Goodbye UNCG

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Goodbye UNCG - Opinions

I have a slight confession to make: I never expected to graduate from UNCG. No, I wasn't planning on dropping out, nor was I just sure four years would seem like an eternity. I just always assumed I'd transfer to some other school, specifically Wake Forest or Chapel Hill.

Of course, there were several reasons I chose UNCG. It was close to home and quite well-known for the career path I was aiming toward at the time (education). But we all know things don't always go entirely as planned. And looking back on the last four years of my life, I can't imagine having ever wanted to go anywhere else.

UNCG has brought me some of the best times of my life. Nearly every part of this campus holds some special memory for me. Living in Cotton Residence Hall my freshman year, I met my friends Courtney and Eileen, who I consider to be two of the most important people in my life. For four years, those girls have stood by me no matter what, and I honestly cannot imagine what my life would be like without them.

And, while it is true that I have enjoyed my social life at UNCG and made life-long friends, I actually came to college for educational reasons. Part of why I wanted to transfer so badly was the fact that I did not feel challenged by my classes, nor did I feel much of a connection to the faculty teaching them. Looking back, I realize that my problem was mostly with the entry-level GEC requirements, which I would have had to deal with no matter which school I attended. Once I had more freedom to take the classes I really enjoyed, everything changed.

I'm sure this might sound biased, but I think the Political Science Department has some of the best professors in the school. I've always held my teachers to a high standard, because I believe anyone can just teach facts to a classroom of students, but a great teacher is one who really touches your life somehow.

When I think of the professors who have been the most important to me during my college career, Professor Colbert is almost always one of the first on my list. This is probably because he taught the first two political science courses I ever took, and he's one of the major reasons I fell in love with that department. Professor Colbert's teaching style is one of the most enjoyable I've ever witnessed, and his comfortable sense of humor makes you feel like you've known him for years. He was like the light at the end of the tunnel during my GEC semesters.

Dr. Prysby, in the same department, would also definitely have a place on that list. Dr. Prysby has always seemed concerned and interested in my life goals, and he's always been there for me, whether I needed help with my student organization, emergency academic advising, or advice on life after graduation. And I'd have to give Dr. Showden a place on that list, because she is at least partly to blame for many of my more liberal political views. I'll never know what possessed me to sign up for my first women's studies class (Women and Politics), but I do know it was her that made me stay. Her open-minded approach to all opinions voiced in her class made me realize that there is always more than one side to an argument.

But far beyond the classroom, the unique opportunities I was offered at UNCG have taught me more than I ever expected to learn in this short amount of time. A lot of these lessons were not learned the easy way, and at the time I only saw how much I was inconvenienced. In fact, several of my friends have suggested that I spend my last column telling off everyone who has made my life so much harder while at UNCG.

But the truth is, the adversity I've faced here has probably done more to mentally prepare me for the real political world than anything else. So I really need to thank everyone who has ever tried to undermine me, who has ever spent hours attacking me on my blog (or writing about me in their own), or who bothered to join that hate group about me on MySpace. Every single obstacle I have gone through has made me stronger, and I'm thankful for it.

I can't imagine having had a better college experience, and it is my sincere wish that all other UNCG graduates be able to say the same thing. And if you haven't yet reached the end of your time here, try to make the most out of it. Join a student organization, or try to make a difference for an issue you are passionate about. Have a problem with a school policy? Join with others like yourself and try to get it changed. There are thousands of ways to make your mark on this campus and to feel like you've made a difference, but none of them will come by sitting on your couch watching MTV.

Whether you read my columns because they made you angry or because you agreed with me, thank you for doing so. Every single one of you has had a significant impact on my life, and I could never thank you enough. I came to UNCG because of its location and reputation, and I stayed because of so much more. I wish all of you the best in life, and I hope you all will remember UNCG as fondly as I will. Thank you, UNCG, for the best four years of my life.

Immigration Questions Need New Answers

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Immigration questions need new answers - Opinions

You can't turn on a 24-hour news network these days without being bombarded with images and stories regarding the recent illegal immigration problem in America. The proposed solutions to these issues range from completely ridiculous (building a wall on the border) to the completely unacceptable (granting amnesty to all illegal immigrants).

Illegal immigration has been quite the hot-button issue for some time now, and that won't likely change anytime soon. Spartan TV President Denise Jones interviewed me on the issue a few weeks ago, and asked how I felt about some of the proposed solutions to the problem at hand. I explained that the idea of attempting to end illegal crossing of our borders by simply building a wall or fence would be a complete waste of time and money. Does anyone really think this idea will work? I can think of about a thousand places our money would be better spent. On the other hand, I can't fathom anyone thinking that there isn't a problem with the current situation. It makes one wonder why we even have immigration laws at all, if our government is just going to allow people to break them and even organize huge protests against our laws after illegally entering the country.

Unfortunately, it seems there is no easy answer. I pride myself on having a solution to everything (no matter how unrealistic it may be), but when Jones asked me what I felt should be done regarding the issue, I found myself shaking my head and replying, "I have no idea."

Although most stories on illegal immigration deal with states along the border, North Carolina has more than its share of illegals. According to a study published July 26, 2005 by the Pew Hispanic Center, six Southern states had Hispanic populations that were growing at twice the rate of the country's. And not only was North Carolina one of those states, the study pointed out that we actually have the fastest growth in the entire country. The report did not fail to mention that the majority of this population does not speak English, not that this was a surprise to most North Carolinians.

The stereotypical redneck cry-of-outrage is, "They're taking our jobs!" That argument is a constant source of ridicule and parody, from the infamous South Park episode where outer space aliens invade earth, causing American citizens to run around screaming, "They took our jobs!" to the online Maddox cartoon depicting two Mexicans pointing to a white man and proclaiming, "Quick! There's an American! Let's take his job!" To justify this response, the pro-illegal immigration side has attempted to make it common knowledge that illegal immigrants aren't really taking jobs away from Americans.

This interesting little tidbit might not be as true as you all think. Recently, illegal workers have been taking jobs traditionally held by American teenagers. Employers are favoring these illegal workers because they are able to work longer hours than teenagers and they do not have to mold their work schedules around classes or homework. An anonymous commenter on a local blog recently gave a perfect example of this hiring bias by stating, "I hire a hispanic[sic] over a white person whenever given the opportunity� White people think they are above doing actual work� And I don't like to hire black people either because they don't do what you tell them, they get defensive when you use authority to get them to do something."

How can we not think this is a problem? Many teenagers from lower-income families find it necessary to contribute to their family's income through these jobs. With this influx of illegal workers, these same teenagers will be forced to make a choice between staying in school and keeping a job. Is this how we teach our children the importance of education? Take into account that at the same time the illegal immigrant population is growing, so are our college tuition rates. Faced with ridiculous tuition fees and less jobs to choose from, many lower-income teenagers see college as an unattainable dream. And we wonder why the high school dropout rate is so high.

The situation is outrageous, but so are many of the solutions. Many claim that we should grant amnesty, since America is a nation of immigrants. But these people also seem to ignore the differences between legal and illegal immigrants. We can't ignore that this is a problem in today's society. There has to be an answer to this pressing issue, but it's certainly not one that has been presented yet.


I received an amusing response to this article. Two days after it came out, I was walking to my 9am Political Science class, when I was spotted by two African-American female classmates who had already made their feelings about me known during the Angela Davis debacle. In an immature move, they waited until I was about to walk into the building to rudely push themselves in front of my path, pretending not to see me. Rather than stoop to their level, I rolled my eyes and let them get a few steps ahead of me. Annoyed that they had not received a response, they made a point to stop right in front of the stairwell (blocking my own access), and loudly point out a pro-illegal immigration poster which had been hung by the ISO. "Aww, poor little immigrants!" one girl exclaimed. "They're so cute! I wish I could help more of them." She the proceeded to "pet" the Hispanic girl on the poster with her finger while her friend laughed loudly.

It was then that I realized, if my opinions can piss people off so much that they revert back to middle school, I must be doing something right.

First Amendment Applies to Conservative Speech Too

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Freedom applies to conservative speech too - Opinions

On April 12, Erskine Bolwes was inaugurated as president of the UNC-system. The ceremony was held at UNCG's own Aycock Auditorium and was preceded by a parade leading down Spring Garden Street, where many students lined the streets to welcome Bowles to our university. One day earlier, a student organization hung a banner in the Elliott University Center to greet Bowles in a very different way. The banner, which was visible the moment one walked in the front of the EUC, read, "College Republicans welcome Senator President Erskine Bowles... Someone had to hire him!"

Most people, including Bowles himself, realized the sign was simply poking fun at Bowles' two failed Senate campaigns. Others were not quite so enamored with the sign, saying it was "disrespectful" or "inappropriate." One of these people, a faculty member from the Bryan School, actually took down the banner on the day of Bowles' inauguration. The banner was soon found and returned to its rightful place, and the faculty member was told it is not his place to make that decision. Ironically, Bowles found the banner so amusing that he personally asked the College Republicans if he could have it to hang in his office.

This stunt couldn't have come at a better time. The very next day, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Tim Johnston hosted an Honors Coffee with the topic, "Does UNCG welcome the expression of conservative opinions?" It ended up being more of a discussion than a speech, but enlightening nonetheless. Being one of only three openly conservative students who attended, I actually did a lot of the talking.

The reaction was not what I expected. I had come ready to fight with whomever dared tell me I was imagining this liberal bias in academia. To my surprise, Dr. Johnston as well as the other faculty in attendance seemed shocked to hear how openly biased some professors are with their classes. There seemed to be a general consensus that this was to be somewhat expected, since 90 percent of the faculty at this university tend to be left-leaning. However, it was generally agreed upon that professors never have the right to ridicule their students for their beliefs. I entertained them with several stories of my favorite sociology professor who enjoyed making fun of me and my arguments on a daily basis.

Almost two years ago, I wrote a column on liberal bias at UNCG, and I had to go looking for feedback. I asked students in my political science classes (both conservative and liberal) and other random students around school if they thought their professors tended to be more welcome to liberal comments than conservative ones. As a result, I found several conservative students who pretend to be liberal while in classes with liberal professors, and liberal students who admitted there was clearly a bias in their favor.

I can't be sure what it is that's changed. Whether professors have become more blatantly liberal, conservative students have become more angry and fed up with the bias, or Facebook has just made it that much easier for people to contact me, not a week passes that I don't receive several IMs or emails about ridiculously liberal professors. Not many go into detail, but they'll say things like, "Why does my Spanish teacher insist on telling us why we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq? You should write a column on this." Some of the best messages came back in January and February when students would contact me to let me know their professor was ripping my Angela Davis columns apart piece by piece, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the class.

Now, I'm all for freedom of speech, and I would never advocate putting restrictions on what anyone can say (nor would I say we should use affirmative action to hire more conservatives, as one person suggested at Honors Coffee), but I would hope our professors could do the same thing. And if some of them are so intent on turning us all into bleeding hearts, they need to realize they'll catch more flies with honey. Many of my views on women's political issues have indeed become more liberal since taking a Women and Gender Studies course with a professor who was very open to discussion about other sides of the issues. And because my ideas were respected, rather than simply squashed because of their inherently anti-women, right-wing qualities, I was more likely to respect other views on those same subjects, which made a lot more sense than I cared to admit at the time.

Professors that refuse to hear conservative arguments in their classrooms are only teaching their students to be more close-minded. The students who were already liberal to begin with become more liberal, feeling justified in doing so. Likewise, the more conservative-leaning students band together and become more conservative because they are being attacked from every angle. The end result is fewer moderate students, and every little thing becomes a political war.

And, after being here for four years, I've found I learn more under professors who are less blatantly biased, I've learned who they are, and I've succeeded in filling my schedule with their classes.

However, not all the blame can be placed on professors. Conservative students who refuse to point out their views in class for fear of ridicule don't have very much room to complain. You can't accuse a professor of being liberally biased if you don't at least try to point out the inequalities.

Two years after my first "liberal bias in academia," I realize my anger isn't over having conservative views silenced in the classroom; it's having anyone's views silenced. We're here to learn, and learning means being able to take all views into account. Professors shouldn't make fun of our opinions or try to make us feel we'll be graded down for not agreeing with them, but students should also stand up for their own ideas in class. If we don't exercise our freedom of speech, we'll have no reason to complain when it is taken away.

Breaking the Party Lines

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Breaking the party line - Opinions

Last week, UNCG's PRIDE group held its annual PRIDE Week, a celebration of the GLBT movement in America. They featured a different event each night, including concerts, discussions, and special speakers. Although I was unable to attend all of the events, I did make it to a few of them, including Tuesday night's "LGBT Politics Panel" and Thursday night's "GLBTQQSA� Huh?!" both of which were extremely interesting and enlightening events.

Now here is where everyone gets confused. I did not attend these events to protest the so-called "homosexual agenda" or to cause any sort of trouble. I went because I support the GLBT movement, and I consider myself a straight ally. For many young Republicans looking to someday break into the world of real politics, you might think this is career suicide, but I don't see it that way. The times are changing, and the political parties are too.

A couple years ago, I worked for the Republican Party during the 2004 elections. I spent a great deal of my time volunteering with people who were about my age, and whose views, like my own, seemed a little more socially permissive than the average Republican's. However, whenever an older person would ask them how they felt about allowing gay marriage, they would always answer more conservatively than they had when they were around their peers. My answer never changed, however, and I like to think that I was respected, by both groups, for being firm in my beliefs.

I believe then as I believe now that marriage, of any sort, should not be defined by the government. Marriage is a religious sacrament, and by allowing the government to define and control it, we are violating the separation of church and state. Many people will tell you they oppose gay marriage because of religious reasons, but with so many religions now openly allowing gays and lesbians to participate in marriage ceremonies, how do we pick and choose which religion (or more appropriately, which denomination) to mandate the norm?

I certainly don't want the government telling churches what they can and cannot preach and practice, and along those same lines, I don't want the church to control the government. I realize that this nation was founded by Christian beliefs, but it was also founded by people who wanted the government to stay out of religion. But when you have an issue like that of marriage which is clearly a legal and religious conglomeration, you're going to have people getting pretty upset when the government suggests changing anything about it.

There's a solution here, and although it may not be simple, it makes sense. Take marriage out of the government's realm and keep it in the churches (synagogues, mosques, etc) where it belongs. In its place, the government should legalize civil unions for all couples consisting of two consenting adults. This way, each church can decide how it chooses to define marriage, and "married" couples can still receive legal benefits.

And if America refuses to take my idea seriously (President Bush rarely gives any feedback on my weekly columns), then people should at least open their eyes and realize that change is coming. This issue, like many others throughout history, seems to be generational, as I saw in my dealings with young Republicans in 2004. Our parents' generation may be vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage or even homosexuality in the same way that THEIR parents' generation was opposed to interracial marriage or feminist movements. The truth is, social norms and traditions change with each generation. Only forty years ago, there were still laws banning interracial marriages; do we really think gay marriage will never be a legal reality?

In a column last July, I wrote about how many gay Republicans I seem to come across, and since then, that number has grown. Former PRIDE President Chris Wood is not only openly gay, he's openly Republican, and religious as well. Wood recently told me about a local Catholic priest who referred to the New Testament as "the greatest love story of all time." Wood then stated that, "It's hard for me to believe these fundamentalists who are using [this] to justify hate and oppression."

And he's right. People use the Bible to both defend and attack homosexuality, but every passage used can be turned into a question of translation or historical connotation. However, the message of "love your neighbor" radiates loud and clear throughout the entire New Testament with little question as to perspective.

Even young conservatives who continue to oppose gay marriage seem to agree that civil unions (where homosexual couples are given similar rights as heterosexual married couples) are an acceptable alternative. And while this may not be true equality, it's much more than the current national parties are willing to give, and further proof that the times are changing.

There is no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will be legalized within our lifetimes. The question is how long will we continue to let the government hold us to certain (and possibly misconceived) religious standards? And how long will we continue to treat an entire group of people like second-class citizens?

Affirmative Action Speaker Meets Packed House, Closed Minds

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Affirmative action speaker meets packed house, closed minds - Opinions

Race issues, as I mentioned in a column just a month ago, are some of the trickiest and most sensitive topics out there. Unfortunately, race seems to play into some of the most widely-discussed matters, including affirmative action, immigration, and, at UNCG, the SGA elections. White people often hesitate to comment against a lot of these issues publicly, for fear of being labeled a racist. When I took this job two years ago, I decided to avoid most of these subjects for that very reason, although that apparently went down the drain when my Angela Davis column was published. And now it seems I can't stop writing about them. My friends are praying for me, and my editor is pretty sure I'm insane.

But the issue of inequality is something I'm very passionate about. I recently did an interview with Spartan TV concerning affirmative action, immigration, and gay rights, mostly because the other College Republicans declined to comment on the issues, for the very reason I stated above. To me, affirmative action just seems to lower the bar for minorities and women, and while it may appear to help them, in reality, isn't it doing little more than assuming they can't do things well enough on their own? As a woman, I feel quotas are a slap in the face, and an assumption that maybe I couldn't get a job in this "man's world" without any help.

Last week, entrepreneur/entertainer Reginald Jones gave a speech at UNCG entitled "Betrayal: Sold Out by the Civil Rights Movement" which was co-sponsored by the College Republicans, the Young America's Foundation, and the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Jones is an African-American Libertarian and a 25-year veteran of the entertainment industry. He is very much opposed to affirmative action, and he bases his beliefs on the way he worked his way to the top from humble beginnings in the South Bronx. Listening to his speech last Tuesday night, I realized that I wasn't alone in my views on these issues, and that having these views did not make me a racist, as some people might claim.

As you can imagine, the response to Jones' appearance was not entirely positive. This is partly due to the advertisements that wallpapered academic buildings to announce his speech, which bore controversial messages, such as "Minority? Democrat? Why?" In fact, the fliers were torn down at an amazing rate, and many people wrote answers on them or comments such as, "Does anyone else find this racist?" One person even "cleverly" made their own posters to combat the originals, which read "Demo-Minority? Autocrat? Why?" I am still perplexed as to what that means, and I welcome any explanations.

Now I know people don't like to hear views which disagree with their own, and I expected a rather small turnout based on this theory. I was partly right. The audience would have been rather pathetic had the African-American Studies Program not urged their students to attend the speech. The end result was a good crowd which held many viewpoints different from Jones'. Unfortunately, we can't be entirely sure how much of an effect that had on anyone in the audience. I sat in amazement as UNCG students, during the speech, reacted loudly in disagreement to Reginald Jones. "Redneck" and "race traitor" are only a few of the terms I heard thrown out as a reaction to his views. I know it's human nature to celebrate ideas that we agree with and to ridicule those we don't, but I also know if I can sit through an entire Angela Davis speech and keep my composure even as the audience stood to cheer and applaud her "Let's impeach Bush NOW!" line, Tuesday night's audience could have held in their rude comments until after the event.

Now whether or not Reginald Jones could hear the comments or not, they are nothing he hasn't heard before, and he continued with his speech without missing a beat. Other schools who have hosted Jones have said that he loves the question/answer session, and that he will debate everyone, and this event was no exception. In fact, the question and answer session ran so long that most students had to leave during it, and Jones did not leave the building until 10:30 p.m. Unfortunately, the majority of the "questions" from the audience were not questions, but rather comments regarding the problems people had with Jones' point of view. There were many intelligent responses to his speech, and a few that were a little "out there", including one College Democrat (who happens to be white) who stated that we should just "overthrow the government and kill all the white people." When Reginald Jones refused to humor him with a response, the audience overwhelmingly denounced Jones' "racism" and claimed that he would have responded to a black student who had made this same statement. Now, I'm not sure what part of Jones' speech made everyone think that he would promote that idea, or that he is racist against white people, but that seemed to be the group consensus.

I have to say, I expected a passionate reaction from the audience, but I never expected what occurred. An African-American Studies lecturer, Tracy Salisbury, who credited herself with bringing so many students to the speech, used a majority of the question and answer time to argue with Jones. Regrettably, there was little debate in what she said. It was mostly just anger or accusations at the fact that he was supposedly avoiding answering her questions. Salisbury seemed upset that Jones wasn't able to answer very many of the students' questions, yet she managed to interrupt several students and Jones himself on many occasions. She stood up and yelled her comments at Jones in what seemed to be a very unfriendly manner, all while proudly proclaiming that she is a UNCG lecturer and even lamenting the fact that there are rarely any white people in her classes.

After the speech, several students informed me that they were embarrassed by this lecturer's conduct, and I can see where they are coming from. I expected students to react in this manner, but I never thought a lecturer, someone who should be representing UNCG and its faculty, would put on such a show. If Ms. Salisbury is really concerned about the number of white students who take her class then perhaps she needs to stop blaming racism and look at the way she sells both herself and the African-American Studies Program. In last month's column, I asked why white students don't take AFS classes, but I think I got an answer to my question Tuesday night.

Senioritis Setting In

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Senioritis setting in - Opinions

Back near the beginning of last semester, I wrote acolumn about how badly I had senioritis. But now that I'm less than two months away from graduation, I realize that I could never have known how bad it would eventually get.

Senioritis, for those of you who are completely lost, is that state of mind that sets in the closer you get to graduation that causes you to just stop caring. It's that mindset of, "Ahh, who cares, I only have two months left anyway." There are varying levels of senioritis, and it can set in at different times. In fact, I'm fairly certain my roommate is starting to get it, and she's only a junior.

Senioritis takes away any motivation to do schoolwork, and we all know most college students don't have enough motivation to spare. It turns that late-night study session with your classmates into gossip hour, and even though you know you should be spending your time trying to find a good job for after graduation, you're much more concerned with finding an affordable beach house for after graduation.

Yes, I've fallen victim to every single one of these characteristics. But there's more at work here than just the promise of graduation and freedom. Senioritis weakens the system and leaves students more susceptible to Internet Axis of Evil: MySpace, Facebook, and blogs.

Now I have a MySpace page, but I basically stopped using it after I realized just how many insane people there were on that site. Facebook, well, I've decided that Facebook eats time, and literally. I mean, one minute I'm looking at a friend's photo album, and the next thing I know, it's five hours later, and I've gone through my entire friends list and coded how I knew everyone.

Yes, I think we can all agree that Facebook is evil, but a necessary one. After all, if I wasn't able to communicate with classmates through Facebook, I might be forced to use a phone or some other ancient form of communication. And where else can you befriend George W. Bush, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Jesus Christ all at the same time?

Of course, I know I might spend too much time on Facebook, but it's nothing compared to the amount of time I spend reading and posting on blogs. I've had a blog of sorts ever since sophomore year when I started my Livejournal so I could have a place to rant about the exceedingly liberal writings of the Carolinian.

But my blogmania didn't really start until recently, when I switched my blog over to Blogspot. Blogspot, it turns out, is releasing my inner nerd. Not only am I posting and responding more frequently, I'm finally teaching myself basic HTML. Yeah, I know it's sad, and I've had people offer to help me, but I find teaching myself is so much more rewarding.

Aside from just being so much nicer than Livejournal, you can find a blog for pretty much every active UNCG student on Blogspot, or so it seems. And because you can give access to several posters all on one blog, it's perfect for student organizations, such as the College Republicans (uncgcr.blogspot.com) and the College Democrats (uncgcollegedems.org).

Okay, so yes it can be argued that the Internet is leading to the downfall of society, what with the fact that we can communicate with millions of people thousands of miles away and never have to leave our desk, all while completely losing the art of real conversation. At this point, I'm far too addicted to live without it. Also, my senioritis is telling me that I don't care.

Eh, I only have a little over a month left anyway...

It's Only College: I Realize This is Supposed to be Practice for the Real World, but There Comes a Time When You Must Draw a Line

THE RIGHT ANGLE: It's only college - Opinions

"You shouldn't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive." -- Ryan Reynolds as Van Wilder

I have to say, I never expected to begin one of my columns with a quote from a National Lampoon movie. But sometimes you find yourself in a stupid situation that can only be explained through a quote from a mindless college movie. That's where I'm at right now.

I've always been amazed by the number of college students who take themselves too seriously. For four years now, I've heard that silly statistic about how 60 percent of women meet their husbands as undergrads, and for four years, I've been urged by my fellow coeds to hurry up and find one. Now, I'm not sure what the real statistic is, as I've heard several different numbers from several different people, but numbers like that tend to send women into a panic. As a result, I've seen many desperate female college students spend more time trying to attract a mate than actually preparing for their own futures.

I'm not saying that doesn't work for some women, but if they're going to get terrified over that statistic, they should pay attention to the others. 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. With that in mind, do you really want to spend your college years stressing out over some guy? I'm almost 22 and single, and the last thing on my mind is marriage. Don't take insignificant things too seriously this early on in your lives. Years in the future, you'll look back and realize how trivial it all is in comparison.

Recently, I've encountered another group of people who take themselves too seriously. After the last issue of the Carolinian, a certain Opinions columnist (ahem) was accused of "leaking" information about one of the SGA Vice-Presidential candidates. Because I repeatedly refused to "reveal my source", I've been constantly answering to student journalists trying to guess my source and my motives. I can't even tell you how many times I've been referred to as Judith Miller. And I really can't do anything but laugh about the situation.

We are in COLLEGE, people! I realize this is supposed to be practice for the real world, but there comes a time when you must draw a line. Everyone wants this to be such a bigger deal than it actually is. The truth of the matter is, the information I gave the Carolinian was public information which can be obtained by doing a simple Google search. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the equivalent of leaking the identity of a CIA agent. The identity of my "source" is unnecessary, and seeing as how the information was already public, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I don't even think it's possible to "leak" public information.

Among the students who want this to be so much more than it actually is was a WUAG reporter who had already decided what "really" happened. He went around the school interviewing students he thought were involved in a manner which can only be described as harassing, and attempted to prove his own story through very leading questions. I'm sure this is a good technique to use when you're involved in a real news story, like the Judith Miller case, but on a college campus you're not going to win any Pulitzers.

I try to not take myself too seriously. I'm the first one to make fun of myself, my columns, and my own beliefs, but even I found myself getting caught up in the campus drama. I let it interfere with my schoolwork, as I got stuck in a wave of non-stop interviews and meetings, trying voraciously to save my reputation. And then one night, a friend of mine told me, "You think this is bad? Wait until the New York Times is gunning for you."

In an instant, things were put into perspective for me. If I worry so much about what the college media says about me now, how am I ever going to make it in the real political world? That's when I realized how ridiculous it all is. I'm no Judith Miller, and this isn't going to ruin anyone's life. We are in college to learn about and prepare for the real world, and we can't let extracurricular drama control our lives.

So the next time you find yourself in a situation that seems to be taking over your life, try to put things in perspective. While boyfriend/girlfriend drama might seem like the most important thing in your life right now, when you're applying to grad school years in the future, you'll wish you hadn't let a stupid fight result in an F on that midterm. Chances are, these are the best years of your life, and you shouldn't waste them stressing over the little things. And so, I'll leave you with one more quote from Van Wilder: "Worrying is like a rocking chair: it gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere."

Write that down.

Student Division Addressed at SGA Debate

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Student division addressed at SGA debate - Opinions

As I sat in the Cone Ballroom last week during SGA's Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, my column practically wrote itself. The usual generic questions were asked of the candidates: "What are your main campus issues?", "What kind of experience do you have?", "What do you want to change about SGA?" Then the candidates yielded to questions from the audience. Senator Larry Watson stood and asked how each candidate viewed campus race relations, and how they could be improved.

By the reaction of some of the candidates, you would have thought Kanye West had just personally asked them why they hated black people. Jonae Wartel responded that what UNCG needed was for students and organizations to increase their knowledge of different cultures. She pointed out that an African-American student might be more likely to only join the Neo-Black Society, while there are other organizations that could be helpful in helping expand his or her view of different cultures. All in all, a perfect answer.

Stefan McMorris-Santoro spoke next, and after giving the usual generic answer of "working together," he overshadowed his entire statement by informing the audience that his girlfriend was African-American. I suppose that was to make sure everyone knew that he personally was not a racist. The spotlight then shifted to candidate Kemp Allen, who nervously pointed out that he had no problem working with all groups on campus, and then, addressing Senator Watson (who happens to be African-American), responded, "Your name's Larry, right?"

Now, I'm not sure if Kemp's goal was to show that he knows the name of some African-American students, but that's certainly how it was taken by the audience, who erupted in laughter. The laughter eventually died down and Kemp finished answering the question.

I hope everyone there realized that Kemp only had good intentions, and that he actually did a good job under all the pressure. The truth is, race is a very tricky issue, and talking about it is even trickier when you've never personally had the same experiences as someone else. This is why, when confronted with an issue about race, many white people tend to get defensive and start listing all their friends who are different races, or in Stefan's case, announce that they're dating someone of a different race.

When the question was directed to the VP hopefuls, candidate Matt Hill Comer pointed out that students seem to segregate themselves when it comes to their different backgrounds. He stated that when you see students in the EUC or the Caf, they tend to be sitting in different groups: African-American students, white students, Latino students, Asian students, and so on. And while I know that this is not always the case, it occurs often enough.

Jonae has the right idea. Why aren't students as individuals attempting to gain more knowledge about different cultures? I think it's a common misconception among white students that they don't "belong" in any African-American Studies courses. Why not? There have always been at least a few men in all the Women's Studies classes I've taken, yet only a few weeks ago, a teacher from the AFS Department lamented to me that there was not one single white person in her class.

For that same matter, the greater part of student organizations tend to have a very low minority membership, unless they are catering to a specific minority group (Neo-Black Society, Asian Student Association, etc). Why not have more diversity within the groups? I believe it's important to learn about and embrace our cultures, but we're not going to have true diversity until we educate ourselves about each others' cultures.

Matt Comer also made a point to tell the audience that as a Southern white male, he did not have the experiences minorities have had in their lifetimes, but that he is prepared to help race relations the only way he can: by sitting down with different students on campus and listening to their issues. That's what we all need to be doing: sharing our unique experiences with other people, and be willing to learn about theirs in return.

I've been actively following these elections, and I think it all comes down to experience and leadership ability. While there is no doubt that all three Presidential candidates and all three Vice-Presidential candidates are qualified, there's no doubt in my mind that Jonae Wartel is the right choice. She has the qualities of a born-leader and the confidence to really get things done. I also think Matt Hill Comer would be a great choice for Vice-President, as he is probably one of the most active students on campus and has a great deal of leadership experience within SGA. But don't take it from me. Go to sga.uncg.edu/candidates to learn about the candidates, and don't forget to vote by 11:59pm, February 28!

Al Gore versus Dick Cheney

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Al Gore versus Dick Cheney - Opinions

Last week, Al Gore gave a speech to a mostly American-educated audience in Saudi Arabia. During this speech, he basically denounced the United States government as being anti-Arab, saying that Arabs have been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

Normally, if a former Vice President were to make such anti-American remarks to a foreign audience, it would be big news. However, Gore's timing couldn't have been better: he gave his speech on the same day news broke that current Vice President Dick Cheney shot a guy.

Never mind the fact that it was a hunting accident. Never mind the risks that go along with the sport of hunting. The way this story spread, you would have thought that Dick Cheney had illegally obtained a sawed-off shotgun and gone out looking for Democrats. I wouldn't go so far as to say that an accident like this isn't news, because clearly if the Vice President of the U.S. is involved in the accident, then it's going to be news, but it did not deserve the amount of attention that it received.

Regardless of Cheney's involvement in this incident, there's only one reason the national media has made such a colossal deal out of this: they're bitter that a local station in Texas got the story before they did.

Another reason people claim it is important news is because some believe Cheney had a duty to inform the country about the accident right after it occurred. And Vice President Cheney finally went public, several days after the event, in an interview with Fox News' Brit Hume, to explain why he did not do so earlier:

"If we'd put out a report Saturday night - we could have then - one report [that] came in said, 'superficial injuries.' Had we gone with a statement of that, then we would have been wrong. And it was also important, I thought, to get the story out as accurately as possible."

And he's right. Had the White House released a report right away that said Cheney's hunting partner had "superficial injuries", can you imagine what the response would have been when it became apparent it was much more serious than that? Regardless of the fact that no one knew right away just how badly he had been hurt, the media would be accusing Cheney of attempting to cover up the seriousness of the injury.

There is absolutely no need for this story to be spamming our news stations 24/7. It happened, it can't be undone, and Cheney is even feeling remorseful about it, according to his Hume interview (that disproves everyone that's been saying he's a robot for the past few years).

The fact that it was a fairly slow news week obviously didn't help matters much. Which takes me back to my first comment: had Al Gore voiced such anti-American sentiments during such a slow news week, everyone would know about it. Instead, people who don't regularly keep up with the news are talking about Cheney's hunting accident, and probably can't even remember who Al Gore is (of course, these are also the same people who are convinced he had the 2000 election stolen from him).

On a final note, for those of you who will try to tell me that Gore is right, that Arabs in America are being "rounded up" for minor offenses, let me remind you of something: the terrorists who hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001, had frequently used document fraud to move about the country freely. After the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government was criticized for being too lenient when dealing with visas and passports. Does Al Gore really think these issues are "minor"?

(Apparently, The Carolinian felt the need to post the aforementioned "retraction" twice in their online paper, so as to make sure everyone saw what a "liar" I was. That's the media for you.)

A Final Word on the Debate

This column was written in respose to the second College Republican/College Democrat debate, which seemed to get a little out of hand. Each group was told to choose a representative to voice their side of the story. I wrote about the recent tension that had plagued the two groups; their representative chose to talk about abortion instead.

A final word on the debate - Opinions


When I became active in campus politics about two years ago, I wasn't delusional about it. I realized that labeling myself a "Republican" on this campus was not going to make me popular or well liked. And even now, although I've been called the "most hated person on campus" on more than one occasion, I wouldn't trade it for anything. As College Republican President, I have been more than willing to work with people and organizations whose views differ from mine, which is more than I can say for the College Democrats.

At the end of last year, when the College Democrats began to get organized, Jonathan Rosamond (their president at the time) made a point of contacting me. We discussed having our two groups work together in the future, to illustrate the sort of cooperation we'd like to see between the two parties within our government. This is where we first had the idea that a debate between the two groups could educate other students in issues that were important to both parties. Of course, the debates did not become a reality until this year, and by then, the CDs had chosen a much more liberal leader. Although I can't recall a single time when I was anything less than polite to him, the new CD President made it very clear that he did not like me, and had no qualms about personally attacking me, publicly.

A few weeks ago, members of both organizations met to decide on a debate topic for the first CR/CD debate of the semester. We eventually decided to debate life and death issues (abortion, stem cell research, death penalty, and assisted suicide), thanks to compromise on both sides. But that is where compromised ended. About a week later, the Carolinian printed the front page article insinuating the CRs and CDs were arguing over changes made to the Anti-Discrimination Policy.

This whole ordeal baffled myself and the other Republicans, as we had no idea we were supposedly feuding with the Democrats. But it only got worse from there. CR Ryan Radford designed different fliers for the event, and one, par the CD's request, featured a pregnant woman symbolizing the topic of abortion. CR Vice-President Daryn Iwicki and I took a break from our meeting to have the CDs approve the debate fliers. Upon entering the room where their meeting was being held, we were told to leave, cursed at, and then physically forced to exit. Considering that the CDs had claimed to have "no reservations about allowing a member of the Republicans... to join their meetings" in that week's article, we found their actions to be extremely hypocritical.

The Democrats made it clear that they would have us written up for an honor code violation if we posted the advertisements with their name on them, even though we had only put a pregnant woman on the flier because they told us to. Because we had done pretty much all the work for the debate, I told them if they wanted to change the abortion fliers, they could; the Republicans would stick with the already-approved, more generic fliers. Later, we were approach by CD Sam Bickett, who had made new posters for abortion, and when we tried to point out things we didn't like, he told us to "get over it."

This all culminated the night of the actual debate. Because the CRs had been told we were free to make our own advertisements without the CDs' name on them, we spent time and money creating copies of pink and blue baby feet to advertise the debate. We taped the footprints on the floor near the debate room, in a pattern that showed them "walking" up the stairs to the door. No sooner had we taped them on the floor, when Bickett came through and removed every one. When we protested that what he was doing was a destruction of property, he got about two inches from CR Iwicki's face and began to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs.

Whether you choose to admit it or not, it's incredibly hard to be conservative on this campus. When the three of us sat in front of that crowded room and made our views known, we knew that we were going to be criticized and ridiculed. The majority of that crowd came in agreeing with the Democrats, and nothing we could ever have said would have changed their minds. You can say what you want to about Republicans, but we stood by our views under the worst circumstances, and we were able to do so without shouting and cursing at those with differing viewpoints. So you tell me: who really won here?

I was later forced to retract the part of my statement which said we were physically forced out of the CD meeting. I will not post that retraction here, because I stand by what I said originally. I only issued a retraction to help mend ties between the two groups (and in part due to a "suggestion" from the administration), and now that I am no longer associated with that silliness, I do not feel the need to cover up their hypocrisies.

How to Have a "Successful" Evening

THE RIGHT ANGLE: How to have a "successful" evening - Opinions

Last Tuesday, President Bush delivered his sixth State of the Union Address to the entire nation, during which he addressed many pertinent issues facing America over the next year or so. It's one of the few speeches the President gives that won't put you to sleep in less than five minutes, mostly thanks to the fact that the networks like to show the reactions of the audience members during the address. I swear I saw Ted Kennedy trying to hide his flask as the cameras panned around.

The State of the Union Address is not typically a feel-good bi-partisan love fest. The division between liberals and conservatives in the government was made quite visible every time President Bush paused for a breath (or dramatic effect) and the Republicans leapt to their feet with applause. At this time, the camera would usually pan to well-known Senator Hillary Clinton who, regardless of her recent self-claimed conversion to "Moderate-ism", seemed to have a constant sneer on her face throughout the entire hour. It seems my mother was right; your face really CAN freeze like that.

After the Address, the Democratic Party sent out Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to respond to the President's speech. Those Democrats never cease to amaze me. Time and time again, they continue to find and endorse those few politicians that make George W. Bush look good. Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and now Tim Kaine? Somehow, I don't think the Republican Party has a lot to worry about in 2008. Maybe it was that "The Rock" eyebrow thing, but I honestly thought I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit throughout Kaine's entire response.

Meanwhile, around the nation, thousands of protestors were banging drums, tambourines, and various kitchen utensils in an effort to "drown out Bush's lies." The infamous anti-Bush group "World Can't Wait" (tagline: Drive Out the Bush Regime) staged several marches and demonstrations all around the country during the State of the Union Address. Greensboro was lucky enough to have one of these marches in our very own downtown area. The group, about 300 strong (mostly teenyboppers who were VERY angry that American Idol wasn't going to be on) caused what the News and Record referred to as a "deafening sound." While I do hope they were being a bit hyperbolic about the noise level, if anyone really did lose their hearing as a result of this march, please let me know. I want a piece of that lawsuit.

What was supposed to be a peaceful protest ended up resulting in the arrests of at least seven local young adults. The problem? Apparently, a plainclothes officer was taking pictures of the license plates of protestors. Several of the protestors demanded to know what the man was doing, and whether or not he was a cop. Of course, it escalated from there, with a debate still raging over who hit whom first. The police officer was assaulted, kids were maced, and everyone is pointing fingers. The fact that interested me the most was that at least two of the suspects were found to be carrying concealed weapons. Concealed weapons at a peaceful protest? What's the reasoning there? And aren't these supposed to be the people who are against violence?

I have so much fun scanning blogs in the days after events like this occur. You can find accounts from protest attendees talking about how "those pigs broke up our peaceful protest!" Nevermind that the police officer was the one who was assaulted, and that the police had actually been very reasonable about the whole event. Interestingly enough, when the protestors began their march down Elm Street, they were already in violation of state law, which requires a parade permit for such events. Rather than try to stop the march, police blocked and redirected traffic for them. If the police had wanted to simply end the march, they could have; they wouldn't have needed to start a fistfight, as the protestors are claiming.

The WCW website claims, "The evening concluded by 11:00 pm, and was hugely successful and peaceful as well as noisy. We succeeded in drowning out Bush's lies." I would think that in order for any event to be considered "successful", some good would have had to come from it. Did the WCW march succeed in making Bush resign? Not that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, 300 people wasted their Tuesday night banging on their pots and pans. Could they really find nothing functional to do, or have the standards of "successful" just changed that drastically?

Refuting Accusations of Racism

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Refuting accusations of racism - Opinions

I have come to realize that my last column has generated a great deal of controversy, and I would like to take this time, if I may, to explain myself in greater detail.

I have been approached by several students in the last week saying that they found the views expressed in my previous column to be racist. I would like to apologize to anyone who took them in that way. My column was not intended to be racist, and had I known it would be taken that way, I would not have written it. My overall objective was to express my disapproval with Angela Davis as the school's choice for a MLK Day speaker. It was my opinion that a more fitting speaker could have been chosen, and I stand by that opinion.

I have received a lot of emails asking me what I meant specifically when I used the word "sheep" in my last column. A lot of students took that to mean that I was referring to the entire audience, which was predominantly African-American. I was actually referring to the many people who seemed to be deeply engrossed in the socialist propaganda that had been handed out at the entrance to the event. I apologize profusely to anyone who thought I was making a racist comment with that statement. I tend to use the word "sheep" to represent anyone who adheres to the socialist ideals, whether they be white, black, or purple with yellow polka dots, and I saw audience members of ALL backgrounds reading the newsletter.

Some people have also accused me of saying that racism is not a problem in America today. On the contrary, I realize that racism IS a problem in America, but I feel that Angela Davis used that racism to promote socialism. The race issue is a touchy one, and I don't know for sure if it will ever be solved, but I do not think that socialism would eradicate racism, as I think Davis tried to imply.

The reason I felt the need to write out this apology is because I know I would not want to feel that my race or gender had been targeted by a student columnist. As a woman, I myself am from a historically disadvantaged group, and if a male columnist had made statements that I found to be sexist, I'm sure I would be angry as well as hurt. I never wanted to put anyone through that, and I'm very sorry if I did.

An Evening With Angela Davis

THE RIGHT ANGLE: An evening with Angela Davis - Opinions

In last week's column, I suggested that Angela Davis might not be the best choice for a Martin Luther King Day speaker. While many people agreed with me, there were also those who tried to tell me that a person did not have to necessarily emulate Dr. King in order to speak in honor of him. I decided to give them all the benefit of the doubt and attended the event.

I arrived at Aycock Auditorium early Tuesday evening with about eight friends of mine. We were greeted at the door not by ushers, but by socialists handing out anti-Bush fliers, signaling what kind of event this would prove to be. Although we thought we were early, the auditorium was already packed, and we were forced to find seating in the balcony. As we settled into a row that could accommodate all of us, I looked around to get a glimpse of my fellow audience members. I found myself completely surrounded by hundreds of people who seemed to be deeply engrossed in reading the socialists' "Impeach Bush" flier. That's about the time I realized I would be spending the next two hours with a couple thousand sheep.

Angela Davis opened her speech with some thoughts on Dr. King: some background on his work, the hardships he faced in his career, some of his beliefs, and so on. I was shocked, yet relieved, to hear her actually speak on what she was supposed to be speaking on. Of course, it didn't last. Within a matter of minutes, Davis had not-so-subtly changed the entire mood of her speech from "Let's Honor Dr. King" to "Let's Impeach Bush NOW."

For the remainder of her time on stage, Angela Davis preached a message of hate to her audience. She spent a good deal of time making jokes about famous black conservatives such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas. Apparently, according to her logic (and judging by the supportive applause from a good majority of the audience), African-Americans who become successful are no longer considered to be "really" black. Or maybe that only applies to conservative African-Americans. Davis never really specified, nor gave any reason for the apparent race change that occurs somewhere along the way.

And then of course there was the obligatory blaming of George W. Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Davis' conclusion on the issue? Kanye was right: George Bush does indeed hate poor black people. In fact, he spends so much time hating them, that I can't believe he has time for anything else. The way Davis painted President Bush, he apparently spends his every waking moment playing golf and dreaming up new ways to get rid of all black Americans.

Around this time in her rant, several audience members left the auditorium, including three of the people I was sitting with (who later told me they had better things to do with their time). Among the students leaving in disgust was a fellow College Republican who had actually been looking forward to hearing Davis speak. This student's uncle was one of the twelve miners that recently died in the Sago mine disaster only a few weeks ago, and she understandably had a serious issue with Davis blaming the Katrina debacle on racism. As she stood up to leave, she whispered to me, "Those people were left in that mine for hours while everyone just sat around wondering what to do. People called them rednecks and 'backwoods faggots,' but [Davis] doesn't want to mention that."

And she made a good point. Angela Davis seemed to be pushing the message that racism is the root of all evil in this country, but at least her tunnel vision was apparent to a few of us. If you're going to point to the African-Americans who have been hurt by an inefficient system, why not at least mention the whites who have suffered as well? Maybe racism isn't the problem in the Katrina disaster - maybe the problem is that humans make mistakes, and people suffer as a result, regardless of ethnic background.

Angela Davis ended her speech, not with some deep thoughts on how to bring about change in racist America, but by screaming, "Let's impeach Bush now!" After the cheering died down, Davis took questions from the audience. The very first came from a student who expressed disappointment over the fact that Davis had spent two hours telling us all what to be angry about, but not what to do about it. He asked her, "What can I do?" Davis' cowardly reply was that it was not her place to tell him what to do. Rather, she told the student, "You should be telling me what I can do."

This cop out of an answer shows the real problem in America. Everywhere, people are willing and ready to complain about the state of things, but no one is really interested in doing anything to bring about change. People like Angela Davis spend their lives telling people about how wrong and evil everything is, and yet they expect someone else to fix it for them. Davis needs to realize that nothing will ever get accomplished if everyone stands around blaming everyone else for their problems - just like I was forced to realize that I'll never get those wasted two hours of my life back.

UNCG Ignores Martin Luther King's Legacy

THE RIGHT ANGLE: UNCG ignores Martin Luther King's legacy - Opinions

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man, and there are very few people who will dispute that. Around this time of year, Americans remember Dr. King for his wisdom and courage in striving to bring about racial harmony in a peaceful, non-violent manner during such a tumultuous time in history.

On Tuesday, January 17, UNCG will hold a celebration in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The keynote speaker for this event will be Angela Davis. Sean Olson from University Relations has described her as being "one of the biggest names in black feminism" in a University News article found on UNCG's website. In that same article, Audrey Daniel, director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, stated, "The significance of Angela Davis to Martin Luther King's legacy is the fact that she challenged and continues to challenge social inequality in our society."

Angela Davis has been quite the controversial character in civil rights history. A member of both the Communist Party and the Black Panther Party, Davis fell in love with George Jackson, a fellow Black Panther serving time in prison for theft and murder, in 1970. In several letters written to Jackson, Davis promised to dedicate her life to freeing him using whatever means necessary. That August, Jackson's 17-year-old brother, Jonathan, attempted to free him by interrupting a trial with an automatic weapon, freeing three prisoners (and giving them guns as well), and taking a judge hostage in exchange for the release of George. The judge was killed, as well as two of the prisoners, and several other members of the courtroom were injured. The weapons used during this raid all belonged to Angela Davis, who suspiciously fled to New York three hours after the event.

The shotgun that killed the judge was registered to Davis, and under California law, abetting a killer before the act is guilty of murder as well. After living as a fugitive for two months, Davis was arrested and taken back to California, where the incident had occurred. Her 1972 trial proved to be one of much publicity and debate, with many people claiming she was no more than a political prisoner. She was acquitted of all charges, regardless of the fact that the prosecution had submitted 201 exhibits and called 95 witnesses. Because Davis claims she suffered for 18 months in prison unjustly, she has dedicated herself to the abolition of America's prison system.

How can anyone read the above story and think, "This is the kind of woman that I'd like to speak at my university in honor of MLK Day?" Regardless of whether or not she's guilty of murder, her involvement in the violent Black Panthers alone should prove that she is clearly not an advocate of peace, as Dr. King so firmly was. Her almost undeniable involvement in the killing of the California judge certainly underlines the fact that she is not the kind of woman you want as a role model. Why are we honoring her as one?

On top of everything else, Angela Davis is a hypocrite. In Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Warning to the West, the author describes how, after Davis' acquittal and release from prison, she was urged by a group of Czech dissidents to stand up for the Czechs being imprisoned for opposing Communism. Davis' reply was a cold, "They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison." Her logic is a bit confusing. After all, she supports the abolition of prisons in America, which I would suppose means she doesn't want our murderers, thieves, and rapists locked up, and yet, she was fine with the imprisonment of the Czech rebels. Nevermind the fact that Davis herself was considered a "political prisoner;" apparently, those who dissent against Communism "deserve what they get."

I support Davis' freedom to rage against the "prison industrial complex" in America. I support her right to preach the wonders of Communism. What I do not support is UNCG's decision to have her speak in honor of Martin Luther King Day. It is a travesty to compare that woman to the greatest peace-loving civil rights leader of all time. I am also fairly certain that Dr. King would not want a Black Panther speaking in remembrance of him.

It is true that we still have a long way to go as far as racial equality is concerned in America, but it is also true that was have come a long way from the segregated schools, water fountains, and lunch counters. Dr. King did a great deal to advance the civil rights movement in this country; the same cannot be said for Angela Davis.



Some information for this column was taken from William Manchester's The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative history of the United States 1932-1972.

Turning the Tables: Liberals Want End to Separation of Church and State

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Turning the tables: Liberals want end to separation of church and state - Opinions

Once upon a time, the ACLU wasn't just a big joke. I don't know a whole lot about that, because that was obviously long before I was born, and you should only write what you know. So I'm going to write about the ACLU being a big joke.

A few months ago, Michelle McCusker became pregnant, and as a result, lost her job. The ACLU says the institution that fired McCusker practices gender discrimination and that her rights have been infringed. In most cases, I'd be inclined to agree. The catch? McCusker was an unmarried teacher at a Catholic school.

In case you missed the significance of that statement, Catholics don't believe in premarital sex, something that's pretty much a prerequisite to McCusker's situation. Therefore, allowing this woman to teach small children about the Catholic religion might not be the best idea. These parents are paying to send their kids to a school where, ideally, they will receive a good, religious-based education, and not end up in Ms. McCusker's predicament. But it's hard to achieve that goal when one of the teachers is walking around pregnant, unwed, and refusing to get married.

I support any woman's right to not get married, and even their right to have children outside of wedlock. But this is different. This school's handbook warns that all teachers must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions." When McCusker took this job, she was aware that she would have to abide by the handbook and its restrictions on virtually everything that goes against the Church's teachings.

Enter - surprise, surprise - the ACLU. They make the argument that this policy discriminates against women, because men can't get pregnant. I find their argument laughable, and I'm just waiting for the day when the ACLU tries to sue some sort of God-figure for placing the burden of child-bearing upon women.

Their main argument is that male teachers could still practice premarital sex and get away with it, while female teachers risk getting pregnant and losing their jobs. The school responded by claiming that they would fire a male teacher if they found out he had gotten a woman pregnant out of wedlock. But the ACLU's assertion is that the woman's sin is much more visible, therefore, the rule discriminates against women.

To which I intelligently reply: DUH. It's the Catholic Church, people. It's been a patriarchy since Day One. I know that, and most of the rest of the world knows that. And even though the ACLU is suing the actual school for having discriminating policies, what they're doing in affect is suing the Catholic Church for having these policies. And forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is the government now allowed to tell churches what they can and cannot preach?

It just seems to me that this reeks of a breech of the separation of Church and State that everyone likes to scream about. Funny how every time someone on the Right wants the government to be more moral, the Left cries out, "Separation of Church and State!" but look at what happens when the roles are reversed.

This could create some potentially harmful precedents if the ACLU wins the case. Which church teachings are next on the list? Does the teaching of salvation discriminate because it preaches that atheists are going to hell? Maybe God needs to check with the ACLU before He publishes any more controversial material. We don't want to offend anyone, you know.

If you ask me, this woman is just looking for someone to blame. That's what our society does, it teaches you that nothing is ever your own fault. In this case, it's teaching Ms. McCusker that it's not her fault she chose to not obey the school's handbook - it's the institutions fault for just being so darn strict!

If McCusker really wanted to avoid all of this trouble, perhaps she should have called on the ACLU earlier. You know, to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing her to use birth control while having her forbidden premarital sex, and not allowing her to have an abortion. Or maybe, if she's going to work for a religious institution, she needs to stop picking and choosing which of the Church's laws she follows.

Have a Happy Christmakwanzikuh

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Have a happy Christmakwanzikuh - Opinions

Last Thursday kicked off the official beginning to the holiday season. You know, there's nothing like Thanksgiving to put you in that holiday spirit. Of course, by noon, my sister was already hiding to avoid helping with dinner, my father was glued to the television, I had already gotten into the Thanksgiving wine, and my mother was swearing this was the last year we were ever going to celebrate this holiday. Just like last year and the year before that.

But aside from those few hectic family dinners, I've always seen the holiday season as a sort of vacation from the rest of the year. When I think of this time of year, I always picture myself seated around a decorated tree with friends and loved ones, sipping coffee and hot cocoa. And for once, we're not discussing whose politics are better for this country, we're just sharing silly gossip, and maybe spilling a few secrets after a little too much eggnog. In my mind, Christmas time is a break from the stupid, insignificant arguments the rest of the year brings.

Unfortunately, America refuses to let me escape from its own pettiness. No, those silly family squablings that bless the home during this season pale in comparison to some of the other arguments that occur during this time. Political correctness has everyone so up in arms that I'm now afraid to wish strangers a "Merry Christmas" for fear they'll be offended at my choice of holiday greeting. Now, I don't begrudge anyone the right to celebrate whatever holiday they want, whether it be Christmas, Channukah or Kwanza, but I would also hope that they do the same favor for me. Sadly, there are still many people in this country who refuse to shop at stores which don't represent their holiday of choice, and even some who boycott stores that have resorted to the generic term of "holidays" in order to include all religious groups in their seasonal celebration.

And then last year, in an equally petty move, Target Corporations refused to allow Salvation Army bell ringers to stand outside their stores. Why? According to Target, it is because they have a strict no-solicitation policy which encompasses the familiar red kettle bell-ringers. But that's not the rumor that's been circulating for over a year now. Fundamentalist Christian groups have accused the giant retailer of discriminating against the Salvation Army because of its stance against homosexuality. As a result, some religious groups are refusing to shop at Target because of its supposed pro-gay stance. However, a visit to the Salvation Army website shows that even though the group's religious beliefs preach against homosexuality, their charity is "available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation." Of course, all this really proves is that Target's actions are entirely selfish and that their only goal is to keep bell-ringers from "harassing" their customers.

Since I was a little girl, I was taught to never pass by a kettle without at least putting in a few cents. That's stuck with me throughout the years, and if I ever have children I'll teach them the same thing. For over a century now, the Salvation Army has been helping the less fortunate in America through their red kettle campaigns, regardless of race, religion, or political orientation. And while I do hope that Target suffers because of the boycotts, I also hope those boycotting are not doing so out of hate for their fellow humans.

So don't try to justify Target's actions by turning this into a political battle. And while you're at it, try not to be so picky about what your holiday is referred to as. Whether you're Christian, Jewish, or agnostic, try to see this season for what it is - a chance to help your fellow man and an excuse for togetherness. Call me crazy, but there's something about this time of year that turns me into an optimist. Maybe it's all the songs about peace on earth. Or maybe, just maybe, I've had far too much eggnog.

Students First? Not Anymore

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Students First? Not anymore - Opinions

When I first arrived at UNCG as a freshman in Fall 2002, the university motto was "Students First." Sure, it was the butt of a few jokes, but it served its purpose in expressing that UNCG felt a rightful obligation to its own students. I'm not aware of when the switch occurred, but at some point, UNCG discreetly changed its motto to the very vague "Service." It sounds nice, but as a student who often feels her needs are forgotten in the midst of a large bureaucracy, sometimes I have to wonder: "Service" to whom?

I started thinking about this last week while frantically trying to finish the several papers that had piled up on me while I was sick. Thanks to my technological illiteracy, I have managed to accidentally delete Microsoft Office from my home computer, which means I rely completely on UNCG's computer labs. I planned to spend most of the night in the Bryan Lab because it doesn't close until 3am, and I figured I'd have plenty of time to finish my papers. Unfortunately, the lab consultant working at that time was paid a visit by three of his friends, and they spent the next 45 minutes talking above the normal speaking level, in a place where students go to do homework. This isn't the first time I've had this happen to me, and it makes me wonder if maybe UNCG is unable to hire people who can do their jobs.

UNCG's disservice to their students doesn't stop there. Anyone who has ever lived on campus knows how wonderful it is to be forced to buy a campus meal plan. For those of you who have never known this pleasure, I'll go over the basics. Meal plans are required for anyone living on UNCG's campus (they think that if we don't eat on campus, we'll just forget to eat all together and starve to death). Freshmen are given one choice for a meal plan, and that is a plan that includes only the Caf. As you become a sophomore and so on, they allow you to choose meal plans with a little more flexibility.

The main problem with this is that UNCG is taking our money under the guise of allowing us to eat all semester, but not really treating us as paying customers. The Caf has horrible hours of operation. Also, if you happen to make it in right before they close, you're not likely to find much to eat, and some Caf workers will even complain vociferously about students that come in late. If workers at a restaurant kept the same attitudes that people working at UNCG's dining facilities have, the restaurant wouldn't stay open very long. But UNCG knows they have a captive audience for their food services, so they really couldn't care less.

In response to the abuse many students undergo at the Caf and other dining places on campus, some students are taking action. Matt Hill, a student who is very active on campus, was disrespected by two Caf workers, and upon complaining to the manager on duty, was actually threatened by one of the workers, who attempted to start a physical fight with him right there in the middle of the dining area. The entire experience has left this student feeling intimidated about dining in the Caf for fear that the worker might try to start another fight. Because Matt realizes that he is not alone (I myself have had several problems with Dining Service employees, including the manager of Spencers), he has started a website entitled "This $#!+ Has Got To Stop Campaign" (http://www.matthillnc.com/diningcomplaints). He is using this site to compile stories about similar abuse by UNCG Dining Service employees which will eventually lead to an SGA resolution concerning the conduct of these employees.

In what might seem like an unrelated story, the UNCG College Republicans were asked to stop using their logo by University Relations. Why? The CR logo features the Republican elephant sharing the yellow and blue shield with Minerva, our school symbol. The CRs created and used the logo to illustrate their connection with the university, and yet the university has told them that they have no right to their own school's symbols. The symbol of Minerva represents UNCG and therefore represents their students, and as a student, I feel I should have a right to use this logo which represents me. These ridiculous rules outlining how the image of Minerva may and may not be used are little more than just another example of how UNCG is trying to completely distance themselves from their students. It also makes one wonder if these people really have nothing better to do with their time than bust students for a simple graphic design.

It's fairly simple to understand why UNCG changed its motto to "Service." If it was still "Students First," they might have to make some serious changes, such as pretending to actually care about their students. But as they seem to be content with offering sub par lab services and even worse dining options, as well as restricting their own students' rights to show any sort of connection with the university through the Minerva logo, I doubt we'll ever see "Students First" again. In fact, maybe something more along the lines of "Shut Up, Give Us Your Money, and Enjoy Being Screwed Over for the Next Four Years" would be more appropriate.

Working Together for the Future of America

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Working together for the future of America - Opinions

I received a lot of good feedback on my article from a few weeks ago concerning bipartisanship. It seems as though everyone is in favor of seeing the two parties work together; apparently the national and state parties just haven't gotten the memo yet.

I'm not sure how many college students actually keep up with the North Carolina State Legislature's doings, but it's hilarious how juvenile these grown men (and a few women) can get when it comes to their political stance. Republicans refuse to compromise with Democrats (and vice versa), to the point that nothing ever gets accomplished. The state Democrats actually had to wait until one Republican was on his honeymoon and the other was out sick to get the lottery bill passed through. Some see this as dirty politics, but most just see it as necessary.

It gets even dirtier on the national level. When President Bush first nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Republicans everywhere praised his good judgment. And then they realized that the Democrats liked her, so they had to find something wrong with her. Miers ended up withdrawing from her nomination, most likely due to criticism she was receiving within the Republican Party.

The only thing that gives me any hope for democracy is the new generation of political leaders. The only reason I haven't completely given up politics is the determination I have in me that I will be one of the people who changes the country for the better.

Think about it. Most of the people in power who refuse to compromise or even discuss change are of the older generation. The majority of young people that you ask aren't going to see any problem with gay marriage, but seeing as how we're not the majority in this country (at least, not when it comes to voting), we simply have to wait our turn.

Take for example, the College Republicans and the College Democrats at UNCG. Sure, this is politics on a much less significant scale, but politics nonetheless. Although both groups represent two complete opposites of the America public, they manage to get along just fine, even when it comes to political discussions. Sure, there are arguments about the basics - the War on Terror, Social Security, taxes - but nothing like the juvenile arguments that seem to go on in the state legislature, or in Congress.

Perhaps it has something to do with the idealistic nature of youth. Even those of us who consider ourselves to be Republican still tend to see the world through rose-colored glasses at some time or another. I personally refuse to let go of the belief that things are going to change in the future: those older politicians who refuse to bend to anything are going to give way to a new group of politicians, those who grew up listening to the ridiculous partisan arguments of both sides, and who are willing to work together to make this country a better place for everyone.

If you don't believe me, maybe you should see it for yourself. The College Republicans and the College Democrats, in a bi-partisan event sponsored by the Political Science Department and the Political Awareness Club, are going to be doing a series of debates during this academic year. The first one is a debate on foreign affairs, and will be held in Graham 212 at 7p.m. on Thursday, November 3. It's a good way for both sides to get their views out in a friendly manner, and it's also a good way for students to have their questions answered about what each party really thinks about the war in Iraq and other things of that nature.

I personally think it's great that both sides are working together for this event. I have enough faith in these two groups to believe that it will be a friendly debate, and that there will be very few fist-fights, unlike Congress. I'd encourage everyone at UNCG who is interested in politics, concerned about our position in Iraq, or just curious about where a debate between these two groups might lead, to attend. You just might learn something you didn't know, or maybe you'll change your mind about something you already believed. Or maybe you'll see me get punched. Either way, it's a good time.

Greensboro's Woods of Terror: Truly Frightening... Especially if You're Afraid of a Little Religious Speech

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Greensboro's Woods of Terror - Opinions

I want to begin this column by saying that I love Halloween, and I am incredibly glad that it falls on a weekday this year. The last time I was able to go to class dressed up like an idiot was Halloween my freshman year, and I didn't have the nerve to go through with it. You better bet I'll be walking around campus all day this year in my costume. Watch out.

Halloween is a great time of year. I've been a fan of horror movies and ghost stories since I was little, so of course I love a holiday that encourages these things. One of the things you must do, if you really want to appreciate Halloween, is do something, well, scary. There's no end to the number of haunted attractions to be found at this time of year. UNCG's own Mary Foust Residence College puts on a haunted house every year. It's conveniently located for the average student, and it's gotten some great reviews in the past.

But if you have a car and you don't mind a little 10-15 minute drive, there might be another attraction for you to check out. On Church Street, right outside of the Greensboro city limits, lies the Woods of Terror, an award-winning haunted trail attraction. According to their website (www.woodsofterror.com), the woods in which this trail lies is haunted by the spirits of those who perished during the Great Depression and were not given a proper burial.

After receiving high rankings from MSNBC, hauntedhouse.com, and Tourist Parks and Attractions, I finally decided to see what all the fuss was about. Some friends and I piled in a car and drove out to the Woods of Terror, looking for a scare. And boy did we find it. After being chased with chain saws, bumping into dead bodies, and taking the scariest hayride ever, my friends and I were all hoarse from screaming and laughing. Even I had to admit that I had been genuinely spooked by the haunted trail.

Aside from actually having the ability to frighten me, something else sets this Halloween attraction apart from all the others. After entering the Woods of Terror, you are immediately herded into a room with a television. A man (who turns out to be Eddie McLaurin, the owner of the Woods of Terror) appears on the screen and proceeds to tell everyone in the room about Jesus Christ. He doesn't preach or come off as "holier than thou," but he does explain how Christianity changed his life and how it can do the same for everyone in the room.

Of course, being in a crowd of college students, there were the obligatory cries of, "I'm offended!" and "He can't force his religion on us!" The irony in this is, of course, McLaurin isn't forcing his religion on anyone; he's offering it as an option to people entering HIS own private attraction. But most silly "open-minded" college students don't look at it that way.

Eddie McLaurin has been using his haunted trail to scare people since 1991. Although he had been raised as a Christian, he admits that he had fallen off the path sometime around his senior year of high school. Years later, after rededicating himself to God, McLaurin told me he realized (in reference to the haunted attraction), "God needed to be in it, and if it didn't glorify God, it wasn't right."

As he expected, McLaurin has received some bad feedback in the way he begins his haunted trail. Some Christians have chastised him for celebrating a traditionally "Satanic" holiday; however, in response, McLaurin states, "It's only the devil's holiday if we give it to him." He went on to say that Christians who refuse to celebrate Halloween should also refuse to have anything to do with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny on other major holidays. On the other end of the spectrum, non-Christians have criticized him for "forcing" his religion under false pretenses. But McLaurin has also received a great deal of feedback from people who were personally touched by his video, and who have changed their life the same way he changed his.

Eddie McLaurin is just another example of why I'm so proud to live in a free country where people can come up with ideas like this one. And sure, maybe there will be some people who don't attend his park because they don't want to have Christianity "forced" upon them, but they're the ones that are losing out. The video lasts all of two minutes, and doesn't make you feel like a bad person or a sinner if you don't chose to listen to it. And if anyone is really, truly offended by the video, I'm sure they'll have had it scared out of them by the end of the haunted trail. If you're looking for a good time this Halloween season, visit the Woods of Terror on Church Street. Or, you could just be a loser and sit at home if you're one of those people who are terrified by the concept of the First Amendment.

The Conundrum of the Internet: The Framers of the Constitution REALLY Should Have Thought About Blogs...

THE RIGHT ANGLE: The conundrum of the Internet - Opinions

I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.

But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?

The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.

Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.

I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.

In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.

It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.