LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Non-descrimination policy needs clarification, update

Dear Editor,

Anyone who has… Non-descrimination policy needs clarification, update

Dear Editor,

Anyone who has ever looked at Pitt’s non-discrimination policy has probably been intimidated by it. I certainly was the first time I really read through it: “race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, disability or status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era.” Try saying that all in one breath! And yet, it is still not long enough.

No matter how many groups we delineate in the policy, someone will still be left out. Over time, new groups come to the attention of the administration, and the policy is amended. Currently on our campus and in our nation, discrimination and harassment based on gender identity and expression have become issues worthy of attention. The group most obviously affected by this is the transgender community, but it also affects every part of the campus population: the woman who is not taken seriously by her male professor, the male athlete who is discouraged from taking honors courses, the heterosexual man who wears his hair long and has his masculinity attacked.

A growing number of students believe that the university should add “actual or perceived gender identity and expression” to the list of prohibited causes for discrimination. As of March 27, more than 450 students had joined a Facebook group in support of the amendment. At the SGB town hall meeting on Tuesday, March 20, each member of the board pledged support for the change.

More than 75 other colleges and universities across the United States already protect against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression. If Pitt wants to stay competitive among major universities, we must follow suit. Every Ivy League school has made this change, as have Penn State and Carnegie Mellon. Fifty-five percent of the top 50 colleges and universities include gender identity and expression in their policies. There is no reason for Pitt to lag behind, especially as a leading university that should set an example for other schools.

Adding gender identity and expression to our non-discrimination policy will also help to recruit top students out of high school. Many students who are concerned about social policy already will not enroll in a university that does not have an LGBT student group, such as Pitt’s Rainbow Alliance. Now that so many schools are expanding their non-discrimination policies, these students will be able to choose from plenty of other colleges in varied settings if they want to show their support for this issue. Furthermore, if Pitt is truly committed to increasing diversity on our campus, a goal outlined on the Student Affairs Web site, we must extend equal rights to all individuals.

The most important result of protecting against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression will be greater safety for every member of our campus community. Adding this language to university policy will provide for stronger defense against discrimination and harassment for everyone who faces challenges because of gender. The need to protect students from discrimination is an essential one; students should not pay thousands of dollars to attend a university only to feel unwanted, isolated and threatened.

I hope every member of the Pitt community will demonstrate their support for this necessary amendment to our university’s policy. We are a welcoming community and we want everyone to feel safe: let all our policies reflect that.

Kelly Coburn Political Action Chair Rainbow Alliance

Bush-bashing not always necessary

Dear Editor,

I was a bit befuddled by yesterday’s editorial titled, “Lions and Tigers and Clones, Oh My.” The one thing that the writers made very clear is that they had to bash Bush somewhere in the article. But why it was necessary was still unclear. The story dealt with British researchers, not with U.S. policy. Something that the article did not point out was that the United Kingdom is one of the most lenient countries in the world when it comes to stem cell research.

After not mentioning this you then quote Cibelli, a U.S. researcher, out of context, saying that human eggs are hard to come by. Again here I am confused, is Cibelli commenting on the climate in Great Britain, or was this tidbit just thrown in for a good quote?

Also, if the UK is at the forefront of embryonic research, why are they turning to mixing human and animal DNA? Do they have the same problem that Cibelli wrote about, or are they just excited about this advancement? Lastly, is it then your position that we should be combining human and animal DNA as a way of circumventing current laws? If so, is that not a major slap in the face to everyone around the world who disagrees with your point of view? (Yes, there are intelligent people who disagree with your general stance).

I am intent upon disagreeing with your opinion, although it would be easier if you made your case a bit more clearly instead of getting toward the end of article and thinking “I haven’t ripped on Bush yet! I’ll lose my credibility!”

Caleb Woods Senior HPS