(Rebuttal I to Natasha Khan's Pitt News column: "The University's own old boys' club")
Ramesh C. Reddy
Editor in Chief
In a Pitt News column called ‘The University’s own old boy’s club’ written by
Pitt News columnist Natasha Khan on Oct 24, she blames the university for
allowing a particular organization to be certified.
As an ‘angry minority female’ as she referred to herself, Ms. Khan should be against discrimination but she is all about it when it comes to a particular organization called the ‘University Society for the Finer Things’.
She has the audacity to state how offended she is because the university supported this student group to exist and that her activities fee dollars support them.
It seems like she wants the university to discriminate against people who love cigars, scotch, and bow ties. Oh yeah because she gets the distinct feeling that it is an organization where upper class traditionally white males can network and support each other. She is definitely not for that and she is entitled to her opinion!
What she is not entitled to is being the voice for the university to discriminate against this group. Don’t get me wrong, I am not for cigars and scotch but I will support this group any day compared to some of the groups the university has certified.
I have not heard Ms. Khan show her disapproval of groups that actually support killings. Yeah, there are groups in our student organizations that support killings to happen. I guess Ms. Khan does not mind if her activities fee dollars go to support them. In this case, I guess it was ok for the university to certify those organization but for heaven’s sake not the ‘University Society for the Finer Things’. Come on!!
Yeah, cigars and scotch can kill people but the individual taking those has the option of not taking them to keep their health in good condition. Anyway, she mentions about scotch but it is not like she is against drinking.
Ms. Khan served as one of the student leaders of Indian Student Association (ISA) and was instrumental in promoting a lot of parties where drinking was involved. I know because I have been to ISA parties but was frustrated because I wanted good food and not drinks.
As a female, she should know the university is not all about white males since the university has been instrumental in allowing Femminist Collective, Students for Reproductive Freedom and Campus Women’s Organization to be certified and exist as student organizations. If any of those groups went inactive, it is not the university’s fault.
Students for Reproductive Freedom and many members of CWO support a women’s choice to have an abortion. That means a fetus that has the capability of becoming human being is aborted. I don’t hear any cries from her on that. Oh yeah, she is a female who just may be glad that her activities fee goes to support those groups.
Don’t get me wrong, I think CWO does a lot of good things for women and it should be commended for many of their activities but not for activities that promote death indirectly.
Is the university right in supporting those groups, tell me Ms. Khan is it?
You had to pick on the university administration that certifies groups because you just don’t like the ‘University Society for the Finer Things’ and you are upset that the university did not discriminate against this group.
You go as far as to say, “The University needs to set some better guidelines about the types of groups that should be allowed to register as official student organizations.”
Should those guidelines reflect the groups that you think are worthy of your activities fee dollars?
I am sorry to say Ms. Khan that will not happen!
She is quick to give advice to the university on how student groups should be chosen. She brings to the reader’s attention that one of the universities requirements for a group to be a student organization is to "conduct all activities in a manner that contributes to the intellectual, ethical, psychological, and personal growth of its members."
She contradicts herself later when she states, the current Student Organization Resource Center (SORC) methods would have allowed the Ku Klux Klan to set up shop at Pitt under the title ‘Society for White Advancement’
She does not like the University Society for the Finer Things but I find it appalling to compare them with the KKK and accuse the SORC of not knowing what they are doing.
Ms. Khan even if the KKK wanted to set shop at Pitt, what you quoted as one of the universities polices would become their demise. For the KKK does not conduct all activities in a manner that contributes to the intellectual, ethical, psychological and personal growth of its members!
In this situation, it is ok for the university to discriminate because the policies have not been followed but not against the USFT.
As a woman, you know of women that were offended including yourself with the calendar that depicted Pitt women in bikinis. You have a right to be but that does not give you the right to be judge and jury against the university.
Remember, that those Pitt women some of whom are friends of mine were not forced to be on the cover! Many auditioned to have that opportunity and the select few were chosen! I personally would not have advised them to flaunt their bodies for the whole world to see but that is something they felt they wanted to do. They are not any less my friends now because I did not agree with it.
I have not seen the magazine except their pictures in the Pitt News. I did not find their pictures to be offensive. Anyway, if I recall, the organization was very careful in where it would draw the line.
Just because USFT placed those women on the cover and inside their magazine in no way degrades them except if those women did things that went against their conscience.
She closes her column by stating, “There is also a certain income bracket associated with an interest in "the finer things" - the upper class. The president of the organization is found on their Web site wearing a suit and sunglasses and brandishing a freshly cut cigar, epitomizing the ideal of the corporate fat cat.”
Ms. Khan as a minority member, you should know better than stereotyping. It is possible that the president of the organization rented the suit and received the sunglasses and cigars for free. It is also possible that he is of the upper class.
You use the wearing of a suit, sunglasses, and brandishing a freshly cut cigar and make the statement that it epitomizes the ideal of the corporate fat cat. You racially profiled based on your reasoning!
You want to go into business and how would you feel if someone labeled you a corporate fat cat?
As a Muslim, you would not want others to racially profile you as a possible terroristic threat on campus because 99% of the time, we hear it is Muslims that are blowing up things.
As a minority myself, people have racially profiled me as a possible threat thinking I am Muslim even though I am not. The hardest time I had was in Lexington, Ky when I wanted to go to one of the games. Because I had my book bag with me they did an instant search of me and also came back to the seating to find out what I did with my book bag.
That was not a pleasant experience but people make judgments based on what they feel is right. You are making a judgment on this organization and stereotyping them by calling them the university’s own boy’s club.
I think that is so wrong. You know the pain many Muslims face because of stereotyping that you wrote a column to explain more about Islam.
Would you like the USFT to write something for you if your stereotyping of them is wrong?
In closing, there are a lot of student organizations
that I do not support and would not like my activities fees to go to them but it
does. There is nothing I can do now unless a voucher system is established and
each student can state which organization they want to give their money to.
I don’t go around blaming the university for certifying those groups
if the requirements have been met.
Let us remember that it is this same university that has certified organizations that are for same sex benefits even though the university does not adhere to same-sex benefits.
I am proud of the university to stand its ground and not offer same-sex benefits even after all the negative publicity they have taken. I commend them for standing to that particular principle.