Nathan Wuertenberg

Commentary Editor

It is possible that some of you reading this have recently encountered the name Alex Knepper in popular news sources. It is also possible that some of you have even read his March 28, 2010 article in the American University Eagle as it spread throughout the Internet and made waves across the national news scene and caused storms of outrage. Finally, it is possible that my response to this article will only be another drop in the ocean of that outrage. Despite this possibility, I feel the necessity to continue.

In this article entitled “Dealing with AU’s anti-sex brigade,” Mr. Knepper, among other claims, most notably argues that “date rape” is not, in fact, rape. What? Let’s rewind that and review, shall we? Although this is not always an accurate indicator, if the crime is included in the name of the act, there’s a good chance it’s a crime.

But, I admit, that’s not enough. Let’s look at the example Mr. Knepper uses of a typical date rape situation and determine if it qualifies as rape. “Let’s get this straight,” Knepper declares, “any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK?” I don’t know how many of you are familiar with jungle juice (it’s a college campus, so I’m assuming a large portion), but this particular concoction is frequently comprised of a juice-esque liquid and whatever cheap liquor can be obtained. This often includes grain alcohol. To take a page from Knepper’s book, let’s get this straight: THAT SHIT CAN MAKE YOU GO BLIND. And not like “inspiring Ray Charles-blind.” More like “I keep tripping over/injuring small children-blind.” At best, five cups worth of jungle juice will make your face go numb. At worst, a bunch of small children have bruises because of you. At what point in that experience does a person have the capacity to indicate consent. Simple answer: they don’t. That’s what rape is: sexual intercourse without that person’s consent. Simple rule of thumb ladies and gentleman (because a man can be raped too): no definitive consent=don’t do it.

In the course of his article, Knepper also offers a blistering critique of feminism in which, he implies, the feminist movement is attempting to make women more powerful than men. Let’s be clear: that’s not feminism. Being a feminist simply means that an individual believes that men and women should be politically, socially, and economically equal (or at least have equal opportunities to succeed in any or all of these categories). Feminism means you believe everyone has the right to choose their own destiny. Believe that? If you do, congratulations. You’re a feminist. Now you can be as pissed off as I am about the things Knepper said.

First of all, Knepper compares feminism to Pat Robertson. Given this particular individual’s frequent criticisms of the feminist movement, such a comparison seems a stretch. Second of all, he labels feminism a “religious dogma.” For those of you who haven’t taken an introductory religion course (or haven’t actually lived on this planet), that’s not true. In order for a set of beliefs to qualify as a religion, it must possess three basic characteristics (often referred to as the ABC’s of religion). These are: A)ssures salvation, B)elieves in a precise theology, and C)onverts non-believers. At what point does feminism assure salvation? No feminist ever told me I would go to heaven for supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Furthermore, anyone familiar with the myriad of different feminist movements (including but not limited to womanism, LGBT-focused feminism, anarcha feminism, radical feminism, liberal feminism, Libertarian feminism, and environmental feminism) can hardly claim that feminist theology is “precise.” I might be able to give Knepper the “converts non-believers” category. After all, I believe everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed, why don’t you? Maybe you should reconsider whatever you’re about to say to that.

Third, Knepper completely abuses the idea of “social construction theory” (which, by the way, has not been “disposed of by neuroscientists and psychologists” and is actually correctly termed “social constructivism” or “social constructionism”). In fact, I could be wrong, but I’m fairly certain Knepper isn’t talking about social constructivism at all. Social constructivism is devoted to the study of how social phenomena like stereotypical gender roles (i.e. girls are nurses and boys are doctors) become widely accepted traditions. It is not completely focused on the study of gender roles, but that study is part of the wider social constructivism structure. Nowhere could I find in my admittedly brief research before writing this response any theory that argued that “men are essentially born as eunuchs, only to have wicked masculinity imposed on them by an evil society.” I did happen upon some interesting findings in the field of gender identity research that claimed individuals do not develop a functional gender identity until they are 2 or 3 years of age. As far as I can ascertain, that particular study has not been “disposed of” by neuroscientists and psychologists. Questioned, maybe. In a competitive scientific world some questioning is inevitable. But it hasn’t been disregarded. Perhaps if Knepper had done a modicum more research than the poor uneducated sap who is writing to you now, such a mistake would never have been made, and readers would have been more likely to take his opinions seriously.

Fourth, Knepper offers to his readers a series of what he calls “pro-sex views.” Personally, I wasn’t aware anyone over the age of puberty was not pro-sex. There are those who advocate celibacy before marriage, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with saving yourself for marriage. But that isn’t to say that after marriage you can’t bump uglies like there’s no mañana. According to Knepper, “the goal of contemporary feminism and Gay Party activism is not to explain sex, but to abolish its passion.” This passion, according to Mr. Knepper, is characterized by “spontaneity, raw energy and control (or its counterpart, surrender).” I will agree with Mr. Knepper on several points: sex can in certain situations be improved by “spontaneity” and “raw energy.” Furthermore, if your own individual sexual preferences include the possession of “control” or the act of “surrender” in that situation and you can find someone else who will give their consent to be your “counterpart,” feel free to act out those fantasies. But that does not mean that such sexual practices are always, 100% of the time, appropriate (as Mr. Knepper implies). But, a sexual relationship of mutual respect, love, and caring is. It may sound naive to some of you for me to say that. It may even seem unnecessarily obvious to others. However, it has to be said. Sex doesn’t always have to include the “inherently gendered thrills of fetishism, sadomasochism, kink or cross-dressing” as Knepper argues. Sometimes sex isn’t about simple gratification. Sometimes it’s about expressing the feelings you have for a person in the most intimately physical way possible, which makes Knepper’s glorification of “anonymous sex” seem a bit shallow and immature. One has to wonder if Knepper has ever experienced a mature, responsible relationship himself.

Finally, Knepper “altruistically” offers five of his favorite books on sex and gender: “The Myth of Male Power” by Warren Farrell, “The Sexual Spectrum” by Olive Skene Johnson, “Vamps and Tramps” by Camille Paglia, “Philosophy In the Bedroom” by the divine Marquis de Sade, and “Who Stole Feminism?” by Christina Hoff Sommers. The first has most often been used (wrongly, it would appear from my brief research) as the anti-feminist Bible. The second unabashedly uses personal stories to bolster scientific findings (and, if you’ve ever taken a psychology class, you know that anecdotal evidence doesn’t actually represent evidence). The third is written by an author that argues that in order to “revamp” feminism “the lady must be a tramp” and calls the idea that homosexuals are born gay “ridiculous.” The fourth is just creepy, but again, if you’re into that kind of stuff, feel free to check it out. Finally, “Who Stole Feminism” is by a woman that once claimed that feminists were “just mad at the beautiful girls.” Personally, I find the idea that a movement devoted to promoting equity and respect between the genders requires impropriety to be successful counterintuitive and ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is any more reversible than heterosexuality is offensive. Finally, the idea that feminists are just ugly girls jealous that they aren’t more sexually appealing is a stereotype. I looked it up.

But, again, I have only performed the briefest research in preparing to write this article. I could be wrong about everything I believe. However, like Alex Knepper, I have the right to tell anyone who disagrees with me to suck it in a public forum.

Andrew Velonosky

Staff Reporter

Just when the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church seemed to be dying down, another round of accusations has surfaced in recent months. The most recent case to come out is one claiming that Vatican officials have tried to cover up the sexual abuse of two teenage girls by a Minnesota priest from 2004-05. This is especially disconcerting for a number of reasons. First, this alleges that the Vatican itself knew about the abuse did not act (the Vatican has often blamed local bishops for ignoring the problem and not passing information on to Rome, but, as this case indicates, knowledge of the situation seems to have gone much higher). Second, while the vast majority of allegations have concerned abuses that occurred decades ago, this latest development shows that the problem has continued more recently as well.

This latest allegation claims that Father Joseph Pavanivel Jeyapaul abused two girls while serving in the diocese of Crookston, Minnesota from 2004-05. Evidence that the Vatican knew about the abuses and did nothing is obvious in the form of repeated letters sent to the Vatican from Victor Balke, bishop of the diocese in Minnesota. To make matters even worse, Balke also complained that large amounts of money had been disappearing under the watch of Jeyapaul. Still, the Vatican did nothing.

So where is Father Jeyapaul today? He is in India, his native country, where is head of a church education commission, and still a Catholic Priest. Addressing this lack of action by the Church, Jeff Anderson, attorney for one of the abuse victims said, “This is systematic. All roads … lead to Rome and the top officials there,” and, “As horrific as the rape of children by Jeyapaul is … the cover-up of it is every bit as horrific and criminal.” The county attorney for Roseau County, where the abuses occurred, is trying to extradite Jeyapaul from India for trial in the United States. As of April 5, Jeyapaul was still in India.

The issue of abuse has been an ongoing one for the Church since at least the 1970’s, but it was in 2002, amid a flurry of media attention, that the issue became widely publicized. An estimated 80% of accusations worldwide have occurred in the United States. The Church seems to have put itself in a very undesirable position through its reaction to the problem. It has been criticized for reacting too slowly or for not seeming to care at all. Some of this has resulted from misunderstandings between the Vatican and the faithful in the United States, as many Church officials have stated that the Vatican finds American Catholics strange and ignorant of the ways of the Church in Rome. Whatever the reason, this has unquestionably led to further outrage over the abuses.

One thing the Church should have recognized about Americans is their love for conspiracy theories. Americans love to think of a big, bad, evil plot somewhere out there whether it is the government, the corporations, or even aliens. And while this may be irrational, the Church has given people plenty of reasons to suspect a large-scale cover-up operation to be in progress. Whether or not this is true, this is what a growing number of Americans believe. And more than anyone, the Church should understand the power of belief.

The AP contributed to this story.

Karla Holland

Staff Reporter

This year, McDaniel says goodbye not only to the graduating class of 2010 but also the last generation to have BLAR as their academic plan. Many freshmen have probably heard debates over the nature of BLAR’s replacement: the McDaniel plan. As I learned researching this topic, the issue regarding this new plan is much more complicated than many students may realize. According to Communication Chair Deborah Vance, the plan changed because students on BLAR “would try to get every [general requirement] out of the way soon and faculty were hoping the new plan would get rid of that way of thinking, but it hasn’t.”

Kathleen Levendusky, a Junior, history major and peer mentor, “understands why they make us take these requirements but I wish they wouldn’t go completely off kilter from my focus.” So why are students taking classes they don’t need? First, each department interprets the plan according to their focus. Unfortunately, the gross miscommunication between administration, staff, faculty and/or whole departments have led to students missing out on classes they needed and wasting time on classes they didn’t.

On the other hand, Junior and religious studies major Jeff Griepentrog sees the plan differently because he “can’t take water classes or aerobics classes because of [his] disabilities.” “I’ve tried to take archery and bowling,” Griepentrog said, “but the classes filled up quickly.”

As Jeff reminded me, there are issues that can hold students back regardless of the plan in effect. The recession has forced cutbacks that have made departments cut courses out of their curriculums, including requirements. Adding to these difficulties, new time codes have been set which force students to choose between requirements being taught at the same time. If that was not enough, absences from teachers on sabbatical make requirements unavailable for up to several semesters at a time, forcing some students to extend their graduation date to a year or longer. According to Jeff, his roommate, George, is also dealing with these problems: “He’s a Bio-Chem major but he needs a language and the only language classes are at the same times as the classes he needs for bio. All that’s left is Spanish. Why does a doctor need Spanish anyway?”

As for why George may need Spanish, I can only think about my mother, a physician who returned to school for her MBA when I was still in high school. Among her general requirements was a basic Spanish course. Did she ever use it? Well, let’s say I wouldn’t ask her for help in my SPA 1102 final. My point is: If the McDaniel plan has any silver lining right now, it’s that it reminds you that the biggest obstacles to fight for in life are the ones that will hold you back the most. By then, other barriers look like mere gaps in the road.

Emma Simon

Staff Reporter

Along with college, there comes homework, studying, activities, clubs, and the winner: a whole bunch of sick kids in close proximity with one another! With everyone inevitably sharing germs, the Wellness Center in Smith House can be known as either a go-to spot on campus or a notorious one, depending on who is doing the talking.

The Health Center offers a variety of different services to McDaniel students, resulting in either their contentment or dismay. Upon being asked about their experiences with the Wellness Center, students’ answers are generally diverse in reference to their satisfaction with their visit.

When freshman Lauren Handel first arrived for orientation on move-in day, she had to cope with the normal anxieties that new students face: Adjusting to a new environment, trying not to pass out in the heat while lugging their lives into dormitories, meeting new people, and getting used to an unfamiliar place. Unlike most others, Lauren also had to handle something extra: becoming extremely ill and not knowing where to go or what to do.

“As it turned out, the Wellness Center was not an option at that point in time, so I had to call Campus Safety to take me to the hospital,” said Lauren. After the fact, she was pleased with how Campus Safety dealt with the situation, but remained disappointed that the Wellness Center was not open during such a crucial time for students.

Once she was finally in the swing of things, Lauren started feeling under the weather again and sought after help from the Wellness Center. “I called them and they told me that based on my symptoms, I probably had cervical cancer.” Terrified and shocked, she went in for an appointment to be told something completely different. “When I went in they told me it was just a problem with my birth control.” Needless to say, Lauren’s view of how her situations were handled is very much below par with the exception of Campus Safety’s help.

Another student who fell victim to a less than desirable circumstance with the Wellness Center is sophomore, Kristen Houpt. During her freshman year, she came down with a bad sinus infection.

“I went to the Wellness Center to get checked out and to hopefully get some medicine. I wasn’t sure if they’d be able to offer me anything since I’m allergic to most antibiotics,” said Houpt. “They gave me an antibiotic that I had never had before and a few days later, I began breaking out in hives. When I went back to get the hives looked at, they told me that they probably shouldn’t have given that medicine to me in the first place because they had a feeling I’d have a reaction to it. They gave me some Benadryl and when I woke up the next day, the hives were worse, my lips were swelling, and my throat was closing up. Campus safety had to rush me to Carroll County Hospital and from there, they gave me better medicine and treated me for the reaction.”

The Wellness Center’s image has remained scarred in Kristen’s eyes since her experience there last year. Can you blame her?

Others have had pleasant experiences at the Wellness Center, like Kara Owens, Sophomore. “I went in because I was sleeping for days and couldn’t get up. They tested me for strep and mono, and I tested positive for mono so they sent me home. I’d say it was handled efficiently.”

Senior Jordan Hawthorne has had to make his way over to the Wellness Center quite a few times in the past four years. “For the most part I would say my visits there were good experiences,” said Hawthorne. “Even though they say they no longer take walk-ins, in certain circumstances that called for it I was able to get in. The only downside that Hawthorne mentioned was that “the hours need to be extended for sure.”

Junior Jason O’Neil has had generally good experiences as well. “Well I like that they are cheap,” said O’Neil. “The charge was minimal for the steroids they gave me when I had poison ivy so that was good.”

Personally, I have had both positive and negative experiences with the Wellness Center. I have been treated quickly and efficiently for basic illnesses such as colds, and I have also been asked the notorious question that our female students are more-than-often asked upon entering the back rooms: “Are you pregnant?” (The answer was no, especially since I went in for reasons that show no correlation with pregnancy.)

Based on the various opinions and recollections of the students, I’ll let you be the judge!

Either way, here are some affordable (and some free) options in the area:

Stuart Fischer

Staff Rerporter

It’s dawn. You sit on a rock on the bank of a river, the cool morning chill contrasting vaguely with the hot orange sunrise. The mist coils and rises from the river, disappearing into the pale sky above. You sit quietly as you officially ring in your 24 th straight hour awake, a nd there is one question you have to answer: how will you sleep today?

That’s what I had to ask myself when I decided to take a week and try out a new sleep pattern. I had read about a particular sleep pattern which supposedly could make you more productive.

The basic idea is that you sleep for about half an hour every three hours, and in about 10 days your body will adjust so that virtually all 30 minutes are spent in R.E.M. sleep, where your brain gets most of its rest , thereby allowing you to sleep only half the amount of a normal person.

It’s easier to get into a new pattern if you get out of the one you’re in first, so my friend Tyler Langsdale, 20, and I took some tents and supplies out to the woods on a sunny April Sunday and stayed up all night. Monday morning we sat on a rock awaiting our scheduled 7:00 am nap, alarms at the ready.

The first three days are grueling. Not sleeping the way you want to sucks, and tempting yourself with short naps is tortuous at best. Camping actually helps because you’re occupied all the time so you don’t think too much about it.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth days aren’t bad. You have that weird, dreamy feeling you get from staying up too long, but you don’t want to sleep. Tyler hyperbolizes, “I don’t feel tired. I feel like I would be tired if I honestly believed I was awake.” Productivity does go up somewhat, but you get tired easily.

The seventh and eighth days (which were the last two I could do) bring on some confidence that this new schedule can actually be adjusted to, though if you’re not careful you could easily slip back into a normal pattern.

Unfortunately we had to cut it short there. I was never fully adjusted, but I think I would have gotten there with a little more time. It’s rather difficult to keep yourself going at first, but once you get some momentum you roll. If you can pull it off, congratulations, you’ve achieved maximum efficiency. And a really inconvenient sleep schedule.

It’s fun to try it, though.