Working with Wikipedia
Thanks for the Feb. 19 article on Wikipedia, which was the subject of some discussion (pro and con) at the annual faculty Teaching Conference last month.
I encourage my students to use Wikipedia as an initial reference source, and don't mind them citing it in papers and presentations as long as they use other more traditional sources as well. We all need to understand the power and limitations of what is becoming the largest reference source ever created, with around 2 million articles in a number of languages (an appealing feature for language teachers).
My own experience with Wikipedia has been positive, although sometimes frustrating. I have written a few articles and have enjoyed participating in the large community of Wikipedians. At the same time, it is a little upsetting to see your article changed, sometimes arbitrarily, by others with unknown qualifications.
After some recent embarrassing incidents Wikipedia has been asking for citations and sources in articles, and there is a core of volunteer administrators and "prowlers" who visit new postings and don't hesitate to correct, and even delete, material they feel is inaccurate. Another safeguard is a "watchlist" whereby the author of a posting can be notified if their page is changed and can follow up on the modification.
Casual users of Wikipedia should be aware that beyond the surface level of Wikipedia there is a second level with multiple opportunities for discussion and comment among the community of writers and editors of Wikipedia.
Rather than criticizing or banning the use of Wikipedia, I would urge faculty colleagues and students to improve it by joining the community, editing and writing articles in areas in which they can make a contribution.
Jack Child Professor of Spanish and Latin American Studies, LFS/CAS Affiliate Professor of International Service, SIS
Jacob Shelly's latest column
In Jacob Shelly's latest column, many errors are made in his survey of the 2008 presidential field.
I think the biggest problem with his column is that he is confusing what he hopes will happen with what actually will happen. His belief that Barack Obama will be the Democratic standard bearer is supported by scant evidence. It is apparent that Shelly has overdosed on idealism. In his view, what win elections are such illuminating statements as "Wherever there's despair, faith is more powerful." Way to take a courageous stand on the issues that matter most. I am sure a few more statements declaring his support of baseball, motherhood and apple pie will lock up his support for sure.
While Obama cultivates the image of being "above" politics, his voting record demonstrates he is a reliable liberal. The American Conservative Union gives him an 8 percent conservative voting record from his first two years in office. He has only once voted against the liberal Americans for Democratic Action's agenda. These are more liberal records than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards possess.
Shelly seems strangely dismissive of Hillary Clinton's chances. In recent polls, Democratic voters have favored Hillary by a 20-point average. I would guess his dismissal of Clinton is her failure to disavow her Iraq War vote. That piece of rhetorical red meat may matter to some of the most anti-war voters, but I don't think her inability to possess 20/20 hindsight will hurt her candidacy much.
Perhaps the greatest mistake in the column was his treatment of the Republican candidates. His dismissal of the field was totally ignorant, and only mentioned Sam Brownback, who while a fine man, is in all honesty a fringe candidate.
I don't want to demean Shelly and I am sure that he sincerely believes what he writes. But if you want to convince others that Obama will receive the Democratic nomination based only on a bland message of hope or totally neglecting to mention any of the strong Republican candidates, then I cannot sit back and let these errors go unanswered.
Chris Palko Sophomore, School of Public Affairs Public Relations/Media Relations Director, AU College Republicans
AU Feminists Are Not Irrelevent
I was taken aback by Caleb Enerson's column, "Why Feminists Are Irrelevant," in the Feb. 19 Eagle. What bothers me is not that the author blatantly ignores factual information (studies about pay inequality usually take into account types of work done, time taken off and part time work; they still find that women make about 75 cents for every dollar that men make). I don't even mind that he ignores judicial rulings like Baby v. Maryland a couple of weeks ago that state there is no rape under Maryland law if the woman consents to sex prior to penetration and then withdraws the consent after penetration. The reasoning was that men cannot biologically stop themselves once they've started. Believe me, sexism is certainly personal, but it is also most definitely institutional.
What really bothers me, though, is when the author states that feminists "pick the dumbest battles," he shows incredible disregard for the hard work AU's feminists have done to drastically improve our campus. For example, Women's Initiative is an AU organization comprised of more than 600 self-identified feminists. This year, WI sits on the Wellness Team, Critical Issues Team and Sexual Harassment Project Team. WI was integral to the effort to bring condom machines to the dorms, the new blue lights to the quad and the HPV vaccine and free HIV testing to the Health Center. WI has developed a sexual assault information Web site, trained SAC advocates on sexual assault issues and written a sexual assault program that is presented in the dorms. The work that WI does ensures that both men and women have access to better health care, are safe when walking around campus, are free from harassment in the classroom and have interesting, educational programming from which they can learn about today's most important topics.
While writers like Mr. Enerson give feminists a bad name, I would hardly describe the work of AU's feminists as irrelevant.
JoAnna Smith, Director of Women's Initiative
Caleb Enerson wrote recently of the need for feminists to abandon "extremist rhetoric" and engage in "intellectual discourse" or risk continuing to be "irrelevant." As a proud proponent of the aforementioned political persuasion, I would challenge Enerson to live up to the intellectual rigor he asks of feminists. Enerson proposes three weak arguments about why feminism is irrelevant. None of these arguments are solid enough to prove Enerson's thesis, and instead suggest his own irrelevance as a participant in informed debate.
First, he challenges the wage gap argument by explaining women more often choose part-time and flexible jobs to allow time for child care and domestic needs. That to Enerson this is proof of equity between the sexes is disturbing, as to me it quite clearly suggests the continuing negative effects of the double burden. If women make less money because many spend more time on domestic needs, this demonstrates just the opposite of Enerson's intentions - woman can indeed choose to ignore family obligations, but the reality is that our society still expects more mothers than fathers to take these more flexible jobs to care for children.
Enerson's final argument is my favorite. He writes, "Like racism, sexism is something that exists because of people. You could pass all the laws you want, but some people will still be sexist. It's not institutional." This is so convincing, I wonder if Enerson would follow his own logic and call in his next column for the repeal of Amendments 13, 14 and 15 of the Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By his logic, the legal efforts to reform society to correct and remedy past injustices are "dumb." I respectfully disagree with this characterization and invite Mr. Enerson to rethink his arguments.
Andrew Erin Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
I am writing in response to Caleb Enerson's column, "Why Feminists Are Irrelevant." As the Women's Empowerment Director for Women's Initiative, and a feminist, I have a problem with being called irrelevant. Although Mr. Enerson may be right that no laws explicitly discriminate against women, there is plenty of societal discrimination to go around. As long as four women every day are murdered by an intimate partner, I will be a feminist. As long as women in Saudi Arabia cannot drive, I will be a feminist. As long as approximately 2 million women's genitals are mutilated every year, I will be a feminist. As long as one in every three women is sexually assaulted, I will be a feminist. And as long as feminists keep fighting for these statistics to be a part of history instead of reality, I will call myself a feminist, and I will not be irrelevant.
Ashley Evans Sophomore, School of International Service
I want to know which strain of feminism Caleb Enerson was proclaiming "irrelevant." Since Enerson seems to think a critique of a Gloria Steinem quote is a convincing critique of feminism as a whole, I'm guessing he is unaware of the rich debates within feminism.
Sexism, like all other forms of discrimination, is always subtle, whether it happens on an institutional or a personal level. Discrimination (of women or any other group) isn't often accompanied by an announcement that it just happened, but to the people who experience it in their lives, it is all too real.
Here are the personal reasons why feminism is very, very relevant to me: Close friends and family members of mine have been raped. I've been followed, harassed, and yelled at by strangers who try to intimidate women to make themselves feel powerful. I've had co-workers tell me that I will never be able to work as well as them because I am female. I've been told that women are inherently less able to reason (I'm infected with female emotions which inhibit my decision-making process, apparently), less funny, unfit to lead, worse drivers, worse musicians, bad at directions, overly talkative ... etc. when compared to men.
I hope Enerson, and others like him, decide to challenge themselves by taking anthropology or gender studies classes. Feminism, in its most modern form, is about looking at the constructs in our society that create unequal, unhealthy patterns of interaction between men and women. The misunderstanding Enerson so aptly demonstrates is precisely the reason why feminism is still relevant, as a tool to open all of our eyes to the discrimination (based on race, sex, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, disability, or citizenship status) around us, and to lead us forward in a thoughtful and deliberate struggle to make our society more just and equitable.
Rachel Wood Senior, SIS
