| Admin's
double standard
Dear Editor,
I am writing
this letter in response to recent events at this school and
their consequences. As I started this semester I was full of
excitement and hope that this would be my greatest year on both
a social and academic level, but this quickly turned to disillusionment.
As the semester progressed I realized I was not alone. This
feeling came to a head after the recent actions taken against
the former members of Delta Tau Delta.
Hillsdale is supposed to be a
place that doesn't base judgment on sex, race, religion or any
other collective grouping. So why now is there this contradiction
and double standard within the college and administration? Every
one of these men were singled out and punished for no other
reason than associating with a particular group at a particular
time. If a member of the football team or IV acted inappropriately,
would every individual in these groups be punished? They should
be if the same rule is applied.
These ludicrous accusations and
actions taken by the administration have done nothing but demoralize,
alarm and factionalize the student body while creating an environment
of distrust, bickering and backstabbing. If the administration
can act on such a whim, what assurance can I or anyone else
have that we won't also be punished for simply trying to enjoy
ourselves with close friends in someone else's home? No longer
can people go socialize on or off campus without worrying about
some potential repercussion. The administration has done nothing
to alleviate this feeling, only worsen it.
It's coming to a point where many
students are starting to give up trying to create an enjoyable,
friendly and social atmosphere, if they haven't already. I fear
that without any immediate change Hillsdale will only continue
on this downward spiral.
Sincerely,
John Dove, junior
The real reason for sex
Dear Editor,
A few comments
are in order regarding Dave Frank's editorial of Oct. 2.
I am having difficulty identifying
the "traditional" view of conjugal love against which
Frank wages his criticism. While perusing a compiled list of
"darkly altruistic theologies," I failed to find a
sect of Christianity that held a view of sex consonant with
the description in last week's editorial. Frank does, however,
provide the reader with a lead when he relates a recent conversation
he had with a Catholic. The Catholic Church seems like a prime
candidate for Frank's criticism since the Catholic view of sex
seems to be the most "traditional" thing going.
Unfortunately, while Frank's Catholic
interlocutor is correct in his or her assessment of fellatio
within a Catholic marriage, this is the only fact in the editorial
that is consistent with the Catholic view. Contrary to Frank's
suggestions, the Catholic conception of marital love embraces
both the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality:
Conjugal love is "first of all...human and therefore both
of the senses and of the spirit," and it is a "very
special form of personal friendship" (Humanae Vitae). These
statements about sex are wholly incompatible with an account
of sex which deems all non-procreative aspects of the marital
act "immoral, superfluous and a perversion."
Sincerely,
Lee M. Cole, senior
Dear Editor,
Dave Frank misunderstands
the underpinnings of the traditional view of sex ("Sex:
more than propagation of the species," Oct. 2).
When people keep sex open to the
creation of life, they are telling each other that they are
ready to accept any consequences that may result from their
actions. Although Frank thinks this traditional view "holds
that nothing is personally gained," a willingness to accept
consequences fosters commitment and trust, the staples of a
healthy relationship.
But what happens when these consequences
are separated from the action? Sex tends to be viewed as self-gratifying,
which leads to all sorts of abuses. For example, when "the
pill" was introduced, we witnessed a sexual revolution
that has done just what Frank advocates-reducing sex to pleasure
seeking. The results have been broken homes, unwanted children,
mass murder in the form of abortion and a decreased respect
for women as anything more than sex objects.
Sincerely,
Crystal Engelhart, freshman
Dear Editor,
Dave Frank's
article claimed that "traditionalists" think that
foreplay and oral sex are immoral even within marriage because
they do not produce offspring. Frank arrived at this conclusion
after having a conversation about sex with one Catholic. As
a man who grew up in a conservative and traditional Christian
home, I can say that this is not correct.
Even though some Catholics hold
this view of sex, they make up only a part of Christians who
hold traditional views. Many Protestant dominations do not share
this attitude and many traditional Christians believe in sex
as a pleasurable activity for our enjoyment as well as a way
to produce offspring. To say that most, much less all, traditional
Christians think sex is only for procreation is a gross over
generalization.
Sincerely,
Nathan Ruark, sophomore
|
Letters to the Editor |
