Thanks for ‘straight talk’ on Lute

Thanks to the Wildcat for straight talk in the editorial “”Fast Break”” about Lute Olson. As we brace for political decisions that could bring us a disastrous mid-year budget rescission and yet more harmful cuts for the coming fiscal year, wouldn’t it be admirable if, while he is on leave, Lute would forego the vast sum of money by which his salary differs from that of a professor at the UA? This is not about his contract. It’s about good will, conscience and grace. After all, other employees at the UA endure severe family hardships while having to keep working in order to feed their families. And just think about how splendid it would be if UA Athletics were to hand that liberated money over to the academic side in a time of great duress!

John G. Hildebrand
regents professor and director,
Arizona Research Laboratories
Division of Neurobiology

A pornographic challenge

Recently, a student asked me why I thought rape rates in the United States were the highest out of all reporting countries worldwide. While I think it is nearly impossible to accurately assess something like this across cultures, the question made me think about what factors contribute to the rape culture in which we currently live in this country. In my estimation, one of the main contributing factors for this is not only the access to, but also the social acceptance of pornography in myriad forms.

To start, let’s do an experiment. Look through the Daily Wildcat and count the number of advertisements for “”gentlemen’s clubs”” or ads that contain sexually suggestive material. The paper on my desk this morning had three, along with at least one article where it was suggested that the women at UA are a positive recruiting tool for the men’s basketball team, as if women were just objects to lust after. Such advertisements, as well as comments like the one referenced, are examples of the continued objectification of women. But it isn’t just a problem in the Daily Wildcat or at UA. This is a noticeable phenomenon throughout the United States. One need look no further than the budding success of “”lad mags”” like Maxim. These publications are prime examples of what I call “”socially acceptable porn,”” meaning it is seen as more acceptable in our society to purchase a Maxim than a Hustler. However, both publications serve the same purposes: to promulgate the sexual objectification of women by turning them into “”things”” rather than portraying them as actual people.

Now I can already hear the first objection from magazine and newspaper staffs across the country, and you are right, you are supported by the First Amendment. Moreover, I understand running a paper or magazine is a business, and if a “”gentlemen’s club”” wants to pay to run their horrible advertisements, then you can print them. However, it does not follow that if you can do something, then you should go ahead and do it. You can choose to skip all your classes, but this doesn’t mean you should. Likewise, although the freedom of press and capitalism allow you to print these degrading ads, one shouldn’t feel compelled to do so. It perpetuates the cycle of degradation, objectification and violence against women experienced in this country.

Zach Nicolazzo
violence prevention specialist,
Oasis Program for Sexual Assault
and Relationship Violence