(In response to Ben Berkley’s Thursday column, “ASU’s self-esteem problem.”)
I could not agree more with Ben Berkley’s column. It is about time that someone called attention to the constant berating ASU students give their own school and themselves.
Maybe part of the problem is that ASU students don’t yet know how good they have it. At ASU, you have endless options at your fingertips and have the freedom to dictate your own future by working as hard (or as little) as you want.
Many of my friends who spoke badly about ASU as students are now sorely missing ASU since entering the real world, and have conveniently forgotten the way they used to talk about their alma mater.
I was always a big fan of ASU, but I am an even bigger fan of ASU now that I am enrolled in a graduate program at another university. The more I compare ASU with my graduate institution, the more I loathe my graduate school for not giving me all of the things ASU did.
I speak from personal experience when I say that massive tuition bills and selective admissions standards do not directly translate into an elite education or an enjoyable college experience. ASU truly is so much better than many universities in this country, and it is a shame that the vast majority of its own students doesn’t acknowledge or take advantage of this.
ASU students need to wise up and get some school pride because they are only making ASU look bad, and they look more idiotic by acting the way they do. If students want ASU to have a better reputation, it has to start with the students and the image they portray. If we take pride in ourselves and our school, that will be directly translated into our reputation.
If you really dislike ASU so intensely, I suggest you transfer rather than talk smack and bring down the value of your own degree.
Breaking through the glass
(In response to Jessica Testa’s Tuesday article, “Beyond the ‘glass ceiling.’ ”)
I recently picked up The State Press and I was thrilled, and admittedly surprised. The article, “Beyond the ‘glass ceiling,’ ” by Jessica Testa, was wonderful. It was thorough and well written. Most importantly, it was lengthy. It was refreshing to see an article about women’s issues and challenges not only on the cover, but given plenty of room within the final print.
I would like to thank The State Press for shining a light on these vital issues. It is increasingly important for young women to be aware of the strides that have been made and challenges that lie ahead.
I also would like to say thank you to the ASU faculty and all the other speakers who were involved in this series and continue to advocate for issues that affect all women.
(In response to Catherine Smith’s Oct. 15 column, “Masquerades no joke.”)
I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Smith and would also like to point out who else is culpable in the masquerade to be a crusader for women’s health — Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation for donating proceeds from their fundraisers to Planned Parenthood and for their refusal to tell women the truth about the link between abortion and breast cancer.
Chief scientific adviser for Komen, Dr. Eric Winer, asserts that Komen should be given a pass for donating to Planned Parenthood just because Planned Parenthood assures Komen that they will use the money Komen donates for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.
Regardless of what Planned Parenthood assures Komen they will use the money for, money is fungible and Komen’s donations free up money for Planned Parenthood to use however they wish.
It is insulting that Dr. Winer presumes the public does not get this; that they presume we are so naive we cannot see the analogy of how giving a drug addict $500 in cash to get a medical check-up frees up $500 more to spend on drugs, even though the addict promises she will use the cash to get her medical check-up. Planned Parenthood’s own Web site reveals that the number of mammograms they perform each year is going down while the number of abortions they perform is increasing. What are they doing with Komen’s dollars, for heaven’s sake?
Furthermore, Komen has come under increasing pressure from a number of groups regarding their support of Planned Parenthood and clearly something is amiss when Komen must obtain an opinion from a couple of renegade ethicists from the Catholic Church so they can feel OK about funding Planned Parenthood. It is clear by the above statements and actions that they are acutely aware of the fine moral line they are walking.
Contrary to what Dr. Winer would purport, Komen’s support of Planned Parenthood is clearly inconsistent with their mission statement, “Our promise is to save lives and end breast cancer forever.”
Even though Komen refuses to include abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer on their Web site, what is included under “risk factors for breast cancer,” are never having children or delaying having children until age 35. It is more than peculiar then that Komen, who also lists the use of birth-control pills as a risk factor for breast cancer, gives money to an organization whose primary purpose is to help women prevent or delay pregnancy with birth control pills, or do away with a pregnancy that is underway through abortion, often times for very young women who are in the most cancer-susceptible period of their lives.
I believe I see a crack forming in Komen’s pretty pink facade.
Rebecca Greager Curtis