Letters To the Editor

Love Your Body Week was about promoting acceptance, not hatred

To the Editor:
Over the past week, our little group, temporarily called “Students Against Eating Disorders,” has been mentioned in Spectator three times. Once, as creating a rift between administrators and students, the next time as neglecting Columbia, and, most recently, in Sarah Cohler’s March 9 piece, “Love Your Body, Hate the Posters”, as promoting body dissatisfaction. It is now time for us to have our say.

Love Your Body Week was about promoting self-acceptance, not self-hatred, and about raising eating disorder awareness. The goal was to unify, not divide. We do not want to fight with the Counseling Centers; in fact, we would love to work with them. We did not want to leave Columbia out, but our core group of seven members could only be in so many places at once. If you would like to see awareness increase on Columbia’s campus, join us. We are always open to having new members.

The purpose of “Cultural Perceptions of Beauty” was to examine how such a thing as “beauty” could be different in different places. At the event, we discussed the roles of politics, society, the family, geography, and the media on the current standards of beauty. We called attention to these models not to say that we should look like them, but to question why we feel as though we must. During the discussion, we attempted to answer the question, “Why these standards and not others?” The answer is complex, as are eating disorders.

There is no easy explanation for why some people develop eating disorders and others don’t. The only thing that is certain is that they are devastating illnesses with biological, social, and psychological causes. If you think you might be struggling with these problems, we urge you to get help. It just may be the most important thing you ever do.

It is estimated that one in four women on a college campus suffers from an eating disorder, and ours is no exception. Eating disorders have a mortality rate of 10 percent. Isn’t it time we did something about that? Or are we going to sit idly by and watch our friends, classmates, roommates, students, and advisees sacrifice their immense potential?

Eating disorders are treatable. There is reason to hope, but first we have to break the silence. For this reason, we are grateful to Spectator for helping us start the dialogue. We welcome future articles and comments—you can always find us on Facebook. When you get right down to it, Love Your Body Week was not about rifts, or posters, or which campus is doing more, but about talking. Talking about an issue that need not be taboo. Join the revolution. Join the conversation.

“Never underestimate the ability of a small group of dedicated people to change the world,” Margaret Mead wrote. “Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Love Your Body Week proved to us that this is true. Are you with us?

Leslie Lipton, BC ’09
Marissa Mazek, BC ’10
March 10, 2008

Wellness class discusses fitness, never asks students to calculate body fat

To the Editor:
We would like to respond to a statement made in the March 3 article entitled “Eating Disorders at Barnard Lead to Student, Admin. Rift” by Joy Resmovits. The article states that Barnard’s Wellness class “teaches students to scrutinize food decisions and calculate their body fat, a number that may induce self-consciousness.” As part of our curriculum on physical health, we review the components of fitness, of which body composition is one. We discuss the use and limitations of Height/Weight and Body Mass Index tables and the importance of understanding body composition in determining overall fitness. No student is ever asked or expected to calculate her body fat. In our nutrition module, we respond to student questions on how to make healthy food choices, as this is a challenging aspect of college life. We introduce the MyPyramid.gov interactive assessment tool provided by the United States Department of Agriculture to help all Americans better track their food intake. It is used as an educational tool, like many other assessments, to help students become aware of their food choices as related to nationally-recommended guidelines. We are available to answer any questions from the community about our Wellness curriculum and goals.

We originally submitted this letter on Wednesday, March 5. We were informed by Spectator that due to aesthetic concerns about layout, the letter could not be published for over two weeks until additional letters were received. We regret that style overcame substance in this instance when a more timely publication of this letter could have joined the discourse on Eating Disorders Awareness Week, which Spectator’s editors commented on themselves in the March 7 edition.

Lisa Northrop and George Padilla
Barnard Physical Education Faculty
March 12, 2008

Editor’s Note:
I’d like to clarify two points brought up at the end of this letter. First, we try to run letters as often as possible on the Editorial Page. We received the first version of this letter on March 5. Letters had appeared in that day’s paper, and because Spectator entered suspended production the following week due to midterms, today is the first opportunity to run letters after spring break. Secondly, all editorials are written by the members of the Editorial Board and not the Spectator editors. If you have comments or concerns, I encourage you to send your letter to Opinion@columbiaspectator.com
-Miriam Krule
Editorial Page Editor

Language used in Spectator’s coverage of financial aid plans perpetuates biases

To the Editor:
It was heartening to hear of Columbia’s recently-proposed expansion of financial aid (“Ambitious Reforms Come at a Steep but ‘Reasonable’ Price,” March 10) Yes, international and General Studies students still remain relatively excluded. And yes, it does seem rather more motivated by keeping up with the Ivy League Joneses than by an honest commitment to making the school more accessible and affordable. Despite this, it remains positive step towards rectifying the class bias that is all too prevalent in higher education today.

It is then unfortunate that Spectator still perpetrates said biases in its coverage of the announcement. I was concerned to come across the phrase “lower class” in Joy Resmovits’ article, “Ambitious Reforms Come at a Steep but “Reasonable” Price.” In an opinion article, this may be taken to mean that, as implied, the writer does ostensibly equate lower incomes with being of a “lower class.” Somewhat shockingly, this was however a news article. “Impartial journalism” this is not. Perhaps this is being overly politically correct. Yet as a newspaper that purports to adhere to any standards of professionalism, perhaps Spectator would do well to examine its own biases?

Rahel Aima CC ’10
March 12, 2008

‘68 article ignores historical context, minimizes student success

To the Editor:
As someone actually present and participating in the events of April ’68 at Columbia, unlike Professor Todd Gitlin, I feel compelled to respond to the calumnies and distortions presented in his “Echoes of ’68” (March 24). Professor Gitlin has made a career of denouncing the militants of ’68 whose “moral giddiness” he holds responsible for prolonging the war in Vietnam and cementing two decades of Republican hegemony. His moral obtuseness is evident in his first paragraph’s reference to clashing “ignorant armies,” a shameful bit of moral equivalence between those who wielded state power and those who opposed its murderous policies.

While he decries “a culture allergic to history” and “memories plucked out of context,” it is he who apparently suffers from historical amnesia. He discusses events of 1968 as if they burst force from the thigh of Zeus, unconnected to the events that preceded them and in isolation from the worldwide upheavals from Paris to Prague, Mexico to Vietnam, that framed and influenced them. Does he really not recall that in 1964, Students for a Democratic Society’s slogan was “part of the way with LBJ”? He ignores the effects of seeing 1964’s “peace candidate” escalate the slaughter in Southeast Asia. It was the policies of the Democratic Party, and Humphrey’s refusal to break from them, not the demonstrators in Chicago that “helped sabotage the Party,” to say nothing of the almost 10 million white voters who voted for George Wallace. He praises the “practicality” of today’s students. There were plenty of practical students then who saw their dreams of Gene McCarthy’s triumph in New Hampshire turn into blood on the streets of Chicago. I fervently hope today’s students for Obama won’t suffer a similar denouement.

It is a perfidious libel to claim, as psychologist Bruno Bettelheim did back then, that our protests were simply an exercise in spoiled brats’ demands for self-expression. In our desperation to stop an ever escalating war, horrendous mistakes were made. One can’t deny that a self-righteous sense of moral superiority and a guilt-driven gut-checking that demanded ever-escalating militancy distorted the ability to understand the objective reality of the situation. But like Spartacus or Nat Turner the need to revolt, even if objectively doomed to fail, are not necessarily failures. Even Gitlin is forced to acknowledge that the revolts of the ’60s “left the country freer, properly chastened, and closer to a more perfect union” and were “morally necessary torrents of justice and reason.” We ended legal segregation. We ended the idea that women were second-class citizens. The gay liberation movement had its roots in the sexual revolution of that era. The battles we won during that period cannot be reversed. As my dear friend Abbie Hoffman put it in his last public speech, “We were young, we were reckless, arrogant, silly, headstrong—and we were right!”

Justice Gustin Reichbach, Law ’70
March 26, 2008

Athletes value support of dance team, cheerleaders, fans, and band

To the Editor:
All of us in the athletics program appreciate the Columbia Daily Spectator’s call for increased school spirit at Columbia (“The Lions’ Pride,” March 25) and better student attendance at our athletics contests. We are so proud of the accomplishments of all of our 29 varsity teams and all of our student athletes. Special thanks, as well, to our coaches and staff members who work so hard on behalf of the University and the athletics program.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the Columbia community for their support of our athletics program this academic year. We are especially appreciative of the students who contribute so much to making our events the most energetic and entertaining in the Ivy League. Special thanks to the Columbia cheerleaders and dance team, the members of the Columbia band, and of course, our mascot Roar-ee! Your dedication to the Lions is an inspiration to all.

I would also like to thank the members of the Columbia student body and our faculty and staff—as well as all of our fans, friends, parents, and alumni—who have attended our athletics contests throughout the academic year. The young men and women who compete for Columbia in our athletics program are always appreciative of your support.
We are committed to building a successful athletics program at that achieves and sustains competitive excellence in all of our 29 varsity sports programs, within the Ivy League and beyond. Knowing that Columbia supports its student athletes is so important for our success.

I encourage all Columbians to come out to watch our spring sports teams in action. Your support means so much to all of us. Information about upcoming contests can be found online at www.gocolumbialions.com and on the Columbia Athletics message board located on College Walk.

Thanks so much for your continued support and encouragement.

M. Dianne Murphy
Director, Intercollegiate Athletics and Physical Education
March 27, 2008