hours on checking and re-checking the profiles of those on their buddy lists. What makes facebook a vastly superior time waster is its ability to allow the cloistered sluser to browse through more complete "profiles" of students, including an assortment of ugly mugs. Most folks' photographs, however, simply mimic the indispensable poster of Belushi and a bottle of whiskey from Animal House.

However, not all the new sites we've stumbled across lately are that fun. For instance, we've also mentioned the SLU Dems' blog. See the post entitled "Sample"? That means "sample of what will seemingly never exist." Unfortunately, it looks like that's about as exciting as things get over there in liberal webspace. Did I forget to mention the three deleted comments for the post? In fact, you might want to skip the blog entirely and just head straight for their homepage, where you'll be treated to a cartoon! I can't say that I've been this excited by a website since BillOReilly.com started offering a premium membership.

Don't worry too much, however. One needn't go to the un-blog of the SLU Dems' to experience liberal politics at their whiniest. After all, why would you when there's always the blog of the former author of The "Left" Side of the Hill? Yes, if any of you miss the pious self-indulgence of SLU's very own Great White Hope, you're in luck. You can still catch him on a semi-regular basis at Blogger's third blog bearing the title The Life of Brian (there's also The Life of Brian and The Life of Brian). Sure, it's not as pretty as TheHillNews.com, but never fear, it's just as dim.

Until later, happy surfing!

A request for the peanut gallery

2004-11-27T20:17:00.000-05:00

It's fine if you don't want to use your real name on a comment. We don't, so why would we expect you to? That said, if those of you posting simply as "Anonymous," or "anonymous," or "anon" could create some other consistent, unique nom de plume, it sure would help keeping track of who is saying what. It can become difficult to reply to things when there are 10 or 20 different people all posting as "Anonymous." If you're lacking ideas, try something descriptive of your online persona. If you're like most of our readers, you could try something like "semiliterate@best," "obsequious_sycophant," or "i<3slurs88." Of course it doesn't have to end there. You can spice it up with an assortment of unusual ascii characters, or even 13375p34k, like "53m|1|73r473," or "[0853qu|0u5]5yc0ph4n7." Whatever you chose, I'm sure we'll all dig it, and it will take our little conversations to a whole new level.

TTFN, lovemuffins.

Dear Margaret's Class,

2004-11-26T22:49:00.000-05:00

We hear you've been diligently working on some essays about us. Care to share? We at TBOC! are big believers in academia. Unfortunately, we know that it is generally quite lazy. We would, however, like to give your class the benefit of the doubt and not presume you would simply turn in sloppy work about TBOC!--filled with idle speculation and fanciful naiveté about what we're trying to do, why we're doing it, or what style of argyle pattern is indeed my favorite--without having bothered to at least contact us for interviews beforehand.

So, we've talked it over and decided to extend an offer to your class for the opportunity of a lifetime. No, not a copy of Associate Professor John Jaunzems' first book, should it ever be written. And no, we can't proffer that Associate Professor Mike Owen will ever retract his support of South African apartheid.

Rather, we've got an even better offer: you all write a single list of questions for us and email it along, and we'll answer it--on the site of course. Don't worry, we'll be gentle, and we promise to make it more interesting than the SLU Dems' blog. Just have MKB check your grammar (but not the syntax, please).

Finally, when you've run the last spell-check, why not send us your completed essays? We'll even print the ones we like best.

Please send your essays to: takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

A Thanksgiving Prayer and One Thanksgiving Fact

2004-11-25T18:44:00.000-05:00

"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.)

"Genocide? Pass the Turkey."

2004-11-25T17:21:00.000-05:00

TBOC! revisits some of last year's musings over the holiday

by Mitchel Cohen
with much material contributed by Peter Linebaugh and others whose names have been lost

The year was 1492. The Taino-Arawak people of the Bahamas discovered Christopher Columbus on their beach.

In A People's History of the United States, historian Howard Zinn writes how Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island'sbeaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. Columbus later wrote of this in his log. Here is what he wrote:

"They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks, bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of sugar cane. They would make fine servants. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

And so the conquest began, and the Thanotocracy the regime of death was inaugurated, for the first time, on the continent the Indians called "Turtle Island."

You probably already know a good piece of the story: How Columbus's army took Arawak and Taino people prisoners and insisted that they take him to the source of their gold, which they used in tiny ornaments in their ears. And how, with utter contempt and cruelty, Columbus took many more Indians prisoner and put them aboard the Nina and the Pinta the Santa Maria having run aground on the island of Hispañola (today, the Dominican Republic and Haiti). When some refused to be taken prisoner, they were run through with swords and bled to death. Then the Nina and the Pinta set sail for the Azores and Spain. During the long voyage, many of the Indian prisoners died. Here'spart of Columbus'sreport to Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain:

"The Indians are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone." Columbus concluded his report by asking for a little help from the King and Queen, and in return he would bring them "as much gold as they need, and as many slaves as they ask."

Columbus returned to the New World "new" for Europeans, that is with 17 ships and more than 1,200 men. Their aim was clear: Slaves, and gold. They went from island to island in the Caribbean, taking Indians as captives.

But word spread ahead of them. By the time they got to Fort Navidad on Haiti, the Taino had risen up and killed all the sailors left behind on the last voyage, after the sailors had roamed the island in gangs raping women and taking children and women as slaves. Columbus later wrote: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold."

The Indians began fighting back, but were no match for the war technology of the Spaniard conquerors, even though they greatly outnumbered them. In eight years, Columbus'smen murdered more than 100,000 Indians on Haiti alone. Overall, dying as slaves in the mines, directly murdered, or dying from diseases brought to the Caribbean by the Spaniards, over 3 million Indian people were murdered in the Americas between 1492 and 1508.

What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas and the Taino of the Caribbean, Cortez did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots. Literally millions of native peoples were slaughtered. And the gold, slaves and other resources were used in Europe to spur the growth of the new money economy rising out of feudalism. Karl Marx would later call this "the primitive accumulation of capital." These were the violent beginnings of an intricate system of technology, business, politics and culture that would dominate the world for the next five centuries.

In the North American English colonies, the pattern was set early. In 1585, before there was any permanent English settlement in Virginia, Richard Grenville landed there with seven ships. The Indians he met were hospitable, but when one of them stole a small silver cup, Grenville sacked and burned the whole Indian village.

The Jamestown colony was established in Virginia in 1607, inside the territory of an Indian confederacy, led by the chief, Powhatan. Powhatan watched the English settle on his people'sland, but did not attack. And the English began starving. Some of them ran away and joined the Indians, where they would at least be fed. Indeed, throughout colonial times tens of thousands of indentured servants, prisoners and slaves from Wales and Scotland as well as from Africa ran away to live in Indian communities, inter-marry, and raise their children there.

In the summer of 1610 the governor of Jamestown colony asked Powhatan to return the runaways, who were living among the Indians. Powhatan left the choice to those who ran away, and none wanted to go back. The governor of Jamestown then sent soldiers to take revenge. They descended on an Indian community, killed 15 or 16 Indians, burned the houses, cut down the corn growing around the village, took the female leader of the tribe and her children into boats, then ended up throwing the children overboard and shooting out their brains in the water. The female leader was later taken off the boat and stabbed to death.

By 1621, the atrocities committed by the English had grown, and word spread throughout the Indian villages. The Indians fought back, and killed 347 colonists. From then on it was total war. Not able to enslave the Indians the English aristocracy decided to exterminate them.

And then the Pilgrims arrived.

When the Pilgrims came to New England they too were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by tribes of Indians. The story goes that the Pilgrims, who were Christians of the Puritan sect, were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. They had fled England and went to Holland, and from there sailed aboard the Mayflower, where they landed near what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Religious persecution or not, they immediately turned to their religion to rationalize their persecution of others. They appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." To justify their use of force to take the land, they cited Romans 13:2: "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

The Puritans lived in uneasy truce with the Pequot Indians, who occupied what is now southern Connecticut and Rhode Island. But they wanted them out of the way; they wanted their land. And they wanted to establish their rule firmly over Connecticut settlers in that area.

The way the different Indian peoples lived communally, consensually, making decisions through tribal councils contrasted dramatically with the Puritans, Christian fundamentalist values. For the Puritans, men decided everything, whereas in the Iroquois federation of what is now New York state women chose the men who represented the clans at village and tribal councils; it was the women who were responsible for deciding on whether or not to go to war. The Christian idea of male dominance and female subordination was conspicuously absent in Iroquois society.

There were many other cultural differences: The Iroquois did not use harsh punishment on children. They did not insist on early weaning or early toilet training, but gradually allowed children to learn to care for themselves. On the other hand, the pastor of the Pilgrim colony, John Robinson, advised his parishioners: "And surely there is in all children a stubbornness, and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride, which must, in the first place, be broken and beaten down." The Pilgrims embraced those strict, brutal practices.

Each tribe held to different sexual/marriage relationships; they practiced many different sexualities, and celebrated them. These ideas repelled the Puritan hierarchy and attracted some of the European "commoners". Native people did not believe in ownership of land that concept was totally alien; they utilized the land, lived on it. The idea of "ownership" was ridiculous, absurd. The European Christians, on the other hand, in the spirit of the emerging capitalism, wanted to own and control everything land, children, sexuality, and other human beings.

In 1636 an armed expedition left Boston to attack the Narragansett Indians on Block Island. The English landed and killed some Indians, but the rest hid in the thick forests of the island and the English went from one deserted village to the next, destroying crops. Then they sailed back to the mainland and raided Pequot villages along the coast, destroying crops again.

The English went on setting fire to wigwams in the village. They burned village after village to the ground. As one of the leading theologians of his day, Dr. Cotton Mather put it: "No less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day." And Cotton Mather, clutching his bible, spurred the English to slaughter more Indians in the name of Christianity.

One colonist rationalized the plague that had destroyed the Patuxet people a combination of slavery, murder by the colonists and disease brought by the English as "the Wonderful Preparation of the Lord Jesus Christ by His Providence for His People's Abode in the Western World."

The Pilgrims robbed Wampanoag graves for the food that had been buried with the dead for religious reasons. Whenever the Pilgrims realized they were being watched, they shot at the Wampanoags and scalped them. Scalping had been unknown among Native Americans in New England prior to its introduction by the English, who began the practice by offering the heads of their enemies and later accepted scalps.

Three hundred thousand Indians were murdered in New England over the next few years. It was the Puritan elite who wanted the war, a war for land, for gold, for power. It is important to note that ordinary Englishmen did not want this war. Often, very often, they refused to fight.

There has always been a strong anti-war movement in the United States and when some Europeans refused to kill Indians, that was the start of this proud heritage. Some European intellectuals like Roger Williams spoke out against the genocide. And some erstwhile colonists joined the Indians and even took up arms against the invaders from England. In the end, however, the Indian population of 10 million that was in North America when Columbus came was reduced to less than one million.

"What do you think of Western Civilization?" Mahatma Gandhi was asked in the 1940s. To which Gandhi replied: "Western Civilization? I think it would be a good idea." And so enters "Civilization," the civilization of Christian Europe, a "civilizing force" that couldn'thave been more threatened by the beautiful communal anarchy of the Indians they encountered, and so they slaughtered them.

These are the Puritans that the Indians "saved", and whom we celebrate in the holiday, Thanksgiving. Tisquantum, also known as Squanto, was a member of the Patuxet Indian nation, and Samoset was of the Wabonake Indian nation, which lived in Maine. They went to Puritan villages and, having learned to speak English, brought deer meat and beaver skins for the hungry, cold Pilgrims. Tisquantum stayed with them and helped them survive their first years in their New World. He taught them how to navigate the waters, fish and cultivate corn and other vegetables. He pointed out poisonous plants and showed how other plants could be used as medicines. He also negotiated a peace treaty between the Pilgrims and Massasoit, head chief of the Wampanoags, a treaty that gave the Pilgrims everything and the Indians nothing. And even that treaty, like hundreds to follow, was soon broken.

We learn in school to celebrate this as the First Thanksgiving. A community college named "Massasoit" today commemorates that indigenous leader who saved the Pilgrims.

Richard B. Williams, a Lakota Sioux and the executive director of the American Indian College Fund a historian, educator and the founder of the Upward Bound Program at the University of Colorado at Boulder casts this tale in a very different light:

"One day in 1605, a young Patuxet Indian boy named Tisquantum and his dog were out hunting when they spotted a large English merchant ship off the coast of Plymouth, Mass. Tisquantum, who later became known as Squanto, had no idea that life as he knew it was about to change forever.

"His role in helping the Pilgrims to survive the harsh New England winter and celebrate the "first" Thanksgiving has been much storied as a legend of happy endings, with the English and the Indians coming together at the same table in racial harmony. Few people, however, know the story of Squanto's sad life and the demise of his tribe as a result of its generosity. Each year, as the nation sits down to a meal that is celebrated by all cultures and races the day we know as Thanksgiving the story of Squanto and the fate of the Patuxet tribe is a footnote in history that deserves re-examination.

"The day that Capt. George Weymouth anchored off the coast of Massachusetts, he and his sailors captured Squanto and four other tribesmen and took them back to England as slaves because Weymouth thought his financial backers "might like to see" some Indians. Squanto was taken to live with Sir Ferdinando Gorges, owner of the Plymouth Company. Gorges quickly saw Squanto's value to his company's exploits in the new world and taught his young charge to speak English so that his captains could negotiate trade deals with the Indians.

"In 1614, Squanto was brought back to America to act as a guide and interpreter to assist in the mapping of the New England coast, but was kidnapped along with 27 other Indians and taken to Malaga, Spain, to be sold as slaves for about $25 a piece. When local priests learned of the fate of the Indians, they took them from the slave traders, Christianized them and eventually sent them back to America in 1618.

"But his return home was short-lived. Squanto was recognized by one of Gorges, captains, was captured a third time and sent back to England as Gorges, slave. He was later sent back to New England with Thomas Dermer to finish mapping the coast, after which he was promised his freedom. In 1619, however, upon returning to his homeland, Squanto learned that his entire tribe had been wiped out by smallpox contracted from the Europeans two years before. He was the last surviving member of his tribe.

"In November 1620, the Pilgrims made their now-famous voyage to the coast of Plymouth, which had previously been the center of Patuxet culture. The next year, on March 22, 1621, Squanto was sent to negotiate a peace treaty between the Wampanoag Confederation of tribes and the Pilgrims. We also know that Squanto'sskills as a fisherman and farmer were crucial to the survival of the Pilgrims that first year contributions which changed history.

"But in November 1622, Squanto himself would also succumb to smallpox during a trading expedition to the Massachustts Indians. The Patuxet, like so many other tribes, had become extinct.

"Feasts of gratitude and giving thanks have been a part of Indian culture for thousands of years. In Lakota culture, it's called a Wopila; in Navajo, it's Hozhoni; in Cherokee, it's Selu i-tse-i; and in Ho Chunk it's Wicawas warocu sto waroc. Each tribe, each Indian nation, has its own form of Thanksgiving. But for Indian culture, Thanksgiving doesn't end when the dishes are put away. It is something we celebrate all year long at the birth of a baby, a safe journey, a new home."

My own feeling? The Indians should have left the Pilgrims to their own devices, even if it meant they would die.

But they couldn't do that. Their humanity made them assist other human beings in need. And for that beautiful, human, loving connection they paid a terrible price: The genocide of the original inhabitants of Turtle Island, what is now America.

Thanksgiving, in reality, was the beginning of the longest war in the U.S the extermination of the Indigenous peoples. Thanksgiving day was first proclaimed by the governor of the Massachuesetts Bay Colony in 1637, not to offer thanks for the Indians saving the Pilgrims that'syet another re-write of the actual history but to commemorate the massacre of 700 indigenous men, women and children who were celebrating their annual Green Corn Dance in their own house.

Gathered at this place, they were attacked by mercenaries, English and Dutch. The Pequots were ordered from the building and as they came forth they were killed with guns, swords, cannons and torches. The rest were burned alive in the building. The very next day the governor proclaimed a holiday and feast to "give thanks" for the massacre. For the next 100 years a governor would ordain a day to honor a bloody victory, thanking god the "battle" had been won. [For more information, see Where White Men Fear To Tread, by Russell Means, 1995; and Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire Building, by R. Drinnon, 1990.]

The Maypole

In 1517, 25 years after Columbus first landed in the Bahamas, the English working class was in the midst of a huge revolt, organized through the guilds. King Henry VIII had brought to England Lombard bankers from Italy and merchants from France to undercut wages, lengthen hours, and break the guilds. This alliance between international finance, national capital and military aristocracy was in the process of merging into the imperialist nation-state.

The young workers of London took their revenge upon the merchants. A rumor said the commonality the vision of communal society that would counter the rich, the merchants, the industrialists, the nobility and the landowners would arise on May Day. The King and Lords got frightened householders were armed, a curfew was declared. Two workers didn't hear about the curfew (they missed Dan Rather on t.v.). They were arrested. The shout went out to mobilize, and 700 workers stormed the jails, throwing bricks, hot water, stones. The prisoners were freed. A French capitalist'shouse was trashed.

Then came the repression: Cannons were fired into the city. Three hundred were imprisoned, soldiers patrolled the streets, and a proclamation was made that no women were allowed to meet together, and that all men should "keep their wives in their houses." The prisoners were brought through the streets tied in ropes. Some were children. Eleven sets of gallows were set up throughout the city. Many were hanged. The authorities showed no mercy and exhibited extreme cruelty.

Thus the dreaded Thanatocracy, the regime of death, was inaugurated in England in answer to proletarian riot at the beginning of capitalism.

The May Day riots were caused by expropriation (people having been uprooted from their lands they had used for centuries in common), and by exploitation (people had no jobs, as the monarchy imported capital). Working class women organizers and healers who posed an alternative to patriarchal capitalism were burned at the stake as witches. Enclosure, conquest, famine, war and plague ravaged the people who, in losing their commons, also lost a place to put the traditional emblem of the Commons their Maypole.

Suddenly, the Maypole became a symbol of rebellion. In 1550, Parliament ordered the destruction of Maypoles (just as, during the Vietnam war, the U.S.-backed junta in Saigon banned the making of all red cloth, for people were sewing it into the blue, yellow and red flags of the National Liberation Front).

While heretical liberation-theologists of the day were burned at the stake, the Bible'slast book, Revelation, became an anti-authoritarian manual inspirational to those who would turn the Puritans, world upside down, such as the Family of Love, the Anabaptists, the Diggers, Levellers, and Ranters. In 1626, Thomas Morton, who had come over on his own, a boat person, an immigrant, went to Merry Mount in Quincy Massachusetts and with his Indian friends put up the first Maypole in America, in contempt of the Puritans. The Puritans destroyed it, and in retaliation exiled Morton, plagued the Indians, and hanged gay people and Quakers.

In Great Britain, the proletarian insurgency flared in fits and starts throughout the empire. Oliver Cromwell'sPuritan army blazed into Ireland in 1649, slaughtered 3,500 defenders and local citizenry of the town of Drogheda, and confiscated almost forty percent of indigenous Catholic lands in Ireland, resistributing them to Protestants born in Britain. The British treatment of the Irish patriots paralleled the monarchy'sregard for the indigenous people of the "New World".

Although the Puritans were removed from power in England in 1660 with the death of Cromwell two years before and the ascendance of Charles II to the throne, the Puritans in the Americas continued their war against the Pequot Indians while in Britain May Day was abolished altogether, as part of the attempt to defeat the growing proletarian insurgency.

In the Americas, rebellion was brewing among the colonists. Charles II put down Bacon'sRebellion with great bloodshed in Virginia, during which both sides used, abused, and murdered Indians to reinforce their power. The king'semissaries began the conquest of a new string of colonies in the South.

A century-and-a-half after Morton planted the first Maypole in the British colonies, another great "troublemaker," the Manchester proletarian Ann Lee, arrived in the Americas (1774) and founded the communal living, gender-separated Shakers who praised God in ecstatic dance and, in rejecting marriage and refusing to procreate, drove the Puritans and other religious zealots up the wall.

The story of the Maypole as a symbol of revolt continued. It crossed cultures and continued through the ages. In the late 1800s, the Sioux began the Ghost Dance in a circle, with a large pine tree in the center, which was covered with strips of cloth of various colors, eagle feathers, stuffed birds, claws, and horns, all offerings to the Great Spirit. They didn'tcall it a Maypole, but they danced, just as the English proletarians danced, just as the Shakers, danced, for the unity of all Indians, the return of the dead, and the expulsion of the invaders. It might as well have been a Mayday!

Wovoka, a Nevada Paiute, started it. Expropriated, he cut his hair. To buy watermelon he rode boxcars to work in the Oregon hop fields for small wages, exploited. The Puget Sound Indians had a new religion they stopped drinking alcohol, became entranced, and danced for five days, jerking twitching, calling for their land back. Wovoka took this back to Nevada: "All Indians must dance, everywhere, keep on dancing." Soon they were. Porcupine took the dance across the Rockies to the Sioux. Red Cloud and Sitting Bull advanced the left foot following with the right, hardly lifting their feet from the ground. The Federal Agents banned the Ghost Dance. They claimed it was a cause of the last Sioux outbreak, just as the Puritans had claimed the Maypole dancers had caused the May Day proletarian riots, just as the Shakers were dancing people into communality and out of Puritanism.

And, just as the American working class was engaging in pitched battles in its fight for the 8-hour day.

On December 29, 1890 the U.S. Government (with Hotchkiss guns throwing 2 pound explosive shells, each containing 30 one-half-inch lead balls, at the rate of 50 per minute) massacred more than 300 men, women and children at Wounded Knee. These same weapons were also turned against striking industrial workers and their families. As in the Waco holocaust a century later, or the government'sbombing of MOVE in Philadelphia, the State disclaimed responsibility. The Bureau of Ethnology sent out James Mooney to investigate. Amid Janet Reno-like tears, he wrote: "The Indians were responsible for the engagement." Nothing has changed.

In 1970, the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts held, as it does each year, a Thanksgiving Ceremony given by the townspeople. There are many speeches for the crowds who attend. That year the year of Nixon'ssecret invasion of Cambodia; the year 4 students were massacred at Kent State and 13 wounded for opposing the war; the year they tried to electrocute Black Panthers Bobby Seale and Erica Huggins the Massachusetts Department of Commerce asked the Wampanoag Indians to select a speaker to mark the 350th anniversary of the Pilgrims, arrival, and the first Thanksgiving.

Wamsutta "Frank" James, a leader of the Wampanoags from Massachusetts, was selected. But before he was allowed to speak he was directed to show a copy of his speech to the "citizens" in charge of the ceremony. When they saw what he had written, they would not allow him to read it.

First: the genocide. Then, the suppression of all discussion about it, even a century later.

Here is a portion of James, speech one of the most famous "undelivered" speeches in American history:

"It is with mixed emotion that I stand here to share my thoughts. This is a time of celebration for you-celebrating an anniversary of a beginning for the white man in America. A time of looking back, of reflection. It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what has happened to my people.

"Massasoit, the great Sachem of the Wampanoag, ......and his people, welcomed and befriended the settlers of the Plymouth Plantation. Perhaps he did this because his tribe had been depleted by an epidemic. Or his knowledge of the harsh oncoming winter was the reason for his peaceful acceptance of these acts. This action by Massasoit was perhaps our biggest mistake. We, the Wampanoag, welcomed you the white man, with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end; that before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoag would no longer be a free people.

"History wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal. A history that was written by an organized disciplined people, to expose us as an unorganized and undisciplined entity. Two distinctly different cultures met. One thought they must control life; the other believed life was to be enjoyed, because nature decreed it.

"Our spirit refuses to die. Yesterday we walked the woodland paths and shady trails. Today we must walk the macadam highways and roads. We are uniting. We're standing not not in our wigwams but in your concrete tent. We stand tall and proud, and before too many moons pass we'll right the wrongs we have allowed to happen to us.

"We forfeited our country. Our lands have fallen into the hands of the aggressor. We have allowed the white man to keep us on our knees. What has happened cannot be changed, but today we must work towards a more humane America, a more Indian America, where men and nature once again are important; where the Indian values of honor, truth and brotherhood prevail.

"You the white man are celebrating an anniversary. We the Wampanoags will help you celebrate in the concept of a beginning. It was the beginning of a new life for the Pilgrims. Now 350 years later it is a beginning of a new determination for the original American: the American Indian."

For the indigenous people of the Americas, Thanksgiving is "the National Day of Mourning."

What does anyone have to be thankful for in the genocide of the Indians that this "holyday" commemorates? As we sit with our families on Thanksgiving, taking the opportunity to get out of work or off the streets and be in a warm place with people we love, we realize that none of the things we have to be thankful for have anything at all to do with the Pilgrims or the official (sanitized) version of American history, and everything to do with the alternative, anarcho-communist lives the Indian peoples led before they were massacred by the colonists in the name of Christianity, privatization of property and the lust for gold and slave labor.

Yes, I am an American. But I am an American in revolt. I am revolted by the holiday known as Thanksgiving.

I have been accused of wanting to go backwards in time, of being against progress. To those charges, I plead guilty. I want to go back in time to when people lived communally, before the colonists, Christian god was brought to these shores to sanctify their terrorism, their slavery, their hatred of children, their capitalism, their oppression of women, their holocausts. But that is impossible. So I look forward to the utter destruction of the apparatus of death known as Amerika not the people, not the beautiful land, but the machinery of empire, the State, capitalism, religious bigotry that in many ways dominates everyday life, greed, and the lies that enable it to continue, sucking us into being complicit with this awful history ... as it is repeated today.

I look forward to a future where I will have children with America, and ... they will be the new Indians.

SLU Dems announce merger with SLU GOP

2004-11-24T15:24:00.000-05:00

CANTON, NY -- In an unforeseen turn of events, the SLU Democrats have announced that they will be merging with the SLU GOP. SLU Dems president Katherine Byrne could not be reached for comment, but VP Christine Ranney announced the merger yesterday, stating, "The political climate of our nation is one of division and conflict. For the good of our country, and our campus, it is only right that we acknowledge the fact that we have more in common with our brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle than we have differences. Because of this, we are proud to announce that the SLU Democrats are uniting with the SLU Republicans."

Reactions have been mixed. One SLU student told a TBOC! correspondent, "I never saw a huge difference between the groups. I mean after 9/11, most of the SLU Dems were supportive of a war. But I guess I didn't exactly see this coming." Another student reiterated this, saying, "Given their position on issues like the war or affirmative action, I guess this stuff now sort of makes sense. I'm still a little confused, though." Other students, however, seemed less surprised. Jill Bailey '06 said of the unification, "Should we be shocked or something? What I want to know is, will this affect the steady supply of shitty bottle openers the SLU Republicans always hand out whenever they table?" Likewise, Jason Stuart '07 told our correspondent, "So, are you guys gonna give me that bag of coke cut with heroin and speed now, or what?"

Ranney further noted yesterday that, "Our major differences have always been with political candidates. I mean, sure, Bush is an idiot, and we would have preferred Kerry. But they were both in Skull and Bones, both Yale graduates, both from the extreme upper-elite of the country, both in favor of the war, and both against gay marriage ... so I guess we didn't make out all that badly. And it just goes to show, again, how much we have in common."

Some, though, are questioning just what the ramifications of this event will be when it comes to the political climate at SLU. While most speculate that the merger won't make much of a difference, others are not so sure. SLU associate professor John Jaunzems, who we reached at his Baker St. home, told TBOC!, "Not even Sherlock Holmes himself would be able to deduce what will happen next."

As one student said, "I mean Sears just bought K-Mart, and they used to be enemies. But in the end, you know, they were basically the same. And now I can use my Sears card to buy all that Big K stuff I always liked. I guess what I'm saying is, the more these groups get the same, the better the quality of life will be for all SLU students."

Poor People at SLU? Never!

2004-11-23T23:50:00.000-05:00

I've noticed a common theme that seems to resurface in the comments section of TBOC! On many different posts, people always ask what we're doing at SLU if we don't like it, or they call us 'public school trash,' or they call us hypocritical for critiquing wealthy SLU students when we ourselves are privileged enough to be there. I will readily admit that I am extremely privileged, but I would not be at St. Lawrence without a hefty financial aid package and a merit scholarship.

But, just for fun, let's look at a concept; it's been discussed on TBOC! before, but I'll explain it once again, in the simplest terms possible. Because our education system is funded with property taxes, schools in poor neighborhoods can't afford things like adequate facilities, text books, or teachers in any large quantity. Classrooms are overcrowded, and students of these schools tend to receive inadequate educations. Because of the structures of racism which underlie America (namely capitalism), these poor communities tend to contain large concentrations of non-white people. But let's not bring the race card up this time, let's play "color-blind" (like the SLU administration).

People from poor communities are disadvantaged at the high school level, and as such they are disadvantaged when it comes to colleges and universities. Sometimes a few poories will slip through the cracks and make it into a school like SLU, so we jack up the prices, making it hard for even those with scholarships to attend. We have to pay our tuition and fees at the beginning of each semester, but since most people cannot come up with such a large sum of money at one time, they are forced to take out loans. The loans must be repaid at high interest rates, meaning that students who don't get help from Mommy and Daddy are constantly in debt.

Does it have to be this way? In a recent conversation, one source told us about the education system in Australia. Granted, Australia is a third-world, poverty stricken country, yet their system is far superior to that in the United States. (Kidding about the poverty stricken thing. Australia is strikingly similar to the United States. They also re-elected a leader--John Howard, the Prime Minister--who is one of George W. Bush's lapdogs.) First of all, the education system is not reliant on property taxes. Schools are funded generally equitably by the government. Although the system is still not perfect (that pesky race business again), it evens the playing field in a way that the United States could not even imagine.

When it comes to higher education in Australia, there is an impressive system in place. It is called HECS, or the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. What this is, basically, is a loan from the Australian government that covers tuition. This loan is interest-free, and doesn't need to be repaid until your income rises above $AU35,000 per year. Paying it off early means a 20% discount, and the loan doesn't cover housing or other living expenses, so those wealthy elites are still advantaged, but not as obviously.

What this means is that in Australia, an English-speaking, capitalist country that follows the U.S. where ever we go, almost anyone can receive some form of higher education. And when they leave, they don't have a debt that starts immediately, even when they are trying to establish themselves in a job and a living situation. Rather, they can settle down first, and when they reach a comfortable (although still a low) income, they start paying back their education debts. Moreover, these debts are interest free, unless you count inflation as interest. There are flaws with HECS, and wealthy (white) people are advantaged in much deeper ways, but at least on the surface it is infinitely better than what we have in the U.S.

Why can't we have a system like this in the United States? Are we afraid people will cheat the system? It seems highly unlikely that someone is going to stay at a low income level just to avoid repaying debts. Are we afraid of seeming too soft? I will admit, it does seem like a system set up by those Damn Commies. What seems most likely to me is that the wealthy elites don't want to give everyone an equal opportunity. Afterall, who wants places like St. Lawrence to be overrun with poor people?

Anatomy of an Administration Warning

2004-11-23T19:43:00.000-05:00

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.

This Just In: 96% of TBOC! readers bested by Rain Man in test of wits

2004-11-22T19:19:00.000-05:00

"You guys aren't serious enough."

"You're not funny."

Well, which is it, fuckwits? Either we're not serious, or we're not funny. We can't very well be both.

What has always charmed me about the lovable bunch of scalawags and ruffians that make up the readership of TBOC! (with few notable exceptions) is their unyielding inconsistency. Let's take a peek at a number of examples, shall we?

Our readers often grow tired of the grammatical whip we so wildly wield, without ever, as they say, "connecting the dots." Readers of our old site will know that a number of comments were made by our online followers about the inadequacy of our students of color when it comes to their command of the English language. To wit, these same critics exhibited some of the worse syntax and grammar skills to ever grace our domain. And that's saying a lot.

Other readers simply contend that it is not fair. We should, they admonish, focus on the ideas put forward in a post. So I pose this question: if you, dear reader, handed in a essay to a professor that was ideologically sound--nay, brilliant--in which you, simultaneously, demonstrated the grammatical prowess of a chipmunk, would it be unfair of said faculty member to factor that into your grade? Not only would it be fair, s/he would be doing you a supreme disservice were they not to correct your shortcomings. What I'm saying is, we critique because we love. Well, usually.

Another couple of examples: If we post something satirical, readers complain that it's "not serious," yet when we post something serious, readers complain that it's "not funny." Best of all, at least once a week, one or two brave souls pose the question: "Don't you have anything better to do than write for this site?" This is actually answered in the FAQ, but we'll take the time to repeat ourselves: Most contributors check the site once a day. Me? I tend to check it a couple of times on one day, and then take the few days off necessary to recover from the parade of idiocy that make up our comments section. However, I can't say the same about many of our readers--mainly those who issue this criticism--since the frequency and rapidity of their comments border on the obsessive.

In the end, perhaps my headline comparison to Rain Man was a bit inaccurate. Tom Cruise could never grow to love the bulk of our readership. They're just too dumb. Besides, it would be unfair to Dustin Hoffman. He's been in a lot of great movies.

Cissy's right-hand man wants love; blacks, Asians, need not apply

2004-11-19T02:02:00.000-05:00

Submitted for your consideration:

The Shawn-Eric Brooks we all know.

The Shawn-Eric Brooks who lives "in the light" but loves to "play in the dark."

One Shawn-Eric is the milquetoast, dressy administrative figure. The second Shawn-Eric is the younger, handsome, hard bodied, nipple-pierced, tattooed, bearded creature of the night who dons, it seems, no clothing at all, known to Match.com users only as "northcountrydoc." (We must admit, we think the second picture much more flattering.) Yet, both are the same Shawn-Eric Brooks. Will the real Shawn-Eric Brooks, then, please step forward?

It's amazing what you can learn about someone through their online dating profile. For instance, did you know Shawn-Eric loves "I Love Lucy"? We didn't. And while from a passive glance at the photograph of Shawn-Eric's studly alter ego, one might not deduce that while he loves the athletic, he's "not a gym rat."

It is evident from his profile that Brooks is not only a man of culture ("[I]nterests include reading and, (sic) movies," "I usually have 2-3 books working at the same time... 'The Power of Now'. 'A Course in Miracles', and 'The Order of the Phoenix'"), but a guy who likes to cut loose now and again ("I am pretty organized but have been known to spontaneously dance naked in a cloud burst.") However, Shawn-Eric is nothing if not flexible: "Hot tub or fireside.. your call...."

Shawn-Eric enjoys cycling, running, swimming, walking, hiking, weights, football, hockey, and skiing. Add to the mix a healthy love of camping, cooking, dining out, music and concerts, performing arts, the spiritual, travel and sightseeing, and watching sports, "sensual stroll[s] along the beach, the sunset reflected in our eyes as we hold hands and enjoy the tide," and you've got yourself a man that almost no one could resist. He's a catch; someone educated with some college, an associates degree, a bachelors degree, a graduate degree, a PhD, and perhaps a more important education in what Brooks terms the "School of life." His turn-ons include "Tattoos, Body piercings, Skinny dipping, Flirting, Thrills, Public displays of affection, Dancing, Erotica, Candlelight," and last but not least, "Thunderstorms."

But enough about Shawn-Eric. Who does he want? "I am attracted to MASCULINE (sic) men who like what they see in the mirror. You don't have to have washboard abs or guns of steel, but you need to take care of yourself physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Men with a quick smile and a good sense of humor move to the head of the line." In fact, there's only one catch. According to Shawn-Eric's--that is, northcountrydoc's--Match.com profile, you don't have to be white to be his baby. You can be Latino, Middle Eastern, even Native American. But you can't be black or Asian.

To avoid a rush to conclusions, perhaps Shawn-Eric is simply worried about those pop culture phenomena, "you know what they say about black guys," and, conversely, "you know what they say about Asian men." Perhaps Shawn-Eric simply wants his porridge to be "just right." So maybe he's not to be blamed. Nevertheless, we implore Shawn-Eric: open up your heart, love knows no color (except in the South). Just think of all the tattooed, pierced, skinny-dipping, cycling, running, swimming, walking, hiking, weight-lifting, sports-watching, spiritual, travel-loving people you are screening out simply because of their ethnicity. Besides, if all you're worried about is "what they say," then just remember: to date, both remain scientifically unproven.

However, we at TBOC! can't help but wonder: in the second picture, where is your left arm going?

The Rebels Among Us

2004-11-18T13:34:00.000-05:00

[What follows is an email communique we received this morning from one SLU student.]

A Report from our Special Correspondent – the Roving Reporter.

Live from Appleton. 17th May, 2004.

As if coke usage wasn’t a big enough problem for SLU GOP, the SLU Republican member and Thelmo President (via a Saddam Hussein style-referendum) Adam Hussein was today severely reprimanded by Canton PD, as well as the Security. He was nabbed for promoting and engaging in underage drinking in the parking lot of the Appleton arena. The event, initially, was described by him as an orgasmic experience, designed for the sole purpose of making hard liquor more accessible to the underage drinkers. If sources are to be believed, he even tried to get some underage high school girls drunk. Tsk-tsk, Mr. President. But that part of the story remains yet to be confirmed. Keep watching FOX News for hourly updates as we get more information on this tense situation.

He repeatedly mentioned that “concealed booze in public places” is his specialty. Among other creative ideas President Adam Hussein promoted the use of dark colored (think Pink) nalgene bottles – but that is not all, kids (take notes from our favorite alcoholic): he also used old sprite bottles to fill it up with liquor. How dare he use Coke products while the top-level administration sells the campus to Pepsi, Inc. – part by part. Apparently, hockey is sponsored by Pepsi too, now.

Apparently, Adam Hussein and co. got off from spending the night at the Canton jail when Snedy yelled, “Do you know who pays your salary?” At which point the cops bowed down and said, “Your father! O! my privileged white male.” He’s undoubtedly on bottom of the “tilted playing field”. We feel for you, Pete.

Yes, that’s exactly the attitude, Pete and Adam. Let’s all drink together on your 21st birthdays, boys.

The rebel in Mr. Hussein got the better of him yet again when he couldn’t resist the temptation of yelling aloud, “Clarkson Sucks” during the national anthem, despite repeated pleas by the organizers to respect our nation. Apparently, he exists on a higher moral and social code and can disrespect the national anthem, if and when he sees fit.

Funny, how some people become Community Assistants. Dean Petty, hope you get a chance to talk about this over with our heroes, Adam and Peter, between your morning and evening naps in your curtain covered windows. Maybe, sometime before you tell some rape victim, “take a semester off.”

Oh, how about a J-Board hearing. How about an open hearings, Mr. Rance Davis, Dean of Multicultural Affairs? Why have they stuck you with these security duties down at SLU? Do you have a PhD in Diversity or Leadership? Just curious.

Did anyone notice Sport at the hockey game today? I thought I was the only one not wearing the white colors (going with the whole white-out theme of the night) until I looked at Sport, wearing a hideously ugly yellow shirt. Dolly Dolphin, on the other hand, was surprisingly dressed in white. I can’t wait to have a black-out game next year. Will GOPers wear black or is that color not considered good enough? Diversity rules.

Stay tuned for live web-cam shots of Adam Hussein coming this weekend right here from a sketchy corner at SLU.

- --Another TBOC Exclusive. We welcome the administration to act on the information provided above. Or would that mean they won’t be getting a check this year from Mr. Snedeker?

Today's news in brief

2004-11-18T13:19:00.000-05:00

Gathered from domestic and foreign newswire sources

Republicans in the House of Representatives yesterday changed their rules to allow Majority Leader Tom DeLay to keep his post even if a grand jury indicts him.

47 Iraqi political parties have announced they will boycott January's elections. Most of the parties are Sunni and connected to the Association of Muslim Scholars. But the group includes 8 Shiite parties, one Christian party, one communist party and the Iraqi Turkmen Front. Journalist Mazen Ghazi reports the parties issued a communique that charges the election does not speak for the Iraqi people as long as it is "imposed" by the US-backed interim government.

The U.S. death toll in Iraq has now topped 1200. November has already become the second deadliest month for US troops since the invasion was launched. So far nearly 100 troops have died this month.

Israel Radio is reporting that Elliot Abrams has become the leading candidate to become the next U.S. ambassador to Israel. Abrams is seen a strong backer of Ariel Sharon's government and is closely allied to the neo-conservative movement in Washington. In 1991 Abrams was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony about his role in illicitly raising money for the contras, but he pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses. He was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Tony Blair's "shoulder to shoulder" support for America is rejected today by a majority of British people, who believe it is more important to have good relations with European countries. A poll by NOP for The Independent found that 64 per cent of people think that having good relations with Britain's European Union partners is more important than with the United States, while only 25 per cent believe the relationship with the US should take priority.

Cairo lodged a formal protest after the Israeli army killed three Egyptian border policemen by mistake, threatening to plunge their delicate diplomatic ties into crisis mode.

Fighters in Falluja are continuing to hold out in the face of massive firepower US forces are unleashing to try and seize overall control of the city. "Fierce resistance is still raging with rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and machine guns against the US forces stationed on the outskirts of Falluja," an Iraqi journalist in the city, Fadil al-Badrani, said. Meanwhile, fighting flared on a number of fronts across the country. In Ramadi, west of Baghdad, clashes erupted on Wednesday evening between US soldiers and armed groups opposed to the US-led government, leaving seven people dead, according to hospital officials.

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

2004-11-17T22:15:00.000-05:00

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

2004-11-17T01:01:00.000-05:00

[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'?"]

Surprise! You're on Candid Camera!

2004-11-16T13:20:00.000-05:00

This, from Democracy Now!:

An NBC cameraman caught on tape video of a US Marine executing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Fallujah. ...

This news from Iraq: an NBC cameraman has caught on tape video of a US Marine shooting dead an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Fallujah.

The NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said the Iraqi man who was killed was one of five Iraqis who had been injured after the US raided a Fallujah mosque. Another 10 Iraqis had already been killed in the raid.

The Marine is heard on tape claiming the Iraqi was faking his death. A marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters, "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He faking he's [expletive] dead."

The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The Marine involved in the shooting has been removed from the field and was being questioned by the US military.

The NBC correspondent on the scene said the shot prisoner "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way".

The shooting came on the same day that another US soldier was charged with murder for the killing of an Iraqi detainee in Baghdad.

Are these fuckers made of Teflon?

2004-11-16T02:07:00.000-05:00

If you haven't been hiding in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, then you've probably heard there's a small drug problem in Larryland. Since our first exclusive regarding several SLU Republicans/former senators, we have received a number of emails which not only concur with our point about this growing epidemic on campus, but state that students have in fact been going to both security and the administration about the matter. And guess what? They're "looking into it."

Here's the problem, however, as we see it: there's not a whole lot to look into. That is, we've already provided the evidence. All the university must do now is act on it. Since the publication of our column, "The End of the SLU GOP?" not one member of the administration or Security has issued so much as a peep, let alone contacted us for more information. Yet, we have names, and more importantly, we have emails from the perpetrators themselves. Frankly, we feel, well, a little left out--perhaps even sad.

After all, Security had no problem, upon the beck and call of Jake Shea and other cocaine-using members and ex-senators of the SLU Republicans and Thelmo, in harassing and interrogating former contributors of TBOC! about the site's "allegations" of coke use. In light of recent revelations, namely, that these "allegations" have serendipitously transmogrified into facts, Security will not make so much as a phone call to the guilty parties.

Many students are rightly concerned about the safety of their coeds and the larger campus environment, as is more than evident from the many emails we have received. Many students want to know what they, personally, can do to help remedy this illness from which the student body suffers. We have an answer, and it is a simple one.

Print out a few copies of the following emails. Take them to security, Dean Petty, and Rance Davis. Once they have a chance to look them over, ask what they plan to do--and do let us know what their response is. If enough students come forward about these and other incidences, perhaps our collective action may yet prove fruitful. This time around, let's make it stick.

----- Forwarded message from eaward01@stlawu.edu -----
    Date: [REDACTED]
    From: eaward01@stlawu.edu
Reply-To: [REDACTED]
Subject: Re:
      To: [REDACTED]

Alicia-

He hasn't said anything and won't - because he expected the same from everyone
else - especially the people who initally OFFERED to get drugs for him! My
concern is Deana since she has a huge mouth... how and why she was told I
don't know... I've also asked Evan to speak to [REDACTED] about not saying
anything. Now that this is suddenly a GOP issue, for whatever the hell reason,
[REDACTED] knowing is a huge liability.
Just wanted to let you know who knows and who I've talked to so we're all on
the same page. Sorry again to put you in this position. I didn't know it would
blow up to be an "organization" issue.

-Liz

Quoting asmcna02@stlawu.edu:

> Liz,
>
> Thank you for the apology. Please ask Jake to keep his mouth shut.
>
> ~Alicia
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
>

----- Forwarded message from eaward01@stlawu.edu -----
    Date: [REDACTED]
    From: eaward01@stlawu.edu
Reply-To: [REDACTED]
      To: asmcna02@stlawu.edu

Alicia,

I'm sorry if you were offended that Jake and I called you. I heard last year
from someone on our floor, and I honestly don't remember who, that Majken
walked in on you doing lines off your desk. And then Jake heard the same thing
more recently...
My apologies.

Liz

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

----- End forwarded message -----

How Peter Snedeker touched my Jungian man-gina

2004-11-13T16:59:00.001-05:00

In a recent letter to the Shill News, Peter "Fortune 500" Snedeker recently wrote what was, presumably, supposed to be a scathing attack on our very own TBOC!. And I have to say, we're touched. Pete (do you mind if we call you Pete?) writes that "The attacks stem from a hateful grudge that these individuals bear against a wide variety of students, faculty, and staff for reasons that could only be conjured up in their weak and timid souls." Pete may think we all have separate distinct entities--"souls"--but I kind of like the notion that the contributors to TBOC! are part of a broader Jungian "collective unconscious" or "world soul." However, the collective unconscious, at least as C. Jung wrote of it, is neither weak nor timid, but something of incredible power that encompasses all of us--even folks like Pete, or first lady and blond bombshell Carla Hunter. Do our actions stem from a "hateful grudge" (or "ju-on" as Japanese lore calls it)? Only if you're a huge pussy. Pete?

Snedekins further asserts, "Perhaps worst of all, some of these students lay claim to retaking a campus that operates on a moral and social code far out of reach for their juvenile behavior." Again, Pete's got it half-right. "Juvenile behavoir" aside, the "moral and social code" that SLU operates on is indeed "far out of reach" of TBOC!'s contributors--especially when one considers the perverse, shallow values this Potemkin village's residential petty hypocrites hold to be a genuine "moral and social code," an act which in itself requires a degree of pathological self-delusion so grandiose that it warrants its own appendix in the DSM-IV.

But perhaps we are too rough. We contributors have a lot in common with Pete. At least, he seems to think so. Apparently, like him, we are "white, male, and privileged," but won't come clean about this because it might "undermine" our "crusade." Short of naming names, that's presuming to know quite a bit about us. Unfortunately it's an assertion we think Pete might have a difficult time proving. That's why we're inviting him to do just that. Pete, feel free to write us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com and let us know who we are, and hence, like you, "white, male, and privileged." We'll post your whole response unedited. Scout's honor.

One thing Pete can say for sure though, is that we are "self-proclaimed activists"--an inaccuracy at best, as we have never proclaimed any such thing--that "hide in corners" of campus, and "lob loaded remarks from afar" rather than coming "to the table and work[ing] for change." While we're not sure that the internet (or "internets," as Pete's man calls it) qualifies as "afar," the question is not whether our remarks are loaded, but whether they are true, something he and his ilk have never addressed. Kind of one of those "neither confirm nor deny" sort of things, I guess.

But back to my man-gina (you know, like vagina, but belonging to a guy). What did Pete really say, amidst his repeated and rather dismal attempts at the occasional literary flourish, that really touched it? I think it had to be this, my favorite part: "And finally, continue to hope against all odds, as I do, that this select group of disenfrenchised students will overcome the hatred and cowardice that rests so deeply within their hearts." It really gets you, like when conservative parents send their gay children away to "conversion therapy camps" while continuing "to hope against all odds" that "they will overcome the hatred (of heterosexuality and Levitical teachings) and cowardice (of the opposite sex) that rests so deeply within their hearts." The point, of course, is that TBOC! has about as little to do with hatred and cowardice as Thelmo has to do with accountability and the democratic process.

Our condolences must, nonetheless, go out to Pete. After all, life's tough when you're one of America's true select fortunate sons. And we know that when people say bad things about you, it can really hurt your feelings. Well, no, actually, we don't. And maybe that's because we are just that juvenile. Or, maybe it's because the true juvenile in all of this simply never learned the old preschool adage, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Moral of the story? Unless we show up at your door with bats, why worry about lil' ol' us, Pete? You just keep on truckin'. Or, if you're into that kind of thing, snortin'. As for the rest of us, we'll just chalk your letter up to one more cry for help.

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

2004-11-12T20:32:00.000-05:00

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?"

Women's Resource Center? Define "Resource"

2004-11-11T23:27:00.000-05:00

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.

Something's Rotten in the State of Denmark

2004-11-10T19:45:00.000-05:00

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.

THELMO ELECTIONS FAR FROM FAIR

2004-11-08T22:51:00.000-05:00

BREAKING NEWS: Election Fraud from Florida to Ohio, to SLU

THELMO ELECTIONS FAR FROM FAIR

As everybody should know by now, this week is Thelmo Elections, voting started today, and will go through the end of the week. Thelmo elections have been historically modeled after other democratic elections such as those held in the United States. In elections across the US, there has been a shift towards electronic voting, which eliminates the paper trail, and makes it virtually impossible to track votes. As was shown in the 2000 presidential elections, especially in Florida, electronic voting causes great havoc on our so-called democracy. Four years later, in the 2004 presidential elections, voter fraud ran rampant once again. I could write ten pages outlining reports of voter fraud from all over the country, much of which was caused by or related to the use of electronic voting machines, but that is for another post (some ideas for places to look for yourself include a report from www.commoncause.org stating that “Voting in 2004 was more problematic than in 2000,” or any of the dozens of stories outline at http://indymedia.us/en/). The point here is that in this falls Thelmo election our student government has taken tips from the experts of voter fraud who stole the last two “elections” for our fearless dictator, Bush.

Here on campus, voter irregularities take a different form, and don't even seem to be hidden. In this year’s online voting system, all students who vote are REQUIRED to vote for one candidate for EVERY single position available, even if only one candidate is running for a position.

For example: Adam Casler is running (unopposed) for student body president. The way the online voting system works, any student who wants to vote, must vote for Casler, even if they disagree greatly with his conservative agenda. What this means is that Casler will inevitably win the election with 100% of the popular vote, which certainly insinuates a "mandate" even though it is possible that only a tiny fragment of the voting student body actually want Casler as student body president. Everyone else is simply FORCED into voting for Casler if they want to vote at all.

To make matters worse, thrown in on the ballot are other measures, comparable to measures added to ballots across the country for things like illegalizing gay marriage, raising local taxes, or passing a schools budget. The referendums added to this years Thelmo ballot, include choosing bands for the spring concert, questions about smoking on campus, and other issues on campus which students may feel strongly. However, with the new online voting system, it is impossible for students to weigh in on these important issues, to help decide what bands will play on campus, or what measures are taken to limit smokers and improve air quality on campus. Many students (those who like Casler and those who may disagree with him) want a say in other issues on campus. The online voting system requires that EVERY STUDENT who wants a say in campus entertainment, campus safety, or other campus issues on this year’s ballot, IS REQUIRED TO VOTE FOR ADAM CASLER AS PRESIDENT OF THE STUDENT BODY.

Perhaps it has not occurred to anybody other than the quick staff here at TBOC!, but it seems painfully obvious that this is not how a democratic election should be run. Imagine for a moment you have left the soft little bubble that is SLU. You are a republican, rich and happy at home in a suburb of Boston. Imagine going down to the polls on Election Day. Your children attend the local elementary school, and the only person running for chair of the school board is a crazy leftist who plans to start a sex-ed program beginning in Kindergarten. You feel your little innocent daughter should not be exposed to different kinds of birth control, or learn how to put condoms on a banana. However, you really want the school budget to pass so that your kids’ classroom and get a new computer, and the library can be expanded. Additionally, you feel strongly that Rush Limbaugh would make a better president than incumbent Hillary Clinton. You learn upon entering the polls that in order to vote (in your case for the school budget and against the female presidential incumbent), you HAVE to vote for the man who wants to teach your 6 year old daughter about BC pills and the wonders of masturbation. Is this FAIR? Why can't you just vote in the races of which you are knowledgeable and feel strongly about, leaving your vote blank for politicians you are strongly against ideologically. Why should someone get 100% of the vote even if they only have 1% of the population supporting them, just because nobody else ran for that one position?

That is specifically what students all over SLU are asking this week as they cast their forced ballots in this fixed election.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

There are two viable options for fixing this problem on our campus. We have a voice, a collective voice to tell the right-wingers in Thelmo they can't take away our right to fair elections. The first option is to organize a massive boycott of the Thelmo Elections until the problem is solved and the poor decision made by our student government is changed. The second, and perhaps more viable option, is to take the route they suggest. The election board in Thelmo has informed students that if they do not want to vote for Casler, they can email the Thelmo election chair Jon Cardinal at jkcard04@stlawu.edu, and request an absentee ballot. Heck, why not request one for all your friends too! While this is a difficult, time consuming and not very realistic opt-out policy that we feel confident very few students at SLU will take the time to partake in, it is possible to use it against them to show that we care about fair elections. We realize that a few people may have voted today, but if the rest of the student body takes this step, especially if they wait until Thursday to do so, it will swamp the Thelmo election staff and prove to them that the students at SLU will not put up with their undemocratic and possibly even illegal voting procedures. Only then will this weeks Thelmo elections even come close to resembling a fair, democratic election.

Many folks believe that "Your Vote is Your Voice," But here at TBOC!, we believe our collective voice is much much stronger than just a vote.

Post-election hangovers?

2004-11-08T01:04:00.000-05:00

Dear SLU GOP,

Ahoy, fuckers! We know. Hangovers are tough. And nothing's worse than a coke hangover. But what are you going to do now? A showing of the ultra-hack "Fahrenhype," pre-election? That's the best you can do after practically having an entire semester now to advance the neofascist agenda? Jackboots everywhere are counting on you! That's why we've come up with a list of suggestions for activities you might undertake. You know, if you have the time between binges.

1. Get a website. Isn't it about time you joined the digital age? And with all the advances in technology over the past few years, even folks who are barely functionally literate can have a site too. Fuck, even Beta could set up a website if they set their collective mind to it. We like Blogger because it's easy to manage, but if you need some suggestions, just email us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. We'll hook you up, yo.

2. Invite some more speakers. We admit, Dan Flynn will be hard to top, since the means to rebuild a bionic Adolf Hitler from DNA samples doesn't exist yet. We hear D'Souza came once. Maybe you could get him. Or even Ann Coulter, or even Bernie Goldberg! They would totally dig you guys. Oh, and the word on the streets is that Matt Hale is pretty open for booking if you're really in a rut.

3. Maybe a new fashion statement. Instead of all that J. Crew shit, try black shirts or jumpsuits. We hear 1938 is where it's at. As an added bonus, it would really raise your profile on campus, which, you have to admit, has been slipping a little, lately.

4. Lynchings. Those always get attention. Just think of all the trees on campus that are going needlessly to waste even as you read this. Isn't it about time to put theory to action?

5 (and lastly). School work. We hear some of you aren't doing so hot. If you're not going to even try with your own organization, you might as well not bother. Put those energies where they need to be! You can even use the white stuff as a sort of, you know, carrot. You get some work done, you have a little sniff. Do some more, and another one. You get the idea. By the end of the night, you'll have memorized the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Thomas Friedman, and have the worst nosebleed of your life to prove it!

That's all for now. But if you can think of anything better, do let us know. Be creative! Perhaps the comments for this post will draw yet more suggestions. Best of luck, assholes!

Much Love,
The TBOC! Editorial Board

A nod from the Hill?

2004-10-30T02:03:00.000-04:00

In an interesting turn of events, it seems TBOC! has received some attention in the last place we expected it. No, not the U.S. News & World Report, but The Hill News. Without commenting too much on the article itself, we did want to respond to one or two points contained therein.

The author writes that TBOC! "makes allegations of serious drug abuse by several SLU Republicans" in our column, "The End of the SLU GOP?" This is perhaps half-right. The problem is with the word "allegations." We used to make "allegations." We had evidence, yes, but the article in question goes surpasses allegation in the sense that it is actually an admission--albeit an unintended one--by "several SLU Republicans" (and former student representatives, we might add). When it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, as was the case with the leaked emails, what was once an "allegation" becomes mere fact.

Also, the article states "One factor that takes away form the legitimacy and urgency of these articles is that the authors post anonymously. This may be a way for them to protect themselves from the backlash caused by their often-controversial articles." There's a number of points that are in order here: 1. Some of literature's most famous works were produced using pen names like Lewis Carroll, George Sand, Moliere, George Orwell, Voltaire, Dr. Seuss, and even Mark Twain. Did that take away from the "legitimacy" (and often times, the "urgency") of their work? "Deep Throat" remains anonymous to this day. Does that make his/her contribution to American politics and journalism any less "legitimate"? We don't think so. 2. There's no "may" about it. We TBOC! contributors remain anonymous to protect ourselves. We also remain anonymous to draw the reader's attention to what we are saying, not who we are.

To address the author of the article, Shawn, more directly: Thank you for the article, and for recognizing our hard work. Should their be future articles about TBOC!, we do encourage you to contact us directly at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

We still get letters, just not as many, Vol. 1

2004-10-23T21:17:00.000-04:00

"We're sorry for calling you liars. You were right; we are the real liars. We do use cocaine, and what your site has said about us in the past was not actually defamation." Signed, Jake Shea, Elizabeth Wardell, & Alicia McNally

Yes, it would be nice if we had received this email. Unfortunately, we did not, and to our knowledge no such email exists. But, we did get a great comment from a former Laurentian. Looks like we have some alumni that actually follow TBOC!, and for that, if nothing else, we are deeply honored. One, under the name Outraged Alum, recently posted:

How is it possible that the information released in the last two posts on TBOC! have not created a massive stir on campus? I graduated six years ago and do not know these students personally. However, clearly COCAINE use by students is absolutely unacceptable. I have followed TBOC! for some time now, and it is clear to me that the reporters are fair and honest, but more importantly that they have a large network and the ability to obtain (probably legally) this information. Given my belief that the evidence is real, I personally (politics aside) fear for the safety of our university as a whole and more importantly for the individual safety of SLU students. The administration, security, and Thelmo MUST take immediate action. If I were still a senator, I would not let this issue go undisguised. I am discontinuing my donations until the appropriate actions are taken against these students. The students named should come forward and release apologies for their actions.

We feel that before officially going to the press with this matter, we should address the polite comment Outraged Alum left us.

Dear Outraged Alum,

Thanks for your comment! While we are not surprised at all by the recent revelations, we nonetheless remain highly disturbed. The silence of Thelmo and the administration on this matter has been not only overwhelming, but utterly stunning. That is why we feel we have no other choice of action than to turn this matter over to the mainstream press and hope that they have more luck with it. The safety of our student body now rests on their shoulders, as the administration obviously cares so little about this matter as to even attempt to address it.

What truly speaks volumes about all of this is that the members of the SLU GOP in question have not come forward to openly deny these charges. They, like Thelmo and the administration, have remained totally silent. We don't always think that silence amounts to guilt, but there is one thing that always does, and that's guilt itself. Yes, guilt amounts to guilt, and it seems painfully obvious that the parties in question are in fact quite guilty of our past accusations. What makes their behavior particularly shameful, however, is the way that some of them have not simply denied past allegations, but actually tried to go after former TBOC! contributors for making the allegations in the first place.

Thanks again,
All of us at TBOC!

However, if there is any silver lining in this whole debacle, it is this, and we'd like to address it specifically to those members of the SLU GOP that have dogged TBOC! for its entire existence:

"Red-handed" or "white-nosed"? Well, we don't suppose it matters much, either way you're plain old "caught." And, now that the truth is out, we're really not going to take any more of your privileged rich-kid bullshit. You can yak it up with Rance or DP or Dan Sullivan--or whoever it is you bother about this stuff--all you want, and scream at the top of your lungs about false allegations. But the facts stand for themselves now, and you can no longer hide behind the administration that has coddled you for so long. So, in light of these recent facts, we concluded that it's still not too late just yet for you to suck it up and apologize for being such jerks. (Oh, by the way, this includes the kind folks of the SLU administration and Security.) Please send all apology email to takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. For the sake of convenience, please include in the title of the email, "We're sorry for being such big jerks." See the top of this post for an example email if you're at a loss for words.

Happy emailing!

We Demand Action!

2004-10-18T13:05:00.000-04:00

Will this week turn out to be a decisive one? We hope so. St. Lawrence has enough problems without having to deal with a student organization fraught with cocaine use. The actions the university and Thelmo take this week will determine just how concerned the administration and the student government are with the safety of our students. We at TBOC! have several demands:

1. That Thelmo place the SLU GOP on probationary status as an organization in order to fully investigate these matters and determine whether or not their organizational charter should be revoked.

2. That the university take swift action in expelling, or suspending in some fashion, at the very least: Elizabeth Wardell, Jake Shea, and Alicia McNally. Additionally, we demand that the university ensure they receive care at a drug treatment facility.

3. That the university and campus Security launch an immediate investigation into the full extent of this "'organization' issue" (see TBOC! column "The End of the SLU GOP?" 10/12/04).

If these demands are not addressed by the end of the week, we will turn this issue over to the mainstream press. Perhaps they will be more effective in seeing that justice is done. Again, this is an urgent issue of student safety. It must not be ignored.

The End of the SLU GOP?

2004-10-12T16:07:00.000-04:00

Preface
TBOC! has published many-a-controversial piece in the past, were it news or satire. What you are about to read is by far the most controversial, and the most damning.

Throughout the history of politics and journalism, many shifts in the political landscape as we know it have been initiated by leaks. Just think about it, if you will, for just a moment: the Pentagon Papers, or Deep Throat and CREEP. These leaks fundamentally changed politics and journalism, and their relationship to each other in the United States, forever.

In the cases of most great leaks, there is an ethical question that is ever present: if the journalist knows that the information s/he receives from an anonymous source may have been unlawfully obtained, can it still be published--that is, is it ethical to do so? Or perhaps a better question is, is it still desirable to publish it? The answer to the first question is, so far, yes, it is legal, as Bartnicki v. Vopper (532 U.S. __, 121 S. Ct. 1753 (2001)), Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (443 U.S. 97, 102 (1979)), and New York Times v. United States (403 U.S. 713 (1971)) have established. However, when is it desirable to do so? The Student Press Law Center, referring to Bartnicki v. Vopper, states, "The holding in Bartnicki paid special attention to the interest in the dissemination of information concerning public issues and its relationship to the privacy interests of individuals. In this instance, the Court held in favor of 'full and free dissemination of information concerning public information.'"

We think this is a fair qualification, and is what we took into consideration when weighing the following story, "The End of the SLU GOP." Many prominent members of the SLU GOP (also known as the SLU Republicans) also held elected positions in in Thelmo, St. Lawrence's student government. It is our belief that all public figures should be held to high standards of conduct, and so if and when said figures engage in highly illegal activity, and in some cases have lied about their involvement in such activity, it is in the best interest of the public--in this case, their constituents--to know. It is also in the best interest of the public for students to understand the dangerous social environment they may now be entering upon joining the SLU GOP. In fact, it is their right to know.

With that in mind, we bring you the following story. Our source for it, a member of the SLU GOP, provided us with information that seems to have been legally obtained. However, it is a leak nonetheless, so we we must naturally be cautious, and so felt the need for this preface, in order to explain the ethics of such a leak regardless of whether or not the information contained in the leak was obtained lawfully. It is not that we think the contents of the leak was obtained illegally--only initial suspicion arose from the fact that it seems too much a momumental blunder to send any of the information contained in the leak to anyone in the form that it took; so much so that it at first seemed improbable that the leak itself was real. However, it is apparent that the information is as real as the leak itself. We should also state that we did not solicit the leak, it was given voluntarily. To pay for sources, we believe, turns journalism into news for the highest bidder, and as such, is unethical. Lastly, please note: some names have been redacted to protect the anonymity of the individuals in question. And now, our story.

"The End of the SLU GOP?"
In the Winter of 2004, the original Take Back Our Campus! (TBOC!) website was born. The goal of TBOC! was to be a hodgepodge of news, satire, commentary, and sometimes a mixture of all three at once. Needless to say, the site aroused the ire of a group of St. Lawrence University GOP students when it ran its series of controversial profiles, known as "Spotlight."

In what was perhaps a defining moment for the site and the organization, TBOC!, in an edition of its Spotlight, published allegations that Thelmo Senator Jake Shea was a cocaine user. However, because of the organization's obligation to protect its sources, the allegation itself had to be couched in qualifying phrases such as "has been rumored," and "some say," or "some have said." Then-Senator Shea believed he knew who the author of the piece was and pursued who he supposed to be the author some time after s/he had already ceased to participate in the site or the organization because of mounting pressure from administrative figures and members of the SLU GOP. While writing this article, we contacted this person, now a SLU graduate, who recounted this period of time.

I had gotten out of the whole TBOC thing a while before the trouble about Jake's spotlight. For one thing, I was extremely busy with my thesis, but beyond that I received a threatening phone call from Sport [Jake] about that post. I patiently explained to him that whatever he thought, I was not in fact the author of the piece, nor did I orchestrate all the activities of "the left" on campus, which he seemed to think I did. Basically he said that if I wanted to graduate, I would see that it was removed. He also said that "You know it's not true," in reference to the coke allegations. "It's slander," he said. I knew it wasn't; we had extremely reliable sources, and I knew that TBOC always made a point to cross-check them before printing anything.

Shortly after that I was visited by campus security, who, after interrogating me, asked if I could see that the site was taken down. I contacted some people who I thought might still be running the site, and asked them take it down until graduation. I didn't think there was anything the university could actually do to me, but obviously I didn't want to take any chances. I was going to have family up for the ceremony, you know.

Anyway, I thought that would be the end of it. Unfortunately, Jake continued to press the matter, and over the summer after I graduated, a member of my family actually received a threatening phone call from, of all people, his father, who tacitly suggested that he might file a slander or libel lawsuit, or some such nonsense. Of course that never happened, but I guess now I finally know why.

The former tboccer added, "Funny though, I didn't realize that the site had been 'resurrected.' I figured it just fizzled out after the end of last summer."

This year's remaining contributors to TBOC!, as well as new contributors such as myself, assumed that that had been the end of the matter. That is, we did until we received an email from a member of the SLU GOP, who, on condition of anonymity, provided us with some rather startling information: emails from former SLU GOP president Elizabeth Wardell. As it turns out, TBOC!'s sources last year had been absolutely correct. But the emails imply that Shea was not the only former Thelmo senator--or SLU GOP member or office-holder, for that matter--who is involved in the use of the highly-illegal narcotic. It would appear that former president/Senator Liz Wardell may be as well, and former Senator Alicia McNally. Not only that, but, it appears, there exists a concerted effort on the part of SLU GOP officials, members, and some Thelmo senators to cover this up.

From what one can glean from the emails, the story seems to go like this: One day, or more likely, one evening, former Senators Wardell and Shea called former Senator McNally, asking her to supply them with cocaine. This upset McNally, who had been seen in the past using the illegal substance. Senator Wardell writes, "I'm sorry if you were offended that Jake and I called you. I heard last year from someone on our floor, and I honestly don't remember who, that [Name Redacted] walked in on you doing lines off your desk. And then Jake heard the same thing more recently... My apologies."

McNally responded simply, "Thank you for the apology. Please ask Jake to keep his mouth shut."

This, taken by itself, is perhaps damning enough for most. But the second email drove the final nails into the coffin. In it, Wardell writes to McNally as well as the present SLU GOP president, voicing her concern that cocaine use, by Senator Shea and others, has become an "'organization' issue." Responding to McNally's request that former Senator Shea "keep his mouth shut," Wardell stated,

He hasn't said anything and won't - because he expected the same from everyone else - especially the people who initially OFFERED to get drugs for him! My concern is [Name Redacted] since she has a huge mouth... how and why she was told I don't know... I've also asked [Name Redacted] to speak to [Name Redacted] about not saying anything. Now that this is suddenly a GOP issue, for whatever the hell reason, [Name Redacted] knowing is a huge liability. Just wanted to let you know who knows and who I've talked to, so we're all on the same page. Sorry again to put you in this position. I didn't know it would blow up to be an "organization" issue.

How widespread this use of a dangerous and illegal Schedule 1 narcotic is within the SLU GOP and Thelmo, we may never know. However, a few things now seem clear: First of all, the allegations against then-Senator Shea were not libelous, but stand in the light of fact as correct. Second of all, this problem has recently plagued the SLU GOP as a "GOP issue." Thirdly, the main three people implicated in the emails (former Senators Shea, Wardell, and McNally), during and after having held elected office were and are engaging in conduct that is destructive, irresponsible, illegal, threatening to the collective well being of the SLU community, and which defiled the office their constituents elected them to. Their constituencies, then, have a right to know.

More than that, this calls into question the very legitimacy of the SLU GOP as a Thelmo-sanctioned student organization. One must wonder, what are new recruits of the SLU GOP being drawn into? It seems that the answer is not just a political club, but an environment where they will be recklessly exposed to highly dangerous, highly illicit substances. At its heart, this is an issue of the safety of the students at this university.

The only questions now are, what will the administration do to rectify this, what will the implications be for the SLU GOP, and what will Thelmo do to ensure that such people are never again allowed the privilege of holding office? We suspect the administration, as per usual, will do nothing, but we hold hope for more from Thelmo. As for the SLU GOP, it seems that this is the beginning of their end. Rarely has a student organization been so thoroughly corrupted to the core as this, and never in our knowledge has any student organization engaged in endangering its members while simultaneously making a concerted effort to conceal this danger from the public eye, as it is apparent that the SLU GOP has.

"I own a timber company? That's news to me."

2004-10-10T14:32:00.000-04:00

For anyone watching the presidential debates on Friday, you undoubtedly caught the following exchange:

Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that he owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

Bush: I own a timber company? [Pause] That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

"News to me"? Funny, it shouldn't be. Here's documentation showing Bush's part ownserhip in a company existing "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales."

One can draw either of two possible conclusions from this. Either he really did forget that he was part owner of a timber company, and did, in fact, under his own legislation qualify as a small business; or he lied, and as usual, Kerry didn't call him on it.

What do you think?

Haiti: Example of US "commitment to democracy"

2004-10-08T18:47:00.000-04:00

While the neo-cons original justification for the invasion, overthrow and occupation of Iraq was lies about weapons of mass destruction and an "imminent threat", the new excuse peddled about by these megalomaniacs is that they are "creating democracy in the Middle East" and that this democracy will spread throughout the Middle East.

I wonder if the Haitians know about this "creating democracy" business the Americans are up to. Because you see what the neo-cons won't talk about is how in the spring of 2004, the US along with the "hated" French, overthrew the democratically elected government of Haiti and supported thugs from the death squads of the Duvalier regime, a regime which was one of the most brutal and repressive in a region that has had its fair share of brutal and repressive dictatorships. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Let me introduce you to some of the "forces of democracy" we backed and are backing in Haiti.

Louis-Jodel Chamblain, a former Haitian army officer sentenced to life at hard labor in connection with the 1993 assassination of political activist Antoine Izméry

Jean-Pierre Baptiste, likewise sentenced to life for his role in a 1994 massacre. Both were leaders of the FRAPH, or Haitian Front for Advancement and Progress, a CIA-backed organization that carried out state terror against opponents of the military regime that ruled the country from 1991 to 1994.

Guy Philippe, a former member of the Haitian military who received training from US Special Forces in Ecuador in the 1990s and was then sent back to Haiti, where he became a brutal police chief and sought to organize a coup in 2000. He is suspected of involvement in cocaine trafficking.

Aristide is the democratically elected leader of Haiti. He "got out of line" by not fulfilling America's mandatory economic 'reforms' called for by the IMF, which was part of the "agreement" Clinton had made with Aristide before backing his reinstatement in 1994. As so many before him have learned, if you do not kowtow to US business interests, you will face the death squads. Democracy be damned, we're making the world safe for capitalism.

Bogus war, real crimes

2004-10-08T13:18:00.000-04:00

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." --Dick Cheney, August 2002

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." --Colin Powell, February 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." --George W. Bush, State of the Union address, March 2003

"We know where [the WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." --Donald Rumsfeld, March 2003

"But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about." --Ari Fleischer, April 2003

U.S. soldiers were sent to into harm's way in Iraq because, we were told, Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction," including biological and chemical weapons, mobile bioweapons manufacturing facilities, and a fleet of unmanned arial vehicles to deliver these weapons to their targets. To date, the "official" number of U.S. troop fatalities stands at 1,068. Yesterday the final report of Cheif Weapons Inspector Charles Duelfer was made public. The 1,000+ page report, what the Bush administration claimed would be its final vindication, merely confirms the findings of each past Chief Weapons Inspector: Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, before or after the war began.

One day prior to this, the Pentagon announced that it was investigating cockpit footage from American pilots that shows them firing on, and killing, a group of unarmed Iraqi civilians. Russ Kick reports,

The 30-second clip shows the pilot targeting the group of people in a street in the city of Fallujah and asking his mission controllers whether he should "take them out". He is told to do so and, shortly afterwards, the footage shows a huge explosion where the people were. A second voice can be heard on the clip saying: "Oh, dude."

The existence of the video, taken last April inside the cockpit of a US F-16 fighter has been known for some time, though last night's broadcast by Channel 4 News is believed to be the first time a mainstream broadcaster has shown the footage.

The video from the cockpit itself can be viewed here and here.

This footage is the latest in a series of mounting evidentiary findings proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that war crimes are being committed by Coalition Forces in Iraq, and are in fact widespread. Several US soldiers are already being brought up on charges of murder, some have already been convicted of murder for forcing Iraqis to jump to their deaths in rivers, and perhaps most notable among proof of war crimes are the Abu Ghraib photographs and video footage. However, it is unlikely that these crimes will ever be tried at the International Criminal Court, as the Bush administration does not recognize its authority.

In fact, the United States has a long history of ignoring not only international law, but the international courts charged with upholding and enforcing these laws, ever since the US, under president Ronald Reagan, was convicted of international terrorism against Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice. The United States was ordered to pay reparations to the country for mining its harbors, bombing its schools, and waging an illegal contra war against a democratically elected government and a sovereign nation. The Reagan administration refused to pay the ordered reparations.

With these recent reports, it seems that the jury is finally in. The war that has claimed the lives of over one thousand U.S. troops, an estimated 30,000 Iraqi civilians, and disabled over 9,000 US soldiers, was launched on the basis of bogus, cherry-picked intelligence mixed with numerous and outrageous administrative lies. In the meantime, a pattern of abuse and war crimes are contstantly emerging regarding some US and British troops.

All of this begs the question: If Clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life, what happens to an entire administration that lies a nation into war that steals the lives of over one thousand of America's sons and daughters who put their trust in them?

Think they're just like you? Think again.

2004-10-05T20:02:00.000-04:00

The Republican Party has always prided itself on standing up for "the little guy," despite the fact that their policies have always been heavily tilted towards the rich (i.e., themselves). The College Republicans are no exception, and it doesn't take much research to see how this plays out at SLU. In the past, the SLU GOP has been very defensive about the notion that their ranks are swelled replete with predominately wealthy students, and love to point out and tokenize the few exceptions to the rule. Despite this, when you look at some of their personal backgrounds, its not hard to see that maybe they aren't all just like you and me. Let's look at a few examples.

Former President of the SLU GOP, Elizabeth A. Wardell, is no stranger to the comforts of wealth. Residing in beatiful Saratoga Springs, NY, Liz drives a new model Audi, with Saratoga vanity plates that read "SLU 2004." (No, she didn't technically graduate with the class of '04, but she's hoping to graduate at the end of this semester.) Liz's father, William Wardell, runs his own business, and is a registered member of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association. Think they lobby President-select ManOrMonkey? You bet. And, her sister, Alicia, a Dartmouth alumna, is the Deputy Mayor of Saratoga Springs.

What's that? You have a Deputy Mayor in your family, your father runs his own business, and you drive a new model Audi with vanity plates? Well, then consider the prominently-feature-on-TBOC Jake Shea, who hails from the wonderful, white, and wealthy town of Kennebunk, Maine. His parents, Stephen and Linda, are business owners too, and in 2003, according to town records, posted $357,200 in just taxable income. Keep in mind that taxable income makes up only a portion of total net wealth.

Still not that far from your own financial situation? Well, that means you're probably a member of the SLU GOP. But let's just do one or two more examples--you know, for fun.

Pete Snedeker, also the President of Thelmo, most likely ranks among the top 5% (or possibly even 1%) of the entire national income spectrum. That's because his father, James P. Snedeker, a SLU alum, is the Senior Vice President of Marsh USA, one of the world's foremost risk insurers, a subsidiary of Marsh & McLellan Companies Inc. Never heard of them before? Neither had we. Turns out they rank #169 on the list of Fortune 500 companies, and are still moving up. Just last year they posted annual revenues of $11.588 billion. Part of Marsh's big bucks come from helping employers figure out how to "cut costs" (read: not pay) in workers compensation.

There's also some CEOs in the mix too. There is, for instance, Mike "informer" Wieneke (who may bring SLU's conservative kingdom crashing down with him, it seems.) Mike's father, Daniel Wieneke, is President & CEO of PARC, the Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corporation, and makes $150,000 per year in income alone.

But guess what? These are just a small handful of examples. Even some of the less prominent figures among the SLU GOP, like Alicia "Lazy Blacks" McNally (whose father actually complained about SLU celebrating Martin Luther King Day--apparently blatant racism runs in the family), come from exceptionally wealthy areas such as Granby, Connecticut, which has a median household income of over $80,000--twice the national median--and a median family income over over $90,000.

So the next time you hear about how they're just like you and me, and aren't all rich kids, remember: the SLURs may not all be rich, but can you think of any other organizations on campus that have as many, if any? Did you have a nanny, a CEO for a parent, attend a prep school/academy instead of public school, or have a membership at a country club or a yacht club growing up? We figure most of you didn't.

Food for thought.

Administrative Cover-up??

2004-10-05T01:49:00.000-04:00

Every semester, there is controversy about whether or not the administration covers up sexual violence on campus (by controversy we mean a few people care, and they hang up signs which get ripped down). Dean Petty gets all teary, saying that if people perceive the administration that way, no one will want to report anything. She swears that nothing like that could ever happen; she cares far too much about the issue to cover anything up. Cissy is just looking out for the best interest of the victim. Interestingly enough, Cissy does a good job of making herself seem like a victim, all "Why would people say that about me, whine whine whine... Where else have we seen this on campus?

We at TBOC! have reputable sources informing us that this is, in fact, not the case. One source, who is an Advocate and a Community Assistant, gave an account that we find very interesting. She received a phone call from a friend one night, asking her to come over. The friend had just experienced relationship violence--her partner choked her. Our source says that when she arrived, her friend was fine physically, but was badly shaken up. A call was put in to the counselor on duty, in the hopes that Jess Parrillo would answer. As an aside, the survivor in this case had discussed previous experiences of sexual violence with Daniel Hernandez, who made her feel as if she was guilty for the act. The counselor on call was neither of these, though... Bill Burns came to the rescue.

Upon arrival, our source tells us, Bill asked not about the survivor's well-being, but about her partner's. It took him about 5 minutes to finally ask the survivor if she was okay. Then he had her door combination changed and called it a night. Granted, it was 11 at night, and our poor counselor friend was probably tired, but it seems like some mention of reporting the incident should have been made. Not to pressure the survivor, or to make her feel uncomfortable at all, but just to put the option out there. Okay, we'll admit that this isn't a case of administrative cover up, but it seems pretty sketchy to us.

Other sources report that they have been told by Dean Petty to go abroad after experiencing sexual violence, to try and get over it. Editors note: I am abroad right now, and I can't help but wonder how many girls on my trip were given that line by Dean P. One survivor of relationship violence alleged that the administration doctored the photos of her injuries. Many of her friends were skeptical at the time, but when combined with all of the other stories, it doesn't seem so far fetched anymore. This same survivor was discouraged from pursuing the matter legally, being told it would all be taken care of at the university level. It was only after she withdrew from the semester that she was able to get police attention.

None of this conclusively says that the administration tries to cover up sexual violence on campus. But the combination of these instances, taken with the other stories floating around campus seem to make a pretty good case. Anyone who has attended a Take Back The Night event, or panel discussions on sexual violence, will see the overwhelming number of women who are survivors of sexual violence. These women are obviously willing to speak about their experiences, so why isn't the university paying attention?

Any survivors of sexual violence who would like to share their experience with the administration can do so by posting in the comments section below, or by sending an email to takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. Anonymity will be respected.

And remember all the options that are out there... CAVA, Renewal House, the Advocates, the Women's Resource Center, or the police, among others.

Great moments in SLUR history

2004-10-04T11:55:00.000-04:00

SLU Republicans are not racist. At least, they've said they're not in the past, and we're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that some--or even many--of them aren't. They'll also tell you they don't hate poor people, which is, as you may have deducted, a lie. The problem is, while some (or even, again, "many") may not be racist and hate poor people, a lot of them are racist, and do hate poor people, something that sets them apart from every other campus organization, except some portions of Thelmo. That said, there are some pretty defining moments in SLUR history when it comes to issues of class and race that we think every student should know about.

For instance, one SLUR once referred to a member of the faculty as "a big fucking spic." Another referred to anyone receiving government aid as a "worthless, co-dependent wretch." One referred to those lacking the financial resources to attend prep schools as "public school trash," while yet another referred to workers at ODY as "piece[s] of shit making minimum wage." Thankfully, one SLUR, clearing both issues up at once lest any confusion remain, brilliantly stated that SLU hands out "diplomas for free," continuing, "What is it, 70% or 80% have financial help at SLU. An unmentionable minortity I am sure come from the Bronx, and get full rides. Thats what we** mean about free tuitions. Because they can play basketball, and use other words besides dawg, they are let into fine schools like SLU. Fuck the minority pool, they should all be drowned in a pool." I don't know what else you can call a statement like that but "classy." Another commented, "In 1950 SLU used to be 40% prep school students. What the fuck has happened? Slime is taking over colleges." One SLUR--Alcia McNally--once commented, "I'm not racist, but when I see black people, I know they're lazy." That was after some trouble over her AOL buddy icon, which read "Guns don't kill people, angry minorities do." Ha! The rest of the world may not get it, Alicia, but we do! You're hysterical!

Other favorite epithets include, but are not limited to, "trailor (sic) trash," and "big fucking fag."

Indeed. It seems the unworthy and the untouchables are, to use a favorite phrase of bigots everywhere, "taking over." At least, they are if you're a SLUR. That's probably why SLURs bring open fascists like Daniel Flynn to speak at SLU, in part on the university dime, although we may never know for sure.

This has been an installment of Great Moments in SLUR History. Stay tuned for more!
** Note the author's use of the word "we" in this passage.

Sell Out

2004-10-04T01:41:00.002-04:00

Sell Out

As we returned to St. Lawrence University in Fall we expected to see the name of a Trustee imprinted in the front of the student center – somebody who had been stupid enough to donate seven million dollars to Dean Petty’s pipe dream. Instead, we saw an ugly Pepsi logo on a dirty white banner. Next to it, the text was: “First Year Cup Brought to you in memory of Will O’ Brian.”

More than one freshman quipped, “Is this really a liberal arts institution?” Mostly, though, given the large number of larrys and muffys that have flooded this beacon of liberal education and thought, they were pretty upset that McDonalds hadn’t sponsored their beloved student center. Certainly SLU is corporate enough to attract McDonalds?

Most importantly, though, the question that so many who used Will’s memorial service for their own selfish goals, didn’t ask was -- Is this how we want to remember Will? With a Pepsi logo summing up his life? How much did Pepsi buy Will’s memory for?

Like the FOX TV network, they remained silent as St. Lawrence University making a mockery of everything it claims to stand for. These are the people that called Will a friend. TBOC asks you all to rise up and condemn the administration (and your own behavior in being silent participants to this disgusting debasing of a fellow SLU student’s life.)

Shame on you, administration. Once again you’ve shown you will do anything for money. At least try to give St. Lawrence University students something to celebrate about their liberal arts background. Even the economics department, your conservative stronghold, would be upset with the monopoly you’ve created – at least bring Coke machines, though generic Adirondack soda hasn’t killed anybody.

SLU Dean Suspected To Have Links With Al Qaeda

2004-10-04T01:02:00.000-04:00

TBOC! Breaking News: October 4, 2004

Canton, NY – For St. Lawrence University students, life has not been as quiet as usual over the past few weeks, especially if they are frequent visitors of the Java Barn, a semi-nonalcoholic venue on campus which hires bands every Friday and Saturday night to provide students with free entertainment. In a story just now breaking, the changes appear to have begun as a result of the actions of St. Lawrence University Dean of Student Life, Marcia “Cissy” L. Petty. Upon attempting to return to the United States, she was stopped by the United States Border Patrol, now working under the Department of Homeland Security. An unidentified officer at the Ogdensburg border crossing has told us, “She tried to cross the border into the United States, but her name appeared on a ‘Entry Denied" list from the Department of Homeland Security. When this happens we have to detain and question the individual, which is exactly what we did” Upon further questioning, the anonymous officer informed us that her unexpected detainment was due to her “suspected ties to Al Qaeda.” When questioned, a spokesperson from the Deans Office, who requested to remain anonymous (Kathryn McCaffrey, director of the office of Co-Curricular Education and Programs), denied these accusations.

While most SLU students are unaware of the links between Petty and Al Qaeda, when they are told that Petty hates freedom, they have mixed responses. One SLUR, Carla Hunter, reacted as most SLURs might, "How could someone who loved shopping as much as Cissy hate freedom?" Another student, expressed enthusiasm for this new discovery saying he never realized “Petty’s hatred of freedom went deeper than just that of the freedom of students on campus!” Another student who wished to remain anonymous says he and his friends are not at all surprised by the news of her links with terrorism, and as it turns out some students have been calling their Dean “Bin Cissy Petty” for years. Still other students on campus were delighted with the prospect of her being finally caught at something that will, to many students delight, get her fired from her job at SLU.

However, some sources tell us her links with terrorism, and her supposed hatred of freedom, are not her only legal troubles; sources say she was also smuggling drugs. According to one witness who happened to be crossing the border at the same time, “Upon full-body search, Cissy was found with possession of a pearl necklace that contained a minor amount of cocaine.” One may inquire to know exactly *how* cocaine fits into the crevices of a pearl necklace, but it was learned that “Cissy manipulated this precious necklace in a way that convenienced her fix." Or, as another source told us, perhaps it wasn’t HER fix she was conveniencing. If you are a regular of TBOC!, or if you simply keep your eyes open around campus, you’ll find that cocaine is the drug of choice among SLU Republicans (SLURS).

So the question on any good reporters mind is, after being stopped by border patrol as having suspected ties with Al Qaeda, and having been found possessing relatively large quantities of cocaine, just how did she return to campus after only a few hours in custody. It appears that after lengthy interrogation, she was allowed to cross the border, a free woman. Though the story is bit foggy, it appears as if a small bribe was paid to each officer on duty at the border crossing. Allegedly this bribe was paid from Student Life Petty Cash fund, apparently the not-so-bright Dean thought “Petty Cash” was hers to spend as she pleased.

Now you must ask, what does this all have to do with the Java Barn? And that would be a good question. Students have informed me that over the last few weekends security (and occasionally Petty herself) have been frequenting Java and shutting them down early in the night. While they have clearly been looking for excuses to do this for years, it appears as if Petty blamed Java (and not the SLURS) for her own episode with the cocaine! Her version of the story has much in common with the U.S. governments story of what truly happened on 9/11, in-so-far as it is blurry, full of holes, and one giant lie. Though many Java frequenters have experienced frustration with the heightened security at their place of residence and entertainment, most say it is well worth it in hopes they will, at months end, see Petty behind bars.

Student spirits are high at the prospect of seeing the rapid downfall of Petty spread to the rest of the administration. Just this hour reports have been coming in that there is movement within the 10th Mountain Division of Fort Drum. These troops, recently home from battling evil in Afghanistan, may be moving in to root out the forces of evil lurking in every corner of the St. Lawrence University administration. We have been granted permission to have one TBOC! correspondent "embedded" with the 10th mountain division for the entirety of Operation SLU, so more reports are expected soon. As a final note, a Fort Drum Official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, spoke of the axis of evil, “We found them in Afghanistan, we will find them in Canton. Whatever it takes, we will smoke them out of their holes.”

Greek System Shananigans?

2004-10-03T23:57:00.000-04:00

We at TBOC! have gotten ahold of some fun facts for all you devoted readers. Just so we don't overload you with information, here's one bit of fine information we're almost positive you'll want to know. At 3am on Friday, August 27th, the first weekend of the semester, there was a guest appearance by two oh-very-Larried-out boys at the Women's Resource Center (one quick side note to chew on--the Larry and Muffy preppiness is "not a trend, but a lifestyle").

According to our sources, the two boys who showed at the WRC were by the names of Stephen Patterson, and some Lance kid, whose last name we're unaware of, and frankly just don't give a fuck. The two are *pretty tight* if you get what we mean. So here's the deal--the boys apparently walked onto the front porch demanding to "just wanna know what the house is all about, ya know, 'cause like-- we're seniors." (With accentuation on preppy, rich boy accent here). The boys were repeatedly told to leave, which was very upsetting for them, and made them feel victimized...
Even upon being asked to leave, they remained. Now, our sources claim the term "goat-fuckers" was used in reference to, well, ok we werent going to mention it, but the whole Phi-Sig predicament last semester that caused the fraternity to lose their house. That said, the boys, in fact, were and are not members of the fraternity Phi-Sigma-whatever-it-is-goat-fuckers, and again, felt victimized.

Eventually, the CA was woken up and asked the boys to leave. Who didn't leave. In fact, our sources tell us that the boys argued with the CA for some time before they actually left. We're happy that people were awake at the WRC at the time, 'cause who knows what the hell the implications are when two retardo's show up to an all-female theme house they would otherwise have no business doing at 3am!

Phew! Who knew SLU was such a sketchy place? Stay tuned for more updates, bitches.

Another "Victim"

2004-10-03T21:37:00.000-04:00

Another SLU Muffy is a victim. We all know how society has failed the Larries and Muffies of the world. It's a tough life having mommy and daddy provide everything for you, going to all-white elite schools in which even if all you do is snort cocaine and fail your classes you'll still go to work for mommy and daddy anyway. We must have pity on such oppressed souls. The newest victim is Heather Thomas, Il Duce of the Greek Victimhood Movement, and Student Delegate to the Board of Trustees. Poor Heather is being harassed. How is she being harassed? She was asked questions, sinister questions about what she is paid $600 a semester to do. In public no less! Poor Heather. Heather let all her fellow oppressed executive board members know about this outrage, like cancer patient Peter Snedeker (he has "raging" mono) and working class heroes such as Molly Ryan and Alex Shephard, demanding something be done to put a stop to these thugs asking questions about access for the disabled. The Executive Board quickly went to work today, organizing an emergency meeting to care for the victim. Larries and Muffies all over should rejoice as their elected representatives take harassment of the oppressed (and diverse) masses of white elites seriously. Soon the evildoer will be brought to justice and such indecent behavior will never happen again.

Some things never change

2004-10-01T23:47:00.000-04:00

If there's one thing you can say about rich college conservatives, it's that they love their drugs, or in some cases expensive German-made sex toys, not that the two are by any means mutually exclusive. Probably their favorite, though, is that Lady of the Eighties. No, not Pat Benetar. Cocaine. Fortunately enough for the Colombian peripheral economy, it looks like some of your favorite SLURs are back at it again, with all the quick ducks into the bathroom and snorting of an NYSE stock broker. Sure, sure, they (see Thursday, May 06, 2004 entry at old TBOC!) say it's slander whenever we point this out, but remember: it's only slander if it's not true. Or, in the case of Fox News personalities, who are pathological liars, it's only slander if you know you're lying, and as such, they may not even know that they are.

Besides, we don't bring it up to mock them. We at TBOC! believe firmly that it is improper to mock someone for their addiction to and/or flirting with a Schedule 1 narcotic, except Rush Limbaugh. No, we bring this up merely out of ongoing concern for our conservative friends. Remember, it's never to late to get help; there's almost always room at Betty Ford. And if that doesn't work, then remember the ending of Requiem for a Dream.

But in all seriousness, can we fault them for it, really? The only reason all the hippies on campus buy weed instead of coke is because they can't quite afford the latter, although they may or may not be able to afford the expensive German-made sex toys. Regardless, we guess it's true, what the SLU Republicans--and every College Republicans chapter, for that matter--say: they're "the best party on campus!" So next time they've got a recruitment table set up, be sure to ask if you can get one of those nice tiny silver spoons for your keychain instead of those dumbass bottle openers (they don't really work anyway), and while you're there, don't forget to inquire: "Just exactly how much can I expect to candy-up my nose this semester?"

No matter what their response, you can rest assured the answer is "More than the President-select at Camp David."

Cheers!

We're back, bitches.

2004-09-29T16:19:00.000-04:00

Still kicking ass and taking names, we are very proud to announce the return of the much-controversial TBOC!

As the right-wing assault on students and professors intensifies across the country, TBOC! is here to take a stand, and fight back.

Haven't heard of TBOC! before? Check out our old site. Want to get involved, submit a post, or contact us? We can be reached via email at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com or simply by posting a comment below any post.

Cheers to a new year in the struggle.

Fight the right, we have the might!