Contact UsFacebookTwitterRSS FeedShare
Letters to the Editor 10/14
Published 10/14/2011
Comments (0)

Editor:

I would like to express my admiration for Derek Held's truly impressive "mansplaining" in his letter to the editor on Oct 12. I assume Mr. Held, as a male, does not have to worry about the gender pay gap affecting his salary. Thus, it clearly is not the "real issue." The "real issue," apparently, is that women are the ones who need to change because they do not negotiate as much, because they get married, because they are not willing to take control of their career, because, because ...

But Mr. Held does not consider that perhaps the reason women are less likely to negotiate is because our society often considers a woman asking for a pay raise to be "pushy" or "disagreeable." Perhaps married women face greater wage gaps because married women are more likely to have children. Studies have shown that women with children are less likely to be hired and have lower wages if they are hired because of that inherent belief that women should be at home.

The problem here is not women. The problem is patriarchy. So long as men think that they can justify the gender wage gap by wagging their fingers at women, it is not going to go away.

Cara Davis
junior, mathematics

Editor:

In an increasingly multicultural American society, the importance of tolerance and acceptance of individuals from different backgrounds is rising rapidly. This “tolerant” perspective aims to limit the judgment passed on cultural practices different to one’s own cultural experience. However, this tolerance and acceptance has been distorted from its original benevolent intentions to a form of ritual politeness. The motivation behind tolerant attitudes has been forgotten, leaving only the empty shell of the “politically correct” deed. In fact, even the term “politically correct” trivializes a matter of utmost importance. Tolerance is not simply taking special care in the words you use so as not to offend anyone.

Instead, tolerance goes far beyond this. True tolerance and acceptance of cultures unlike your own involves a deeper understanding than simply knowing what offensive words not to use. Rather, it encompasses knowledge of why those words are in fact offensive. It requires one to understand not only the practices of another culture, but also the motivations for those actions. 

Rather than simply refraining from passing judgment on individuals different than ourselves, it is necessary to understand the cultural basis for practices that differ from our own. In fact, when the motivations of various cultures are analyzed, it is found that often they are acting on the same principles. It is simply a difference in practice that evolves. Therefore, in order to be truly tolerant, we must focus on these fundamental similarities rather than on the practices themselves.

Miles Linde
freshman, biochemistry and philosophy

Editor:

In regard to the article "Student conduct fines in future of rule breakers," I have a significant problem with fines becoming the way to pay for the Student Conduct Board. I do not have issues with fines as a lot of times fines are the only way to get through to people. The sanctions that often hurts college students the most are financial sanctions.

I do, however, have a significant problem with the idea of the Student Conduct Board being the benefactor of those fines. What is to keep the Student Conduct Board in check? What is to keep them from taking the approach of "we need a new copier, and the budget is low, so let's crank up the fines?" They already have a fair amount of power over the student in that they can dismiss them from the university, but now we are supposed to trust that they fairly levy fines when their very financial existence will be based upon those fines?

In my experience as a nontraditional student, who has been in the "real" world for 20-plus years prior to coming back to school, that is a conflict of interest.

Also, since the university usually takes student conduct action when a student in involved with the police in an off-campus setting, what is to keep the university from asking Pullman PD to "aid" them in increasing funding? The Student Conduct Board funding themselves through the fines is unethical and should be fought by students.

Eric Strandberg
senior, history

Editor:

The column "Occupy D.C., not Wall Street" by William Stetson was right on. It is reassuring to note that some of our college students are thinking for themselves and refuse to become a pawn of those who would try to take advantage of this protest. If the incoherent momentum of "Occupy Wall Street" continues to grow, it will only lead to lawlessness and violence, which is exactly what the extremists want to happen so that our government can be overthrown.

Stetson has been a responsible citizen by checking the facts involved before coming to a conclusion on this matter. I commend those of you who, like Stetson, refuse to believe the media's and our corrupt government's lies, and instead investigate before becoming active in a cause. Keep on thinking outside the box. Be on the alert – much deception is being propagated out there.

If you have not been following the course of action our government and corporate leaders have taken during the years, then you have no right to be involved. Only after one has enough information to be able to make an intelligent assessment as to the veracity and true purposes of a cause should one get involved.

Yes, there is corruption in many of our larger private corporations, but when we stand up and fight for our rights, let's be careful to pick the right fight and zero in on the central root of our problems – not waste our energy on peripheral fights.

Lynne Wedel
Moscow resident

Leave the comment here:

Name*:

Email:




Sign up for breaking news