The Guilfordian
April 24, 2015 | 9
r^PTNTON
WWW.GUILFORDIAN.COM/OPINION
Rand Paul’s sexism comes to light
1
BYNAARI
HONOR
Staff Writer
My first encounter with Kentucky Senator
Rand Paul occurred in February.
On the flat screen television at my
gym, I watched him ramble on about how
parents had the right to
decide whether or not
their children received
^ immunizations. I knew
study that said
,1 vaccines led to autism
* ' had been debunked due
to faulty science. My first
thought was to tune him
out.
That was until Paul,
who had recendy
announced his candidacy
for the Republican
primaries, held his
fingers to his pursed lips and shushed CNBC
news anchor Kelly Evans.
Evans laughed off the gesture in an attempt
to maintain her composure. I, on the other
hand, felt as if he had personally reprimanded
me, and I looked around to see if my father
had entered the gym. Looking back, the
appropriate response would have been to
remove my earbuds and start a “Gym Rats
against R^d Paul for President” page on
Facebook.
I am not one to make rash decisions; Paul
and I had just met. So, instead I did what
anyone would do after a first date — Internet
stalking.
I was drawn to the comments left below
the video clip of the Evans interview. Much
of what I read discussed Evans’ capacity for
using her mouth for other things not worthy
of mentioning here, how wrong she was for
not allowing Paul to speak, how she needed
to be put in her place and other chauvinist
ideologies that brought me fear.
If Paul was able to attract every misogynist
on the planet from one unintelligent display
on national television, surely he should not be
allowed to run a country. We could, however,
call him Grand Marshd and let him lead a
parade, but let’s make sure he bypasses 1600
Pennsylvania Ave.
While the masses slowly began to question
if Paul had an issue with the media due to
his somewhat combative actions during his
Evans interview, those questions turned into
sometliing more once he went to war with the
NBC Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie
on April 8.
During the interview, Paul repeatedly
interrupted her, gg^^sed Guthrie * of
editorializing and basically schooled her on”
proper interviewing techniques.
While some still wondered if Paul had a
problem with the media, I began to wonder
if he had an issue with women in general. It
was as if he was on his own personal crusade
to put women in his perceived place for them.
Presidential hopef^il Rand Paul came under criticism after interrupting a female news anchor.
one interview at a time.
"You get ticked off, grab your pitchfork
and go into politics,” said Assistant Professor
of Political Science Robert Duncan.
Duncan’s words raged through my ears.
However, I wasn’t quite ready to sharpen my
pitchfork just yet and jump into the wagon
with the rest of the townspeople.
Instead, I continued my undercover work
via Google and came across an interview on
abortion that Paul had with Philip Elliott
from The Associated Press.
I noticed that while he may have been
shghdy short with Elliott, it was nothing
compared to the intcndev/s he had with
women. -
When he spoke to women he came off as-
antagonistic and he would not allow them to
finish their statements before feeling the need
to step in to correct them.
“I notice that he doesn’t answer the
questions being asked of him, and he is
particularly combative when speaking with
female news anchors,” said Rebecca Gibian
T3,' former Guilfordian editor-inhief and
journalism student in University of Southern
California’s master’s program.
When Paul spoke with Elliott, he started
off in a calm state and his shoulders were
relaxed. He waited until the question was
complete before he answered and did not
appear defensive during the interview.
“I think I’ve been universally short-
tempered and testy with both male and female
reporters,” Paul said to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
While that may be what Paul is saying to
male reporters, his words to the women tell a
different story. He seems to be projecting his
internalized misogyny.
“There are only three ways to change one’s
deeply held values: if they study and learn
something different, if they have a significantly
emotional experience or if they have a frontal
lobotomy,” said Dimcan.
As a journalist, I have always felt safe
within my field until I encountered Paul, an
individual who thinks of himself as a giant
and claims to be a man.
Staff Editorial
Calling for pay equality and transparency
A time of extreme stress
and frustration calls for
conversation. As the reality
of the deficit and unequal pay
at Guilford hits home, we are
relieved to have open forums
to discuss what our college
is going through. Student
forums like the one President
Jane Fernandes led on Monday
encourage a sense of openness,
and we, as students, ask that
this transparency becomes
an indispensable part of the
restructuring process.
This crisis also provides
an opportunity to look
X at our Guilford College
values: community, diversity,
equality, excellence, integrity,
stewardship and justice. As the
Q College finds its identity and
we move to recover from this
budget crisis, we must hold
ourselves accountable for how
we live out our values.
One potential way to
uphold these values is to
implement an equitable wage
plan that lessens the inequality
on our campus. One possible
plan would tie the highest
paid Guilford employees to
the salaries of the lowest paid.
This way, if one salary was
shifted, they all would change.
Not only would this kind of
wage plan help eliminate the
excessive amount of money
spent on administrative
salaries, but it would also
foster a more collective
and trusting community at
Guilford. We can look to
models such as the St. Mary’s
College proposed fair wage
plan for guidance.
As community members,
we should make sure to take
part in the conversations that
influence Guilford’s future.
This includes participating
in public discussion and
staying informed on the
college’s status even as we
move into summer. We ask
the administration to ensure
that Guilford community
members who cannot be on
campus for major decisions
have access to up-to-date plans
for potential policy changes
in the form of email or other
communication.
All should use this
opportunity to speak up
and organize together. Those
with questions, concerns and
ideas about the future of the
college should make sure to be
heard. Open forums are one
opportunity for conversation,
but community members can
also email ideas@guilford.edu
to share their thoughts with
the administration.
As we struggle to understand
how our college will survive
the budget deficit and also
resolve pay inequality, it is
important to remember what
drives our identity as Guilford
community members. In
actively participating in the
ongoing discussion, we should
intentionally create policies
that reflect our core values and
step forward with integrity.
Reflecting Guilford College's core Quaker values, the topics and content of Staff Editorials are chosen through consensus of all
14 EDITORS AND ONE FACULTY ADVISER OF ThE GuILFORDIAN's EDITORIAL BOARD.
BY SOMMER
FANNEY
Staff Writer
FCC ruling
ensures net
neutrality
FCC PROTECTION SAVES
INTERNET FREEDOM
In March, the Federal Communications
Commission reclassified the Internet from an
information service to a telecommunication
service. This ruling will ensure the permanence
of open Internet by giving
the FCC more room than
ever to regulate Internet
service providers.
The need for keeping an
open internet fails under
the idea of net neutrality.
“Basically... the concept
(of net neutrality is that)
companies that handle
internet traffic cannot filter
certain kinds of traffic to
give preferential treatment
to (companies like) Google
or Yahoo,” said Brian
Grimes, who works for IT&S.
What this means is that Internet Service
Providers, like Verizon and Time Warner Cable,
cannot favor some sites and companies by
speeding up their content or hinder other sites
by blocking or slowing theirs.
If an ISP could slow a competitor’s service,
think of the power Time Warner Cable would
have over NetfUx. ISPs could also charge
companies in exchange for faster service and
delegate slower service to those that cannot pay.
Dividing Internet service into fast and slow
lanes would prompt Internet users to view faster
sites over slower ones they may have otherwise
used. Similarly, some companies would have a
competitive advantage over others depending
on how much money they can spare to pay
fees. Any of this would jeopardize the Internet’s
freedom and openness.
While some may argue that these new rules
give the FCC too much power to regulate ISPs,
they are necessary. Preserving net neutrality
will keep the Internet free from bias by big
companies and friendly for innovators, startup
companies and new ideas.
David Karp, the founder of Tumbh, wrote
a Politico article in which he explains how
net neutrality keeps the Internet fertile for
innovation. ...
“Using the Internet, people can turn hobbies
into jobs and passion into revenue,” said
Karp. “No matter how big or small anyone’s
ambitions, and no matter what their resources,
(everyone) gets the same opportunity to
succeed.”
In addition, the FCC claims it will use a
light touch in regulating ISPs by only putting
into practice a fraction of the regulations
usually reserved for utilities classified under
telecommunications.
First-year Ezra Stark thinks there are
advantages and downsides to the ruling.
“From where I see it, the government should
be involved in making sure the Internet is open,
like with net neutrality,” said Stark. “But I don’t
know about regulating the Internet like a utility
or the FCC using a ‘light touch’ to regulate.”
I believe the light touch is the FCC’s best
option. The FCC is clearly committed to
maintaining net neutrality with only as much
government regulation as needed.
The arguments made against the ruling have
come from ISPs themselves. Verizon made an
argument that the FCC was making this ruling
in its own interest.
Still, I would rather put my trust in the FCC
than Verizon. While it is doubtful that the FCC
created this ruling to serve themselves, it is clear
that ISPs could profit if there is less regulation
in place.
Considering this, is quite likely that the light
touch regulatory hand is in place to appease
ISPs and courts since lawsuits are already
underway from companies upset with increased
regulation. To turn the full power of Title II, or
telecommunications regulations, on ISPs would
surely prompt even more lawsuits.
However, overall this ruling is the FCC’s best
choice. It is better to ensure net neutrality than
to leave the freedom of the Internet in jeppardy.