No responsibility?

The Wellness Resource Center seems to believe that the action taken by Preston Came and myself somehow severed the flow of safer sex-related, educational information. Let us look closely at the premise.

The contention of the WRC is that they were relating information in a lighthearted, responsible manner. One must question the responsible nature of the center when its own director failed to preview the videotape that was going to be shown in a public place. This videotape showed a scene, on continuous play, of a man vigorously applying a lubricant, in a rapid up and down motion, to a condom, placed over a dildo. There was no voice over, no explanation as to what was occurring. With that in mind, how educational could this truly be?

The responsibility aspect must also be questioned when we realize that the WRC failed to clear the display with Judd Baker, the HSC director. By going through that requirement, the WRC would have learned that he had disallowed a similar display by another group. Moreover, they would have discovered that when a “captive audience” is involved, i.e., an audience that is forced to see something unwillingly, the display will be disallowed. Once again, it is their responsibility in question.

Responsibility also entails foresight so that a situation such as the one outlined above would not occur. It is not a “Damn the Torpedos” attitude, but one of the realization that this is a community of different tastes and preferences which have to be taken into account. The WRC seems to be acting somewhat like children who didn’t get their way; responsible people would have known that that is never true. A responsible person would have realized that during a housing bazaar their display was being forced upon those people sitting in tables that faced it. Even the WRC Director Michael Haines found that to be overkill. They might have seen that the HSC is the centerpiece of activity on the campus, where not just students pass. They might have predicted that there would be a child who yelled “Balloon!” and grabbed a helium inflated condom, only to have his mother pull him back in horror.

Further, please explain the educative function of inflated condoms—testing their viscosity? The WRC could have guessed that the father and mother with prospective student, in the orientation group who said as I stood there, “Sensual Succulence, what sort of university is this?” Once more I have to ask, explain the informational benefit of a display which states “DELICIOUS! FRUIT FLAVORED! CONDOM COMPATIBLE!”

As important as this information may be, it could have been dispensed in a less intrusive manner. There is no appeasement of the minority going on here, just a response to complaints, if being responsible to all those who come onto our campus is wrong, then the WRC is just as guilty.

Michael L. Starzec


Poli Sci/History

Preston C. Came


Poli Sci