r
10
WWW.GUILFORDIAN.COM
FORUM
NO MORi BIG BAD WOlVES
By Sari Schutrum-Boward
Staff Writer
Students go to college believ
ing they are going to finally have
a chance to be on their own, until
they reach college and the real
ity hits them that there are still
rules. They then tend to believe that
Public Safety employees are the big
bad wolves of the campus.
However, I had a chance to ride
with a Public Safety employee and
I saw that they are just t^ng to
maintain a safe environment.
I bundled up, grabbed my
notebook and pen, and ran out
of my dorm for my Friday-night
run with Public Safety employee
Staci Doolittle. Honestly, I was not
sure what to expect. Since these
employees have a lot of enforce
ment power, I was interested in
observing whether they abuse it.
However, through first hand expe
rience, I learned that Public Safety
officers don't.
As I ventured to the Public Safety
office. Public Safety Coordinator
Keifer Bradshaw welcomed me, and
informed me that I was going to do
the run with Doolittle. On our way
to meet Doolittle, Bradshaw shared
with me some information about
Public Safety. For example, there are
only two employees on duty every
night and three when the nights
are busy, such as homecoming and
Serendipity.
Bradshaw introduced me to
Doolittle, a bubbly woman who
seemed excited to have me along.
I hopped into the golf cart and we
ventured to Frank Family Science
Center. We walked around Frank
while she locked the doors and
turned off the lights.
While she showed me what her
job entails, we talked, and not once
did I believe she became a Public
Safety employee to write people
up. instead, I saw her doing her
job helping students stay safe and
keeping our community secure.
When Doolittle needs to write a
student up, she explains to the stu
dent the reasons why. She compares
this job to being a parent, which
gave me a better understanding
of why students get written up.
Parents set guidelines to keep their
children safe. Public Safety officers
want to protect students as if the
students were their own children.
Doolittle graduated from
Guilford in May and has worked
here for two months. She has two
sons who are 14 and 17. She under
stands that students are going to
experiment with alcohol and drugs
and she wants to make sure that
everyone stays safe.
College is a time for students
to discover themselves. I am glad
Doolittle - and, I hope, the other
Public Safety employees - under
stand and keep that in mind.
The last few minutes of my ride
with Doolittle, we drove through
the parking lot of Binford Hall and
came upon a box, inside of it a
paper bag with some foil and other
trash. Doolittle picked up the trash
and put it into the back of the cart.
This is what she does: she and the
other Public Safety employees keep
this community clean. They make
sure that the students they serve do
not end up like abandoned trash in
the middle of a parking lot.
FEMA, something's missing
By Tim Cox
Staff Writer
utes' notice wasn't enough for the lazy
Washington media. Granted, it is a little
unusual to hold a press conference without
Recently, we here at The Guilfordian any press, but they got the conference part
received the following letter: down, right?
When no reporters showed up after 15
Dear Guilfordian, minutes, FEMA really didn't have a choice.
Having FEMA employees pretend to be
First of all, as an impartial reader, I would reporters and ask their boss questions was
like to congratulate you on the consistent the only thing to do. They couldn't just can-
quality of your publication. Your articles are cel the press conference, not after making a
all clearly well-researched and written. I promise.
especially admire the authenticity and trust- A lot of people, such as FEMA head
worthiness of The Guilfordian. Anyway, I was David Paulison, had a problem with this
wondering, could one of the fine young writ- press conference. They claim there is some-
ers at The Guilfordian share their thoughts
on FEMA’s recent press conference at which
employees posed as reporters?
Sincerely
An anonymous reader who has no
connection with the paper
thing wrong with giving the press fifteen
minutes notice and a phone number at
which they can listen to the conference, but
not ask questions.
Paulison said the press conference,
arranged by FEMA's director of external
affairs, Pat Philbin, was "a breach of ethical
practice that tore at the credibility of FEMA,
That's a great question. Josh Cohen. For the deputy administrator and that of their
those who don't know, on Tuesday, Oct. own office."
23, the Federal Emergency Management It's easy to focus on the negative aspects
Agency (FEMA), held a press conference to of this, like the dishonesty and deceit. Sure,
take questions relating to their handling of you could claim that it shows complete
the C^fomia wildfires. contempt for the media and maybe even the
Considering how busy FEMA was at the American people. But look at the positive
time, it was very gracious of them to oi^a- aspects.
nize a last-minute press conference at which In a traditional pr^s conference, one at
Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, FEMA's dep- which the press is present, all kinds of things
uty administrator, answered questions. could go wrong. Some reporter might ask a
Those present asked the usual questions, question that the official is not prepared for.
"Are you happy with FEMA's response?" That just makes everyone look bad. The offi
He gave complete disclosure about
how FEMA didn't screw up this time.
■'Can you
address a little
bit what it means
to have the
president issue
an emergency
declaration as
opposed to a
major-disaster
declaration?" "What's it like to be the head
of such an awesome government agency?"
"Will you go out with me?"
You know, the important questions.
Johnson took these hard-hitting inquiries
in stride, giving the people the information
they wanted to know. He gave complete
disdosure about how FEMA didn't screw
up this time.
It all went really well, so imagine
Johnson's surprise when journalists starting
complaining about it.
It's not really FEMA's fault that 15 min-
dal holding the
conference looks
either unin
formed or dis
honest, and the
reporter looks
like a big bully.
Or they might
ruin the mood
by asking some real downer question, one
without an uplifting answer.
"I think it's a great idea," said Jeff Jeske,
Dana professor of English and certainly
not the faculty advisor to The Guilfordian.
"I wish I'd thought of it. Classes would go
much smoother without any students."
A press-less conference is easier to orga
nize, can be held within a few minutes of
being announced, and leaves everyone feel
ing much better about the way things are
going. I wouldn't be surprised if it caught on
in other branches of government.
Doomed to selfishness
By Jake Blumgart
Senior Writer
No one wants to be called selfish.
This is too bad, because according to an
increasingly large segment of the scien
tific-intellectual community, selfishness
is an unchangeable part of human nature.
We are doomed to it, by the very nature
of evolution.
The significance of evolution is widely
misunderstood in our culture and the
fault lies with the overzealous attitudes
and language of some of our most promi
nent and well-
science
respected
writers.
The unclear
and overconfident
prose used by these
ultra-Darwinists
has created a wel
ter of cultural mis-
conceptions about
the implications of evolutionary theory.
The most pernicious of these myths is the
idea that human beings are inherently,
and unchangeably, selfish.
"(Humans), and all other animals, are
machines created by our genes," said
Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene," a
seminal text for ultra-Darwinists. "A suc
cessful gene is ruthless(ly) selfish ... gene
selfishness ... give(s) rise to selfishness in
individual behavior."
Evolutionary psychology takes this
ethos to its logical conclusion; all behav
ior is just a way for our genes to propa
gate themselves. According to this theory,
altruism and love are actually uncon
scious selfish motives.
"Our generosity and affection have a
narrow underlying purpose," said Robert
Wright in "The Moral Animal." "They're
aimed either at kin, who share our genes,
at non-kin of the opposite sex who can
help us package our genes for shipment
to the next generation, or at non-kin of
either sex who seem likely to return the
favor."
The idea that humanity is irredeem
ably selfish has been a part of Western
culture for centuries, from the earliest
Christian theologians to Thomas Hobbes.
St. Augustine wrote, "there is none free
from sin, not even the infant who has
lived but a day upon this earth."
But those who would scoff at original
Human beings ore inherently,
and unchangeably, selfish.
sin take the idea that their genes have
programmed them to be selfish very seri
ously because it is "scientific." This isn't
an exaggeration — just look at the Aug.
2 issue of The Economist, which claimed
that altruism was merely an advertise
ment for the high quality of one's genes.
Scientists hold great sway in our soci
ety. Their word is trusted above what is
perceived as the mystifying relativism
of the humanities. Accordingly, scientists
have a great responsibility to write clear
ly and carefully. But the ultra-Darwinists
instead misuse language, and create a
desperately bleak
view of human life
in the process.
This is because
ultra-Darwinists
use words like
"selfish" and
"manipulation"
incorrectly. There
has to be inten
tional purpose behind an action for it to
be selfish or manipulative. But the ultra-
Darwinists' writing seems to insist that
"selfish" evolutionary motives underlie
(and, it is implied, falsify) behaviors such
as altruism and love.
Language shapes the way we look at
the world and the way we understand
abstract concepts. Dawkins could just
as easily write of genes cooperating and
helping humans. But he doesn't, and the
ultra-Darwinists draw conclusions from
his selfish gene theory that they attempt
to apply to the real world. Dawkins'
metaphorically selfish genes result in the
Augustinian belief that we are born self
ish.
The non-intentional forces of evolu
tion have shaped our bodies, and yes, our
minds, through hereditary units known
as genes (which are also non-intentional).
There is no such thing as an evolutionary
motive or an evolutionary perspective
— there is just the way evolution works.
How we got here is not the same as what
we are. Humans are intentional. We can
choose to act selfishly, altruistically, or
anywhere in between.
Evolution doesn't need to be frighten
ing or disturbing. It has given us a greater
understanding of the origins of life than
anything penned before 1859, and we
need writers who can do Darwin's theory
justice.