The news is out across the conservative blogosphere that Ann Coulter just called John Edwards a “faggot” at CPAC. Ed Morrissey put it best.

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn’t require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as “faggots” or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

[…]

First, criticizing Coulter’s use of the word “faggot” is not a suppression of free speech; it is an exercise of free speech. We’re not advocating her arrest for using the word. We’re just saying it was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful. This is no different than Melissa McEwan calling Christians “Christofascist Godbags” and Amanda Marcotte’s incendiary hate speech about Catholics. We howled about that when John Edwards hired them; why do we defend Coulter’s appearance at CPAC?

Perhaps Ann Coulter should be called the Brother Jed of conservative activism, except that people somehow like Ann Coulter.

(updated)

This post contains sexually explicit descriptions and should not be read by children.

I didn’t get the chance to see Brother Jed Smock in action yesterday, but I did today. Coming out of a class that ended at 12:15 in the Psychology building, I headed west to find him at the Alumni Plaza in his trademark look going through a typical overdramatized routine about how he used to be into “rrrrrrock and roll!”

I observe for about fifteen minutes with some friends. Some campaign staff for presidential candidate Brad Wulff and executive vice presidential candidate Jessica Anderson arrive. I talked to one of them and explained my blog and questionnaire, asking if they could relay to their candidates a request to fill it out. Somewhere in the middle of this, they ask the crowd to vote for Brad Wulff.

I then observed him take out a pair of electrical extension cords and start explaining how homosexuality doesn’t work. The female ends don’t connect together. Neither do the male ones. But connect a male and female and it works, “up and down, up and down.”

Out of the west in the distance comes senatorial candidate Dustin Cox (an acquaintance and classmate of mine in a national security class last semester) campaign, probably unaware of the specific demonstration he was giving. They all start chanting.

We love Cox…for ASUA Senate!
We love Cox…for ASUA Senate!

Even I was laughing here. Smock responded by waving the end of his electrical cord to illustrate a limp penis. As the Cox campaign completed their demonstration, Brother Jed then starting singing his own little song, still illustrating male homosexual activity with the electrical cord.

It’s not okay to be gay…
It’s not okay to be [pause] HO-MO.

I feel like Jed and I are the only people not laughing, and I’m not laughing for a different reason than him. Though I was talking with a friend while this started, it was the last straw. For the first time in my college career despite Brother Jed having visited annually for decades, I verbally confront Brother Jed.

Sir, do you think this glorifies Christ? What is your objective, sir?

Brother Jed continues with his song and explanations ignoring me for a bit. I keep imploring him to speak with me. But once he’s done, I have his attention. My right leg is shaking uncontrollably. I explain that I am a Christian and I don’t think what he’s doing is helping out at all, but is rather engineered to induce mockery. We start debating. He then brings up a new subject and shifts the conversation, talking about how the scientific possibility of being “born gay” is a falsehood.

I haven’t examined this evidence, but what I do know is that we’re born sinful. My inclination to sin does not make sin right; it does not justify my sin. Brother Jed disagrees, noting that Romans 5 says that death is passed on, not sin.

Still yet, we have some common ground. The asking for mockery ends, and suddenly Brother Jed started making sense. The group became quiet. Some left out of boredom. One gave the middle finger, and for a guy like Brother Jed, that’s a small number.

Another man who’s been hanging around the mall for the past two weeks with his dog and his sign notes that Brother Jed spoke to him while he was a student in 1977; that’s what brought him to Christ. After much talking, he asks if I can say Amen to what he had been speaking since our dealing.

I can say Amen to that. Absolutely.

Later on, I explain how I came to Jesus. I also encourage the crowd not to examine Brother Jed, but to examine Christ himself. Is He real? Are the Gospels reliable? Does He want you to come to him? Brother Jed agrees.

Fellow students, it’s not about what we think of this one mall evangelist or anybody for that matter; it’s about the Guy Upstairs.

Despite the mockery of Dustin Cox, and the random imploring of the campaigns of Brad Wulff, Jen Dang, and Michael Slugocki, and the scoffing of yours truly during the past three years, something out of this made sense. Maybe Brother Jed isn’t as bad as we all apparently think. And no matter how the guy really is, something truly good came out of it all. It’s just what I prayed for last night. It’s what so man of us have been praying for during 24/7 Prayer. And God answered. And we’re going to keep praying. And He’s going to keep answering.

Roxana Vasquez | Arizona Daily Wildcat

There’s lots to post on today, but for now the quickest one I can put out is the original text of the letter I sent to the Wildcat, which I thought was much more eloquent and powerful than the Wildcat’s…uh…okay I’ll stop.

Among the most shallow possible responses to recent offensive speech at the University of Arizona, examples among which have been graphic pictures of pregnancy abortions and “gangsta”-themed parties, are calls for university administration to censor such speech. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor traditions of natural rights assert that one has the right to be protected from offensive speech. In fact, both assert that such speech ought to be protected. One who manages not to be exposed to offensive speech during a four-year college career should report immediately to the Administration building to request a tuition refund for not having learned anything.

Thankfully, the administration does not look to be taking any action to censor these examples of protected speech. In the wake of feminists selling candies resembling female anatomy on the mall, one observes that men and women with self-esteem have not been attempting to invoke the censorship of feminists’ current lyrical bastardization of the Australian folk song “Waltzing Matilda” for fear that our brothers and sisters from Down Under may otherwise become offended.

On a campus such as this, one also observes with genuine gratitude that opponents of feminists’ recent speech have chosen not to respond in turn by selling candies resembling male anatomy and hopes this remains so.

Garrett P. O’Hara
political science senior

Ironically, it just had to occur on the day the Wildcat is publishing my letter (or some messed-up version of it) that there are allegations coming out of the ASUA Senate against the ASUA Appropriations Board for cutting more funding than was justified and text-messaging the word “vagina” around. It is already well known that current appropriations board members tend to be more conservative than the senators, but the appropriations board is supposed to be nonpolitical.

In a Federal body this would be easy: stop funding everybody. I’m not advocating we move to that kind of system; ASUA club funding is a fact of life here, and it requires checks and balances in order to ensure fairness in the process. Allegations indicate that the board was liberally-biased in the past, the proper response to which is not to run a conservatively-biased board. I surely hope this isn’t what we’ve concocted, is it?

I’m not quite outraged one way or the other quite yet, but somebody had better explains this to me and the rest of the student body. Is the “Vagina Warrior” (which by the way is an insult to the military) lying about appropriations board members joking about the aforementioned withheld word? Is the appropriations board exhibiting conservative bias against a student organization with rights just like every other club, no matter how disgusting their ideas are?

My first class today is at 11 a.m., which I hope conveys a message that I got up this morning at 5 a.m. to get schoolwork done, and instead I’m defending “Vagina Warriors” ad nauseam for an hour and having no time to cover the elections as I promised. Is there something wrong here?

I have some big news here, so I recorded a short message about it that you should hear.

How to listen:

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe with iTunes

The Politico has two stories (1 | 2) concerning the departure of Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and others from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus after Sanchez accused its chairman Joe Baca of calling her a “whore.” Count Rep. Grijalva in among the defectors according to the first article there.

If you’re from Yuma, attempt to combine the kooky, hat-wearing mentality of former mayoral candidate Carol Engler combined with a teenage girl’s affinity/tendency for showing off her legs, except that Sanchez has a cat, not a hat. That’s Loretta Sanchez.

• Christmas card #1
• Christmas card #2
• Christmas card #3 (INNUENDO WARNING. I’M SERIOUS.)

I may be a conservative blogger, but I’m also completely against animal brutality. Somebody please rescue the cat.

Update: The Wildcat has an article out about it this morning, which among many points does contain one good one concerning how graduate courses typically do focus upon a single perspective. In that situation, it seems to me that the problem arises when there are no classes focusing on opposing ones.

Update II:And speaking of bias, was it really necessary to note that David Horowitz happens to be a Fox News analyst? It sounds to me that the author and editor have some sort of beef against Fox News (surprise!) even though Horowitz isn’t actually speaking for them. One can notice on the front page of the printed edition and within the online article that Horowitz has a quote-box dedicated to him with the title “Fox News analyst.” They could have mentioned he’s the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly known as the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and FrontPageMag.com, but the journalists apparently see some reason to go at one perceived-to-be-questionable association rather than Horowitz’s primary activities. Expect a letter to the editor from yours truly.

Update III: Letter to the editor is in. Expect to see it Monday.

David Horowitz has come on the attack against the University of Arizona, and some are fighting back. I received the news of all this tonight when I got this email.

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Jeff Larson <jlarson[at]u.arizona.edu>

Date: Feb 1, 2007 2:51 PM

Subject: David Horowitz’s attack on UA students and professors

To: Erin Hertzog <asuapres[at]email.arizona.edu>, David Reece < asuaevp[at]email.arizona.edu>, Jami Reinsch
<asuaavp[at]email.arizona.edu>

Cc: “Lauren E. Conway” <leconway[at]email.arizona.edu >, “Jessica A. Anderson”
<Jande687[at]email.arizona.edu>, “Melodie J. Schwartz” <melodies[at]email.arizona.edu >, “Astrid K. Henao”
<astridh[at]email.arizona.edu>, “Shawn T. Ingram” <sti[at]email.arizona.edu>, Jen Dang <
jendang[at]email.arizona.edu>, Samantha Kerr <sjkerr[at]email.arizona.edu>, Brad Burns <
bburns[at]email.arizona.edu>, Bryan Hill <bhill[at]email.arizona.edu>, Steven Gerner
<sgerner[at]email.arizona.edu>, Matt Boepple < mboepple[at]email.arizona.edu>, Becca Rodl
<beccar08[at]email.arizona.edu>, Chris Nagata < cnagata[at]email.arizona.edu>, Mattie Price
<mattiep[at]email.arizona.edu>, Mary Venezia <mary.venezia[at]nau.edu>

Members of the ASUA and ASA,

I want to draw your attention to a recent attack on me and a Sociology course that I teach and ask that the ASUA and ASA take action to support me and other UA instructors who are threatened by this. You may have already heard about this as it has piqued much discussion among professors and instructors on campus and has been reported in last week’s Tucson Weekly (article here). Last night the Graduate Student and Professional Council (GPSC) passed a resolution condemning the attack (see attached) and I am hoping that you will do the same.

David Horowitz is a high profile idealogue and his organization, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, have been waging a McCarthy-like witch hunt to root out leftwing academics. You might be familiar with his popular book listing the 101 “most dangerous” professors in the U.S.; now he has a new book in the works called Indoctrination U. The seven or so UA instructors that Horowitz has named (see his article here ) will, I’m told, be spotlighted in this book. Moreover, the DHFC has been aggressively promoting an “Academic Bill of Rights” that it hopes to turn into legislation that will place politicians in the role of watchdogs and censors and students in the role of informers. One such attempt in the AZ legislature has already been introduced and, thankfully, failed. Clearly, this does not promote a healthy teaching environment and is already affecting teachers in the classroom who may feel intimidated. The Horowistas’ claims, although they point fingers at individuals and our courses, are attacks on academic institutions. “Unfortunately they reflect a problem that is not isolated but systemic,” they write. As such, everyone in academia is potentially threatened by this. DHFC and its affiliate, Students for Academic Freedom, have mounted a controversial, visible, and well financed campaign against academic integrity that I think warrants a strong and unified denunciation.

The public response to these attacks, in my view, should come from the most prestigious and powerful among us - the presidents of universities, the celebrity academics, the Harvards and Stanfords - not just from the individual (and presumably most vulnerable) targets of the attacks. So far, President Shelton and the Board of Regents have offered no official response from this university - nothing, even as I and several distinguished faculty members, as well as the English and Women’s Studies departments, endure broadside political attacks.

How can the ASUA and ASA play a role? I think the associations can and should insist that President Shelton and the AZBoR emphatically and publicly denounce this outrageous attack. It should also take a strong public stance of its own and stand up for the students and graduate instructors that it represents. I’d be happy to talk more with you about this if you have questions, but I think the public record speaks for itself. We can’t let this guy continue to stir up controversy and threaten the integrity of the university while we remain silent. Please consider taking up this issue and pressing our university’s leaders to take a strong public stance against this witch hunt.

Sincerely,
Jeff Larson
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Sociology

My first reaction is not a surprise that the University of Arizona hosts such courses as Horowitz lists. Rather, it’s that Horowitz would choose the name Indoctrination U when Evan Coyne Maloney has already reserved the title Indoctrinate U for his film about this kind of academic bias. I did inspect his latest book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, over the winter break, but the book contains no mention of the University of Arizona.

The email above also contined an attachment with a resolution GPSC just passed yesterday. Quoted in full:

GPSC Resolution Supporting the Free Exchange of Ideas

Whereas higher education should challenge students to think critically, debate and explore ideas they are not familiar with;

Whereas a free exchange of ideas between students and instructors is the key to learning on a college campus;

Whereas restrictions on what content is taught in the classroom, what subjects are open to debate and what ideas we as students can be exposed to would hamper the education students receive at the University of Arizona;

Whereas around the country there have been numerous politically motivated attempts to restrict the free exchange of ideas that is critical to education, often referred to as the so-called “academic bill of rights”;

Whereas proponents of these proposals have not been able to show that any problem exists;

Whereas students need elected officials and administrators to focus on issues such as improving the access to and the affordability of higher education in the State of Arizona;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Graduate and Professional Student Council of the University of Arizona supports the free exchange of ideas and opposes any future attempt to institute the so-called “academic bill of rights” or any similar proposals;

Be it further resolved that the Graduate and Professional Student Council of the University of Arizona calls upon the Arizona State Legislature and the Arizona Board of Regents to maintain the University of Arizona as an open marketplace of ideas where free expression is exercised and where diverse views are expressed and debate of those ideas is encouraged.

Passed January 31, 2007
In favor: 17
Opposed: 1
Abstentions: 1

Before moving on, I should note that his investigation of English 101 concerns a course that occurred three years ago. All Horowitz mentions here is Sung Ohm’s English 101. Little did Horowitz apparently investigate that the syllabus to which he is linking comes from “Spring Semester 2004″ and only concerns two sections of the course: 121 and 135. This semester’s English 101 class consists of sections numbered from 1 to 23. Last semester it was 1 through 168! Horowitz seems to think this is what all English 101 classes are, but he is mistaken. My English 101 was partially themed around the advertising industry’s rhetoric. Truly, it was a fun and informative class.

Jeff Nelson, the individual who sent the above email, has also made a blog post about all the rage. The post is entirely incoherent, failing to understand the fundamental difference between using class professorship for political recruiting and doing so within a club.

The Academic Bill of Rights looks well-intentioned and well-principled, but I’m unsure as to how well it could be executed. Thankfully, what it looks not to advocate is action like the State legislature bill from last year that would have allowed students to opt out of “offensive” readings. Frankly, if you’ve been in college for four years and you’ve never been intellectually offended, go get your tuition money back; you’ve been wasting your time.

What the GPSC resolution seems to do is to mix up the rhetorical terms concerning the “marketplace of ideas.” Undoubtedly, the above mentioned State legislature bill doesn’t promote the marketplace, but I also fail to see what about Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights doesn’t promote it. Thus, I recommend an ASUA resolution condemning any attempt to suppress ideas as the State legislature tried it, and promoting the governmental passage of an Academic Bill of Rights similar to that which Horowitz has proposed.

Check that out…another question to ask the candidates!

The East Valley Tribune is reporting that ASU Residential Life has placed 22-year-old political science senior Ryan Visconti on probation. Visconti claims it was because he gave an interview to the Tribune concerning his “sensitivity training” as a resident assistant. ASU Residential Life says it was for missing a training session dealing with homosexuality.

Hat tip to Anonymous Mike at Zonitics, who brings up some good questions to consider.

From my experience here at that other school, I’ve found it interesting that most of this kind of sensitivity stuff happens to underclassmen, and considering that most students here at UA move out of the dorms after the first year, that makes dorms the ideal place. However, there are also classes which underclassmen inevitably must take, including but not limited to introductory writing courses (i.e. English 101/102) and “geneds.”

<RANT ALERT>

A short selection of proven methods of getting me angry with respect to political correctness or lack thereof…

1. Make me take the side with which I disagree in a debate and still let me beat you. Badly. (English 102; ‘gay’ marriage debate)
2. Emulate Noam Chomsky in claiming a good chunk of my maternal family still would have been massacred “had [Pol Pot] been Mother Teresa.” (INDV 103 — “What is Politics?”)
3. Offer me an ‘Asian-American’ scholarship. What? Because my (half) race holds me back? F-you! (APASA)
4. Use student government resources to force a political or moral stance in the name of non-consenting students. (Too many to mention.)

</RANT ALERT>

I will enjoy watching ADF and Mr. Visconti kick rear-end in court.

Remember this?

ASU’s paper reported Monday that one of the professors is going to be arraigned for assault. I don’t have word on what happened to Mitchell’s charges for intimidation and harassment, but I’d imagine they were dropped for being baseless.

How to listen:

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe with iTunes

TUCSON, AZ — In the midst of snow falling upon the University of Arizona last Sunday afternoon and evening, administrators have temporarily banned snowball fights in an attempt to prevent the perpetuation of double standards and discrimination.

Said one unnamed official, “We currently ban tortilla-throwing at commencement ceremonies for a good reason; we don’t want to offend Hispanics. It’s only fair that we ban snowball fights for fear of offending Eskimos. Not only that, but it seems clear that the male gender has an apparent advantage in such activities. Restoring such activity to campus will require some way of evening the playing field.”

Meanwhile, campus peace activists are now investigating a possible instance of genocide, after about fifty homeless inhabitants of the campus were reported missing, each leaving their garments in a large pool of water in the very spot where they were last seen.

Music is “Frosty the Snowman” by Bing Crosby. If you didn’t know that after listening to it, you need to get out more often. This episode is licensed “All Rights Reserved” because I don’t feel like having the RIAA breathing down my neck over a Christmas song.

It’s one thing when students react strongly against the Justice for All exhibit, including calling it a great big "lie".  I’m one to know that having been a volunteer over the past week.  It’s another thing when the student government does it, and that’s exactly what has apparently happened.

Joke about the Women’s Resource Center all you want, but according to a source within ASUA, the following letter was sent onto the "ASUA_ADMIN" listserv, which unlike the ASUA listserv appears closed to public view.  The senders’ surnames and email addresses have been removed for privacy (read: lawsuit aversion) reasons, but the removed surnames can be garnered from the WRC page on the ASUA website.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Carly [surname] <[email]>
Date: Jan 24, 2007 9:47 AM
Subject: Women’s Resource Center
To: ASUA_ADMIN@listserv.arizona.edu

The current misleading, lie-filled display against abortion on the UA mall is a
good reminder of the need for an active progressive feminist space on
campus—a central location where information can be disseminated, activists
can meet, and groups can collaborate on projects and programming.

Did you know that there is a Women’s Resource Center at the University of
Arizona? If not, you are certainly not alone. We are two graduate students in
the Women’s Studies Department, and have recently been confirmed as the new
Co-Directors of the WRC, which is located in the ASUA branch of the Student
Union.  Although the center hasn’t been too highly-functioning over the past
several years, we hope to transform it into a feminist, social-justice
oriented, activist hub.

SAVE THE DATE: As part of the grand re-opening for the WRC, Jennifer Baumgardner
and Amy Richards, internationally renowned authors of several books, including
__Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future__, will be speaking on
Tuesday March 20th! Details to come! To check out the biographies of these
amazing women, go to: http://www.soapboxinc.com/whoweare.html

(PROFESSORS: if you want Jen and Amy to speak in your class in the afternoon,
let us know ASAP. If you hold a Tuesday evening course, this would be a great
event to attend as a class! Please consider, and for the sake of planning,
please contact Carly at [email] to let us know!)

Because we activists are too often unaware of the activities of other
like-minded folks, we envision the Women’s Resource Center as a location to
bring folks together. Mostly, we want to collaborate with the activists that
are already doing great social justice work! For those of you already involved
in other progressive feminist organizations, we can offer you office space,
potential funding for events and outreach, and endless energy and hugs!

Furthermore, we are looking for individuals to act as coordinators for various
committees, or create other committees you see a need for. Although these would
not be paid positions, this is a great opportunity to get involved in a
leadership role, learn valuable job skills, and earn an important line on a CV
or resume.

In order to do make these changes, we need YOU! As stated, we’re looking for
individuals to volunteer and organizations to collaborate with.  Several
individuals have already expressed an interest in collaborating to create
campus and community programming in the following areas:

•       Women’s Health (sexuality, alternative health, reproductive health/rights
issues)
•       Violence Against Women (sexual assault prevention, healthy relationships,
Take Back the Night)
•       Women’s Empowerment (discussion and book groups, open mic nights)

The WRC is currently staffed:

Mondays—9:30-1:30 (Carly)
Thursdays—from 11-3 (Sara)
Fridays—11-3 (Nettie)

Although the space is obviously not staffed at all times, we can arrange for use
of the space at almost any time. Eventually, we hope to be open 40+ hours/week,
but this will require volunteers to staff the center, work on outreach, write
grants, etc. Nonetheless, Please do stop by and see us!

Professors: Do you require or would you like to incorporate a service learning
component into your classes? If so, we may be able to help connect your
students to community organizations, or will definitely be able to offer them a
meaningful service project through the WRC. If you are interested, we’d love
to chat about this further!

Lastly, there is an important new group on campus called the Reproductive Rights
Coalition. The focus of this coalition is to bring together the various campus
and community-based reproductive justice groups in order to share resources,
collaborate on events, and support one another’s work in order to have a real
impact. One of our primary objectives is working to overturn the on-campus
abortion ban. For more information on meetings, or to join or support the RRC
in any capacity, please contact Carly at [email].

Because of the obvious intersections between race, class, sexuality, gender and
social justice, we hope to work on a wide variety of issues. In other words,
All issues, personalities, and skills will be welcome and appreciated! Any
questions, any interest, or to donate massive amounts of cash , please
contact either:

Sara [surname]                              or             Carly [surname]
[email]                           [email]

Please forward this message widely; We look forward to working with you!

Carly and Sara

 

Raise your hand if this makes you more sick than the abortions photographs already do.  Expect a candidate question specifically about this incident.

Note: I’ve been consistently fighting HTML problems here, so take note if you’re comparing versions.

Update: I think that’s it for the HTML problems.  Holy crap, I’m not cutting and pasting from GMail ever again.

THIS PODCAST EPISODE IS NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN. 

Update (7 Dec): Archive.org, the server where I host the podcasts, appears to be having problems at the moment.

How to listen:

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe using iTunes

WorldNetDaily columnist Jim Rutz declared in a controversial column recently that overconsumption of soy products causes males to become homosexuals, citing soy’s relatively-high estrogen content.

“Soy is feminizing,” Rutz claims “and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion, and homosexuality. That’s why most of the medical…blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise of soy formula and other soy products.”

WorldNetDaily editor-in-chief Joseph Farah, amidst massive hate mail from leftist websites, immediately defended Rutz, and called for women to be banned from eating beef, pork, poultry, beans, and dairy, for fear that increased testosterone levels might make them homosexuals, too.

Officials at the University of Arizona complimented the study, and are planning to increase the availability of soy in on-campus food in order to facilitate an increase in diversity. In contrast, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University has banned tofu, calling it “The Curd of Tinky Winky.”

This news report is brought to you by the Law Offices of Bob Schmuck. Did your mother feed you soy as a infant? Are you sexually confused? Recent medical research has found that your sexual confusion is not your fault, and you may be able to sue for damages. For a free consultation, call the Law Offices of Bob Schmuck at 1-800-SOY-MILK.

Editorial note: I still affirm that homosexuality is a sin just like any other sexual sin, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking Jim Rutz is stupid.

Music is "Stop Yield Go Merge (Extended Les Thorn Mix)" from Derek K. Miller of Penmachine. 

I have been sent a copy of the restroom resolution that failed 3-5-2 the other day.  The sender requested that I keep in a format that is not editable, so it’s in a secured PDF on the link (meaning you can’t print it or copy the text).

Let’s go through this in HTML part by part, though.  Hyperlinks added.

WHEREAS, The University of Arizona’s Statement on Restroom Access states that “the University allows individuals to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity”, and,

WHEREAS, Gender identity is defined by the statement as “an individual’s actual or perceived gender, including and individual’s self-image, appearance, expression, or behavior, whether or not that self-image, appearance, expression, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the individual’s sex at birth as being either female or male” and,

WHEREAS, This policy creates a uncomfortable situation for many people who may experience difficulty and inconvenience in using a restroom occupied by people who are legally defined as being of the opposite gender, and

WHEREAS, This policy further frees an individual from the disciplinary and legal consequences of being in a bathroom for nefarious purposes if they falsely claim to ‘perceive’ themselves as a certain gender, and,

WHEREAS, Clearly marked gender neutral bathrooms provided for in The Statement on Restroom Access can be constructed and designated for the use individuals uncomfortable using gender specific restrooms…

Looks like they tried to find some middle ground here anyhow.  There’s nothing here against "gender neutral" restrooms.  As for the rest…

RESOLVED, That the Associated Students of the University of Arizona opposes the University of Arizona’s Statement on Restroom Access, as it currently exists, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Associated Students of the University of Arizona supports the enforcement of a gender specific bathroom policy for bathrooms clearly marked as “men” and “women”, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Associated Students of the University of Arizona supports the continued construction and designation of a reasonable amount of clearly marked bathrooms as gender neutral to serve individuals uncomfortable with using gender specific restrooms and individuals with issues not related to gender identity such as parents and attendants/caregivers.

So the resolution with this can’t violate University affirmative action policy as alleged earlier; it’s only the opinion of ASUA we’re trying to resolve here, begging the question over why the university’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office got involved in the first place.

Then again, the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office has a long history of getting involved in politics rather than doing their racist and sexist jobs quietly.  The office’s assistant director, Francisco Gonzalez, regularly writes letters to the Arizona Daily Wildcat, all dealing with issues outside his official capacity while signing with his title.

Senators voting in favor of the resolution:

• Bryan Hill
• Shawn Ingram (author)
• Melodie Schwartz

Senators voting against the resolution:

• Mark Adams
• Jen Dang
• Steven Gerner
• Samantha Kerr
• Astrid Henao

• Jessica Anderson
• Lauren Conway

Report on ASUA Senate resolution inaccurate

I am responding to the article listed in yesterday’s paper titled “Gender-neutral bathrooms, tuition hot topics for ASUA.” I feel it is my duty to report that the article severely misrepresents what took place at the ASUA Senate meeting Wednesday. In the opening sentence, the article claims that senators “tried to pass a resolution that would deny gender-neutral bathrooms for transgender individuals.” Unfortunately this statement is entirely false. In a 5-3 vote (with two abstentions), the senate failed a resolution that supported the continued construction of gender-neutral bathrooms. The failed resolution specifically stated that, “The Associated Students of the University of Arizona supports the continued construction and designation of a reasonable amount of clearly marked bathrooms as gender-neutral.” I would also like to highlight that the resolution presented by Sen. Shawn Ingram encouraged the enforcement of safety precautions for those who might falsely claim they belong to a specific gender. On behalf of the ASUA Senate, we request that you publish the resolution in its entirety so as to remove any false presumptions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I hope that this may clear up any confusion surrounding Wednesday’s resolution.

Bryan Hill

economics junior,

ASUA senator

Nice work. ASUA could also try putting all resolutions on the website, too. It’s pretty pathetic when any student has to work at getting their hands on things like this.

Somebody within ASUA, please email me this resolution at minimum. If this resolution is as mild as Sen. Hill makes it out to be, we have more on our hands than some sort of social right-wing conspiracy.

The Wildcat reports this morning that ASUA Sen. Shawn Ingram attempted to get a resolution passed that would distinguish restrooms for their intended genders, a direct counter against former UA President Peter Likins’ policy statement on restrooms announced last May. Ingram’s resolution is intended to protect individuals who may become victims of the peeping toms or sexual rush of a person who enters the wrong restroom. The resolution failed of course, 5-3 with two abstentions.

I’d like some help with this one. First, I’d like somebody to send me who voted for and against the resolution. Minutes usually come out a week after due to approval, but I don’t like waiting. Secondly, I’d like to recruit a female voice for the podcast if possible. If you already have a Skype account, all we’d have to do is make contact online. I guess I could think up a script during one of my classes today.

Great, something else to do this weekend besides these two ten-page papers and that 20-minute presentation. I love college. Any suggestions for how I should podcast this? I’m thinking another Law and Order themed deal. And/or perhaps something akin to A Few Good Men. The mind goes wild…

Full disclosure: I know several ASUA senators, including Mr. Ingram who attend the same church as myself. I did not ask anyone to authorize this post.

Edit: Wording in first paragraph edited for clarity.

Via ProLifeBlogs, we now learn that casual sex leads to depression, especially in women, who are more likely to think that romance is taking hold.

Holowatz said a romantic relationship is the best place for sex because there is security in knowing that someone can be open with his or her partner. It creates less anxiety and makes each partner feel more valued, he said. "People should do what most fits with their values," said Debby Herbenick, a psychologist and lecturer at The Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana in Bloomington.

This blog post is brought to you by ‘Non-casual’ Fornication: Feel more valued while you’re getting screwed. 

I’d suggest this thing called matrimony, but I guess Scott Ott was right.  "Nothing interferes with a man’s love like the threat of responsibility."