Her Daily News

Safety in our institutions of higher learning has become a hot-button topic lately - too often, the academia is disrupted by tragedy, as the headlines have reflected. This week, according to Mercury News, women at UC Berkeley stood up against a spree of sexual violence on their campus - and the “blame the victim” attitude that many have taken in light of it.

Since October, a sexual predator has attacked 19 women near the UC Berkeley campus, and it appears that women in skirts have been most heavily targeted. For that reason, an email has circulated among students telling women not to wear skirts so as to avoid becoming a target. However, many women on campus have taken offense, stating that attire is no excuse for sexual assault. For that reason, protesters wore skirts as they stood in solidarity to increase awareness about the recent attacks and to call for action to prevent future ones.

During the rally on the university’s Sproul Plaza, speakers argued against the perception that the victims are to blame for their attacks. Dennie Bates, an organizer of the rally, told the crowd, “My skirt is not a legal reason for raping me.” Adding fuel to the fire was the fact that this man has not been caught yet - and many worry that the violence could get worse. The victim of one attack was present at the rally, and she expressed her wish for justice, telling others in attendance, “I hope this man gets caught and this doesn’t happen anymore.” Details on the perpetrator can be found in the original article.

In 2005, two female students were expelled from a private Lutheran school in California after engaging in behaviors that were considered to be “characteristic of a lesbian relationship,” according to the Los Angeles Times. A recent court case maintained that the school was within its rights to do so, much to the dismay of those who believe this to be discrimination, not to mention the students themselves. The school’s position is that the disciplinary action was consistent with its religious mission, and that as a private institution, they were within their rights to enforce a code of conduct based upon Christian values. However, what was really protected here - freedom of religion, or the right to discriminate?

It is widely known that anti-discrimination laws protect citizens from discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other criteria. Indeed, the decision in California’s 4th District Court of Appeal hinged upon the court’s decision that the school was not a business, and therefore was not obligated to abide by these laws. However, despite the exemption that the law allowed, the question remains: Were the school’s actions moral?

As a Christian institution, the school has a conduct code that is likely to include rules in keeping with Christian teachings, and this includes the belief that homosexuality is a sin. The code forbids students from deviating from those rules whether they are on or off campus, and it is stated in the conduct code that to do so is grounds for expulsion. However, it seems to me that such a policy is overly restrictive for high school students. The teaching of religious principles is one thing - however, for a student’s academic career to be derailed by way of expulsion for anything less than strict adherence does more harm than good. While individual institutions may have their own agendas, religious or otherwise, they are primarily educational institutions. Discipline should not come at a disproportionate cost to the student’s academic development, nor should it stifle self-discovery.

This article really hit home with me. In the Houston Chronicle today, there is a story about a study done by the University of Texas that shows teenage girls who are obese are half as likely to attend college as their slimmer counterparts. The study also showed that obese teenage girls were more likely to engage in reckless behaviors such as skipping school, underage drinking and drug abuse. Such acting out stems from feelings of isolation. What I found most poignant in the article was how the societal stigma of appearance is not the same for obese boys.

Today is my birthday and I’m venturing into my mid-twenties. But it wasn’t too long ago that I was a teenage girl in high school facing the same pressures discussed in this article. For girls, even at an early age, looks and weight become the focus. Once you fall outside of the desired parameters for looks in society, the change begins. It is a shame that these girls are judged by their looks before they have even had time to develop them. What is even more of a shame is that these outside factors are affecting the educational choices of these young women. Because you don’t wear a certain size means you aren’t supposed to be successful in life? This shows me how much young women tie beauty to self-worth. The unfortunate part is that beauty and outward appearance will fade and can be taken away. It’s what you learn, give to others and grow into as a person that makes you special. Those types of lessons often come with life experience and wisdom, both of which you do not need outer beauty to attain.

women, obesity, education, beauty, society, teenage girls, pressure

An article on AlterNet.com cited that teenage birthrate is the lowest it has been in 65 years. So what is responsible for the drop? Both sex educators and abstinence-only proponents take the credit. The article then goes on to pose two scenarios and then asks who you think is right:

Let’s posit this scenario: You’re 16. You buy a soda and a pack of condoms at the corner store. That afternoon you have sex. You know how to put on the condom because you were taught in your public high school. Anyway, the condom is just a backup. Your girlfriend is on the pill. Some people say your education has encouraged you to take a life-threatening health risk.

Here’s an alternative scenario: You’re the federal government. You’ve thrown over a billion dollars into abstinence-only-until-marriage education. In a decade, you’ve transformed sex education in many states. Your message? There is no such thing as safe sex. Is your plan working? Your opponents say you’re better off throwing your money down a wishing well.

Who’s right?

Each scenario could be correct to any individual, depending on their view on the issue. So the real question is which one is getting the job done? Researchers in the article state that a combination of the two styles is causing change across the board.

It is quite possible that offering both types of education would be helpful even though the styles seem contradictory. Here’s how it could work. Abstinence-only education is only going to reach a certain number of teenagers. There will always be those out there are who are going to engage in pre-marital sex. So, for those teens, where the abstinence-only education leaves off, safe sex education can pick up the slack. Basically saying, if you choose to engage is sex before marriage, at least be safe and responsible by using contraceptives and getting tested regularly.

The problems, though, will still exist. As the article points out, the United States still has the highest teenage birthrate of any industrialized country. To add to the problem, the US government is only giving federal funding to abstinence-only programs. This may not seem like a bad thing if your belief is that teens won’t have sex if we tell them not to but the reality is, SOME will no matter what we say. Until we are able to come to a comprehensive resolution by talking openly and honestly about sex in America, our teen birthrate may drop but won’t be as low as it could (or possible should) be.

Article link: The Teenage Birth Rate Has Dropped to a 65-Year Low - Jennifer Liss, Wiretap

teens, sex, education, contraception, birthrate

We have all heard about the public struggle the Annapolis Naval Academy has face since they first started admitting women over 30 years ago. Stories of harassment, rape, prostituion, and sexual misconduct has made the public question how hard the academy was trying to make their female cadets feel comfortable.

Now, women make up more than 20% of the student body. Last year the academy appointed their first female commandant, which is the second-highest position in the school. So what is the next step in the right direction? A new program aimed at addressing sexual harassment will begin this fall. The curriculum for the program spans all 4 years and even involves a peer counseling program.

Many hope the the program will raise awareness in an instutution that has already seen a lot of change. Many former female students feel that the atmosphere has changed for the better over the years, even though more could still be done. There are hopes that these types of educational programs will help change the academy culture. As women have yet to be accepted as equals in a still-male centered environment, the small steps that are being taken should not go unnoticed.

women, military, education, sexual harassment, Naval Academy