Oracle Online

As chair, I believe we have made substantial progress in our meetings by standing up against personal attacks and heinous comments regarding our student representatives. However, our meetings are not a vacuum in which the principles of respect, maturity and professionalism are contained. These principles of conduct ought to apply in the public sphere as well.

Also as chair, I will not stand idly by while my meetings are portrayed as a circus spectacle. We use a very professional structure in our meetings (in fact, more structured that most meetings at this university) and follow a guiding set of rules to maintain that structure. This structure does not apply to our seating arrangement. We are adults in college and as chair I am not going to tell individuals where they can and cannot sit.

As a student, I am offended that my peers have been grossly misrepresented and belittled by Binfet’s negative stereotyping. It is these comments that lead to marginalization of individuals by classification. With the amount of hate crimes on campus that are directed at students due to stereotyping, I would hope that the student body will stand up in opposition to Binfet’s statements.

I do not speak for the entire congress. However, I believe that Binfet’s letter is not in the spirit of the way HUSC operates. Therefore, as chair I would like to apologize for the offenses caused by his statement. Despite the antics of students such as Binfet, HUSC general assembly meetings are not a bad place. Certainly this is apparent if the biggest complaint is where people sit in the room.

John Mule
HUSC Vice President

Dirty tricks in student elections

I am writing in response to Pete Winiecki’s letter to the editor last week. I don’t take issue with what he said, or how he said it, but simply with the fact that it was done just before the election and used his title as HUSC Treasurer.

In the elections there are many campaign rules to ensure a fair and honest campaign for all. One of these rules is that candidate teams cannot be endorsed by an organization or member of the executive board. Winiecki is the HUSC treasurer and used that position to add credibility to what was said. This is a clear violation of the rules. This is one of many violations by the team of Mike Pesko and Taylor Seeman over the campaign.

A few violations could be seen as making an honest mistake. But the fact that there were multiple violations, and this was the third presidential election Pesko has participated in, clearly demonstrate that these violations were knowingly committed. Another rule that was broken, for which I personally filed a grievance with the election committee, was campaigning in the classroom. Pesko-Seeman had friends and roommates wear T-shirts baring their names, faces, slogans and website to their classes. This is a disrespectful distraction from the focus of the classroom, which should be on learning, not self-promotion and campus politics.

Thankfully, despite the underhanded tactics of the others, Alex Erickson and Kristin Falde were elected the new HUSC president and vice president. To me, this shows that the students cared more about their well thought-out platform that the dog and pony show put on by Pesko-Seeman. Students care more about issues like having a representative on the Board of Trustees (a major goal of Erickson-Falde) than using a putting green outside the cafeteria. I have the fullest confidence in their abilities to serve the students in their new capacity as leaders. Hopefully this sets a precedent and leads to a more honest election next year.

Andrew Cole ‘06

Campaign posters disrespect Hamline

In GLC, there is a lovely picture of the three women, all of whom are wearing low-cut shirts. The three women are standing provocatively with lollipops in their open mouths. It says below the picture “we will do anything to get your vote.” Let me be clear here: I am not some kind of fanatical feminist. However, I do believe that women should present themselves with respect, especially when they are trying to represent their institution. What these three women are saying with their poster is that they will give oral sex in order to win, or at least they will suck your lollipop to win. However ridiculous this may sound, it is what they are implying. I do not find myself particularly offended by this poster; however, I felt embarrassed for these three women who seem to have no idea how utterly stupid the poster is. I thought, “Wow. These ladies have absolutely no respect for themselves.” Are they so unelectable that they have to use sexuality in order to win? And it’s not just that- the poster is also strategically unsound. Most of the campus consists of women, and unless Hamline women want to have their lollipops sucked, they will most likely reject this poster because it only caters to men. I trust that women will reject these candidates based on their inability to present women as respectable creatures. I also trust that men will reject these candidates based on their inability to campaign strategically or rationally.

I want to be clear that I am not judging these three women on their character; I am judging what they have put on a piece of paper for the campus to see. There is no need for them to refute what I have said; I already understand the psychology behind their actions. The only justification is to take the stupid poster down and learn a lesson about having respect for yourselves as women--women representing a university chalk full of other women.

Sarah Ann Wagner ‘08