2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the editor
Regarding last week's staff editorial
Issue date: 2/22/08 Section: Forum
I read with considerable interest the staff editorial in the February 8 issue of The Guilfordian, "Sex workers have a voice." The framing of the editorial's opinion with quotes from the Fox News Network, statements that The Sex Workers' Art Show has been "condemned," and mention of concern expressed from "some members of the Guilford conservative and Quaker communities," caught my attention.
Following the initial article announcing the coming visit to campus of the Art Show, I wrote to the student who helped bring the program to campus, with copies to The Guilfordian staff. In that letter
I did not "condemn" the program or her; instead, I mentioned a point or two about why the program gave me pause and asked for opportunity to be in discussion with her.
That student did follow-up with me, and we had a very constructive conversation. Unfortunately, nobody from the staff of The Guilfordian responded or consulted with me before writing the editorial. Perhaps there were other members of the Quaker community who expressed concern - or people from whatever is meant by "the conservative community" at Guilford, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the editorial was directed primarily at me.
As I stated in my initial correspondence (and expanded on in a piece for the campus ministry newsletter, the GCRO Caw, which I have asked the editor to re-print accompanying this piece), my major interest was in conversation about reasons for bringing this program to campus. What are the norms and values of the College that the Art Show addresses? How does a woman view the commodification of the female body? What are our attitudes about sex?
While I was able to discuss these issues with the student, staff of The Guilfordian seemed to draw conclusions on their own, implying that criticism of the program was uneducated, that discussion about sex is feared, and that anyone who questioned the propriety of the program was insensitive to marginalized groups. Those implications certainly do not accurately describe my response to the Art Show.
If anything, I wanted discussion about issues raised by the Art Show and was disappointed by the non-response I received from the staff of The Guilfordian. It is an issue broader than the paper, though. One of the most disappointing aspects of the aftermath of last year's Bryan Hall incident is the failure in our community to talk with each other outside our own like-minded communities. We make assumptions; we harbor stereotypes; we refuse to talk substantively with or listen to "the other." No way to build a healthy community.
Max L. Carter, director
Friends Center
Following the initial article announcing the coming visit to campus of the Art Show, I wrote to the student who helped bring the program to campus, with copies to The Guilfordian staff. In that letter
I did not "condemn" the program or her; instead, I mentioned a point or two about why the program gave me pause and asked for opportunity to be in discussion with her.
That student did follow-up with me, and we had a very constructive conversation. Unfortunately, nobody from the staff of The Guilfordian responded or consulted with me before writing the editorial. Perhaps there were other members of the Quaker community who expressed concern - or people from whatever is meant by "the conservative community" at Guilford, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the editorial was directed primarily at me.
As I stated in my initial correspondence (and expanded on in a piece for the campus ministry newsletter, the GCRO Caw, which I have asked the editor to re-print accompanying this piece), my major interest was in conversation about reasons for bringing this program to campus. What are the norms and values of the College that the Art Show addresses? How does a woman view the commodification of the female body? What are our attitudes about sex?
While I was able to discuss these issues with the student, staff of The Guilfordian seemed to draw conclusions on their own, implying that criticism of the program was uneducated, that discussion about sex is feared, and that anyone who questioned the propriety of the program was insensitive to marginalized groups. Those implications certainly do not accurately describe my response to the Art Show.
If anything, I wanted discussion about issues raised by the Art Show and was disappointed by the non-response I received from the staff of The Guilfordian. It is an issue broader than the paper, though. One of the most disappointing aspects of the aftermath of last year's Bryan Hall incident is the failure in our community to talk with each other outside our own like-minded communities. We make assumptions; we harbor stereotypes; we refuse to talk substantively with or listen to "the other." No way to build a healthy community.
Max L. Carter, director
Friends Center
Be the first to comment on this story