Letters to the Editor _(_The Tech received a copy of the following letter addressed to Associate Dean for Student Affairs James R. Tewhey.) _In my time as a student here at MIT, there have been a number of occasions when people have complained about the content of party posters. Usually, the complaint has been that the posters in question depicted women in some way that the viewer found vaguely sexual or otherwise insensitive to the feelings of a group within the MIT community. The other day, I was walking through the fourth floor of the Student Center, when I noticed the most blatantly offensive poster I have ever seen on this campus. It includes a cartoon of two naked women in what is described as "an arcane sexual position." This poster isn't just in bad taste; it is overtly obscene, according to every definition of the term I've found. Moreover, it was strategically placed on the outside of the Association for Women Students/Society of Women Engineers office, along the most direct route to the offices of several religious student groups. I think it's reprehensible that a group like GAMIT -- which so loudly calls for more tolerance on campus -- would post something so deliberately inflammatory. If any fraternity had the gall to put a picture of a naked woman outside the AWS/SWE office, it would be crucified; and yet for some reason these people seem to think it's okay to do so themselves. It is MIT's stated policy to encourage tolerance and sensitivity in the community; and this GAMIT poster is an obviously provocative violation of that policy. I have removed it. Consequently, I would like to lodge a formal complaint against GAMIT for distributing this garbage. I trust that this behavior is not indicative of the MIT gay community's general attitude, and hope the officers of GAMIT will have the good grace to admit their mistake without making excuses. Charles E. Roburn '92 ---- Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved. This storied was published on Friday, September 11, 1992. Volume 112, Number 39 The story was printed on page 4. This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details. Letters to the Editor In my time as a student here at MIT, I have noticed a number of party posters which were degrading to women. I have noticed, with pride, a number of creative, pro-women displays of bisexual, lesbian, and gay sexuality and culture. I have also noticed a number of sexist and homophobic attacks masquerading as polite displays of offense. One example of the latter is a letter [``Party Poster Obscene,'' Sept. 11] by Charles E. Roburn `92. I will respond first to the perhaps unfortunate placement of the poster. There are a number of out lesbians and bisexual women active in the Association for Women Students and this poster's primary purpose was to encourage queer women to go to the dance. Therefore, it only made sense to put a poster for queer women where a number of queer women might see it. It is unfortunate that there must be such conflict among student groups whose offices are so close together. As for the rest of Mr. Roburn's letter, there seem to be a few concepts which Mr. Roburn has yet to grasp. In our society, there exists a power difference between men and women and between straights and queers. One expression of this power difference is the ability to control movies, TV shows, and advertising. Because in general, men control these aspects of popular culture, women do not have the power to represent themselves in ways which they find positive and appropriate. Men often exercise their power by representing women in demeaning and degrading ways. This misrepresentation, this degradation, is what is offensive. If we are to have a culture of equality, there must be room for all groups of people to represent themselves as they see fit. When a group of men puts up a poster insulting women, they do not represent themselves, but women. Further, they represent their view of women, not women's ideas of themselves. The difference between this action and the GAMIT poster to which Mr. Roburn takes offense is this: the poster represents lesbians. The artist who drew the cartoon which Mr. Roburn found obscene is a lesbian. I have yet to find a lesbian who finds this poster to be negative misrepresentation or degrading imagery. The picture is not degrading; it is sexual. Sex is not by definition degrading. Rebecca Widom `94 Poster Does Not Objectify Women I speak for myself. I do not represent any person or any group of people (including GAMIT), unlike Mr. Roburn, who seems to think it is his responsibility to speak for every woman at MIT. In his letter, Mr. Roburn attacks with the following four criticisms. He first protests that the poster is offensive. He then asserts that it is "overtly obscene, according to every definition of the term that I've found." He goes on to complain that GAMIT is hypocritical for making the poster when other groups would be "crucified" for distributing it. His final criticism is a declaration that the GAMIT poster is a provocative violation of MIT's stated policy of encouraging tolerance and sensitivity. Mr. Roburn declares that the poster is offensive, but he never provides reason or justification for this claim. He never explicitly declares what it is about the poster that offends him. He does, however, implicitly state that he is offended by what he describes as obscenity within the poster. Obscenity is defined as that which "incites lust or depravity." Depravity describes that which is "marked by corruption or evil." Because Mr. Roburn chooses to use the word obscene rather then words like graphic or explicit, his statement is tantamount to asserting that lesbianism is depraved and evil. This is a concept which I, personally, find blatantly offensive. The GAMIT poster does not attempt to objectify the women depicted within it. Rather, it displays a celebration of consensual lesbian sex. If a fraternity were to include a similar image within one of their posters, it would carry a completely different meaning. The poster would be objectifying lesbians. Instead of setting a positive example of pride, it would be appealing to a male voyeuristic fantasy. This objectification would degrade women and should then be considered highly offensive. The difference is apparent and distinct. We must ask ourselves if these posters hurt anyone. They are a celebration of a group's identity. I urge everyone to understand what this poster is and to respect those responsible for it, rather than condemn them. Robert Meissner `93 ---- Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved. This story was published on Tuesday, September 15, 1992. Volume 112, Number 40 The story was printed on page 4. This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details. Letters to the Editor I feel that I must respond to Matthew H. Hersch's article in Friday's _Tech_ ["Environmental Technology is Still a Little Green," Sept. 11]. In it Hersch states that it is "ludicrous" for cities to require their residents to sort their trash for recycling, and that people should not have to spend more time on their trash than they do now. He goes on to say, "Clearly, the technology exists to separate trash chemically. It is the job of science to discover a way to do it." This implies that curbside recycling should be stopped, and recycling should only continue when we are able to separate trash at some garbage facility. As a chemist, I can guarantee you that chemical separation of post-consumer trash will never become a reality. We don't even presently have the ability to separate three kinds of plastic on a large scale, much less those mixed in with metals, glass, diapers, and potato salad. Secondly, anyone who feels they can't take 90 seconds out of each day to separate their trash has an over-inflated sense of self-worth. Sure, it takes longer to sort trash for recycling, but as members of the human race, we all have an obligation to minimize our negative impact on the environment. If that means taking nine hours each year to redirect material from the landfill to new products, then so be it. Kenneth D. Zemach G Letter Misconstrued I was glad to see my letter printed in _The Tech_ last Friday ["Party Poster Obscene," Sept 11]; however, there was one instance where I think your editing may have changed my intended meaning. At the end of the fourth paragraph, two sentences from my original letter were condensed to "I have removed [the party poster in question]." This sentence was more succinct than my original phrasing, but it may have led people to believe that I removed the poster out of righteous indignation. I removed a single copy of the poster for examination by the Dean's Office, per their request. I want to make it clear that tearing down posters -- no matter how offensive they may seem -- is not acceptable behavior, and I do not condone it. Charles E. Roburn '92 ---- Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved. This story was published on Friday, September 18, 1992. Volume 112, Number 41 The story was printed on page 4. This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details. Letters to the Editor The latest assault of an MIT student does not indicate the dangers of living on an urban campus, but the insensitivity and lack of concern shown by MIT regarding safety. This was not the first time an MIT student was assaulted this year. What surprises me is the effect such an incident has on the MIT community. Life goes on as usual, and no measures are taken to reduce the chances of such instances happening again. We at MIT pride ourselves on being some of the smartest people around, yet we exhibit no spectacular learning behavior after each incident. MIT needs to carefully examine the scenario and to find out what is under the control of the administration and the police department, to reduce the risk the students are exposed to. I propose that MIT seriously consider the following: ¥ Ask students what measures can be taken to increase student safety on campus. ¥ Install bright lights along Memorial Drive and all other streets that students usually use late at night to shuttle between home and work. ¥ Increase the size of the Campus Police and increase the number of patrols, especially on deserted streets. ¥ Enhance Safe Ride to include areas that are not independent living groups. ¥ Start paid student patrols within living groups. Students know who lives in their building, and could be effective guards. ¥ Enhanced surveillance in the garages and all other areas with high incidents of theft. ¥ Install more emergency telephones throughout the campus. ¥ Give whistles to all MIT students to use in case of emergencies. Wasiq Bokhari G Party Poster Letters Miss the Mark I must reply to the two responses to a letter by Charles E. Robin `92 that appeared in _The Tech _["Party Poster Obscene," Sept. 11]. The letters concerned a GAMIT party poster depicting two nude women engaged in sexual activity. I have never seen the poster in question, so perhaps I am not the best judge of its acceptability. But to assert, as Rebecca Widom `94 does in her letter ["GAMIT Poster Misunderstood," Sept. 15], that the poster is acceptable because a lesbian drew it is grossly false. No one has the right to portray other members of his or her group in a potentially offensive manner. Where a question of pornography or "good taste" applies, the standards are the same regardless of the publishing party. I found Robert J. F. Messier '93's letter ["Poster Does Not Objectify Women," Sept. 15] particular upsetting. He claims that Roburn's use of the word "obscene" implies that Roburn considers lesbianism "depraved and evil." This assumption was improper. The question must be asked whether the use of possible pornographic material was justified. Since at least one person objects, and since there is no reason to believe that his objection stems from anything other than an abhorrence for the public display of pornography, the poster, and others like it, should not be put up in the future. Jonathan Katz '96 ---- Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved. This story was published on Sunday, September 20, 1992. Volume 112, Number 42 The story was printed on page 4. This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.