March 1, 2012
Re: Obama contraception is an affront to religious freedom and taxpayers
For the good of anyone who might happen across them (on College Hill or on the internet), and especially for the good of the reputation of the college I so much enjoyed attending, please fortify your editorial standards against the loopholes which allow Jeremy Adelman’s opinion pieces to find their way to print. The fact that these articles are written, in large part, grammatically is not the end of the critical process that should determine whether they are included in the Hamilton College newspaper. Certainly the rules should go beyond allowing mere “freedom of speech” as Adelman might define it- that is, the freedom to speak in any way you choose in any forum. These articles are uninformed, derogatory and evidence several of the author’s different lacks of understanding, one of these being a deep-seated ignorance of the fundamental scruples of opinion-based journalism. I would hope that the Spectator would be lend a more discerning eye to their submissions to determine, beyond a shadow of a doubt, where an explication of an argument ends and an offensively offensive (edit out?) diatribe begins. Certainly, Adelman’s articles present a certain type of “speech,” but what is the import of the words he selects? How do they function together as a team? What arena is the team playing in? Who’s in the bleachers? In moving away from this questionable analogy, let me offer a suggestion to Mr. Adelman: perhaps tweeting “@plannedparenthood sorry but women don’t have a right to my wallet!”, but not putting statements of this nature in an article in Hamilton College’s newspaper, a publication already struggling for credibility, that stands for a lot more than a given person and his or her proverbial freedom to get fired up.
—Winston Cook-Wilson ‘09
Re: Obama contraception is an affront to religious freedom and taxpayers
I write to bring attention to a weak, inaccurate analogy used by the author, Jeremy Adelman ’13. Mr. Adelman analogizes health insurance policies to car and homeowners’ insurance policy, insisting that the three are inherently similar. Beyond asserting that all are forms of insurance, no explanation is given for the belief in similarity. To borrow a phrase from Mr. Adelman, this lack of explanation is “laughably illogical.”
A plausible explanation would include some evidence that health insurance policies are only used in emergency situations. This evidence would allow Mr. Adelman to properly connect the serious accident character of car and homeowners insurance policies to health insurance policies. However, no such evidence is presented, and the argument remains weak and inaccurate.
—Matt Clark ’07
Re: Obama contraception is an affront to religious freedom and taxpayers
When I opened up last week’s Spectator to Jeremy Adelman’s response to Christopher Delacruz’s article concerning the recent health insurance legislation on contraception, I was appalled by the way in which the writer chose to make his argument. I only had to read the first couple paragraphs to realize that the article focused more on attacking a fellow classmate than Obama’s actions, as Adelman called Delacruz’s article “a laug ably illogical piece.” I certainly believe that interpersonal dialogue is essential to understanding any issue completely. Therefore, I suggest that all writers, and in that case all human beings, try to truly learn another’s viewpoint before launching a personal attack. Even though I agree with Adelman’s standpoint on the issue, I think an article is much more convincing when it focuses on logic, facts, and rhetoric, rather than mudslinging which can, in Adelman’s words “infect rational discourse.”
—Brendon Kaufman ‘15
Re: Obama contraception is an affront to religious freedom and taxpayers
After the Hamilton community responded so strongly to Mr. Adelman’s piece on sexual assault, it may not even be worth my time to respond; it’s clear that many of us know who is writing “laughably illogical” articles. Still, as it has become clear to me that Mr. Adelman has likely never interacted in a meaningful way with a woman (he obviously thinks we are just walking wombs), I just want to set a few things straight.
First, I’m not sure why he thinks contraception, and the price thereof, should fall on women’s shoulders. As he noted in his piece on sexual assault, conception of a fetus requires two contributions, and given that, he thinks that men should have a say in whether a woman can get an abortion. If that’s true, then he must also believe that they should play a role in providing contraception. We won’t even go into the fact that most insurance plans cover pills like Viagra, or that studies show that men would object to taking hormonal contraceptive pills themselves for fears of the danger. The fact is, spending comparatively little on contraception will always be far less than the cost of feeding, educating and caring for a child for 18+ years. And, it certainly costs less than abortion. Maybe I do live in a “liberal echo chamber,” but I do know that my health insurance is meant to cover a whole lot of predictable, regular costs. It covers my annual doctor’s visits (certainly predictable and regular), covered life-saving, long-term asthma medication for 15 years of my life, covers things like long-term diabetes, blood pressure, and heart disease meds for countless Americans—and, of course, covers those all-important erection pills.
And while we’re on the cost of contraception: as a former e-board member of the Womyn’s Center, I know from experience that tons of organizations just throw condoms at college campuses for free. The idea that they raise the cost of the tuition is “laughably illogical.” On the other hand, $15 a month is remarkably conservative for what most women I know pay for their pills, and that’s even with insurance. Even if it were only $15 a month, when you live below the poverty line and have to support several children by yourself because their fathers decided that “women do not have a right to [their] wallet,” $15 can mean the difference between feeding your babies or having them go hungry. Pro-life, indeed.
Finally, it’s nice that Mr. Adelman thinks he can solve this whole dilemma with the suggestion of abstinence. Trouble is, there are a whole lot of women in the world who are robbed of the choice to be abstinent or not by rape and sexual assault. Oh wait, I forgot—he doesn’t believe those exist.
—Amy Tannenbaum ’10
Re: Fifteen students leave Colby on charges of sexual assault
Regarding Mr. Min Sohn 15’s piece, “Fifteen students leave Colby on charges of sexual assault,” in the Feb. 16 edition of NESCAC News: we found the article’s concluding sentence to be both inappropriate and offensive not only to the individuals involved in the Colby College incident but to all who have experienced or work to end sexual violation. By making an ill-conceived pun regarding the nature of the incident, Mr. Sohn makes light of the entire issue of sexual assault. Survivors of sexual crimes are already forced to fight to be taken seriously; cracking a crass joke about the circumstances of the charges, particularly in a public forum, is unacceptable and deeply unappreciated. While we respect Mr. Sohn’s right to free speech, we would have hoped that sexual crimes would be treated with more sensitivity.
Additionally, we would like to present a counterargument to Mr. Jeremy Adelman’s statement in his Feb. 23 editorial that “contraception is a predictable expense; people make the conscious decision a priori whether to use birth control, rather than adopt a contraception regimen in response to a change in health status.” While several aspects of Mr. Adelman’s piece are troubling, this particular statement constitutes a factual error. As many women on Hamilton’s campus and elsewhere can attest, contraception regimens are in fact frequently adopted in response to a change in health status. Women are often prescribed oral contraceptives in order to treat conditions such as endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, ovarian cysts, anemia, severe menstrual symptoms, and acne, among others. Several of these conditions have sudden onsets and require interventions for an extended period. To deny women subsidized healthcare that would otherwise be covered by insurance or provided by a Catholic hospital—if the medication were not also a contraceptive—is dangerous to women’s health and liberty.
—Susannah Spero ’13
—Katherine Costa ’12
Re: Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down
February 16’s “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down” column left me dismayed, specifically the bit about Valentine’s Day in Commons. Everyone knows Marge: Bon Appetit’s resident Chatty Cathy and surrogate grandma of the entire student body. Who else asks about our day and actually waits to hear an answer? Cleans up our messes and looks the other way when we forget our Hillcard at lunch? Reminds us to bundle up and get a good night’s rest when flu season comes around? She might strike up a lengthy conversation just as you’re rushing off to class, but I dare you to find an individual with better intentions.
“Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down” calls it like it sees it, and I respect that, but the writers ought to remember that its audience isn’t limited to cheeky, thick-skinned college students. While I appreciate good satire, humor at the expense of Marge’s feelings seems out of line. C’mon, kids, don’t bite the hand that swipes you.
—Hannah Carlisle ’14