OPINION
WWW.GU I LFORDIAN.COM
Pink ribbon rip-olf: corporations exploit cancer, extort cash from consumers
BYTY
GOOCH
StAPP WWTtR
Corporations are milking breast cancer.
Every fall, companies roll out pink-
ribbon product lines that supposedly give
the consumer a chance to support the fight
against breast cancer.
"The pink ribbon has
lost its effectiveness,
becoming merely a
marketing tool to sell
stuff," said breast cancer
activist Nancy Stordahl
in a blog post on bcaction.
com.
Everything comes
in pink. From pink-
ribbon staplers to pink-
ribbon lipstick — even
pink-ribbon Kentucky Fried Chicken —
consumers are given the opportunity to
"support" the fight against breast cancer
with every purchase.
While I could rant for hours on end about
the absurdity of a pink bucket of chicken.
I'll assume you have the two brain cells
it takes to realize the problem here: even
Colonel Sanders knows that the last thing
America needs is a new scheme to sell
deep-fried breasts.
Speaking of breasts, how much are these
companies really doing to protect our hoo-
ha's?
While many companies do indeed
donate a significant portion of their sales, I
say people need to do their research before much as they want you to believe,
they buy. According to the Better Business Bureau,
Reuters reported that the Komen some companies report they donate a
Foundation, the most popular breast cancer certain percentage of sales but put a cap
charity and creator of the pink ribbon on their donation. In other words, once
campaign, only spends 15 percent of its donations reach a certain threshold, the
funds on cancer research. The remaining money stops flowing and ends up in the
money is mainly spent on raising pockets of the corporation,
awareness, fundraising and administration All of that money you^ donated
costs, amongst other
things.
How generous. I'm
sure a cure is right
around the corner,
right?
Well, it's not. And
I'm pissed off.
How dare these
companies lie to our
faces and say they're
"fighting" breast
cancer when they only
spend 15 percent of
their funds on cancer
research? If the greedy
business executive in
charge of this wants to see a real fight. I'll
show him one
"Corporations ore making
money off pink ribbons
while women are paying
with their lives."
Karuna Jaggar, executive
director of Breast Cancer Action
actually be used by
some fat cat executive
to buy his bleach-
blonde daughter a
new pair of implants.
Let's just hope she
doesn't lose them to
breast cancer. Daddy
wouldn't want that
now, would he?
Certainly, I am not
serious when I say I
hope a poor girl gets
breast cancer. But Tm
not joking, either. I'm
dead serious when I
say corporations need
to remove cancerous chemicals from their
products that supposedly support the cause
Don't worry, though; I'll be generous — against cancer.
I'll leave him 15 percent of his manhood. • This contamination of products with
But what about all the money being carcinogens brings me back to my primary
donated? I bet you won't be surprised when claim: that corporations are "milking"
I tell you some corporations don't donate as breast cancer.
"Corporations are making money off '
pink ribbons while women are paying
with their lives," said Executive Director of
Breast Cancer Action Karuna Jaggar in an
article on bcaction.com.
According to Breast Cancer Action, the
very same corporations selling these pink-
ribbon products sell other products laced
with rBGH, an artificial growth hormone
linked to cancer.
"In addition to producing and selling
breast cancer-linked rBGH, Eli Lilly
manufactures Evista to 'prevent' breast
cancer and Gemzar to treat it," wrote a
spokesperson for Breast Cancer Action.
"That's a highly lucrative profit cycle
around breast cancer."
So, with every purchase you make in
your attempt to support the fight against
breast cancer, you are not only being lied
to but are also one more purchase closer
to cancer. If these companies really cared
about ending breast cancer, they'd remove
the carcinogens from their products.
But they don't care and aren't going to
make changes anytime soon, because the
money they make off cancer is, in their
eyes, too much to pass up.
These fat cats put profits above their
mothers' lives.
Corporations aren't curing cancer; they
are causing it. And they're making a hell of
a lot of money in the process.
School board banning of ‘Invisible Man’ shows ignorance
BY EMILY
HAAKSMA
Staff Writir
"I am an invisible man... I am invisible, understand, simply
because people refuse to see me."
So begins Ralph Ellison's highly acclaimed, timeless novel:.
"Invisible Man."
I had the privilege of reading "Invisible
Man" my senior year of high school, and it
left a lasting impression on me.
I was amazed by its continuous,
poignant use of symbolism and by the
artful way which Ellison both criticizes and
commemorates internalized racism.
"It's one of the most symbolically rich
novels in American lit, let alone African
American lit," said Dana Professor
of English Carolyn . Beard Whitlow.
"Every character presents dilemmas and
quandaries that are appropriate for any
yotmg person."
UrSortimately, a force of great ignorance refused to see the
literary value in this novel and threatened its crucial ability to
impact the perspectives of students like me.
This powerhouse of uninformed prejudice is fueled by
North Carolina's very own Randolph County Board of
Education.
The board voted 5-2 on Sept. 16 to pull Ralph Ellison's 1952
literary classic from its schools' shelves.
This move was bred from a mixture of sheer stupidity and
blindness on the part of the board, and I am enraged that
anyone actually believes banning books is a constructive
move.
While the overwhelmingly negative backlash against the
board's decision actually caused the ban to be revoked, the
issue still stands as pertinent and outrageous.
According to Asheboro's Courier Tribune, the board's
decision was spurred by a complaint regarding the book from
Kimiyutta Parson, mother of a Randolph High School 11th
grader.
"I would suggest that that parent take a class," said Whitlow.
I would suggest that Parson wake up and realize that
destroying educational opportunities for kids is not commonly
considered to be good parenting.
"If a parent has an objection to a book, that parent can get a
•
replacement for their child," said Visiting Instructor of English
Caroline McAlister. "When that parent goes to the school
board and tries to get (them) to ban the book so that no one
can read it, then it's a problem because they're imposing their
morality on everyone."
The imposing mindset of Randolph County is greatly
concerning.
"Invisible Man" addresses the concepts of both
institutionalized and internalized racism, and the statement
this controversy makes is that the Randolph County School
System doesn't care about these issues.
Although Parson claimed her complaint revolved around
language and sexual content, more lies xmder the surface of
these accusations.
"There is a covert and unannoimced theme of racism in the
opposition to books like 'Invisible Man,"' said McAlister.
And even if a book is considered inappropriate by
administrators or parents, there are no grounds on which to
ban it.
"People that support the banning of books don't imderstand
that literature is supposed to be disturbing," said McAlister.
"They think that literature is supposed to be happy and
pretty and reinforce the most obvious morals rather than raise
questions."
Books are banned when they make people uncomfortable,
which is all the more reason to read them.
"Books should be read," said Whitlow. "Books should be
discussed. Books should be debated."
This discomfort stems from a recognition of inherent truth,
particularly in the case of such a contentious novel. "Invisible
Man" addresses the unfortunate yet universal theme of radsm
in America.
"A sense of alienation is a very common, maybe ubiquitous,
American experience," said Howard Shepherd, the high
school English teacher responsible for my admiration of
"Invisible Man."
The underlying sentiment of societal estrangement is what
makes "Invisible Man" the quintessential American novel.
"This book shines a light on a lot of very imcomfortable
phenomenon in our culture," said Shepherd.
As students, we must continue to read quality books
promoting discussion and the exchange of ideas. We must
continue to fight against those who refuse to see the validity
of books that make us think.
I?
y^.v
--
Cl
,4^ Mm