Feature

Big Boobs Speak for Themselves

What do you get when four guys, a bad joke and nation full of angry women? Neticide.

Evan Camps, Brian Waldman, Rikus Linschoten and Pat Sicher have more to worry about than passing their midterm exams. The young men's reputations are at stake. Women across the nation are calling for their "heads" on a silver platter.

The e-mail message entitled 75 Reasons Why Women (Bitches) Should Not Have Freedom of Speech originated from Cornell University, but managed to spread far beyond the confines of the school. The authors, four Cornell freshmen, are quite sorry they put their names and e-mail addresses at the bottom of the list. The self-entitled "Four Players of Cornell" had only meant for the message to reach a few select friends. It did much more than that.

Those friends forwarded the list to others, and so on. Inevitably, the list reached unfriendly territory such as campus women's groups and feminist organizations. The offended women sent it across the Internet in an impressive mass distribution effort.

The four men never counted on Bryn Mawr College receiving the list hours before a "Take Back the Night" rally. There was an attempt to "Take Back the Internet" put forth by the all-girl school, according to the Boston Globe. Bryn Mawr and Boston College's women's center are both reported to be responsible for spearheading the mass distribution.

The list, which is included in this article, contains many inflammatory statements ranging from hilarious to ribald. Most women found them to be the latter. Number 38, "If she can't speak, she can't cry rape" became their anthem against misogynistic thought.

The authors, of course, where inundated with e-mail. The Cornell Daily Sun reported that even David Lambert, vice president of Cornell Information Technologies, was receiving 30 e-mail messages an hour at the peak of the controversy. Barbara Krause, the Judicial Administrator at Cornell, described reactions from around the country. "Some people, angry and offended, subjected the four students to threats of death, other bodily harm, e-mail "bombings," and even threats to "bring down" Cornell's entire e-mail system.

Some women responded with genuine concern. Some bothered explaining why they found the list offensive. Many just responded with counterattacks.

One Portland woman wrote, "Men like you should not have the opportunity to reproduce," while a Seattle student was "in favor of kicking their butts out of school." In a forward of the list, a woman from Vermont asked, "Can someone please flame these guys, or file sexual harassment charges against them or something?" A law student, whose post was found at Cornell's Feminist Majority Web Site, asked for help in tracking down the parents of the four men.

The university was overwhelmed with responses and was urged to take disciplinary action against the freshmen. There is no hate speech code at Cornell. Barbara Krause had to determine whether the school's computer resources had been misused or if the men had committed sexual harassment.

The New York Times published an article (Nov. 15) about the school's decision to pursue the issue. The ACLU delivered their own response to Cornell based upon the facts reported in the Times. In a brilliant defense of the First Amendment, the ACLU confronted the university officials with the fundamental principles of free speech regarding sexual harassment. The letter stated that "Cornell has no power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter or content." They reminded the officials that "e-mail would not constitute actionable harassment under any applicable federal or New York State law."

Hate speech, such as sexually offensive speech, is protected under the First Amendment unless it becomes direct discriminatory harassment. That would mean that one of the original recipients of the list would need to file a complaint in order for the sexual harassment charges to be valid. Those people, being friends of the authors, did not file any charges.

The ACLU urged the officials not to proceed and suggested that they "confront directly these students' ideas and to speak out against sexism." The ACLU encouraged the administration to remember that there "is no place where the marketplace theory of free expression must be more honored and practiced than on a college campus."

Barbara Krause released a statement to the community regarding the Judicial Administration's decision in the case. Her office found that the four men did not commit sexual harassment. They "did not send the list to specified groups in order to anger or offend them, nor did they float the list randomly over the Internet."

She concluded that the students could not be found guilty of misusing the computer resources because the university policies do not prohibit hate speech. She stated that the university's policies "reaffirm the concept of free speech and recognize that certain messages may have to be tolerated in a community which values the right of all to speak freely."

According to the Cornell Daily Sun, penalties for cases referred to the Judicial Administration Office range from letters of apology to community service. Only in extreme situations are students faced with dismissal.

Although the young men were found innocent of committing any offenses, they "voluntarily" agreed to attend Cornell's "Sex at 7" program, a rape education project. They each "volunteered" to fifty hours of community service. The school suggested it should be performed at an agency with a primary focus in sexual assault or rape crisis.

They also agreed to deliver a personal apology to Cornell's senior administrators. The men would "express regret for their actions and for the embarrassment and disruption caused to the University" in their apology, Krause wrote in her statement. In addition, the four men wrote a letter of public apology which was published in the student paper.

The apology, written as a letter to the editor, was self-degrading. The authors expressed "deep remorse" but also called themselves "stupid." They said that they are "sick to their stomachs" over the infamous list. They even went as far as to say that they "did not mean what they wrote."

At first glance, it seems as if the Judicial Administration imposed the standard punishment on the four men despite the published statement. Openly violating constitutional rights would not have been a prudent move for Cornell. The school could only suggest that the men participate in punishing themselves.

Cornell has made an example of these men by suggesting that though the law protects them, they still committed an atrocity and must be "voluntarily" disciplined.

This belief that "free speech is great, but..." is more revolting than anything these men could have written. The right these freshmen have to produce a misogynistic list about women is the same right that allows women to respond in kind, a right many women exercised.

The self-inflicted punishment these men agreed to suggests that they are rapists of the mind. The law believes there is a difference between making a vulgar joke about rape and actually violating someone's body. There is a clear line between thought and action.

Evidently that Cornell administration and many women across the nation buy into a "thought police" mentality. Worse yet, these men bought into it as well. This is America. From now on, identity and thought belong to the easily offended.

There was obviously no ground for disciplinary action, so why did the four men agree to make themselves look guilty?

Caving under pressure from the university and community at large shows nothing more than a lack of backbone. The only thing these men said in their own defense was in relation to popular culture: "We have seen almost everything on that list in some kind of TV show, rap song, Internet list and comedian's act, or T-shirt." The cup-o-weakness floweth over.

Acknowledging that you find humor in something that others may find disturbing is much more respectable and noble than backing down and renouncing your rights because someone disagrees. Camps, Waldman, Linschoten and Sicher wrote "75 Reasons..." in which they exercised their First Amendment right in the form of humor. They obviously believed they had a right to make the list.

They could have responded to the furor, "It was a joke, who cares if you laughed or not?" Instead, they dove headfirst into the politically correct cesspool, ankles tied. A feigned search for sensitivity will not erase the list, nor will it make others forget that the list was written.

Admittedly, beliefs change, especially when the prospect of having a date for the next barn dance is unlikely. Accepting the punishment will not make them candidates for meeting a girl's parents anytime soon though. They simply allowed themselves to be used as puppets by Cornell.

If the standard reaction to a freedom of speech case has been established at Cornell, a semi-private conservative school, just imagine the reaction from the University of Oregon and surrounding community. There would be a hanging at high noon in the Breezeway of the EMU, followed by a picnic outside the Hamilton Complex.

There is now way to control what e-mail someone will send. Nor should there be. There is always the option of not reading what you may find offensive.

When you find the contents of written thought distasteful, remember that you had an opportunity to use your mind and decide for yourself that it was unsavory--it is otherwise known as thinking. No one should be disciplined for making other people think..

There are voices of reason being heard. In a response to the article in the Boston Globe, one man wrote, "the Internet is extremely: PUBLIC. These girls who are complaining about it, seem to me like they have begged for a telephone, only to complain that they sometimes receive crank calls... As college students, I am extremely unimpressed with their savvy."

Jessica E. Shebley, a junior majoring in political science, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator

1. She doesn't need to talk to get me a beer.
   
2. If she's in the kitchen like she should be, no one can hear her anyway.
   
3. If she can talk, all she'll do is complain.
   
4. Because she won't say "I will" instead of "I do."
   
5. No man wants to hear "first down" during a basketball game.
   
6. Because PMS is no excuse for whining.
   
7. No man needs or wants to hear the word "period" unless it has to do with hockey.
   
8. Women created tampon and yeast infection commercials during football.
   
9. Affirmative action.
   
10. When men whistle at them in the street, they should just shut up and obey anyway.
    
11. If my dick's in her mouth, she can't talk anyway.
    
12. Oprah.
    
13. Feminists.
    
14. Because that stupid look on her face should not be accompanied by an equally stupid statement.
    
15. The 2nd and 19th Amendments.
    
16. I don't want to be made to lie and say "I love you" after sex.
    
17. Highway fatalities would decrease by over 90%.
    
18. When I sneak out at four in the morning, I don't want to hear anybody calling me back.
    
19. "No, I will NOT buy you tampons while I'm at the store."
    
20. This is my dick. I'm gonna fuck you. No more stupid questions.
    
21. Don't waste your breath, I won't respect you in the morning.
    
22. Women sportscasters.
    
23. Women congressmen.
    
24. God forbid, a woman president. (Oops, my bad--see #66)
    
25. Marge Schott
    
26. Stupid says as stupid does (and is).
    
27. Dykes (unless I can jump in the middle).
    
28. Where does speaking come into "barefoot and pregnant?"
    
29. Yes, that toilet seat was yellow in the first place.
    
30. TLC and Salt-N-Pepa.
    
31. I could give a shit if you're pregnant.
    
32. I don't care if you're in labor. For the love of god, let me sleep.
    
33. Women caused the 18th Amendment.
    
34. The life expectancy of every word goes down with every bitchy word.
    
35. Female drunks are annoying unless they put out (for which they don't need to talk.)
    
36. We're tired of their "We can't pee standing up" shit.
    
37. That damn apple.
    
38. If she can't speak, she can't cry rape.
    
39. Of course, if she can't speak, she can't say no.
    
40. Rosanne. Nuff said.
    
41. Susan Powter. Too much said.
    
42. Honestly, do they really have anything useful to say?
    
43. Only one set of lips should be moving at a time.
    
44. If she can't talk, she can't bitch when I forget important dates.
    
45. There are no speaking parts in pornos anyway.
    
46. When she talks she's not drinking, it's hard to get her drunk when she's talking.
    
47. Nothing should come out of a woman's mouth, SWALLOW BITCH!"
    
48. The Mute button only works on the TV.
    
49. Whores get paid by the hour, not by the word.
    
50. Helen Keller was the ultimate woman.
    
51. Equality is for math.
    
52. The credit card bill speaks for itself.
    
53. If it hurts, I don't wanna hear it.
    
54. Marcia Clark.
    
55. Chick flicks.
    
56. You don't see Victoria's Secret models talking, do you?
    
57. Janet, Mariah, and Whitney.
    
58. Michael Jackson
    
59. Silence and sex make a great combination.
    
60. N.O.W.? NO. NOW BITCH? YES.
    
61. Intelligent car conversation? Hell no. Her head should never be above the dashboard.
    
62. That annoying fat bitch from Snapple.
    
63. Your mouth is useful in so many other ways.
    
64. High phone bills really suck.
    
65. Women should be seen and not heard.
    
66. Do you think it was BILL Clinton who fucked up the country?
    
67. If I want romance, I'll turn on Playboy (hopefully not her).
    
68. Because they're not men.
    
69. 69, finally a use for both lips at the same time.
    
70. If I wanted your opinion, I'd ask for it.
    
71. Hell, if I wanted your opinion, I'd give it to you.
    
72. "Where've you been?" Who the fuck are you, my mother?
    
73. Women on radio? You can't see them, do you really want to hear them?
    
74. Unless the words are "Doctor, can you make these bigger?," shut the fuck up.
    
75. Big breasts should speak for themselves.