Funding five new women's athletic scholarships, part of the TCU Board of Trustees' expense budget, is a step in the right direction. But we have a long way to go. TCU must further comply with Title IX, the 1972 legislation that bans sex discrimination in schools, including athletics. Title IX has forced schools to work toward equality in athletic spending, and now many more women participate in sports and receive scholarships. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education's Web site, TCU is the second-worst school in Division I-A (out of 114 schools) for women's participation in sports. TCU is 19th worst in women's salaries (26.06 percent) as a proportion of the whole salary budget. TCU is 13th worst in percentage of the recruiting budget spent on women's recruiting (21.06 percent). TCU is 12th worst for women's expenses (23.21 percent) compared with the total operating budget. The only category in which TCU was not near the bottom was in providing women's scholarships. While it is good TCU did provide more scholarships, is anything being done about the other areas in which TCU is seriously deficient in? Dollars often speak louder than words. And in TCU's case, the dollars say TCU values male athletes significantly more than female athletes. Some people say, "Be grateful for the small steps." Should the women who are consistently denied opportunities be grateful? Should they be patient with an institution that lags behind the vast majority of Division I-A colleges in providing opportunities for women? No. The time for patience is over. Radical changes are needed. Now.
Some things are best left to men Mustaches, tobacco are less than feminine I'm not a misogynist, nor am I a belligerent male chauvinist. I support women, and I agree that their fight against glass ceilings, societal expectations of demure behavior and a host of male-propagated double standards is far from over. However, I do have a few shreds of conservative sensibilities left which, unfortunately, lend to my reactionary preference for a few of these hypocritical fetters. I'm sorry ladies, or whatever it is I'm supposed to call you, but there are a handful of things men do that should stay that way. Recently, I witnessed a girl chewing tobacco. Before I delve further into my tirade, I would like to point out that anyone loping around with that telltale lump protruding from his or her lower lip grosses me out. If I had my druthers, no one would chew tobacco. However, seeing women dip is especially revolting. There are several reasons for this, the most salient being that I am attracted solely to the opposite sex. When women mash a chaw into their mouths, their attractiveness diminishes exponentially. One might infer from this that chewing tobacco is a surefire way for women to express masculinity without those annoying trappings of feminism. I can deal with women smoking, and I've humored women who think they like cigars, but as far as I'm concerned, Skoal and estrogen don't mix. Some men, like Tom Selleck, Snidely Whiplash and my dad, like to wear mustaches. To my dismay, some women prefer to wear mustaches as well. I agree that beauty is more than skin deep. I know that facial fuzz has no bearing on one's ability to function in society (unless one works in the Swedish porn industry), and I also acknowledge that men have no business telling women how to look any more than women have telling men how to drive. But women, if you are sporting a caterpillar under your nose, do yourself a favor, and WAX IT! If you want to have hairy legs, or, God help me, hairy armpits, fine, but the mustache is decidedly not key. I can see how hairy legs or pits might make some sort of political statement, but blatant fur on the upper lip won't score any points with the phallacracy. Of course, women don't want to score points with the phallacracy, nor should they have to. Rather, they should focus on beating us into submission. Or so it seems, and I am sick of this. Contrary to what one might glean from Maxim, men are not all obnoxious louts driven by their genitals. Certainly, this is hard to swallow if you're female and have ever been to a bar, but it's true. We are not out to screw women over, just as women are not out to diabolically ruin men and then brag about it in Cosmo. I am a nice guy, and I expect to be treated according to my own merits, not on the basis of some ego-starved cretin whose self-worth is tied up in how many skirts he can pull. It's a bit of a stretch, but I believe that the gender wars would conclude much sooner if both armies would let bygones be bygones, stop struggling to have the last word and treat each other as equals. In my book, which has yet to be read by anyone but me, mutual respect goes a long way toward solving any conflict. Holding onto past injustices, however, extends the conflict indefinitely. I guess it's a good thing that I am graduating in five weeks because I have now made myself a pariah. Next week, I will return to the role as sensitive, opinionless opinion columnist. So while you wait for next Thursday, please look for the intended hyperbole scattered throughout this week's read, and re-read that part about my being a nice guy. Meanwhile, I have to go wax my lip.
Steve Steward is a senior political science
major from Lodi, Calif., and knows nothing about women.
Throughout the semester I've come to know you well. I've been true to you through thick and thin, for better or worse. But now it appears as if others will abandon you with a variety of off-campus places to use their ID cards. I don't know if I can resist the temptation for variety, but I don't want to leave you to be uneaten and served the next day in some sort of mysterious stew. It is too harsh of a fate to picture. I've often complained of the lack of dinner variety and my lack of funds to eat out often. I know I hurt you when I tried the pizza upon Frog Bytes' opening, but I promise I was thinking of you with every sinful bite. Every now and then, I try a different meal at The Main, but it is usually just a variation of you, such as a grilled chicken sandwich, chicken patty or fried chicken. I would never venture to offend you by choosing a hamburger or the dreaded fish fillet, your neighboring competition. Oftentimes, I hear others whine about the monotony of eating you, and my roommate has even gone so far as to swear off your enticing taste. People are talking about having their IDs used as off-campus debit cards in a good way, and I can't imagine why. I just can't believe the gall of other students wanting to walk a greater distance to Jons Grille and ordering, dare I say, their chicken fingers. I have defended you throughout the insults. I have heard from those simply wishing to find fault with the food service, as they had grown accustomed to doing since high school. But as in any extended commitment, my greatest fear is that our relationship may grow sour over time. And with the impending off-campus variety, I fear that the sultry temptresses of Boston Market, Whataburger, Sonic Drive-In and other potential suitors may work their charm over me. When I first arrived on campus in August, I knew there would be many fish in the sea to select from at The Main, Sub Connection, Eden's Greens and Deco Deli. I tried lots of new things and did a lot of experimentation, as I'm told is the norm in college, but I found myself strangely unsatisfied and alone. But then one day, simply by chance, and from obsessive need to move from one dish to another, I came across you. I was infatuated with the first juicy taste. But now finals are nearing, and I'll be pressed to find time to spend with you. Also, I'm not sure we can withstand a long-distance relationship over the summer. Anyway, I've meandered around the point for too long. When the new debit system kicks in, I think it would be best if you saw other people. I'm sorry, but I think we may need some time apart.
Jordan Blum is a freshman broadcast journalism
major from New Orleans, LA.
Don't criticize NCAA basketball tournament, write positive things This letter is in response to the "Cinderella fun at first, but 'Dance' tarnished" column last Thursday. I am a huge fan of sports opinions and listening to individuals voice their take on all athletics. The NCAA tournament represents one of the greatest sports spectacles in the world: sixty-four teams from the Blue Devils to Ball State, where the nation can rally for a hard-working Gonzaga to humiliate an agent-infested St. John's. The NCAA tournament is the most powerful three weeks in college athletics. Period. We can only pray that Billy Tubbs, Ryan Carroll and Bingo Merriex can take us there next year. And if we do make it to the Dance, let's say as a No. 7 or No. 8 seed, will you call the Frogs' run to the Final Four "tarnished" because we aren't the Spartans, Blue Devils or the Cardinal? Also, please do not refer to NCAA football as the shining star in postseason logistics. There's a reason that the Bowl Championship Series is slammed by critics who say it should remove its middle initial. There's a reason that every other college sport besides Division I men's college football uses a playoff system. There's validity behind why all professional sports possess an extensive postseason: because that is where championships are won. So sit back and enjoy it. Enjoy players running onto the court. Feel for Duke's senior Chris Carrawell who burst into tears following Duke's tourney loss. And next time, write about them. They're what people want to read about.
Daryl Thompson sophomore finance major
Policy on incompletes needs addressing, penalties unfair I am a graduate student in the School of Education and have had the most unpleasant experience and want to share my experience with other students, staff and professors so that, hopefully, changes can be made. I was always under the impression that the purpose of an incomplete was to grant a student additional time to complete the assignments. My understanding was that an incomplete was given at the discretion of the professor, usually in cases of personal emergencies. I was faced with such an emergency last year while I was going through my divorce. I was determined to stay in school even though I was facing life as a single parent of three children and working full-time. My professors granted the incompletes to allow me additional time to complete the assignments. It was very difficult to makeup the work while, at the same time, taking additional courses to enable me to graduate this summer. Through perseverance, I managed to complete my assignments and then discovered that one of my professors penalized me for turning in my project past the original due date. Yes, the course syllabus stated that projects turned in more than one day late may be assigned three points out of a possible 10 points. Three points out of 10 is an F, and this particular project was worth almost 30 percent of my grade. This particular penalty was way too severe. To give a grade of F for being one day late is not reasonable. I can understand imposing a penalty under normal circumstances. Take the case of the student who underestimates the time to complete an assignment. In this case, a penalty may be an appropriate action by the professor. However, when a personal crisis is occurring in the life of a student, an incomplete can be a life saver. So what is the purpose, then, of an incomplete, if not to extend the due date? Even the federal government recognizes extensions. Imagine the Internal Revenue Service granting an extension of time to file your income taxes and then imposing a penalty for not filing on time. This policy is not fair. TCU needs to address this issue and determine what an incomplete entitles one to.
Mary Subramaniam graduate student
Columnist's question about Jesus' identity is no question at all I would like to respond to the opinion column titled "View of Jesus must change with rest of changing world" which appeared in the March 28 issue of the Skiff. The first question, "Was Jesus really the son of God?" can only be answered "Yes!" There's no way around it. His answer is wrong. In John 14:10, Jesus says, "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?" One of the last points seems to be that Jesus was a great man, a good teacher and that it would be beneficial to all people to live the kind of life Jesus lived, while maintaining that Jesus is not God's son. But, as C.S. Lewis points out in "Mere Christianity," this thought is not an option. If we believe what Jesus said, then we believe everything he said, including that he is the son of God. We do not have the authority to declare certain words of Jesus "true" and others "false." Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, the foundation of all our Christian beliefs. Simply believing that Jesus is the son of God does not authenticate a person as a Christian, for even Satan believes as much. The fact upon which all Christianity is founded is that Jesus is the son of God and that he suffered and died to save us from the death of sin. To be a Christian, one must first believe both of these - believe his or her wretchedness as a sinner and then live in the love of the Lord. I am not in the position to answer, "whether I'm authentically Christian," but I feel this may help the columnist with finding his own answer. Some may be deceived by the column. However, it lends little or no support for each statement it makes. Then again, finding support for lies is not so easy.
Ashley Schwab freshman premajor |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |