In dormitory halls across campus, every Resident Assistant office is stocked with a bowl of contraceptives intended to contain a variety of options for students looking to protect themselves. However, they tend to carry only external condoms and lube, contraceptive options that are tailored to heterosexual couples and gay men, ignoring those with other sexual orientations, like queer women, who generally use dental dams to protect themselves during sex. In Pipe Dream’s sex survey, only seven respondents indicated they use dental dams during sex, although 14 respondents identified as lesbian.

In an article published on Verywell Health, a medical information website partnered with The Cleveland Clinic, Elizabeth Boskey, an adjunct lecturer at Boston University who researches sexually transmitted diseases, said a lack of discussion surrounding lesbian and queer sex and a lack of safe-sex resources for lesbian and queer women makes it difficult for lesbian and queer women to protect themselves.

“The risk of STD transmission between women is compounded by the fact that many lesbians and bisexual women consider sex between women to be a low-risk activity and so do not practice safer sex,” Boskey wrote. “Lesbian safer sex is not an oxymoron. There are ways to improve the safety of most, if not all, sexual activity that takes place between women.”

A Guttmacher Institute study of college-aged sexually active female students found that lesbians and queer women were less likely to contract a sexually transmitted infection than straight and bisexual women, but were also less likely to have gotten a routine gynecological exam. According to an anonymous sophomore majoring in psychology, the education system consistently fails queer women, which leads to less knowledge about safe sex and reproductive health.

“When you’re young, all they teach you in health class is condoms and abstinence,” the student said. “They never talk about any kind of sex other than the [heterosexual] kind. It’s like, ‘Oh, so I’m abnormal,’ because they don’t talk about any other kind.”

For queer, female students who want to have safe sex, there are options beyond dental dams. Students can cut external condoms or convert latex gloves to create makeshift dams. They can also access a variety of safe sex resources at the Q Center, which is located in the basement of Glenn G. Bartle Library, and at Rainbow Pride Union’s office, located in the University Union. For STD and STI testing, students can visit the Decker Student Health Services Center or go to off-campus resources, such as Family Planning of South Central New York on Hawley Street or the Broome County Health Department on Front Street.

Yet, despite all of these wonderful initiatives, the University’s investments, through the Binghamton University Foundation, may be in direct conflict with these efforts. There is approximately $100 million at the Foundation that is invested with no transparency and no ethical criteria provided thus far. Many students, faculty, and alumni are concerned that these funds may be at least partially invested in dirty fossil fuels. This means our money could be funding an industry that has created countless consequences to our health and the environment. Pollution from coal and natural gas worsen climate disruption, threatening our families with more extreme weather like drought, dangerous heat waves, and flooding. Examples of extreme weather include the recent hurricanes Lee and Irene and Superstorm Sandy. Climate change is a serious economic issue, as illustrated by the headline of Bloomberg Businessweek the week after Superstorm Sandy which read, “It’s Global Warming Stupid!” and Governor Cuomo estimated the cost of Sandy would be more than $42 million. In 2002, the Department of Defense declared climate change a threat to national security, and insurance companies are including climate change consequences in their rates. Insurers pay about $50 billion a year in climate and weather-related losses, including business disruption, according to the academic journal Science.

Replacing dirty fuels with renewable energy will make us a national leader in business, innovation, and technology. Transitioning from dirty fossil fuels to renewable energy like wind and solar will cut harmful pollution that makes us sick and reduce the threat of disastrous extreme weather. Investing in renewable energy means building a more prosperous future with exciting new industries and new economic opportunities. That is why numerous students, faculty, staff, and alumni call upon President Stenger and the Binghamton University Foundation to: (1) immediately freeze any new investment in fossil fuel companies and (2) divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds within 5 years. In addition, we hope that such investments will be redirected towards clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar to bring Foundation investments in line with the University’s commitment to climate neutrality, provide capital for clean, renewable energy initiatives, support economic development in this area, and further support crucial efforts to reduce carbon emissions and reverse climate change. We look forward to the Foundation fully disclosing its investments, including any divestment from dirty fossil fuels, and proudly supporting and investing in clean, renewable energy.

Florence Nash

I.D.E.A.S. for Binghamton

Professor Weaver’s recent letter, written in response to Jess Coleman’s column, epitomizes a major problem with the abortion debate: It is discussed and decided mostly by men. Everyone is entitled to share their opinions, but shouldn’t the people making the decisions be those most invested in and affected by the outcome?

By stating, whether he meant it seriously or not, that no one under the age of 25 should be allowed to write about abortion, Weaver marginalizes those most affected by abortion law — young women. According to the CDC, in 2008, women aged 15-29 accounted for 73.3 percent of all abortions. Weaver makes it clear in his first sentence that he has no respect for the opinions of undergraduates, but it is precisely women in their teens and 20s who should have the most to add to the discussion.

Weaver continues to show his misunderstanding of the issue when he relates pro-choice arguments to people who choose to forego vaccination. He claims, rightfully so, that those who are not vaccinated are dangers not only to themselves, but also to society, because of the possible spread of diseases that were previously eradicated. However, this argument is not at all analogous to the abortion debate. If a woman decides to get an abortion, the people around her are not medically affected. Her decision has no bearing on the health of others.

Weaver also comments that Coleman’s article “emphasizes bodily autonomy issues, particularly in regards to women’s bodies.” Who else’s bodies are relevant in this discussion? Certainly not men’s. Again, it is women who are affected by abortion, it is women who have to undergo the procedure and deal with the consequences, and it is women who should be at the forefront of this discussion. For many of us, the fight is not over fetal life, but rather our right to choose what to do with our own bodies and lives. I would argue, then, that it is a very important topic, and it should not be dismissed as Weaver so inconsistently does at the close of his letter.

Sammie Ruthenberg
Class of 2013

I read with interest the recent column by Jess Coleman, which, despite my nominally pro-life position, I found rather intelligent as undergraduate arguments on abortion go (it should be required by law that no one write about abortion till they’re 25, with Jess being perhaps a partial exception). Nevertheless, I do think there are some basic flaws to Jess’s argument, as there is to pro-life apologetics as well.

First of all, Jess is absolutely right in arguing that the pro-life movement is not philosophically consistent in its position when it comes to rape. Indeed, I would be scared if it were to become so. The problem is, the pro-choice movement is no more philosophically consistent. Jess refers to the moment of fetal viability, which is, I believe, where he arbitrarily defines human life as beginning. The problem is that fetal viability is not a constant concept. If we developed technology that allowed the fetus (or even the embryo) to survive and develop outside the womb for the entire period of pregnancy, would that suddenly change all fetuses and embryos from non-humans to humans? Such an argument is absurd, yet that is the logic that Jess (and to be fair, the Supreme Court) seems to use. This is not to say that the Supreme Court decision is right or wrong, just that there are philosophical inconsistencies about abortion on the part of both sides in the issue. Nevertheless, it is impressive that Jess saw this particular inconsistency on the pro-life side at all, since it escapes both most pro-choicers and pro-lifers.

Jess also emphasizes bodily autonomy issues, particularly in regards to women’s bodies. I personally am sympathetic to the argument for bodily autonomy, and can see many reasons for wishing to protect that right. The problem is I can see many arguments for not protecting it as well, and a declaration of total bodily autonomy is likely to be philosophically and ultimately morally indefensible. For instance, take this hypothetical: thousands of people decide not to get inoculated against diseases like smallpox (or perhaps bubonic plague). As a result, the diseases reappear in the human population and kill other people. Should bodily autonomy be allowed in such instances? Is it then truly “my body, my choice,” when my body may end up hurting other people’s bodies? There’s no easy answer to this real-world scenario, either in favor of bodily autonomy or against it. Either position presents challenges.

My personal belief is that the pro-choice movement should ground its defense of abortion on the issue of sexual violence. In other words, pro-choicers should argue that forcing someone to maintain a pregnancy for nine months is an act of sexual violence. I first heard this argument from the great Jon Stewart, and despite (or perhaps because of) the source, I find it persuasive. I don’t have an easy answer for it, except to say that the act of abortion may be a physical act of violence against the fetus and/or embryo. Either argument, however, has faults. Similar arguments that pro-choicers and pro-lifers use that refer to graphic pictures of fetuses or pictures of blobbish embryos to prove the life-likeness or non-life-likeness of fetal life are also problematic, because an organism’s development or lack of development has nothing to do with its “innate value” within nature, which, if we are to be philosophically consistent naturalists, is zero, whether it’s a 1-day-old embryo or the President of the United States. In many ways, despite pro-lifers’ and pro-choicers’ disdain for him, ethicist Peter Singer is more ethically and philosophically consistent than either movement when he makes the argument that being a human is not being the same thing as a person; they are two totally different philosophical categories.

My class recently had a discussion in which we talked about abortion as performance art (something a Yale student has actually done in real life, at least according to her). I argued that since most of my non-religious students (and myself) assume that art’s definition is relative — that a urinal can in fact be art (Duchamp, for instance) — that abortion is just as valid a form of art as the Mona Lisa, using that definition. Two of my favorite Christian students agreed, despite their personal dislike of abortion. My non-Christian and non-religious students morally opposed this position, despite the fact that such opposition was frankly nonsensical (and arbitrary). So, I guess, in the final analysis, we are all philosophically inconsistent on this issue; but I agree with Jess that there are perhaps more germane uses of our political capital then squabbling over the fate of fetal life, when non-fetal life is dying in even greater numbers every day.

John Weaver
Adjunct Professor, English Department

I read with pleasure of the Taiwanese American Student Coalition two-day event on self–defense. I feel strongly that everybody should have some knowledge of how to act when the fickle finger of fate points its finger at you and says ‘You are on stage right now, Defend Yourself!’ Since the end of two World Wars and a slew of anti-imperialist struggles, the idea of violence has been seen as something deviant. In conjunction with this attitude was the easy availability of firearms that seemed to make years of hard training in traditional combat arts of little use against guns. But this is far from the case. I have trained in traditional arts all over the world. From these apprenticeships I have learned not to ask what a martial art is supposed to do, but to look at the types of situations they train for. In the Anthropology of Martial Arts class I teach every summer here at BU, I tell my students the first thing you must ask yourself is has this art been used under battlefield conditions, with ritual male hierarchical contests or predatory attacks? The first category is self-explanatory. The second is what is seen late at night on State Street when two people meet and drunkenly punch and wrestle with each other to prove where they rank in the hierarchy of young men. The last deals with individuals who deliberately seek out the weak or the disabled. Here the goal is to shock and awe.

In the description of the self-defense workshop, day one was devoted to Muay-Thai. Muay Thai was developed in the 1930’s as a safe sporting variation of the older battlefield art of Kabri Kabrong where swords and spears were used in conjunction with kicking and kneeing attacks. Day two focused on Tae Kwon Do. Coming out of 1950’s Korea, this art arose out of mixing a diluted Okinawan Karate taught to Japanese University students and the traditional village pastime of Tae Kwon. Much like Capoeira, Tae Kwon was done to music, where two individuals take turns trying to kick and sweep each other. A fun pastime.

These are pastimes that allow people to get together and have fun and get fit at the same time. But as a form of self–defense they will get you hurt. In contrast, Martial Arts from the villages of Indonesia or the streets of Genoa begin students with weapons. Why? Because they recognize that attackers generally arm themselves. Second, these arts train the students to always be prepared to deal with two, three and up to eight people. Why? Because most attackers want to overwhelm you. They don’t want a fair fight; they want you to give up without a struggle.

Kicking someone on a beer and vomit-covered floor, kicking someone in high heels will get you seriously hurt. Be careful not to confuse “martial arts and crafts” with the realities of the street.

Michael Ryan
Research associate, department of anthropology

Pipe Dream, a chartered organization of the Student Association, claimed to “have a similar mission [to the SA] — to give a voice to the students on this campus.” Yet time and time again, you have proven that your goal is only to give yourselves a larger voice on campus.

You listed your endorsements on the same page as your “objective” summaries of the candidates. Your summaries are so terse it is as though you copied and pasted from the candidates’ Facebook pages, and is so unspecific and sparse it seems as though you made no effort to interview the candidates. Additionally, your most recent issue before the election made not a single reference to the three very important ballot questions that students will be voting on during the elections.

Pipe Dream’s overall coverage about the election and the SA in general has been significantly lacking. Pipe Dream often sends no reporters to cover Assembly meetings and when they do the articles they write are rarely about the main substance of the debate. Yes, the Assembly has not been the most active or controversial this year, but with some more publicity, SA Reps would have incentives to try to make a difference.

You claim that you want a more informed and engaged student body — now is your time to prove it. Write profiles about the candidates, write about what the SA does and how it affects students, write about campaign tactics, write about what the candidates hope to achieve and the challenges they will face. Next time, instead of complaining about how uninformed students are, I sincerely hope that you take a step in the right direction and try to inform them.

Andrew Topal
Assembly Representative
Financial Economics and Political Science
Class of 2014

Mr. Tennenbaum,

For sake of your political comrades, I recommend you avoid signing your name to such silly accusations in the future. There is nothing more detrimental to the integrity of a political position, than concluding an article with a conspiratorial claim, constructed on an inductive fallacy, littered with emotive diction. At best, such an argument may sway a few low information voters.

It is true over the years several students have been involved with both the Binghamton Review and the Student Association. It is also true that conservative supportive third party organizations solicit us, to take advantage of their services. It is even true that some of our staff has taken advantage of these opportunities in the past.

Having jumped to the conclusion of a “shady” conspiracy, ques me to think you have been afflicted by a severe case of the confirmation bias and have done little research on our organization. When I first became involved with the BR about a year ago, I interpreted these facts a little differently.

It proved to me, the Review staff is comprised of exceptionally ambitious students. Who not only spend their extracurricular time complaining about politics in their articles, but also get involved with campus affairs in order to make a difference. Whereas liberalism is a political ideology, conservativism is a methodology based on principles. One of the principles most highly valued is integrity. Having become friends with Adam Shamah, Aaron Ricks and Mark Soriano, I can confidently say that these students are men of integrity. They believe in what they say and their deeds always follow their words.

To link third party influence with “installment,” is simply insulting to the free will and intellectual capacity of those accused. Considering their exceptional scholarship, I would bet each of them had a political opinion before they were enrolled in Binghamton University. Furthermore, to credit their successes to the work of these third parties, depreciates the value of their work. It was the integrity and ambition of the accused that built their resumes, not some ubiquitous conservative vendetta.

If you would be so kind as to read a few of our articles before imprudently making judgment, you will find that our staff is comprised of a wonderful diversity of opinion. Including Ryandian libertarians, a few pro-life Catholics and even a liberal-democrat.

Also, I’m sure if you took a poll of all students on campus you would find that conservatives represent a small minority of opinion. So, even if we had the money to hire Jim Messina to personally train our staff for SA usurpation, the electorate would still likely be averse.

What does any of this have to do with their qualifications for SA positions anyway?

Special thanks to Quintin Maidment.

Jacob L. Hayutin
Editor-in-Chief
Binghamton Review

Why would outside conservative groups train students to win our SA elections? The SA has control over the finances of various clubs and groups on campus, chooses which bands and speakers will come to campus and influences university administrative polices. Few students keep close track of the Student Association, which may be why the Leadership Institute (leadershipinstitute.org) and Campus Reform (campusreform.org) have found Binghamton an easy target. For the last four years, they’ve been installing conservative students in the SA. This Wednesday, students will have the chance to buck this trend just by voting in our SA elections through BMail, since a larger turnout could offset the LI’s efforts.

Founded by former College Republican state chairman Morton C. Blackwell, the Leadership Institute boasts “40 types of training schools, workshops and seminars” and “a national field program that trains conservative students to organize campus groups.” It takes pride in its function as a centralized generator of right-wing political activist groups — in our case, this happens to be the Binghamton Review.

LI’s child project, CampusReform.org, “provides conservative activists with the resources, networking capabilities and skills they need to revolutionize the struggle against leftist bias and abuse on college campuses.” Simply put, Campus Reform and the Institute — outside conservative groups — train Binghamton Review members to steal our SA elections. This gives Campus Reform unprecedented control over our campus. Come March 20, we can put a stop to this with informed voting.

While the Leadership Institute can not directly fund student election campaigns, they train conservative students and provide political advice to the Binghamton Review on how to seize control of the SA. They’ve actually gloated about stealing our elections: Take Adam Shamah in 2010, the former VP for Finance — and Editor-in-Chief at the Binghamton Review. The Institute bragged that his victory was due to “the training he received from the Campus Election Workshop.” This statement is public on their website.

Who among those who are running this semester for SA positions will have this organization training and backing them? With past and possibly present Leadership Institute “graduates” in SA finance positions, how have certain student clubs suffered or certain others been inflated by the role of outside groups? And why has the Binghamton Review never disclosed this support before?

While many student groups receive advice from mothership organizations, no other groups offer training in “schools and workshops” on how steal SA elections. These shady outside conservative groups intend to put ideological Binghamton Review students in charge our SA. And by anointing our SA Executive Board, Campus Reform and the Leadership Institute are the ones really controlling our campus. We can stop this by voting for and running for our SA, rather than standing idly by as political ideologies shape every aspect of our student life.

Joe Tannenbaum
Class of 2014

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion the editorial board came to in a recent editorial titled “The Jury’s In.” Although I agree that the holding President Stenger personally and solely responsible for the SUNY2020 plan is misguided, he has been an outspoken advocate of the plan since he began his tenure and has taken it upon himself to defend the plan in response to every and all criticism.

Regarding the Clark Fellowships: As we all know, this fellowship was designed to encourage departments to accept and fund graduate students from historically oppressed groups. I find it disturbing, but telling of the administration’s position, that despite the rising costs of living and education that the program’s funding hasn’t been altered in, to quote the article under scrutiny, “for decades.” At best this can be seen as neglecting the responsibility BU has to social justice. I for one would like to see President Stenger put as much weight behind increasing funding for this program and others like it — EOP comes to mind — as he has been behind obtaining funds for projects like the incubator set to be installed Downtown. The president can hold all the forums on racism and diversity he wishes, but money does the real talking.

Regarding the Tuition Assistance Program: According to the document titled “NY SUNY2020 Grant Application,” dated April 25, 2012, “the TAP portion of the student support funds will be to ensure that all TAP-eligible students are not impacted by the proposed tuition increases throughout the plan.” I take this to mean that students who receive TAP funding will not see their tuition increased due to the funding requirements of the SUNY2020’s proposed tuition increases. Indeed, those tuition increases will be used to make sure this does not happen. However, the numbers do not add up. According to the same document “29 percent come from families with adjusted gross incomes of less than $30,000,” or about 3,500 BU students. All of these students are eligible for sizable TAP awards, along with many additional students. The funding projections for TAP put the level at $700,000 for the first year of the plan, $900,000 the next, and $900,000, $1.1 million, and $1.2 million in the years to follow. Tuition is set to increase $300 for in-state students relative to year before the plan begins during each year of the five year plan. This means that the first year the plan is put in place the TAP funding will only be able to cover the tuition increase for 2,333 students. In the following years those funds will be able to cover tuition increases for 1,500, 1,222, 916, and 800 students respectively. It is clear that with these funding levels TAP-eligible students will have to pay more due to the implementation of SUNY2020.

I should also point out that since academic year 2010-11, TAP has in fact been cut statewide by over $75 million by reducing the TAP per student $125 a year. At the same time, the fees at Binghamton are set to go up by $125 a year. For TAP students this an effective increase in the cost of education to the tune of $1,000 over four years. While we should all be distressed by the burden TAP cuts and the SUNY2020 plan’s miserly allocations for TAP, we should be equally concerned with administration’s lack of forthcomingness on this matter.

Andrew J Pragacz

Tuesday, Pipe Dream published a letter to the editor that we fear will distract the campus from the devastating reality of modern-day slavery.  The FBI identifies human sex trafficking as the most prevalent form of modern slavery, with estimates of its victims in the millions, domestically and internationally.

We think this issue is so critically important that this is the third time in four years we have spent a week of the spring challenging the campus to confront and to help eradicate this evil.

We have been screening the documentary “Nefarious” this year in an effort to inform the campus about sex trafficking.  We think it is an accurate account of the problem and the challenges surrounding fighting it.

Adjunct professor John Weaver criticized the sponsors of the movie, which we believe is an unnecessary distraction from seriousness of human trafficking. We stand by the content of the film and invite the campus to come and see it for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

We expect Binghamton students to have higher levels of informed discourse around the issues of our generation. In many of our classrooms we explore the art, writings, theories and ideas of people with whom we might disagree vehemently, but we judge their work on its own merit. We invite the campus to come, watch the movie and discuss this modern-day injustice.

Lauren Kirst
President, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship

In your most recent issue, you included an article by Jess Coleman titled “Hiding behind the 2nd Amendment” in which the aforementioned writer suggested that gun laws need to be amended drastically. I found it interesting that at the end of the article he lamented that facts no longer matter when he ignored so many at his own convenience.

To begin, several unsubstantiated claims were made in the article suggesting that gun owners are in more danger than those who do not own guns. In fact, many studies have come to the opposite conclusion. In a study done by Robin M. Ikeda, published in the journal Violence and Victims in 1994, it was concluded that nearly half a million Americans that year had used a firearm to deter a home invasion. In addition, a study conducted by Don B. Kates that appeared in the American Journal of Criminal Law in 1991 concluded that it is far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.

Possibly more preposterous than his unsubstantiated reporting was his suggestion that the United States is safe because “Hitler and Stalin were dictators. In a civilized democracy, the whole objective is that your leaders exist because you chose them.” Aside from the terrible wording exhibited, this is an astounding piece of ignorance that your columnist attempted to propagate. As poor as their choices were, the Germans had, in fact, figured out the basic tenets of republicanism and had democratically elected Adolf Hitler. This fact drastically alters the point that Mr. Coleman continuously failed to make. More importantly, the suggestion that living in a democracy keeps you safe from tyranny is naive. In recent years, tyrants such as Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe both came to power by way of democratic elections.

Finally, as a side point Mr. Coleman remarked, “And anyway, good luck banding together your buddies in Texas to take down the U.S. military.” This not only misses the point of gun ownership, but also belittles to those who hold opinions which differ from those of Mr. Coleman. The fact is that in this statement, Mr. Coleman suggested that all Americans adopt the submissive attitude he has taken toward the government. He is trying to tell the readers that the government has no reason to worry about its own citizens and that there is no point to even consider opposing them. That is an unfortunate and shameful demonstration of the attitude that many people have taken. While a violent coup is not conceivable or advisable, the government ought to remain accountable to the people it serves and fear the power they hold, not the other way around.

In conclusion, what Mr. Coleman does not understand is that to define the rights of the people as given in the Constitution and its amendments is not to hide behind some piece of legislation, but to allow Americans to live in a manner in which their individual rights are maximized.

Michael Schwarz
Class of 2013

I am again depressed to find that InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is up to its usual disingenuous antics. Currently, InterVarsity is promoting a new documentary, “Nefarious,” which they will show once this week and once next week (it has already been shown once before). “Nefarious” purports to be a documentary about the exploitation of women via sex trafficking and the need to therefore abolish the sex trade. This is a cause, of course, which we all would presumably get behind. What InterVarsity fails to tell us in their gleaming posters is of “Nefarious’s” links to various theocratic leaders in the Christian right aligned with the powerful but fringe Pentecostal movement known as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). The movie was made through the sponsorship of Mike Bickle’s International House of Prayer. Mike Bickle is one of the most radical proponents of NAR philosophy and his IHOP (International House of Prayer) organization is directly responsible for the spread of anti-gay death penalty legislation in Uganda. Bickle is best known for claiming that Oprah Winfrey is the harbinger of the Antichrist and arguing that the “gay marriage agenda” is “rooted in the depths of Hell;” [he] recently said in an interview about homosexuality that gays and lesbians must “declare war” against their sexual orientation or will face “flaming missiles of the Evil One.” He warned that gays and lesbians, along with heterosexuals who have sex before marriage, who “give up and give in” will ultimately begin “denying the faith,” which “opens the door to the demonic realm to touch them.” The organization that IHOP has set up to handle “Nefarious’s” distribution and dissemination also promotes the teachings of Lou Engle. You may remember him from Jesus Camp; he’s the guy who gets all the little children at the end of the film to scream “righteous judges, righteous judges” as they hold little miniature fetuses in their hands. Engle is even more directly tied to the gay death penalty bill in Uganda than Bickle. An audio teaching of his directly available and easily locatable on The Exodus Cry site talks of his encounter with a “post-abortive” woman who had a dream of blood spurting out of her mouth, which he claims is a “deliverance [that’s Pentecostal for exorcism] from blood guilt” and a victory over the “demonic spirit of Jezebel”. Are these really the kind of sex trafficking “abolitionists” we want to put our money or support behind?

But what is most damning and most offensive to me is the link Exodus Cry makes between being an abuse victim and being demonically possessed. According to one commentator on the website, promoting a trafficking rescue mission in Southeast Asia, “Sex slavery and the commercial sex industry is a spiritual oppression. That means there are demons involved. There are big ones that oppress countries and regions, and there are smaller ones that hold individual women in a death grip. While the three cannot truly be separated — physical, emotional, spiritual — they need to be acknowledged. Just as the physical acts of rape and torture destroy a woman’s emotions and psyche, the dark grip of a demon will torment her years after its over.  These demonic spirits attach themselves to the women because they live in Thailand, where “animism and witchcraft are prevalent”.

It was not hard at all for me to find this information. It took less than an hour to obtain it. So I am forced to conclude that either InterVarsity lacks the basic research skills of an average college freshman or that they endorse such teachings. The latter seems increasingly likely given InterVarsity’s stunt in supporting reparative therapy last semester. As a Christian, I find InterVarsity’s continued promotion of anti-gay (and now anti-women) leaders abhorrent. And as a concerned teacher I worry about the growing influence of NAR teaching on evangelical students on this campus. I love my evangelical friends dearly. But if they are to retain any respect on our campus, they need to publicly, urgently, and immediately divorce themselves from this kind of regressive politics.

Dr. John Weaver
Adjunct Professor
English department

Your recent piece, “A Debatable Apology,” [Pipe Dream, March 5, 2013] glosses over several points that are significant. First, as a team, we consistently make clear the distinction between the national ranking system and having the top two-person unit because we consciously have to make choices on where to spend our money. Spending on one directly trades off with the other. We cannot afford to build a robust varsity program without cutting our novice program or having our funds increased. In light budgetary constraints, the team makes a conscious choice to serve a greater number of students versus a select few. As a side, Eric Larson’s comment that there is enough in our SA budget to attend the National Debate Tournament (NDT) does not take into consideration the fact that the money left in the account is owed to the assistant coaching staff who can’t get paid until the end of the semester.

Second, there is a difference between debate’s national ranking and the ranking of a high school soccer team. The difference is that the national ranking system ranks a program’s overall effectiveness across all three divisions. This is deliberately done in order to reward programs that care about spreading debate beyond those who have prior experience. While your piece claims that novice and JV competition is “less prestigious,” from the point of view of Binghamton debate this is where the greatest educational value for the dollar exists. Unlike a sports program, debate is educational as much as it is competitive. Success for students who have never debated is every bit as prestigious.

Third, we are one of the only programs in the nation that qualified people to the NDT who are in their second year of debate ever. While most students who attend the NDT have significantly more experience than the students on Binghamton’s team, Binghamton quickly trains its new members to move out of the novice and JV division to compete nationally. The fact that students qualify so quickly stands as testament to the success of the program beyond its national ranking or ability to qualify. It demonstrates that in a very short timeframe, and with only a fraction of the budget, Binghamton can roll with the “top dogs” even if they are not the “top dog.” Qualifying for the NDT is the equivalent of qualifying for basketball’s NCAA tournament and marks Binghamton’s debate program among division one competitors. The willingness of varsity members to take a backseat and forego national travel so more students can debate speaks volumes to the desire of all members to see as many students at Binghamton gain the benefits of debate. This year alone we didn’t attend national tournaments at Georgia State, Kentucky, the University of Nevada at Las Vegas and Harvard. Even with these sacrifices Binghamton is ranked among the top in the nation as a program while having a two-person varsity unit that is recognized as among the best in the country.

Ultimately, if we had a larger budget we would easily be ranked higher as a varsity program than we are. However, at this size, we are unwilling to make the trade-off with our novice and JV program since those debaters hold the future of the activity. As the director of Binghamton University’s Speech and Debate Team, I am proud to say that we prioritize the ranking of the overall success of the squad instead of a select few. After all, if it were not for Binghamton being open to new debaters I would have never gotten the chance to debate and grow into the director I have become.

Sincerely,

Joe Leeson-Schatz
Director of Speech & Debate at Binghamton University

Hello, my name is Sunny, I am one of the philanthropy directors at Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity along with Cameron Carillo, after reading the article about the success of the recent Purim Carnival [Pipe Dream, Feb. 21, 2013], I am deeply disappointed and upset at the fact that the only main sponsor mentioned is Chabad, you recognize that organizations work hard to bring the event together but do not acknowledge that most, if not all of those organizations besides Chabad were Greek Life. Being that my fraternity was a main sponsor and worked tremendously hard to give our campus a great reputation but received no appreciation angers me. Pipe Dream is often very biased to exploit Greek Life of anything they can find, yet when Greek Life sacrifices to the greater good there is no recognition. In the future, when Greek Life does charity I hope you take the time to justify their hard work.

Sung Jun Park
Class of 2015

As students prepare to graduate this upcoming May, many are excited to start a new chapter in their life — either continuing their education through graduate school or starting a new career. Before beginning this new chapter, however, many students must undergo the grueling task of paying back their student loan debt.

Student loan debt continues to burden 37 million Americans. With an increase in students relying on loans, many are finding it increasingly difficult to attend college due to the tremendous amount of debt accumulated in the process. Total student loan debt has risen 511 percent over the past 13 years. The average student graduates with over $26,000 of debt.

Recent cuts to financial assistance programs have only made the situation worse. In New York, former Governor Paterson’s restrictions on eligibility for the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) made it harder for many students to qualify for aid and eliminated TAP for graduate students. Paterson’s administration enacted several detrimental changes to TAP, including the denial of future aid to students in default on any state or federal student loans, reductions of the maximum TAP awards to married students with no children and increased academic standards for eligibility of non-remedial students.

This is a critical point in the lives of college students, and in order to protect access to an affordable college education, students from all academic fields and regions must join forces and have our voices heard. With New York’s budget process looming, Binghamton University students have the opportunity to make a real difference in New York’s investment in higher education.

Enough is enough. In tough economic times like these, finding a job and financing for graduate school is already a daunting task. New York policymakers can and should do more to alleviate our student loan debt burden.

Christopher Carusone
Class of 2013

Your Feb. 22 editorial raises some concerns regarding dining hall pricing and pricing policies. To fully address and respond to this issue, we need to gather facts relating to the application of the pricing policy. I am charging the Resident Dining Advisory Committee to review a sampling of various products and prices being charged in the dining halls to verify the prices have been properly developed and applied. I believe that this committee is the most appropriate team to do this as its membership is comprised of students selected by residential community presidents, as well as University faculty and staff, who are familiar with the resident dining programs and associated cost and rate development. They will be asked to provide me with a full and detailed report of their findings and recommendations.

Upon completion of the review, I would be happy to provide the Pipe Dream Editorial Board with a copy and, if desired, we can meet to discuss the reports, its findings, recommendations and any changes that may be warranted.

James VanVoorst
Vice President for Administration

Susan Lamb’s article, Dreidel Spin-Off fails to break record, rushed through the excellence of the Dreidel Spin-Off, an event that many students have been working on for the last month or more, in order to quickly criticize it.

Lamb briefly mentioned the spinning of the dreidels but moved right into the attendance. She could have spoken about how over 900 students, faculty and community members gathered together to celebrate charity, a festive holiday and try to break a world record as a community. Or she could have emphasized the hard work of many students to recruit and publicize the event (and their success). Instead, she wrote how people chose to leave partway through. There were many reasons for that, including a biology test at 7 p.m. and class. Lamb indicated that these students were leaving out of boredom. Rather, they decided to come to the event just to support all the work that has been put into it, knowing they had to leave early.

Lamb also puts down the event for the actual dreidel spinning starting 45 minutes after the Facebook event markets. The Facebook event and all fliers advertised the event to be from 6-7 and told audience members about the Crosby performance and the culmination of the Toy Drive, which the article only mentions in passing.

The article also slights Rabbi Levi Slonim, the Program Director of Chabad, who has been working on this event since the summer, for asking the crowd of over 700 people to quiet down. Lamb was quick to point out what he might have done wrong, but this event would not have happened without his dedication and hard work.

There was no mention of the diversity of the student organizations that attended or the delicious, free food that students spent the day preparing or information about Chai Lifeline, the recipients of the toys collected and money raised. The article does not accurately portray the positive atmosphere of the event.

I was extremely upset as I read through this article. This was a really big accomplishment of Binghamton and united so many different student organizations and people. I hope when people look back at this event, they remember how Binghamton united and the amazing amount of toys collected for children with cancer.

Lucy Schwartz
Major Programs Coordinator, Chabad
BU Junior

I respect how strongly Molly McGrath feels in regard to women’s rights. But the way she presented her opinion is offensive to every woman who doesn’t label herself “feminist,” including myself.

1. In her first point, she explicitly states that women who do not label themselves “feminists” don’t believe in their own right to vote or to attend this University, and might as well drop out of school. This is no exaggeration.

She also accuses us of devaluing all women’s efforts up to this point. It’s unfair to make the assumption that we take these things for granted.

2. “Widespread utterance of this dreaded phrase isn’t helping the case that our representatives should even bother waking up from the Dark Ages.” If I start calling myself a feminist, then Congress will pass the Lily Ledbetter Act?

3. “You cast aside our sisters in the third world like disposable sanitary napkins.” I’m not sure what kind of emotion is behind my disposing of maxi pads, but this sounds a little extreme to me. Her generalizations can impact a number of people.

The biggest problem I have with this article is the fact that she forces women into this “feminist” box. It’s never appropriate to criticize someone for not labeling her beliefs. I’m thrilled to say that we’re finally getting to point where people can have certain beliefs and values and not have to label them.

It seems to me that the fact that there’s negative stigma attached to feminism is what makes her cringe, rather than “the dreaded phrase.” The purpose of this column could have been to encourage people to fight for women’s rights – a noble cause. But instead this article is about how “deplorable” and “ignorant” it is to not call oneself a feminist.

“We’re all entitled to our opinions, but there’s a difference between being outspoken and just being plain ignorant.”

Becca Schoenberg
BU Sophomore

I find myself perturbed by your choice of the headlining article.

Its appeal revolves around two key components: shock factor and superficiality. By making this article the headline you are projecting to me, as a reader, that the issues you find important, as a messenger of the news, are those only concerned with the most trivial, stereotypical aspects of college life: partying, drugs, social life and, most importantly, sex.

I understand the appeal of this article: it is controversial and relevant. However, I cannot respect the glorification of systematic objectification. Phrases such as “grew tired of rating females” are not something that should be thrown around casually. I don’t understand why I am supposed to respect people who aim to quantify the idea of attraction, because they can’t understand why it isn’t only physical. I don’t see how it is possible to simplify human connections into a formula. I also don’t see why it is necessary.

Moreover, I find the website counterproductive. Isn’t the point of college to try out new things and carve our own experiences? I don’t see how this website is improving our community. I don’t see its usefulness. I see a stolen algorithm, an uninspired idea and a relatively big ego from two guys who seem to think that they’ve “figured out college.” You can’t define fun. You can’t define attraction, whether sexual or romantic. You only know it when you experience it.

I also find the article and the website offensive to me as a woman. While I am aware that the site is organized around more than just rating females, I cannot ignore that the references made in this article to attraction or “easiness” are primarily geared toward females/female organizations. The mere fact that there is a category of “easiest” is disgusting. If a male is interested in finding out which sorority is “easiest,” doesn’t that make him “easy?” It is a completely backwards concept in such a modern, accepting sexual culture.

I also want to draw attention to the unhealthy amount of emphasis it puts on sex. Is there a need to include categories such as: Which school has the most sex? Or: What bars are you most likely to hook up at? Questions like these create unrealistic expectations — setting sex as a goal. It’s almost as if sex is presented as a trophy you are given after a long drunken night of spitting out lines you heard on “Jersey Shore” or an enticing factor when deciding which school to join.

We are better than this. Just because our school has been receiving horrible press, doesn’t mean we have to present ourselves as vapid partiers. I know there is so much more to the members of Pipe Dream, the founders of RankBU and the student body than just rating girls, getting fucked up and judging people.

Caitlin M. Powers
BU Junior

The latest edition of Binghamton University Magazine features an article entitled “The Oilman’s Paradox,” which discusses 1978 alumnus and natural gas driller Matt Telfer’s role in funding a faculty position in the geology department over the next three years. While a successful alumnus giving back to his alma mater may seem admirable, a closer look reveals that this is not an act of university pride but rather an attempt by a fracking CEO to “train students to think.”

As many students have come to know, Binghamton University is in the heart of the Marcellus Shale region of New York. Gas companies have fought for three years to start the process of fracking here. Through public outcry about disturbing public health revelations, though, New Yorkers have been successful in preventing fracking. The status of fracking is still in limbo in New York. It is therefore in gas company CEOs’ interest to persuade Binghamton University students to ignore the flammable and toxic tap water, groundwater contamination and huge social and infrastructure costs associated with fracking.

Higher education was built on the principle of academic freedom. This is a principle which I hope our university will uphold. To have a gas company executive fund an academic position at Binghamton University would directly conflict with this ideal. Binghamton is an area of crucial importance for gas companies, and the opinions of students could easily sway the decision to frack one way or the other. A similarly funded “Shale Gas Research Institute” at the University at Buffalo was shut down only several weeks ago due to the “cloud of uncertainty” created over its work, according to the State University Board of Trustees president.

In order for this university to maintain its role as a place of academic freedom and objective thinking, we must resist privately funded teaching positions serving only as a mouthpiece for the natural gas industry and remain a university that has real science and the public interest as its core values.

Sara Alpert
Binghamton University Senior
NYPIRG Intern

Although it was my original intention not to comment publicly, I find myself unable to ignore your excuses. You acted in a reckless manner with total disregard for my family. How dare you offer condolences now, when you would not even allow me 12 hours from the time I was notified my child was taken to the hospital to the time you put out your story. This went well beyond your desire to put “apparent suicide” in the headline which you only adjusted after the initial article was put online. This was YOU ignoring the request that you wait until I traveled home to my son, Katie’s younger brother, to inform him of her death. That was my right as a mother to be with my son when he found out his sister was no longer with us. Yet you took that away from me, and he got to read about his sister in your article as I was still on the road driving home. You could have “informed” the students just as well in 24 hours instead of the barely 12 hours afforded to me. Do not make the mistake of hiding behind “needing to inform,” as that is no excuse for the additional pain you caused my family and her friends. My daughter’s life and my son’s well being were worth the compassion of just a few more hours, yet you felt compelled to ignore that request and rush your headline. Shame on you, Mr. Weintraub.

C. Modell
Parent of Katherine Modell

My position in the SA Executive Board is certainly anything but boring. Tucked in the back corner of the SA office, my assistants and I work through the week processing every expenditure for all the SA-chartered organizations, several thousand vouchers per semester. Nearly 70 percent of what I do on a day-to-day basis is completing paper work, reviewing vouchers and working with treasurers to ensure they have the right documents for every upcoming event. Over the summer, I purchased general and multimedia liability insurance, workers comp and created a new treasurer’s handbook to reflect the changes in the association. Some of you might have even attended one of the exam review sessions I lead at the beginning of the year. However, it’s the other 30 percent of what I do that really gets to the core of what my position is set up to accomplish.

Most weeks I have meetings with University administrators, accountants and insurance representatives, all to ensure that the policy and position of the SA are at their best for helping students get the experience they need from college. The most pressing issue at the moment is that of incorporation. President Mark Soriano and I have been in meetings with the University to draft up a contract between these two separate entities. The objective of incorporation is simple: remove liability from our student population so they don’t have to worry about being sued in the event of a troubling incident. We are working hard to improve the relationship we have currently with the University while simultaneously changing the way New York state legally recognizes our association.

I had three overarching goals when I came into office: reduce inefficiencies present in our internal controls, increase the amount of feedback the student body receives from their assembly and E-Board and set a strong precedent for those that come after us. In order for the SA to improve each year, new student leaders need to lead by example, to act responsibly and help foster a sense of community through our shared interests. From what I have seen, we as the Student Association are moving away from a past marred with scandal toward a professional institution with the students at the center. If you have any questions or concerns, I am available at vpf@binghamtonsa.org.

Eric Larson
Student Association Vice President for Finance

I am going to cut to the chase. Much of the student body does not know what the Student Association does, the roles of the SA executive board or the many accomplishments our board has made in making more opportunities available to them.

I am proud to say that as the executive vice president of the Student Association, my position is all about clubs, the lifeblood of this campus. My office, nicknamed TEAMEVP, acts as a resource and point of contact for clubs and oversees all non-financial club activities.

In the first month of each semester, new group registration occurs. TEAMEVP has been sorting through 50 Intent-To-Charter forms from people who want to start new clubs.

TEAMEVP provides fundraising and leadership opportunities for groups, such as the annual FAST conference. This year, FAST will be held on Oct. 28th at 5 p.m., is required for club presidents and treasurers and features speakers from many departments.

TEAMEVP works with Dan Adeyanju, the vice president for multicultural affairs, to foster collaboration between clubs. One of TEAMEVP’s goals this year is to increase club involvement. We are confident that we will accomplish this goal and are working hard to restructure PAWS as well as create a streamlined calendar of all club events that occur on campus.

I am so passionate about clubs because they have directly benefited my personal growth. As an incoming transfer sophomore to Binghamton University in the fall of 2010, I didn’t know how to make friends and would initiate awkward conversations with people on line for food, in the hope that one of them shared a similar interest with me.

I then saw a flier for the club Enactus, formerly known as SIFE, which is a group of students who launch businesses to help communities and to get first-hand experience in entrepreneurship. I decided to attend a meeting and, by the end of the year, had been elected to the E-board and had found a niche of interesting people who shared a passion for social justice.

Binghamton University boasts 258 student groups, the most clubs of any SUNY school, and I hope that you take advantage of some of them. Are you interested in film? BU Film Salon holds regular screenings of experimental movies. Do you want to play sports recreationally or competitively? Club Sports has 38 sports to choose from. Do you believe that, deep down, you really are a pirate? Pirate Club is arrright for you.

Log into PAWS to search through a full list of clubs. Whatever your interest, identity, background or proclivity, there’s a club that’s right for you.

Feel free to come to my office, located in the SA Office in the New University Union past M&T Bank. My office hours are 1-4 p.m. on Monday and Friday, and 12-3 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. Email me at EVP@BinghamtonSA.org.

I also hope this letter has inspired you to become more active and involved in on-campus activities. I promise that joining a club will enrich your college experience and make BU feel more like a home for you.

Derek Gumb

Executive Vice President, Student Association

I will begin by thanking your editorial board for its article, “Don’t be MIA, SA,” in the Friday, Oct. 5 issue of Pipe Dream. The Student Association exists at a fundamental level to provide services, involvement opportunities and entertainment to our members; however, as it was skillfully pointed out, if students do not know what we are doing, all of our achievements are diminished.

I empathize with anyone who thinks the SA is distant from his or her campus experience. I will be the first person to admit that members of the SA Executive Board are often so wrapped up working on our projects and carrying out our commitments that we forget to actually communicate our accomplishments with our constituents. But let me be clear: there have been accomplishments.

Over the summer, Vice President for Finance Eric Larson and I moved the SA Incorporation project forward and are currently sorting out the details that will ensure the legal protection of every student leader on campus. Mr. Larson also completely overhauled our financial system, instituting new procedures and practices that will dramatically improve the efficiency of student group finances.

Vice President for Programming Brianna Friia spent months creating an unprecedented entertainment calendar for this semester, starting with Lewis Black on Oct. 27. Vice President for Multicultural Affairs Daniel Adeyanju has been working with the dozens of student groups within the SA to establish an event calendar that will highlight the amazing programs offered by our multicultural groups.

Executive Vice President Derek Gumb has spent the past weeks working with the nearly 50 groups that were chartered last semester, guiding them through the process. Meanwhile, Vice President for Academic Affairs Aaron Ricks, after struggling for weeks, has finally secured funding to resume The New York Times program, which restarted on Monday, Oct. 8, while Assembly Speaker Nick Fondacaro shepherded the community governments through the elections of hall governments and Assembly Representatives.

In my own office, I have founded the SA Student Group-Alumni Relations Committee, tasked with connecting student groups with their alumni. This committee will hopefully foster dialogue and networking between past and present student group members, strengthening the all-important bond between students and alumni.

Additionally, I have placed almost two dozen students on campus committees through the Faculty Senate and Auxiliary Services, established an amazing Freshman Class Council executive board and created a committee of community presidents to work on cross-community programming and cooperation. I recently opened applications for the Judicial Board, which can be picked up in the SA office.

If this letter is good for anything, I hope that it shows that your Student Association hears you, and that we will redouble our efforts to reach out to the student body. If you want to hear more about what we have done for you, we are more than happy to oblige (just don’t accuse us of immodesty).

Additionally, I want to empower everyone to take advantage of the avenues already available that are used to disseminate SA information. Check out our bi-weekly SA-Line emails, which contain job openings, involvement opportunities, concert and programming information and general news. Read your B-Line every day for SA updates, located at the bottom of the list. Follow us on Twitter (@SABinghamton) and Facebook for daily updates and opportunities.

Finally, you know how to get in contact with the Executive Board. You elected us, me specifically, to be your representation on campus. Come and talk to me about your concerns in the SA office in the New University Union past M&T Bank. My office hours are 12-3 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Friday and 12-1 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday. Call or email me any time at (607) 777-6646 and president@binghamtonsa.org. Do whatever it takes to get your voice heard by us, and I’ll do whatever it takes to connect with you.

Mark Soriano

President, Student Association

I am sure all responsible people agree that hazing at Binghamton University must stop. New York state law has required that it stop ever since 1994, partially in response to a hazing-related death at Alfred University. Sadly, this law has done little to prevent both psychological and physical damage resulting from hazing experiences. In fact, it appears that hazing has continued statewide. Cornell University, which had a death last year, has decided not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, a choice Binghamton has mirrored so far. However, given that hazing has been against the law for about 20 years, it seems to me that banning hazing just does not work.

Alfred University ultimately did what was needed to prevent any further hazing: The school banned fraternities but allowed them to fundraise on campus as well as have their alumni meetings there.

While I know there are strong considerations for wanting to keep Greek Life, given the continuation of the abusive practices of hazing, I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

When I attended Binghamton, the school had a pub on campus. This provided a social outlet for the student body and, because of its convenience, significantly reduced drunk driving. Reopening the pub might be a good idea, especially if you consider banning fraternities.

This problem that you have inherited is deadly serious. Somehow I don’t think that half measures will effectively put an end to this insidious practice. The policies discouraging hazing have been a failure. It took a death to convince Alfred University. I sincerely hope that Binghamton will understand that it cannot successfully prevent active fraternities from secretly hazing, which is a long-standing and unfortunate tradition. It may be time to face the fact that the risk is far greater than the good of keeping fraternities.

Respectfully,

Tom Bondy

Class of 1973

I am a recent graduate of Binghamton University and I, like 90 percent of the students at the school, was never a member of a fraternity or sorority. But thanks to a recent article in the New York Times, the actions of a small group of students have been exposed. This reflects poorly on not only the entire Greek community, but the entire Binghamton University student body.

I was extremely disappointed by your reaction to the Greek Life scandal. Instead of challenging the administration’s claims and doing independent research, you chose to deny, deny, deny and stick your heads in the sand, which is what got BU (and many others) into this mess in the first place.

I realize there is no easy solution to this problem. If you do nothing, fraternities and sororities will feel like they “got away with it” and continue the hazing. If you ban them entirely, they will continue to exist underground and become indistinguishable from sadistic and unprofitable street gangs.

We can agree that Greek culture at BU is toxic and no amount of mandatory PR rallies or administrative plausible deniability will fix it. Drastic action is needed.

We are all culpable here: the fraternities and sororities that choose to treat their pledges in this manner, the pledges who tolerate the treatments and later encourage this type of behavior, the administration that pretended that nothing was going on until it realized that there may be a death if these shenanigans continue, and students who were more than happy to gleefully exchange rumors about “those crazy, cult-ish Greeks” and laugh at the poor bastards camped out in the Food Court.

I had the “pleasure” of living in Newing, next door to members of an on-campus fraternity. One morning I decided to go to the library extra early to study for a test. (God, I just sounded like the antithesis of a Newing resident here.)

I opened my door and saw several young guys (pledges) sitting down against the wall, wearing dirty, ragged sweatsuits and matching bandanas. They were horribly filthy with dirty faces and hands and smelling absolutely putrid. Remember that scene in “Slumdog Millionaire” in which the boy falls into a sewer? If that boy also got sprayed by skunks, he would have smelled like those guys.

Some of them were sleeping, but others had thousand-mile stares (normally reserved for POWs and concentration camp survivors) that I will never forget. But when I saw them I didn’t feel pity. Instead, I felt schadenfreude. These rich kids from Long Island were dumb enough to willingly subject themselves to that treatment. I held my nose and pretended I didn’t see them.

That’s what we all did.

Alex Turner

Class of 2012

The following is a letter to the students, faculty and staff who participated in the Forum on Diversity and Inclusiveness held at Binghamton University on Thursday. While it is directed to the participants, I felt it was important to share with all of your readers.

***

Dear New Friends,

We came together recently to talk about relationships between people who are different. I recounted the event of last spring when an anonymous person drew a man urinating on the continent of Africa in a classroom where many African American students were about to take a class on civil rights. At that time I wrote to campus expressing disappointment and reaffirming our goal of inclusiveness and respect.

The responses I received from that letter led to three very different conversations: one with an individual who said condemning the drawing was my attempt to quash freedom of speech; another with students from the class where the drawing was found, who said I should have included an image of the drawing with my letter; and another with a gay student who asked why I didn’t apply the same level of public disappointment toward the “preacher” who stands on a campus bench several times a year proclaiming that Jesus Christ can cure homosexuality.

Those three conversations made me realize just how complex it is to move from being a diverse, multicultural campus to an inclusive one and we needed to talk about it. As a result, we held our first Forum on Diversity and Inclusiveness.

Participants rotated among five tables to discuss questions including: How do you interpret diversity? How do you perceive the campus culture? What can you do to affect a change to the campus culture? How can people with varying traditions, beliefs and values learn to live together in the same community? What role has diversity played in your college career?

You talked, wrote, drew and shared your thoughts on these questions for more than two hours. Each question was answered by each participant, switching tables and questions every 15 minutes, with a different mix of students at each table during each segment. We learned that discussing a topic among a diverse group is not easy or natural. Answers came down to your willingness to be open and to learn about others’ cultures; finding common ground, not focusing on differences; and speaking with sensitivity and listening with thick skins.

I sat in the background of each table to listen to and learn from your conversations. You were open, sensitive and profound and you made me proud. But I feared that when we left the room we would lose all we had gained, so I challenged you to do one “random act of inclusiveness” (RAIs) each week, to total more than 1,000 RAIs by the end of the school year. Then one of you said, “Let’s do this again and next time bring two friends.” … I smiled. Then several of you moved the night’s discussion to a lounge to continue the conversation. I smiled wider. Something had happened and was taking people’s minds and hearts in a good direction. I left feeling hopeful.

My laptop screen saver now includes photos of the words and art you created that night. Thank you for one of the most positive experiences of my career.

Sincerely,

Harvey Stenger

Binghamton University President

You can drop by for lunch at 46 Seminary Ave., on the corner of Arthur Street.

The cafe’s owner, David Dickstein, remarked that restaurant week customers are likely to be satisfied due to the “great fresh fruit” and “consistent quality,” and overall, “getting the most bang for your buck.” Café West 46 will be offering three courses in total during the week-long celebration of Binghamton’s finest eateries. The meal begins with a salad, homemade soup or macaroni and cheese as a starter, followed by any entrée menu item for the main course. In addition, you’ll be treated to a drink such as coffee or homemade iced tea. A homemade dessert seals the deal— David recommends the carrot cake cupcakes. Not bad for $10.

One of the most lively salads on their menu is the Roquette Caesar. The dish features romaine and arugula leaves tossed with garlic croutons, fire-roasted red peppers, mozzarella and creamy Parmesan herb dressing. It’s more than ideal for any vegetarian, or you can add chicken to any of the salads for an extra $2.

As for sandwich recommendations, the cleverly-named Garden of Vegan sandwich is a popular choice. Inspired by Middle Eastern cuisine, this dish has eggplant hummus, roasted red pepper, spinach, sprouts and fried zucchini in a whole wheat pita bread. Meat-lovers need not fear, however — the Café also offers sandwich nirvana in the form of a wrap called “The Cure”: marinated chicken, smoky bacon, and sharp cheddar. For those on gluten-free diets, Café West 46 offers gluten-free bread options for all of its sandwiches.

Café West 46 is the cure for ravenous college students.

Café West 46 is closed Sundays, but has special restaurant week hours for the rest of the week. They are open Monday through Friday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. On Saturday, they will open at the same time but close at 3:30 p.m. You can keep up with the restaurant at their Facebook page, www.facebook.com/cafewest46.

The Shelestovskys provide their customers with a taste of old country Ukranian pride. With his thick Ukranian accent and eastern European warmth, Igor, the patriarch of the Shelestovsky clan, singlehandedly hosts and waits on his customers.

The décor is simple; tables are set with burgundy cloths and adorned with vases that hold two white and red roses. And because their selling point is slow-processed food made entirely from scratch and fresh ingredients in the back kitchen, there is no pressure to do anything but enjoy your meal.

While restaurant week is as good a time as any to visit the eatery, the most expensive items on the menu at any time are $10.99 plus tax.

“We don’t over charge people because we don’t need to,” Igor said.

Whether or not diners choose to have a three-course meal, Igor will keep the price at $10 a person for lunch and for dinner, as it would take many dishes to make the bill cost $20. The menu is wide enough in variety that vegetarians can rejoice and pasta eaters can substitute their carb intake with pierogies.

This is the third season Taste of Europe is participating in restaurant week and with each term, Igor Shelestovsky hopes it will bring in more business.

“We like restaurant week because more people get to know about us,” Igor said. “The first time was excellent, the second time wasn’t so great, but so far it’s been picking up well.”

Another pair of diners, two cronies born and raised in Binghamton, polished off their meal with a cup of borscht and a dollop of sour cream. “Dobre,” they said, complimenting Igor in his native tongue as he took away their dishes.

From 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, the food is filling and customers appear to leave the premises satisfied.

The Binghamton University men’s tennis team is set to tackle three matchups this weekend, starting with a scheduled 12:30 p.m. matchup with host Duquesne University on Friday.

Next, the Bearcats (3-5) are scheduled to take on Robert Morris University at 6 p.m. Friday before playing at Lehigh University at 2 p.m. on Saturday.

Both Duquesne (10-2) and Lehigh (6-1) are currently riding six-game win streaks, while Robert Morris (3-4) is in the middle of a four-game losing streak.

After losing three consecutive matches, the Bearcats picked up a crucial victory last Monday against Lafayette College, 6-1, at Penn State’s Indoor Tennis Center. Binghamton dominated the match, taking five out of six single matches and all three of the doubles matches, all in straight sets.

After starting the season 0-2, the Bearcats have a chance to rise above .500 this weekend.

Women’s tennis heads to Cornell

Cornell University is next on tap for the Binghamton University women’s tennis team, which will take on the Big Red this Sunday.

The Bearcats (3-4) will be anchored by senior standout Jillian Santos, who was named Female Tennis Player of the Week by the America East after recording her 80th career victory in BU’s match against Albany last weekend.

Action is set to begin at 1 p.m.

Binghamton swimming at AE Championships

The America East Championships will continue this weekend in Boston as both the men’s and women’s swimming and diving teams continue their quest for a title.

The event, which kicked off Thursday, will continue through the weekend, concluding Sunday afternoon.