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.
Showing posts with label SGA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SGA. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
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!
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!
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Don't Fall Prey to the Partisan Monster
(I hope it's painfully obvious to everyone that I did NOT title this column... I'm guessing my editor is to blame for this gem.)
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions
Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.
Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.
I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".
I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?
What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.
Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.
And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.
Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions
Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.
Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.
I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".
I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?
What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.
Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.
And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.
Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Democracy at UNCG: SGA to Campus -- "We Lied. Your Vote Really Doesn't Matter."
Democracy at UNCG - Opinions
A lot has happened since my last published column. I must say, the absence of a campus paper has been frustrating. Even the Spartan News, which started last semester as an "alternative" news source, shunned the chance to control the UNCG news scene; since the Carolinian's last edition in November, the Spartan News has updated only once and with only one article.
Without the Carolinian, the more motivated students were forced to find alternate means of campus information. I found SGA to be handy for learning about upcoming campus events and such. I have wanted to be active in SGA since I was a freshman but was turned off by fellow students who warned me of what a snooze fest it was. But apparently, I'll do anything to get out of doing homework.
Although it may not be the normal college student's idea of a good time, it was anything but boring. Three hours of bickering over money and arguing the mechanics of the English language later, I was completely convinced that democracy doesn't stand a chance in this country. At least they accomplished something.
Aside from lengthy meetings, irrelevant arguments, and destroying my faith in humanity, I saw the basic necessity of SGA. I found it almost heart-warming to see so many students working together (sometimes) to insure the success of the entire university.
All those warm fuzzies went away, however, when election time rolled around. I was shocked to discover, in this large group of motivated, ambitious students, that there was only one person running for president and one person running for vice-president. So much for my vision of students actually caring about the future of our campus.
If I sound bitter, you'll have to excuse me. You see, I was nominated for SGA President, and then told I could not run because I had not attended enough meetings. Others were turned away because of their low GPA. This experience leads me to believe that the lack of candidates does not stem completely from indifference, but from the pointless regulations placed upon interested students.
I didn't really mind not being able to run until I realized that no one was running against Daphne Villanueva. I attended the "debate" in which Daphne told us why we should elect her for president, as if we had a choice in the matter. She and Sandy Dempsey, the vice-presidential candidate, answered basic questions on the campus parking situation, financial aid, and relating with students. I sat in the audience, not necessarily disagreeing with either of them, but yearning for a differing opinion.
For example, Daphne doesn't see a problem with the parking situation on campus. Apparently, the fact that there aren't enough spaces to accommodate everyone with a parking pass is not as important as making sure all of our freshmen are able to have passes. As a rising senior who lives on campus and is sick of having to park on the street when I come home at night, I don't see the problem with the freshman lottery that was standard when I first came to UNCG. At the very least, we should go back to having "freshman passes" so those of us with seniority don't have to park somewhere near the edge of the earth to make sure we don't get a ticket.
I would have loved to see an opposing view on the parking situation at the debate, and I'm sure plenty of other students would agree with me. The closest thing we received to contrasting ideas were Sandy's answers as to why she would make a good vice-president. Before the debate was over, I was fairly certain that Sandy was more qualified for the position of president than Daphne was, but my opinion (as well as my vote) didn't count for much.
The real losers in this situation are not those of us who were not allowed to run because we had not attended a certain number of meetings but the entire student body. How can we expect students to participate in national and statewide elections when we won't even allow them to see the benefits of democracy in their own university?
The week before "elections", signs went up all over the university urging students to vote. Daphne and Sandy plastered posters all over the EUC. Out of sheer curiosity, I logged on to the voting page, and found that there was not even a place to write in a different candidate.
What really gets to me is the fact that the people who come up with the rules for who can and cannot run are probably the same people who were stressing the importance of voting in the SGA elections. I'm sure they created the rules in order to keep people in charge who were "fit" for the job, but shouldn't they let the students decide who is appropriate? Shouldn't they allow the students to decide if a candidate's low GPA or low attendance record makes them unfit for the office?
We're supposed to be teaching students that the ability to elect our leaders is an important right that they should take advantage of, but instead, we're teaching them apathy. I say let the students decide who should represent them. I demand a recount; you should too.
A lot has happened since my last published column. I must say, the absence of a campus paper has been frustrating. Even the Spartan News, which started last semester as an "alternative" news source, shunned the chance to control the UNCG news scene; since the Carolinian's last edition in November, the Spartan News has updated only once and with only one article.
Without the Carolinian, the more motivated students were forced to find alternate means of campus information. I found SGA to be handy for learning about upcoming campus events and such. I have wanted to be active in SGA since I was a freshman but was turned off by fellow students who warned me of what a snooze fest it was. But apparently, I'll do anything to get out of doing homework.
Although it may not be the normal college student's idea of a good time, it was anything but boring. Three hours of bickering over money and arguing the mechanics of the English language later, I was completely convinced that democracy doesn't stand a chance in this country. At least they accomplished something.
Aside from lengthy meetings, irrelevant arguments, and destroying my faith in humanity, I saw the basic necessity of SGA. I found it almost heart-warming to see so many students working together (sometimes) to insure the success of the entire university.
All those warm fuzzies went away, however, when election time rolled around. I was shocked to discover, in this large group of motivated, ambitious students, that there was only one person running for president and one person running for vice-president. So much for my vision of students actually caring about the future of our campus.
If I sound bitter, you'll have to excuse me. You see, I was nominated for SGA President, and then told I could not run because I had not attended enough meetings. Others were turned away because of their low GPA. This experience leads me to believe that the lack of candidates does not stem completely from indifference, but from the pointless regulations placed upon interested students.
I didn't really mind not being able to run until I realized that no one was running against Daphne Villanueva. I attended the "debate" in which Daphne told us why we should elect her for president, as if we had a choice in the matter. She and Sandy Dempsey, the vice-presidential candidate, answered basic questions on the campus parking situation, financial aid, and relating with students. I sat in the audience, not necessarily disagreeing with either of them, but yearning for a differing opinion.
For example, Daphne doesn't see a problem with the parking situation on campus. Apparently, the fact that there aren't enough spaces to accommodate everyone with a parking pass is not as important as making sure all of our freshmen are able to have passes. As a rising senior who lives on campus and is sick of having to park on the street when I come home at night, I don't see the problem with the freshman lottery that was standard when I first came to UNCG. At the very least, we should go back to having "freshman passes" so those of us with seniority don't have to park somewhere near the edge of the earth to make sure we don't get a ticket.
I would have loved to see an opposing view on the parking situation at the debate, and I'm sure plenty of other students would agree with me. The closest thing we received to contrasting ideas were Sandy's answers as to why she would make a good vice-president. Before the debate was over, I was fairly certain that Sandy was more qualified for the position of president than Daphne was, but my opinion (as well as my vote) didn't count for much.
The real losers in this situation are not those of us who were not allowed to run because we had not attended a certain number of meetings but the entire student body. How can we expect students to participate in national and statewide elections when we won't even allow them to see the benefits of democracy in their own university?
The week before "elections", signs went up all over the university urging students to vote. Daphne and Sandy plastered posters all over the EUC. Out of sheer curiosity, I logged on to the voting page, and found that there was not even a place to write in a different candidate.
What really gets to me is the fact that the people who come up with the rules for who can and cannot run are probably the same people who were stressing the importance of voting in the SGA elections. I'm sure they created the rules in order to keep people in charge who were "fit" for the job, but shouldn't they let the students decide who is appropriate? Shouldn't they allow the students to decide if a candidate's low GPA or low attendance record makes them unfit for the office?
We're supposed to be teaching students that the ability to elect our leaders is an important right that they should take advantage of, but instead, we're teaching them apathy. I say let the students decide who should represent them. I demand a recount; you should too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
