The Red and Black

It's sad also that a female professor, Barbara Carroll, spoke out about pay inequity based on sex/gender and was labeled a racist for being a whistleblower. The Red & Black still has some explaining to do about that case.

First off, family leave and child care are better regarded as family issues, not simply women's issues. It's also nice to see that we're concerned about providing faculty and students yet another benefit with absolutely no mention of staff needs.

Secondly, regarding a Women's Center, what would it do that isn't being done already?

* The Health Center provides across the spectrum health care for all students and already provides, as noted in the article, a special women's clinic one supposes focuses on women's health needs and education. The Health Center also provides psychological services to the entire student community.

* Student Affairs already provides meeting spaces for all student organizations.

* The Institute of Women's Studies provides academic programs and inter-disciplinary co-operation related to the academic study of women's issues.

* The Career Center provides networking opportunities and post-graduation planning for all students.

Right now, we have to ask how do we justify the costs? Because Iowa State does it, we should too? That hardly seems like a good enough reason. This seems like nothing more than satisfying a political want and not a resource need. I'm sure some centralization would foster access/knowledge of resources, but would it be worth the costs - especially considering the current economic climate? How much would the "Director of Women's Center" earn and how would the university justify hiring her during these times of across the board 6% budget reduction?

Couldn't the university just as easily enhance the existing resources related to women's health needs and education which are already available, increase recruitment efforts for female faculty (when hiring freezes are lifted) and improve efforts at co-operation among all faculty working in gender-related fields? Couldn't we do this with our current structure and reach the same real goals?

To a certain extent I agree with Mansfield. Services which are offered to all genders by the University already hardly need to be duplicated for women only. That in itself teeters close to sexism, which is, after all, thinking of things only in terms of gender.

However, I do believe an expansion of psychological services to victims of sexual violence and preventative education on sexual violence is necessary. We have student organizations which attempt to fill this void, but our university should step up to the challenge.

Similarly, the condition of the Women's Studies building is appalling. No other department in the University is relegated to a tiny, windowless "left-over" building. How can we expect to recruit students into that particular field with such obviously inferior facilities? How can the University be comfortable with the pitiful image which that building alone gives to the public? That building essentially says that the study of women's issues, unarguably underrepresented in general fields like history, do not matter enough to the University of Georgia to build a real learning environment for its students. It's an absolute disgrace, especially for a university whose student body majority is female.