| Almost Adults
Marcus Kain, chairman of the House of Student Representatives Student Affairs Committee, met with Don Mills, vice chancellor of student affairs, Oct. 21 to discuss a proposal submitted to extend visitation hours from 10 to 2 a.m. on weekdays and to 24-hours on Fridays, Saturdays and nights before university-recognized holidays. Kain and his committee members have researched 30 other private universities around the country, 18 of which have 24-hour visitation policies, he said. Mills said something will happen with TCU's visitation policy because the topic is important, but he said he would like to have a broader conversation with the Resident Hall Association and hear from more students. "The research in the proposal is generally very good and very helpful because it's good to look at what other schools are doing, but the decision has to be a TCU decision," Mills said. However, if TCU is going to prepare students for the real world, they should be prepared for all of the real world and not just for certain parts of it. There's so much more to a college education than classes and tests. Students learn about life, relationships and conflict. Why, then are students expected to live as adults in the academic field but treated as children in their personal lives? Students are capable of taking responsibilities in their residents halls and respecting the concerns of roommates and other residents living in their halls. Limitations on visitation based on gender not only creates ridiculous generalizations, but limit social interaction and development to particular hours of the day, rather than holding residents responsible for their actions inside resident halls.
Obesity problem plaguing nation So the world, or at least America, is getting fatter. A government report published last week finds that 18 percent of Americans are considered at least 30 percent heavier than the ideal weight. Or more precisely, they're obese. Rather than celebrate this find, magazines such as Time and news shows such as "Good Morning America" were quick to point out that hope still exists for this small segment of the American population. "Good Morning America" invited one-time singer and talk show host Carnie Wilson on their show to graphically discuss the details of her gastric bypass surgery. The operation involved isolating a small portion of her stomach and then stapling off the rest. This, of course, would prevent less food from being digested. The entire gory ordeal helped her lose 40 pounds. Time magazine, in the same issue announcing the findings of the report, reminded readers steps are still being taken and research is still being conducted to offset the possibility of obesity in the new millennium. One of these new steps involves the hormone leptin, which fat cells naturally expel. In lab tests, the hormone signaled to mice when not to eat. Another technique doesn't tell mice when not to eat. Rather, by utilizing a natural substance called propiomelanocortin, mice were told when to stop eating. According to Time, this method helped the lab mice lose 40 percent of their body weight in two weeks. The research into effective methods of weight loss doesn't stop there. It includes attempts to alter genes in such a way as to automatically burn the fat humans accumulate and even studies on how nerve cells affect obesity. All the money, time and effort being spent on all these studies seems a bit perplexing. In a world where Cindy Crawford, who weighs in at 120 pounds, and Emmy, who weighs in at 190 pounds, both exist and find work as models, one would think that America had gone past its obsession with weight. When women are still starving themselves to look like Kate Moss, one would hope that studies that show an increase from the 12 percent of the population considered obese in 1991 to present day's 18 percent, would be celebrated. Instead they are reported with ominous undertones, which signal that if you are overweight, somewhere along the way you goofed, and now must wait patiently and desperately for science to save you. Whatever happened to just being happy with the way we look? When did it become so important to be thin that the government found it necessary to monitor our weights? Of course some will say that it became necessary to monitor national weight levels when medical experts began telling us that obesity could lead to health problems such as heart disease and high blood pressure. But what most don't understand is that not all weight is bad weight. Not all weight gain must be obliterated. And if suddenly one day, after foregoing your diet you must wear a size 14 jeans rather than that uncomfortable size 10, your heart isn't suddenly going to burst. Believe it or not, you can be healthy and still be 30 percent over the ideal weight. But most importantly, you can be beautiful. Government reports such as this one that announce Americans' collective weight gain don't serve any real purpose other than to make a nation that already has too much to worry about pull its hair out over something that really shouldn't and realistically doesn't matter. So we're fatter. That just means we're eating and that we're eating often. Perhaps it means that while our government can't seem to accept the way we look, at least 18 percent of the population has. Thanksgiving is coming up. Naturally during this month, everyone wants to offer their advice for how to keep the pounds off. My advice: Eat. Drink. Be merry. And then eat some more. Do it for your sanity.
SheriAnn R. Spicer is a senior radio-TV-film from Fort Worth. She can be reached at (srspicer@delta.is.tcu.edu). Closed adoptions easier "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Woodhead, I am writing to let you know we have recently been in contact with Pamela's birth mother, and she gave us some medical history that we feel would be helpful to you and Pamela." So began a letter that my parents received about a month ago, completely out of the blue. We were not asked if we wanted the information, nor were we warned that it would be sent to us. It simply arrived in the mail one day. I've always known I was adopted. My parents must have told me a very long time ago because I don't remember a particular conversation about it. There was no big moment that changed my life and made me question everything I knew. I was born in March 1978 at the Edna Gladney Center in Fort Worth. Texas State Law, under the 1973 Family Code, did not allow anyone involved in adoption access to the adoption records at that time. The Gladney Center gave my parents as much non-identifying information as they could about my birth parents and their families. For example, I know my birth mother was only 20 when she gave birth to me, and she was married. I know she used marijuana occasionally and my birth father experimented with drugs. I know they both had blue eyes, although somehow I ended up with brown. I know I have a set of biological grandparents who are exactly a foot apart in height. I've known all these random, non-identifying facts for years. Texas law changed in 1983 to allow adoptees 18 years old or older to place their names in a registry to locate other birth family members who are also listed. The Gladney Center offers such a registry. If there is a match, the Gladney Center will arrange a meeting. This is the only way short of hiring a private investigator for an adult adoptee of a closed adoption to find his or her birth family. Closed adoptions are not the only option anymore. Many people opt for an open adoption, in which the birth mother (or birth parents) can meet with the adoptive parents-to-be and establish a relationship with them. That would be extremely uncomfortable and confusing, especially for the adopted child. I have always thought of my adoptive parents as my "real" parents, not the biological pair. One set of people gave me life, but the other gave me a life. I don't have any hard feelings against my birth family, but it would be traumatic to a young child to live with one set of parents and visit the other. Children need a sense of security, and how can they gain that when the very central relationship - parent and child - is so uncertain? Closed adoptions allow everyone involved to go on with their lives without interruption. The adoptive parents don't have to worry about the birth parents changing their mind and taking the child away. The birth parents don't have to watch the child they gave up love another set of parents. And the child doesn't have a sense of disorientation. Voluntary registries open to adult adoptees who are older than 18 are the best solution to the problem of adopted children wanting to know their birth families. That is not to say that even these registries can dispel an adoptee's uncertainties. I don't know if I want to find out who my birth parents are. They gave me up for a reason, and I have had a wonderful life with parents who love me. We've gone our own ways, and we are probably very different people. My biggest fear is that my birth family won't be the kind of people I want them to be and that I'll be sorry I contacted them. Of all my biological relatives, there is only one that I think I might like to meet, and I was not even aware of his or her presence for 21 years. The letter my parents received last month contained many interesting - some scary - details about the medical history of my birth mother and her parents. The most interesting line in the whole letter, however, had very little to do with health. It read, "[The birth mother] did not have [certain disease] when either of the children were born."
ÏWeekend Editor Pam Woodhead is a senior English major from Arlington. She can be reached at (pawoodhead@delta.is.tcu.edu). Letters to the editor Choice of abstinence should be supported, not degraded I was appalled at SheriAnn Spicer's column Thursday condemning all abstinence-only sex education programs as well as abstinence itself. Although Spicer and many others find abstinence "the damn near-impossible goal of waiting until marriage," I would be happy to enlighten them that many here on this campus have managed this enormous feat while maintaining active and meaningful social lives. There is actually a resurgence toward abstinence in this nation with the program, True Love Waits. During this ceremony, the individual promises to remain abstinent until marriage in front of witnesses (usually a parent) and seals this promise with a simple ring worn on the left ring finger. I believe sex is "an inevitable part of being human and growing up," but also that the appropriate time is within the sanctity of marriage. Otherwise, what does the bride's white dress symbolize on the wedding day, and what is the point of a honeymoon if the couple has already made love? The government is not trying to "deny students access to important life-saving knowledge," rather it wants to continue to offer support to students who abstain from sex.
Amie Street sophomore neuroscience major
'Gift of priceless worth' should be saved until wedding day I object to the misrepresentation of the abstinence position supplied by SheriAnn Spicer in her editorial on sex education. After reading the column, one is left with the unwarranted impression that all those who promote abstinence before marriage think of sex as a shameful act that is only to be engaged in out of necessity. Far from it. A proper abstinence position realizes that sex is a very special and beautiful act. A person's body, far from being dirty or ugly, is a gift of priceless worth to be shared only with one so special that a lifetime is not enough to express the depth of love between the two. As such, proponents of abstinence hold to a higher view of the beauty of the body and sex than do the "free love" advocates, for whom sex is an animalistic urge to be indulged at will. Instead of being preserved for that one all-important person, sex is degraded to an expression of affection for anyone. As for the rest, she completely ignores the well-established dangers inherent in the preventions she espouses. Her assertion that chastity is difficult is true enough, but simply because a thing is difficult does not mean that it cannot and should not be done. The fact remains that people have resisted the urge for centuries and continue to do so today. To insist that we buckle under pressure for the simple reason that it is harsh is nothing but plain cowardice.
Brian Melton graduate student
Actions of a few should not taint impressions of Republicans I feel that the accusations against the Republican Party (Oct. 27) are misconceived. It is not a racist party, and it does not suppress minorities. Women compose a large percentage of the Republican Party, and Elizabeth Dole is one of the many fine examples that support its beliefs. I believe the Democrats were far too quick to point a finger at the Republicans for racism. It is not something that we stand for, so why would all of the Republican Senators vote against the judge's position to make a racist point? I don't believe they would ever vote him down because of race, but it is because of his past records and party agendas that do not coincide with that of the Republicans that he was disqualified. The Republican Party is concerned with minorities, women and the elderly. It is concerned with America and is striving to improve the economy, education, equality and aspects of life for all Americans. So please do not accuse the Republican Party as being racists. It is a stereotype based on a few individuals and even then, it is a stretch of the truth. Racism is a part of life in that it effects everyone, black, white, yellow, red, great or small. I agree with you that it is a disgusting abomination, and that it is inexcusable in any form. I just don't feel it was a fair representation of our party. I have always been a Republican, and I strongly support equality in every way! I know many people that feel the way I do, and we are proud to be Republicans, but slanted views insult us just the same.
John Miller freshman marketing major |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |