The All State

» TIM HALL- President

Last week, a speaker from outside the university community made the appropriate arrangements to speak on our campus in an area specifically designated for this kind of speech. He was a religious preacher, and, from reports I have received, angered and offended more than a few of the people who heard him. Some students have inquired why the university would allow a speaker to say things calculated to anger and offend at least some members of the university community. This is a fair question, and I’m happy to respond to it.

The brief answer is that doing so is required by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is not simply freedom to make noncontroversial or innocuous claims, but the freedom to say controversial or offensive things, things even considered to be hateful.

Our nation has discovered words that initially offended and angered us were actually words which we now believe to be good and true. We have discovered that sometimes the most valuable thing a speaker can do is make us angry. Consequently, it is settled law that speech may not be suppressed simply because it will make people angry or offended, or even because some listeners might characterize the speech as “hateful.”

Furthermore, the First Amendment protects offensive speech even if listeners might become so angry as to be tempted to inflict violence on the speaker. In a free society, it is simply inappropriate and illegal to suppress or punish speech through acts of violence. On our campus, for example, someone who silenced a speaker with a blow to the teeth could expect to face discipline and criminal charges.

We cannot allow possible violence from an audience to cancel a speech. Instead, we have to take reasonable actions to protect speakers from audience violence.

I’ve talked so far about the freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. I should also add that the university believes itself to have a special obligation to protect and encourage speech from any number of viewpoints.

Some of our students may have grown up in households where they were taught that some subjects — religion or politics, for example — were not appropriate topics for “polite dinner table conversation.” We don’t think like this at a university.

We think this is a place where the most controversial subjects can be freely explored, where any number of viewpoints on these subjects can be freely expressed. We believe, with the Greek philosopher Socrates, that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Consequently, we prize the examination of all kinds of ideas from all kinds of perspectives, believing that this kind of examination is more likely to lead us to the truth.

I should add that the university also values civility and seeks to cultivate a community in which the holders of many different ideas are welcome. Part of students’ academic training should consist of learning how to argue about controversial subjects within the bounds of civility.

We know, though, that treating one another with civility does not mean that we must avoid talking about serious and controversial subjects, even subjects that may create offense. We know as well that speakers from outside our community may not always value our traditions of civility, but that their speech is also worth protecting.

When our students face speech they find wrong, objectionable, or even offensive, I hope they will exercise their owns freedoms — the freedom to argue against a particular viewpoint, the freedom to listen in silence, the freedom to walk away, and, sometimes, the freedom to change their minds. TAS

» By JE’NELLE ADAMS – jenelleadams@jamescorlew.com

Since the beginning of the semester, I have observed an occurrence which I have never noticed on your campus before.

For three days I have witnessed a large crowd of smokers on the sidewalk and brick wall in front of the university.

I am guessing APSU has followed along with many other universities by going tobacco free.

First of all, I don’t have a problem with smoking or with being a tobacco free campus. Either is fine with me.

However, I am not happy to report that to the eye of those driving down University Avenue, it looks like APSU is now a smokers’ campus.

From my vantage point, the university’s attempt to “clean up the smoking on campus” has backfired and now makes APSU look like the biggest smoking campus I have ever seen.

Unfortunately, I am not the only person who has made this observation.

The saddest thing is when someone comes to our beautiful city, they will drive by our wonderful campus and think, “What a trashy campus.”
Can we say a big fat oops? TAS

» By SANDRA MCNEILLY – smcneilly@my.apsu.edu

The smoking policy? I’m not a fan. For starters, I would like to point out the little fenced area with concrete table outside Clement; I’ve never seen anyone sitting there other than to toss something in the trash. Why could it not be a smoking area?

There are plenty of outside places. Smokers have to hike half the campus, which is not possible between most of our classes,

If I suffered from low self esteem and needed “outside reinforcement,” this grandmother of two would have to say thank you for making me stand on College Street to get whistled and honked at while smoking.

I can only imagine the “fun” the young female smokers “enjoy” during their smoke breaks. TAS

» Jenelle Grewell jgrewell@my.apsu.edu

Our society is obsessed with food. Whether it’s cooking food, eating food or watching television shows about food, we seem to revolve our lives around it. Even if a person is a health nut, he or she still bears an obsession with what goes into his or her body. I know I am not alone with my love for food, and I know there are other health conscious food lovers out there.

The problem with being a calorie counter is eating out. I love getting together with friends over a meal. However, it is very difficult to figure out exactly what I am putting into my body when I scarf down a club sandwich. Some restaurants provide nutritional information upon request, but I have discovered when I ask, there is usually an awkward silence from the server followed by muttering about asking the manager.

This is concerning for me, not only as someone who is trying to look out for my health, but also for those with diabetes or high blood pressure.

Worse yet, when one actually looks at the nutritional menu, a lot of seemingly healthy items are loaded with calories, sodium, carbs or sugar. It is never safe for a person to assume the healthiness of a particular food item.

Some may argue a solution to this issue would be to eat at home, cooking your own meals, but I don’t think it would be fair to exclude myself from an activity many Americans turn to for get-togethers.

In March 2010, President Barack Obama signed a health law requiring restaurant chains to post calorie content information on their menus and drive-thru signs. Essentially, I should not need to ask my server to retrieve the calorie count for me. It should be in front of me when I open the menu.

I would be satisfied if all major chain restaurants required a section of the menu to list healthier options or put a symbol denoting items with low calorie counts. Sadly, I can only name a handful of major restaurants that make life easier for the average health nut.

Fast food restaurants — though they should be avoided if one is concerned with health but are nevertheless convenient in a working college student life — do post nutritional information inside their venues.

I have seen a few put the information on their wrappers. So far, however, I have only seen Jack-In-The-Box post the calorie count right on their drive-thru menu.

Subway offers a very helpful portable nutritional menu I reference on occasion. Fast food chains can offer something similar if changing all their menus would be too much of a hassle. I would be satisfied with anything they can offer to an on-the-go patron.

My only hope is major chains will soon be in compliance with Obama’s health initiative. Until then, I will be stuck hoping and praying wherever I eat will give me enough information to make sure I fit into my pants the next day. TAS

» Kristin Kittell kkittell@my.apsu.edu

A religious Mayor leads the city of Clarksville. Though this is probably not the most groundbreaking news, her ability to separate her religion from her public office job has recently come into question, according to a petition circulating on www.change.org.

The petition, which has garnered 111 signatures as of press time, Aug. 26, comes on the heels of a www.clarksvillenow.com post which briefly notes Clarksville Mayor Kim McMillan’s monthly meetings with the Clarksville Area Ministerial Association. The CAMA’s website explains their vision is to “foster Christian evangelism faithful to the proclamation of the gospel.” The leaders gather in City Hall though it is unclear whether city policy is discussed. The petition is based on the grounds that McMillan’s meetings offer an indirect endorsement of certain religious groups, alienating constituents that fall outside of them.

To begin, I must make clear I completely support McMillan’s right to religious faith. Her occupancy of the Mayoral office does not and should not infringe upon her religious freedom, as dictated in the First Amendment.

However, in the same sentiment of constitutional righteousness, the city of Clarksville should not be expected to condone such meetings within the walls of City Hall.

Provisions against governmental endorsement of religious groups are both a legal and moral matter. Legally, this matter falls under religious discrimination. Public officials cannot adequately represent the public when their professional loyalties lie in any particularly group, nor do their constituents have reason to expect them to.

Morally speaking, it’s as if McMillan is a principal, inviting the choir kids to partake in the office’s playground view and early snack-time while the rest of the school waits patiently outside.

McMillan’s monthly meetings have become a blatant display of disregard for any member of the population who does not maintain the same religious faith. Not only have they become fodder for local news, but stories appear aside glowing (likely posed) pictures from the head of a round table, such as that found on www.clarksvillenow.com. How might a Buddhist or Atheist not feel misrepresented by a City Hall which invites a select group of Christian leaders into its doors without granting the same privilege for other leaders?

When McMillan steps into her office, her personal life must be set aside. Her job requires her to represent a diverse population rather than to represent her own personal convictions. Her actions as a Clarksville citizen might be out of the way of public scrutiny, but her actions as Clarksville Mayor are not. TAS

Kristin Kittell | Assistant Perspectives Editor

I registered to vote when I was a senior in high school. They handed me a piece of paper, I filled out my information and then handed it back to them. After this, I was permitted to vote in the 2008 election. I do not recall receiving any information on the candidates and I most certainly was not asked to prove my competence. But should I have been?

Recently, the question of voter proficiency has become a subject of concern for media and politicians alike. The public is increasingly easily swayed by politicians who take aim at the naïve, declaring witty catch phrases, making empty promises and enlisting popular celebrities to gain support. And while most everyone has an opinion on the major issues facing us today, far too many of us do not ground these opinions in hard facts, but rather emotional notions. If you do not understand what you are voting for, you obviously cannot cast an educated vote.

It seems that the leading proposal for solving this problem is the addition of pre-vote testing to ensure the voter in question is up to date on government proceedings and the history therein. CNN correspondent LZ Granderson even suggests the same test used to determine immigration rights should be administered to voters pre-registration in order to prove their know-how. This idea is problematic for more reasons than I’m sure I could even come up with.

First, the practice of standardized testing in general has been under fire in the education realm because it is not an accurate method of measuring an individual’s proficiency.

Educators realize not every student will perform under the same circumstances and, therefore, not all of them will be able to show the same level of understanding in standardized testing alone. A large faction advocates the elimination of standardized testing as an indicator of knowledge altogether; why would the government mandate more?

Also, a lack of knowledge of the processes of the government does not necessarily mean one is not aware of the issues and therefore not proficient enough to vote. The fact of the matter is most Americans do not know the senate convened for the first time in 1789. I myself would not have known had I not read it 15 seconds ago on the senate website.

However, not knowing that does not mean an individual does not have an educated opinion on the direction of the government. They may still know they want a candidate who believes in affordable health care or funding for the military, and they may know exactly which candidate stands for those policies.

Voters need to be aware of their voting circumstances, but testing is not the way to go about ensuring that. Educating the public and allowing them to glean from the information what they wish is a far more democratic way to approach this. It is by no means ethical to deny someone the right to vote because they do not stack up to what one group has set as an intellectual standard. This nation is not made up entirely of Harvard scholars; just as a military general might point out the military is not made up of Purple Heart worthy soldiers. Still, the government is intended to represent both and many more.

Education is beneficial to the American public on any and every level. The best solution to the problem of under-educated voting is federally funded and completely unbiased education, and this is far easier said than done. Regardless, voter testing would be of no use to the future of the American public. TAS

Kristin Kittell | Assistant Perspectives Editor

The English language is old, to say the least. It’s developed over centuries, from the classic bawdiness of Chaucer’s tales to the poetic nature of Shakespeare, landing firmly in the modern realm with an affinity for fact and straightforward explanation.

Throughout this time, old words have been extinguished, making room for new words and others have mutated, changing in implication and tone. This usually goes unnoticed.Mainstream words like “cool” and “awesome” are used by most every day with no special attention to their original meanings.

Sometimes this morphing of meaning is turned derogatory and detrimental. The term “retarded,” specifically, has grown from its original oxford definition of “diagnosed with or characterized by learning difficulties or an intellectual disability” and is now applied as an insult when someone’s actions appear illogical, irrational or clueless — to be blunt, like that of someone with a learning disability.

I’ve seen campaigns discouraging the use of the term “gay” as a description for something that is displeasing. Yes, the word is being misused, and this is inappropriate. Homosexuality is, arguably, an uncontrollable attribute, just like height and hair color.

It is as much of a disadvantage as race or gender, and no more. Therefore, while I support this campaign, I must point out it grossly overlooks the misuse of a word that is far more hurtful. The weaknesses that an individual possesses, whether genetically or acquired, are sensitive areas.

They’re difficult. They’re painful. They make challenges out of life that others cannot understand. And for those that do not possess these weaknesses and simply love others who do, it presents entirely different sets of pains and heartaches.

So how can one not take moral offense to the application of the word “retarded” as an insult applied only when someone or something is utterly failing?

We all have moments where we’re not exactly at our intellectual best and do things that make no sense to those around us and make admittedly poor decisions. But using a disorder that is completely outside of the control of the individual as a description for these moments is unethical.

A disability is not a joke. To see this word used so freely by my peers distresses me — are we failing to notice the implications of our language at all? Words are our primary form of communication.

They are our connection to one another. They bring us together, and they drive us apart. We need to take responsibility for them, each and every one. Wouldn’t it be a travesty to hurt someone around you with something you didn’t even realize you were saying? TAS