Grammatically, politically incorrect

On Dec. 17, 2005, I had a final for Natascha Sontag's class, English 317: Traditional English Grammar. Instead of a final exam, Ms. Sontag surprised our class with a guest lecturer, Dr. Lillian Corti.

Dr. Corti discussed her interpretation of Greg A. Burns' article, "So You Want to Date a Stripper." Before she began her lecture, she said she would pause periodically for questions or comments. Although a student had presented this article to the class several weeks earlier to fulfill the course requirements, Ms. Sontag felt that the article's content needed further attention.

Dr. Corti classified the article as hate speech, while other students--including myself--considered the article to be satirical. I disagreed with Dr. Corti's interpretations, and felt compelled to raise my hand. Dr. Corti acknowledged me, and I offered my opinion of the subject matter. Other students also spoke their opinions after Dr. Corti recognized them. The students remained orderly. All of the students who spoke disagreed with Dr. Corti's analysis, which caused her to become frazzled and overwhelmed. Dr. Corti threatened to leave the classroom because she felt students did not care what she had to say.

Despite her threat to leave, Dr. Corti remained and continued her lecture. She made the connection that the blanket statement the article made about strippers is no different than blanket statements about racial minorities. In response, one student said that strippers choose to strip while no one chooses to be a racial minority. I agreed with the student, saying that even though strippers and racial minorities are both stigmatized, they are two completely different issues. In direct response to my comment, Dr. Corti said that the comments the article makes is just like saying there are only two types of Black people: "niggers and darkies."

Her connection hit and hurt me hard because I am Black. At the time, Dr. Corti was my adviser.

Shortly after Dr. Corti's tenuous point, chaos erupted. Dr. Corti walked out of class and Ms. Sontag followed. Several students left, and I was tempted to leave but remained. Only seven or eight of us stayed. Dr. Corti and Ms. Sontag soon returned. Ms. Sontag said nothing, and Dr. Corti apologized for leaving and continued her presentation.

Through the rest of her lecture, I noticed that she excused words like "cock tease" and "slut." When she was completely finished, I asked her why she pardoned those words but did not excuse "nigger" or "darkie." Dr. Corti was immediately apologetic and taken aback. She said she "didn't mean it that way."

From my experience, I wanted to spread awareness. I want others to realize the hurt that racial slurs carry and nothing pardons or legitimizes the use of them.

I shared my story with various individuals in UAF administration, including Dean Morrow of the College of Liberal Arts, Dean Barnett, Earlina Bowden of the Equal Opportunity Office, and Dr. Reichardt, the Provost. I am happy to say that they were all respectful and eager to hear what I had to say. It is important to me that people know about what happened in Grammar class that day and how I felt about it.

Dr. Corti has sincerely apologized to me several times. I have accepted her apologies, and I feel our relationship has healed. I have not lost any respect for Dr. Corti, and I do not feel she has lost any respect for me. I know that Dr. Corti did not intend to offend me because she is an intelligent woman who has lots of information to share with her students.

I choose to share this experience with others with hope that the next time someone disagrees with something, that person will do something about it. It is never wrong to speak your mind! People are not mind readers, and will never know there is a problem unless someone addresses it.

I am thankful to all UAF faculty and administration who have listened to me and heard me. I am thankful that I have resources and outlets to help spread awareness. I am thankful that this situation has been successfully resolved, and I hope this upcoming spring semester will be smooth.

Harmonie Thomas

Definitions of National Wildlife Refuge

National Wildlife Refuge is a designation for certain protected areas of the United States managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Wildlife Refuge system is a network of lands and waters managed to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. The system consists of over 500 refuges across the nation.

Nowhere does the definition of a "National Wildlife Refuge" mention anything about the creation of jobs or the development of the land for economic reasons. It states very clearly that it is managed to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat.

ANWR was created within this system in 1980 to be set aside for this purpose, not to strengthen the economy, not to provide oil or exports, not to be developed for the purpose of generating jobs or income, but to provide and protect wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Sincerely,

Chris England

Greenbelt Project

Dear Sun Star,

My name in Nick Lisuzzo and I am one of the project coordinators for the Chena Flats Greenbelt Project (CFGP). The CFGP is a coalition of residents, property owners and non-governmental organizations seeking to establish a multi-purpose corridor of open space between the base of Chena Ridge and Chena Pump road here in Fairbanks. The primary goals of the project are to 1) Create a corridor for recreational use and travel 2)

Conserve a portion of high quality wetlands 3) Protect a portion of the historic Chena town site and 4) Form a partnership with Alaska State Parks to improve the Tanana River Wayside.

At this point in the project, one of our major efforts is getting the word out and letting the community know who we are and what we are trying to do. To this end we would be happy to answer questions or discuss the project in greater detail. Please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your time,

Women's Center is biased

To the editor,

January 22, 2006, passed with little mention at UAF, even though it was the 33rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's most terrible decision, the Roe vs. Wade decision.

I must applaud the Women's Center for putting up a display. Unfortunately, it was biased and one-sided. For an organization whose mission is to "reflect the diverse views of women," it has forgotten to mention the other side of the debate. If the UAF Women's Center truly cared to fulfill its own mission, it would've represented all the sides of such a contentious debate. The message of the display, comprised of a photo, abortion statistics, women's equality statistics, two articles, and a quote from a Supreme Court justice, was all too clear: The rights, liberties and equality that women enjoy today are a direct result of the ability to legally murder an unborn child.

The picture of a woman doing laundry has the following caption, "It wasn't that long ago that a woman's choices were much more limited." Is this display really trying to imply that without abortion, women will be doomed to domestic servitude? As a matter of fact, what does a lot of the information posted on the display have to do with abortion? Women's military service, women's voting rates and women's college attendance rates. None of it has any connection to the abortion issue.

The articles, one from the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the other from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, are both laughable. They imply that with more access to contraceptives there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus, few abortions; that women who choose abortion do so after much careful consideration; and that the current "gag rule," which prevents many health care providers from discussing abortion, will directly result in 1.5 million unplanned pregnancies.

Unfortunately for them, none of these implications are valid. Contraceptives in various forms, i.e. condoms, the pill, the patch, the shot, etc., have been around for 30 years, and yet abortions continue. Second, if the abortion decision was the result of careful consideration, then how does NOW explain the women who have obtained multiple abortions. For these women, abortion is just another form of birth control. And finally, for everyone who has never taken a biology class, the only thing that causes pregnancy is sex between a man and a woman.

I won't repeat the quote, but the Supreme Court deciding on a case does not make the activity in question moral or right. Look at Plessy vs. Ferguson. It was a Supreme Court decision that was upheld at least eight times before being overturned 60 years later. The Supreme Court is not infallible, it does make bad decisions, and cases such as Plessy vs. Ferguson and Roe vs. Wade have proven it.

And for everyone wondering how a man could have the audacity to write about a subject such as abortion, I would like to remind you that men are usually, and I'd even be so bold as to say always, involved in the conception equation. Of course, I could be wrong. Michael Smith

Founder, UAF Students for Life