The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2005/11/11/letters_to_the_editor

November 11, 2005 > Opinion > Letters to the editor

Letters to the editor

Students can make own NOD choices

To the editor:

After reading Erica Rangel’s column proposing that we abolish Wiess College’s Night of Decadence for the sake of the students, I couldn’t help feel bad for the students at Rice (“For student good, Rice must end NOD,” Nov. 4). The column painted a picture of a weak-willed, naive, insecure and irresponsible student body that was just aching to be emotionally and physically violated, with NOD providing a perfect outlet for that outcome. Pardon me, but on behalf of all Rice students, I would like to disagree.

Despite all the craziness and popularity of NOD, it is just another party that students can choose to attend or not; peer pressure has always been an element in campus life, so I would not expect NOD to be an exception. To give us all a little credit, I think most students can make up their own minds about NOD, just as they can about any other social event.

If a student is deliberating about whether to go, I would hope that he or she would put it together in his or her mind that a party that contains a large amount of people who are scantily clad, in close proximity and most likely intoxicated will most definitely have some sexual overtones.

That said, a girl or boy who decides to go to NOD should recognize the following:

First, if he or she wears something provocative, he or she will draw attention of a sexual nature to himself or herself.

Second, staying in a group of friends or at least with a buddy or significant other might be wise, considering the general horniness of the dance floor crowd.

Third, if drinking is on your to-do list for NOD, doubly apply the second.

Past that, I don’t really see any reason to worry about NOD in general. If having a group of friends around you and wearing something less revealing doesn’t assuage your fears about contracting a sexually transmitted disease at NOD, then don’t go; there are plenty of NOD alternatives both on-campus and off.

Brett Snider Hanszen sophomore

Conceited columnist wrong about PDA#

To the editor:

Arianne Urus’s column on the PDA disease was quite possibly the most self-righteous article I have ever read (“Public displays of affection just pretty darn adolescent,” Nov. 4). To judge the feelings couples have for each other based solely on how they express those feelings is incredibly offensive.

She assumes couples display their affection for each other to put on a show for her. But that simply isn’t the case. When I was in a relationship, those displays of affection — both in private and in public — were for the benefit of each other and no one else.

You see, I’m gay, and even still today, people are killed for that reason. To display affection in public could definitely get me into trouble, so to say that I was putting on a show for everyone downplays the feelings and risks involved.

The affection I showed my boyfriend wasn’t to show the world how hot, sexy or cool I was. It wasn’t even to show the world that I wasn’t afraid to be seen in public with my boyfriend, because to be perfectly honest, I was — especially after having been accosted by a stranger downtown for displaying what Urus would call an “insecure manifestation of affection.”

I never felt I had anything to prove to the world. It was about showing him I cared and how I felt about him. Such feelings know no boundaries. They don’t have to be defined only behind closed doors. While we may not be in a relationship anymore, it certainly didn’t end because of the “emotional instability” we displayed.

I thought only children squealed when they saw two people kiss, but I suppose I was wrong. In my opinion, being disgusted upon seeing two people kiss is pretty darn adolescent.

Matt Valdez Will Rice sophomore

Different couples work different ways

To the editor:

I found large parts of Arianne Urus’ column so appalling that I can’t help but hope it was a joke (“Public displays of affection just pretty darn adolescent,” Nov. 4).

“Who gave these amateur exhibitionists permission to hold hands?” Urus asks. No one, probably, because no permission is necessary. The idea of needing permission for PDA is simply outrageous. Just to be clear, we’re not talking about obscene or sexually explicit acts here.

In deciding if PDA is acceptable, two opposing desires have to be weighed: the longing for self-expression and the wish to not witness the self-expression of others. It should be obvious which of the two is more important and worthy of protection.

Urus states that “comfort is being able to just be.” She is almost right — comfort is being able to just be yourself. Some people express their affection only in private; we probably all agree that forcing them to publicly display their feelings would be cruel. Apparently Urus did not consider that denying people the right to openly display their feelings is equally cruel.

Her claim that PDA erodes a relationship and her dismissal of chitchat as insecurity further show a lack of understanding that people operate differently and have different needs.

It is admirable when an 18-year-old freshman knows exactly what is good for her. But pretending to know what everyone else needs is just pretty darn pretentious.

Mathias Ricken Sid ‘04

PDA permission only for the Orwellian

To the editor:

In her column, Arianne Urus painted a cold and insensitive feeling of love. When reading it, I was actually reminded of the grim picture of the state of human relations George Orwell described in his book 1984.

Simply — and I do not mean to be facetious — Urus argued for a type of love that seems to be communistic and without feeling. I am no expert in the world of love — actually, far from it. However, what I do know is there isn’t a wrong or right way to be in love.

Love holds a unique experience for each one of us — no one can or should be told how to love. Therefore, when I see a PDA, I smile and feel genuinely happy for the people involved.

Nobody needs permission to kiss, hug or hold hands — this is a free country. The alternative is definitely communism.

I think the majority of students in relationships would disagree with Urus. Love should be a very public aspect of our lives. Moreover, when you do find that special person, you should want to shout it from the tallest mountain.

Urus’ way of showing affection or lack of it to her boyfriend is completely foreign to me, but I am not going tell her how to love him.

Truth be told, everyone could have a little more affection and compassion in their lives, including more PDA.

Daniel Berman Lovett senior

Public affection not relationship SOS

To the editor:

With all due respect to Arianne Urus, public displays of affection do not necessarily indicate a relationship in trouble. Just ask my wife of 12 years, Darcy. While many of our friends and co-workers give us a hard time about how darn cute we are in public, it has worked exceptionally well for us. So well, in fact, that we recently found out we are expecting our first child.

I had never considered the idea that holding hands and kissing in public is an attempt to prove our love to the world, and regardless, I don’t care. I kiss my wife and hold her hand because I like it and will do it wherever and whenever possible. If you don’t like it, turn away.

Angus Bell Sid ‘92

DeLay trial furor anything but trivial

To the editor:

Billy Freeland attacks the indictment of former majority leader of the U.S. House Tom DeLay as a politically motivated distraction that is diverting resources from more pressing concerns (“Accusations against DeLay flimsy, misguided,” Oct. 28). Freeland may disagree, but I believe the indictment of the second-ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives is, in fact, a serious matter.

DeLay was at the helm of the Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, providing start-up funds, headlining its fundraisers and participating in formulating strategy for the group. It seems unlikely that he would have had nothing to do with TRMPAC’s funneling $190,000 from corporate donors through the Republican National Committee and back to the state candidates, in violation of Texas law.

Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean may have misspoken when he called DeLay “guilty,” but that’s nothing compared to DeLay’s three admonishments by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee last year and his ties to lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff, which have earned DeLay criticism even from within his own party.

Furthermore, Freeland errs in asserting that there is no positive Democratic message. Democrats’ priorities are keeping Americans safe at home and abroad through responsible foreign policy, providing a well-educated workforce for a strong economy and expanding opportunities for all Americans, not just those at the top.

Perhaps Republicans should welcome the focus on DeLay — after all, it can only divert attention from the Vice President’s former chief of staff Scooter Libby’s indictment, the continuing American deaths in Iraq and the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination debacle.

Ian Everhart Hanszen senior Rice Young Democrats President

Awareness, not Bible, key to understanding

To the editor:

I am writing in response to Daniel Wang’s column about God’s love (“God’s love, forgiveness provide absolute truth,” Oct. 21).

I was disturbed by Wang’s closed-minded lecture based on a Christian-centered and egoistic premise, which had the stated intent of making the reader feel guilty and uncomfortable. I’d like to comment with a broader view regarding all people: In our globalized world, viewing humanity as a lot of singular opposing clubs and nations is not productive. Observing the world through the “absolute” ideas of a single religion is not fruitful.

Wang declares that the Bible is “God’s word and absolute truth.” I agree that basic biblical morals are excellent; however, the Bible is not the universal text of the masses. Its fundamentals can be found in almost every other major religious text, as well as in the secular literature of most cultures. These common moral points are the closest I can think of to universal, “absolute truths” for humans, because they are accepted and practiced within a majority of societies.

Wang seems to believe that formerly, every human being sought moral advice from the Bible. He writes that in our generation, “truth has been taken out of God’s hands and placed fully into the hands of humans,” as if independent thought is an unfortunate recent phenomenon.

But individual thought is not a new development. What’s more, the Bible was never the sole or foremost source of human truth and morality, and it may never be. Major problems in today’s world do not stem from anything as narrow as a disregard for the Bible.

Condemning lectures such as Wang’s cannot aid the progress of humankind. Rather, we should aim to support humanity’s inherent potential for great goodness. Perhaps people like Wang should make an effort to expand their mindsets to encompass all humans. Open-mindedness and awareness are a step toward a more peaceful, understanding world.

Katina Mitchell Martel sophomore

Religion, government, marriage intertwined

To the editor:

Katy Mulvaney’s opinion piece brought to mind the sculpture of the freshman on the column in the arch of Lovett Hall — kind of silly and sophomoric (“Catholics must oppose secular Amendment 2,” Oct. 21).

Apparently she does not realize that while marriage is very much a religious affair — it was started by God — it is also a secular arrangement. The two are not mutually exclusive exclusive just because of the First Amendment or, as she proposes, because “the Church should not submit itself to governmental authority.” Our government takes marriage into account on our taxes. Banks take marital status into account on loan applications.

Also, she must not be familiar with the biblical passage in which Paul writes about submitting to the government because it is in place only by God’s will and for his purposes, though we may not understand that purpose.

The fact that religious groups agree with and support government actions is nothing new. One need only read the history books required to graduate high school to understand that this country’s foundation is a religious one. Religious men wrote the Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution — in essence, all of our founding documents and our laws. It seems to me that only over the past 40 or so years has the religion of secular humanism started having its adherents push their beliefs onto others.

Russell Wright Lovett ‘88

Smalley’s enthusiasm encouraged students

To the editor:

I was tremendously saddened to hear the news of Professor Richard Smalley’s passing (“Nobel Prize winner Smalley pioneered nanotechnology,” Nov. 4). He was a giant of a man and his death is a loss for Rice, for science and for the world. I am very fortunate for the influence Smalley had on my life.

I will always remember vividly when I first learned about the marvel of carbon nanotubes in his freshman chemistry class. The enthusiasm he conveyed about his research was contagious, and despite being pre-med, I was compelled by Smalley’s example to major in physics, do research in his lab and complete a Ph.D working on nanotubes. I continue to strive to be a shade of the revolutionary scientist embodied by Smalley.

My most personal memory of Smalley came when, after I was lucky enough to win a Rhodes Scholarship, he commented that the award was an important reflection on my family. I can only imagine the kind of passion and insight a man like Smalley brought to his own family. As a member of his Rice family, I know that he will be very dearly missed.

Bobby Azamian Hanszen ‘99

End of article

Back to top