Dear Reporter:
I am writing this letter concerning the cartoon entitled, “How RIT Can Use Antisemitic Graffiti To Its Advantage” in the April 25 edition of Reporter. While we at RIT encourage artistic expression and freedom of speech, this cartoon crossed a line that is at the very least hurtful, and to many, hateful. Throughout history, symbols have held strong meanings and evoked powerful emotions. Our challenge is to respect the history of such symbols, and those who hold memories, feelings, and values associated with them that we might not know or share. Although the swastika existed long before Adolf Hitler, his adoption of this symbol as the logo for the Nazi Party has forever marred its meaning. Since World War II, the swastika has become primarily a symbol of hate, and for that reason, we should not be complacent to its meaning or use.

Reporter is a student run publication whose content is reviewed only by students, and is not made available to advisors prior to publication. This does not mean, however, that all of us in the RIT community should blindly accept or endorse what is published in Reporter. As a respected student magazine, the only one of its kind in the U.S., I encourage Reporter to take a close look at its editorial practices. Upon further review, it may become evident that Reporter crossed a line that goes beyond journalistic freedom or artistic expression.

MARY-BETH COOPER
Vice President for Student Affairs

Dear Reporter:
I am intrigued by your “Coming Out at RIT” article. As I read I thought this article is not covering all the athletes at RIT. You focused on one male athlete from RIT, whose opinion I agree with. However, you didn’t get any other athletes that are participating in any other sports. You picked three ex-crew members who left the team for reasons not related to their sexual orientation. You didn’t search very hard for athletes that participate or have participated for maybe more than a few months in a sport. I am writing as the captain of the Women’s Crew team. It’s my third year on the team, and I’ve been openly gay since day one on the team. Never have I had an issue, and I would have to say no one else who has joined after me really has had an issue with the team and their sexual orientation.

I know of many other gay or lesbian athletes on this campus, and many of them are not ashamed or in the closet. I am very disappointed with your reporting skills that you couldn’t track down a few other athletes to get a broad scope of opinions. I think in general the athletes on this campus will agree with Mr. Stevens but you should have tried a little harder...In the future for GLBT related articles Reporter can feel free to contact the GLBT Center on campus. This is the kind of resources and connections that the center can provide.

JENN KOLLING, WOMEN’S CREW CAPTAIN
Third year ASL English Interpretation

Editor’s Note: Thank you for your feedback; we will be sure to make better use of the GLBT Center in the future.

Dear Reporter,
As a social work and women’s studies professor, and as someone who has long been involved in the movement to end poverty, I was absolutely appalled when a friend sent me the piece in the RIT Reporter on “the welfare game,” reviewed by Susan Cook. A game that was in invented in 1980 is being presented as not only something new, but more alarmingly, is being discussed without the slightest attempt to present the reasons why many organizations devoted efforts to stop the sale of this game.

The premises and “rules” of the game are founded in countless stereotypes and false assumptions about the nature of poverty, and they reflect generalizations about the poor that are simply not born out in study after study of this population.

One of the primary myths reflected in this “game” is that most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers who have extra children so that they can get more money. Families on welfare average two children (in fact, two in five families on welfare in one study had only one child). And although it varies by state, the average monthly increase in a welfare grant for each additional child is $90. This hardly pays for diapers and formula. On the other hand, the standard deduction on federal income tax per child is $3400. How many people do you know who boast that they have additional children due to this “incentive”?

Perhaps most importantly, let’s look at the typical welfare recipient. In Monroe County, 73% of the recipients of family public assistance are children. The welfare limits enacted by the federal government over the past decade have corresponded with a rise in child poverty and child welfare (how exactly, does this enforce our commitment to “family values”?). The basic cash grant has not been increased since 1990. In Monroe County, a mother with two children gets a welfare grant of $647 per month, plus about $399 in food stamps and an annual HEAP (heating) grant that pro-rates to $25 per month.

Out of these amounts, the family must pay for food, rent, gas and electric, clothing, dishes, dish soap, toilet paper, school supplies, cooking utensils, over the counter medications, Medicaid co-pays, toothpaste, tooth brushes, light bulbs, furniture, entertainment, transportation, women’s supplies, stationary, pens or pencils, laundry and bath soap, shampoo, make-up, boots, shoes, combs, tools, newspapers, towels, washcloths, church or temple dues, and other expenses.

Another theme in this “welfare game” is the pervasiveness of fraud. Fraud committed by anyone is unacceptable; however, 93% of welfare fraud is committed by vendors. And of all of the welfare fraud committed, one might argue that it is a drop in the bucket compared to the burdens on the American taxpayer of military fraud, government waste, and corporate welfare. The infamous Savings and Loan bailout alone cost $132 billion.

Yet another stereotype reflected in the “welfare game” is that of promiscuity on the part of women who are “on the system.” Interestingly, many of the men who form the public debate on welfare and discuss welfare mothers in these terms, are certainly not suppressing their own sexual urges. Many of them have had affairs, hired prostitutes, and/or left the wives who raised their children in favor of younger women. Along with this perception of promiscuity is the myth of irresponsibility. As discussed on welfaremom.com: “Let’s define what we mean by responsibility. If we are talking responsible sexuality, welfare mothers are no more responsible or irresponsible in their sexuality than other segments of the population. That is why their birth rates are no higher than the national average, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for non-recipients is just as high, and promiscuous sexual activity is not at all unheard of in the non-recipient population.”

Finally, another myth reflected in the game is that welfare dependency is the result of the moral failings of poor people: addiction, unwillingness to work, lack of family values and sexual control. The fact is that – overwhelmingly – people need assistance when they are in financial hardship, and they are usually in financial hardship for economic reasons.

Work is not a sure cure for poverty, either. At the current minimum wage of $7.15/hour, a full-time employee would make $14,872 per year. This means that if a family of four has one spouse working full-time, they will still make $6,328 less than the current Family Federal Poverty Guideline Standard. And there is no city in the U.S. where a minimum wage worker can afford a market rate apartment.

I’m sure RIT students are taught to “do their research” no matter what their major is, and to be sure to examine all sides of an argument. I only wish Ms. Cook had followed that advice.

BARBARA KASPER
Associate Professor, SUNY Brockport

Dear Reporter,
Like many RIT students I have read articles on SomethingAwful.com and have seen pictures on 4chan.org. These are typically more offensive than anything the Reporter would ever print, even if paid. But these sites are also some of most popular online with 4chan ranked as the 132 most popular site online in the US (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/4chan.org).

Because of this, the controversy caused by Alex appears to me as the RIT Administration trying to unnecessarily and unfairly punish a student and the Reporter. If anything the Reporter should cover an entire issue in hate symbols just to show how pointless this was.

DAMIAN KUMOR
5th year Software Engineering major

To Send Letters

Letters can be sent quickly and painlessly by online form. Reporter will not print anonymous letters.

Note: Opinions expressed in Letters to the Editor are solely those of the author. Reporter reserves the right to edit submissions on the basis of content, length, grammar, spelling, and style. Letters are not guaranteed publication. Submissions may be printed and reprinted in any medium. Reporter will not run responses to letters that are responding to a letter.