Those of us who have been at TCU remember it well: the sexual assaults that occurred around campus between January and April 1998. During that time, the TCU Police commenced a three-part plan to counteract the danger: Officers increased patrol on streets adjacent to the campus, where many of the assaults took place, campus escort services were expanded and the Rape Aggression Defense program began. But it has been almost one year since the last sexual assault on campus and two years since the rash of assaults, and TCU Police Sgt. John Pachecko said he is worried people have let their guard down. Such carelessness is evidenced by the fact that only eight women signed up to take the latest RAD class, which is scheduled for April 17 through 19. This enrollment number is down from the last class, which 25 female students took. Such a course is necessary for all females to take, whether there had been zero or 600 sexual assaults in this area. Women must always know how to protect themselves. But what TCU Police fail to address is the issue of male sexual assault. The U.S. Department of Justice documents more than 13,000 cases of male rape every year. That's one in six males raped at least once in his lifetime. Rape no longer differentiates itself between males and females, and TCU Police officers must take this fact into account if they are truly interested in helping all students protect themselves from becoming victims of sexual assault.
The idea really is logical. Being Texas Christian University and all, someone somewhere in our past deemed it necessary to have a weekly chapel service in Robert Carr Chapel. This would be a time when students and staff from throughout the university could come together in the middle of the week to worship and take a break from work. People would learn, be built up and return to their days refreshed and refocused. It hasn't exactly worked out that way. Rather than a time of learning, it has become a time of confusion. Rather than being edified, people are being discouraged. Rather than being a time to focus on God, Chapel has become a time to advance political agendas. And the people whom Chapel is meant to serve speak their disapproval of the service every week in one loud and clear act: No one shows up. Last week, two people attended who were not directly involved with Chapel. Two. And one of them had a daughter in the choir. So Chapel clearly is not a roaring success. But the reason why is not so clear. It is easy to say that the style is the problem, that the service is too formal or too contemporary, but that is not the issue. Or we could sit back and criticize the people who speak and organize the service. But that would be completely missing the problem. There are people who work hard every week to bring the chapel service to that audience of two, from students who lead worship to the ministers who speak to the staff who work behind the scenes. These people deserve recognition for their hard work, not criticism for the outcome. The problem really reaches much deeper than who runs it or how they do. The problem is: Why is chapel service held every week? What is the point? One would think that the reason is what was stated before, that Chapel is a time to worship and learn about God. But it's not. Rather, Chapel is a time to promote the cause of the week and advance the university's agenda. During Hunger Week there was Hunger Chapel. International Week saw International Chapel. This is the week of the Women's Symposium, so today is Women's Chapel. Now, there is nothing wrong with learning about various causes within the service. It is when they become the focus of the service that issues arise. But that is still just a symptom of the main problem: Chapel really does not mean anything. It is hard to find a consistent message in a service that one week promotes Christianity and the next offers a Buddhist service. The only thing this promotes is confusion. Chapel should not be a time to learn about other religions. It should be a time when you are allowed to practice your religion. If that means having a separate chapel service for whatever religion wants it, go ahead. At least then it will mean something. On Ash Wednesday, the service was full. There were people in every pew, and for one week, Chapel accomplished its purpose: People were able to come together in worship and leave with a little clearer vision of God. Every week needs to be like that. People came that day because they knew that they would get something out of the service - that it would actually mean something and not be filled with political correctness. That week, people could come with confidence that they would not have to wade through abstractions and generalizations to get to the truth behind the service. That, really, is what people want: meaning and truth. A service that refuses to take a stand and sets up an alter to an Unknown God does no one any good. College life is confusing enough that any religious service failing to promote consistency will quickly be dismissed by the students. Find a belief, and stick to it. Give the people what they need: a refuge of refreshment and encouragement in the middle of a stressful schedule. Dare to mean something. Maybe then the congregation will actually outnumber the choir.
John-Mark Day is a freshman religion and news-editorial
journalism major from St. Joseph, Mo.
Although the passage of the California Defense of Marriage Act may have appeared as a triumph for homophobic America, it has become a fleeting victory for others. Eight days after the passage of Proposition 22, the state of Vermont created an alternative to gay marriage by approving legislature that would legalize gay "civil unions." The Vermont House of Representatives voted 78 to 69 on March 16 to forward the bill to the state Senate, where it is expected to win approval by the end of April. If the bill allowing gays to form "civil unions" passes, Vermont will have gone further than any other state in recognizing same-sex couples. Gay couples who form these civil unions would be entitled to about 300 state rights available to married couples, in such areas as inheritance, property transfers, medical decisions, insurance and taxes. Although the federal government will not recognize such unions with regard to immigration rights, Social Security or federal taxes, gay rights advocates still praise the Vermont bill as a first step in gaining equality. By granting gay couples rights that they have been systematically denied by the government, Vermont has taken significant strides in creating equitable legislation. By denying gays rights afforded to every other citizen, California has made clear that it is a state that publicly promotes sexuality-based discrimination. However, rather than publicize Proposition 22 as a bill that denies legal rights, it is depicted as the "California Defense of Marriage Act," a law that protects the "sanctity" of marriage. With its passage, Proposition 22 has become another history lesson for future youth. It is an example of how the American government denies legal rights to minorities under the guise of "sanctity." It was only 50 years ago when California banned interethnic marriages through anti-miscegenation laws that strove to uphold the "sanctity" and "purity" of white America. The denial of legal rights to gay Americans is a consequence of the same types of prejudice. While Vermont has risen above the denial of legal rights based on bigotry, it has not yet risen above prejudice in its terminology. By using the term "civil union," Vermont implies that gay relationships do not deserve the "sanctity" of marriage. Although the bill pushes Vermont to the edge of recognizing gay marriage, lawmakers still sought to preserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual relationships by adding an amendment clarifying that position. It is a subtle but significant step. Opponents of gay marriage contend that homosexual marriages threaten the sanctity of marriage. Supposedly, marriage is a pious union, one that should be upheld as a marker of our society's moral fiber. It would seem that we, as a country, would strive for reforms that would confer marriage with the morality that it presently lacks. Instead, Americans choose to blame gay marriages as the source of the deterioration of family values. Amidst the debate regarding gay marriage, the battle for regaining America's family values continues. Politicians call for a return to marriage in order to discourage the fad of "living in sin." Yet, there are gay couples who desire to bless their relationships with the moral union of marriage and are denied this right. As a threat to the sanctity of marriage, gay couples are forced to "live in sin." In essence, America promotes immorality under the guise of protecting sanctity. Although the Vermont law does not allow gay couples the right to form unions under the moral covenant of marriage, its passage is still a victorious step toward attaining greater legal equity. It is still an open question whether couples from another state might be able to enter into civil unions in Vermont and have them recognized in their home state. Thus, Proposition 22 has protected Californians from the "threat" of gay marriages, but it serves no protection against "civil unions." As a result, the controversy will continue to rage in California until we decide that we do not have the right to deny legal benefits based on discriminatory tendencies. Same-sex marriage is an issue that has the country running around in circles. Maybe Vermont will provide the first step toward concerted action.
Tejal Bhirud is a columnist for the Daily Trojan at the
University of Southern California.
|
"The criminal justice department because
that's my major, and the office is in a trailer."
"Update the Rickel Building
and also bring better guest speakers and bands to improve campus involvement."
"I would like to see a great sum of money for better
and more intramural facilities to accommodate the growing number of student-athletes."
"Donate it to the (radio-TV-film)
department. The technology in the department is always changing."
"Parking. It would also be really cool
if we had an outdoor pool. I think Winton-Scott Hall needs a little help."
"Allow all earth science students
to be able to go to field camps."
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |