Perhaps even worse, the article contains 6 separate quotations from 3 notable Pro-Choice advocates while only quoting one Pro-life advocate who is simply quoted as saying she will “fight for the rights of the unborn.” The author does not seem to realize that simply recognizing that Pro-Life politicians exist does not count as providing both sides of an argument. Indeed, not a single counter argument was made to the seemingly endless quotes from the administrators of NARAL and Planned Parenthood claiming that defunding Planned
Parenthood is, “playing political Russian Roulette with women’s health services,” and other such ridiculous claims.  I must admit that I am simply amazed this sort of journalism wins national awards. I simply do not know how an article could be more one sided and still claim to simply be “journalism.” This sort of article seems to be entirely recycled Planned Parenthood propaganda better suited for Planned Parenthood’s website than a supposedly informative newspaper. For example, it cites the famous statistics that only 3% Planned
Parenthood’s services constitute abortions. Of course, as the author ought to know and reveal to the reader in this statistic, every single condom provided is counted as an individual service. Thus, no differentiation is made between an abortion and giving out a single condom—clearly this is vastly skewed statistic, but to the DTH simple facts.

With the Woman’s Right to Know Act, the coverage was equally as biased. In a particularly bad article, “NC abortion law sparks controversy” (8/25), once again five people are cited opposing the Act while only N.C. Rep. Paul Stam is quoted in its defense, and once again his recorded comments, unlike those on the opposing side, did not constitute any sort of argument. In good journalistic fashion, the author of this article is quick enough to brand the policy as “controversial,” yet, in typical DTH style, it seems that the author is not very interested in the controversy. What is perhaps most striking about this particular article, however, is what a strong stance it takes on what is a fairly radical Pro-Choice position. It is impossible to pretend that DTH is simply trying to present the mainstream belief. It is actively promoting the most Pro-Abortion legislation which is clearly more interested in providing unlimited access to abortion than protecting women’s health.  Indeed, in actuality the law clearly defends the woman’s access abortion and it only seeks to protect her from coercion and inform her. Moreover, it is equitable and requires that she be informed of the risks of pregnancy as well as those of abortion. Nonetheless, the law does require that a woman talk with her abortionist at least a day before her abortion so in the name of free choice the DTH has declared that a one day wait is a horrific impediment to a woman’s right to
choose.

The article claims that this law is patronizing for women, who I suppose by its logic already know every single detail about abortion and its many potential effects. What the article seems to overlook is the standard medical practice that is at the heart of this Act. For no other major “medical” procedure would it be considered “patronizing” for a doctor to explain all
potential options in advance of the procedure. It seems difficult for me to image how this law, which empowers women with the comprehensive information they deserve in order to make an autonomous decision, is somehow found “patronizing.” Only a clearly Pro-Abortion agenda produces these sorts of conclusions.

The editorial, “The right not to know,” (9/1/2011) at least concedes that “there is nothing wrong with ensuring that all information is available to a women,” but proceeds to make the claim that $60,000 of an over 19 billion dollar state budget will be too “hard to swallow.” I know this article is editorial of a single commentator, but it seems that the DTH must be
either a blatantly pro-abortion newspaper or one that simply is radically anti-woman to publish such an article. Do the author and editors who published the article really think that we
put such a price tag on women’s health? Utter nonsense. Though you would never know it from the DTH, the Pro-Life movement has momentum like never before. Our generation is the statistically most Pro-Life generation since before Roe V. Wade and despite the unprofessional, biased, and often factually incorrect arguments found in the DTH, this movement
is a force in American politics that is here to stay. Indeed, for the first time since Roe V. Wade, more Americans recognize themselves as Pro-Life than Pro-Choice. For once, it would be nice if the DTH would simply recognize and report this reality.

There are words that hold special levels of meaning and importance.  You cannot use “stuff” the same way you use “rights;” you cannot use “good” to properly convey “honorable”.
Unfortunately in our society of social and mass media, we are bombarded with the misuse of words every day.  It is essential words not be misused or misinterpreted in the context of the laws that govern our society.  Peter McClelland’s January 25^th article exemplifies the necessity for proper understanding of words in a legal context regarding the NC Marriage Amendment, and how the Marriage Amendment itself provides an opportunity to reveal and correct misperceptions and lack of understanding regarding the law and our rights as citizens who have agreed to live under the law.  The Equal Protection and the Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Constitution are relevant to the question of marriage laws, however, they do not deny North Carolina the right to propose and pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.

As Mr. McClelland stated, on May 8^th, there will be a referendum on the ballot for all North Carolina voters to decide whether or not the definition of marriage for our state will
remain one man and one woman only.  If the referendum passes, the current statutory definition of marriage will become an Amendment to the Constitution of North Carolina protecting it from reinterpretation by a judge or redefinition by the Legislature.  The referendum places the power in the hands of the people of North Carolina to exercise our most fundamental democratic right regarding the most fundamental building block of our society. Mr. McClelland’s article, “Conservatives, Vote Against the NC Marriage Amendment,” uses the word conservative in an attempt to appeal to all Conservatives, but he mixes his message.  He attempts to use his misguided interpretation of the conservative perspective regarding the size and reach of government, to claim a “true conservative” would “vote no,” while totally disregarding the conservative stance on moral issues.  Individuals who hold themselves out as conservative or who are often labeled conservative wear the badge of conservatism not only as an indication of their stance on the size of the government, but also their moral perspective usually tied to religious beliefs.  Many, if not most, moral conservatives believe marriage is a unique relationship that should remain religiously and legally identified as between one man and one woman.  Therefore, the Marriage Amendment is not only morally conservative, but also universally traditional and in keeping with traditional legal perspectives on marriage.

In regards to personal relationships, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution, “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow for consenting adults to choose the nature of their relationships.  However, the right to those relationships has not been held to entitle us to a status such as marriage recognized by the state. In other words, we as citizens do not have the right for the state to recognize or give status to every kind of relationship we choose to engage in.  In keeping with the law, the Marriage Amendment does not address individual relationships; it merely promotes the current statutorily recognized relationship of marriage to an Amendment to protect the legal definition from being arbitrarily changed by a court or politically fluid legislature. Furthermore, the Amendment, and all 30 in other states, follows the legal precedent of individual states addressing marriage legally as they see fit for their community.

Mr. McClelland proposes the Amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause by utilizing common rhetoric regarding our rights; he states: “it is not the role of the state to decide
who’s rights to pursue happiness it will assist and who’s it will impede”[sic]. Actually, that is exactly what the government’s role is in all areas of law. At its most basic function, government exists to promote the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens which often is at odds with some of its citizens’ happiness, and this is true with marriage. All laws regarding marriage vary from state to state and dictate when, how, and to whom (or to what) people may marry. While it is comfortable to think our personal relationships do not impact others, the reality is they do and this is why the state is involved.  Furthermore, the state has never set laws on marriage due to an interest in our happiness.  Rather, government is only involved in marriage as a result of interests in the stability of society, including economic stability, and the welfare of children.  Frankly, the government could care less whether we are in love or happy; the government is interested in our health, safety, and welfare.  For example, some Mormons have a personal religious interest in polygamy, yet polygamy is illegal due to the health, safety, and welfare interests involved. I am not implying homosexual relationships and polygamy are the same; the comparison illustrates how the question of marriage in regards to our law involves more than a subjective question of happiness.

Mr. McClelland also brings the important issue of Full Faith and Credit into question and interprets the Constitution to mean “marriage licenses or civil unions granted by the judiciary in one state ought to be recognized by North Carolina and all other states.”  He goes on to admit “there have been exceptions carved out,” but dismisses those states’ rights as being due to the nature of the “activity…[being] drastically different from one state to another”. Being a doctor, lawyer, pharmacist, vehicle operator, and so on are generally the same no matter what state you live in, but the states have the right to establish different licensing requirements and rules regarding license reciprocity.  The laws reflect the individual states’ citizens’ concerns for their community as well as each states’ unique health, safety, and welfare needs.  Some states grant full immediate licensure, some require different numbers of years of
practice in good standing, some require you take an exam, and others do not grant recognition at all.  For example, in the specific context of marriage, some states acknowledge Common Law Marriage based on a number of years a couple acts like they are married, but others do not.

In yielding to the states’ rights regarding marriage, the Federal government enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, and Section 2 of the Act provides: No State,
territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. Therefore, while Full Faith and Credit is obviously a relevant issue to be analyzed in regards to any licensing practice amongst the states, the manner in which the reciprocity for each type of license is regarded under the law is unique and does not operate under a blanket theory of universal reciprocity among the states.

In closing, society, especially democratic society, is ruled by the majority. We agree to live together under rules decided by this majority.  The majority decides what rights we have by
selecting government and judicial representatives as well as by popular vote of the people.  The North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment in no way strips away existing rights or violates existing rights.  We sometimes wish we had right that do not exist or misunderstand our freedoms under the law especially when a complex legal issue is at question.  All
registered voters in North Carolina do have the right to vote on May 8^th regarding whether the definition of marriage in our state will be promoted to a state constitutional amendment or remain a statutory definition.  Please, vote, and I hope you vote “Yes” whether you are morally conservative, legally traditional, or simply uniquely persuaded.

Legal Research for the article was done by: Whitney Pennington, Legal Extern from Campbell University School of Law, Raleigh NC

Peter McClelland’s article urging conservatives to reject the upcoming marriage amendment (Carolina Review, 01/29/2012) presents an honest, but incomplete, attempt to invoke the banner of individual liberty. His argument falls short because it overlooks the fundamentals of our laws and history. The author warns that the amendment “may seriously violate the federal constitution.” This fear of a constitutional violation is questionable for the simple reason that the male and female requirement for marriage is already codified in a North Carolina statute (NCGS §51-1). If current law already codifies this definition without triggering a constitutional violation, why would turning that existing statute into a constitutional amendment create a new violation? Furthermore, 30 states already have a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage in some form. The U.S. Supreme Court has found
exactly zero of these amendments unconstitutional. It is impossible to “enshrine” in a state constitution a violation that does not exist.

More specifically, the author claims that the proposed amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment prohibits states from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” He argues that heterosexuals are allowed to marry. Homosexuals are not. Therefore, this is a facial constitutional violation. Laws, by their nature, draw distinctions between classes of people. Children under the age of fifteen generally cannot operate a motor vehicle (NCGS §20-7). Only those admitted to the North Carolina State Bar may practice law (NCGS§84-4). Wealthy individuals must pay a higher income tax rate on wages than lower-income earners (NCGS §105-134.2). In each of these examples, North Carolina law treats various classes of people differently. Yet, none of these distinctions are unconstitutional. Not every class distinction violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this and imposed a set of guidelines for making these determinations. (1) Laws that distinguish based upon race are presumptively unconstitutional. (2) Laws that distinguish by gender receive less scrutiny from the court, but are often overturned. (3) Laws that classify a type of behavior or a custom, such as marriage, receive even less scrutiny and are almost always upheld as constitutional. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman falls squarely within the third category and will receive a lot of deference.[1] Indeed, the Court has never overturned any of the 30 other state amendments that uphold traditional marriage. Why would North Carolina’s adoption of such an amendment convince the Court to involve itself in a heated policy issue (something the Court very much dislikes doing)?

One legal justification for the Marriage Amendment lies in the Tenth Amendment which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution “to the states respectively, or to the people.”[2] This amendment expresses the Founders’ belief in limited powers and preserves as much self-government as possible at the local level. The federal government only has powers specifically granted in the Constitution to it. States, unlike the federal government, do possess general legislative powers. Formulating a definition of marriage is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, such a task is more appropriate for North Carolina citizens to undertake through the democratic process. Moreover, the states have good reason to define marriage. The states must administer courts, regulate adoptions, and ensure the welfare of children. The states are more qualified to make these local determinations than political appointees in Washington.

Referendum opponents cite a “tyranny of the majority” as a strike against the Marriage Amendment. In reality, these opponents are the ones who want to invert the balance of state and federal power crafted by the Founders. They want the federal government to seize the otherwise reserved power of defining marriage and impose it on states like North Carolina. The federal government, they argue, should use all of its enforcement powers to implement the new meaning. This is hardly what the Founders intended when creating a divided government. Perhaps the most misleading argument for conservatives is that recognizing homosexual marriage will enhance individual liberty and reduce the power of the government.
These phrases obviously appeal to our libertarian inclinations. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Redefining marriage will lead to less liberty when the new definition inevitably conflicts with the religious beliefs of others who wish to participate in public life. Homosexual “marriage” advocates are not arguing for more freedom to associate and engage in sexual contact with one another. The Supreme Court already provided that “right” in Lawrence v. Texas.[3] Thus, they are not losing any rights that they currently possess. Rather, their goal is to redefine marriage into something entirely foreign and use government coercion to impose this new definition on church pulpits, institutions, and associations. It is those in favor or redefining marriage who wish to take away religious liberties under the guise of “tolerance.” Challenging this new definition will become a “thought crime,” as it has in other places. One need only look to the pastor dragged before a Canadian “Human Rights” Commission for quoting Leviticus or the fate of a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts to
know how dangerous such a newfound “individual liberty” can become.

North Carolina citizens can guard against this path of state-imposed orthodoxy by retaining the traditional form of marriage in their state constitution. The Marriage Amendment can survive constitutional scrutiny, reinforce the principle of federalism, and protect North Carolinians’ religious freedoms from eroding.

[2]
U.S. Const. Amendment X

[3]
539 U.S. 558 (2003).

I evidently struck a nerve with the liberals calling the shots at The Daily Tar Heel (DTH) with my letter to the editor entitled “Savage’s ‘filthy’ dialogue does not belong at UNC.” I argued that the University should not allow $18,500 of student fees to be used to bring a speaker to campus in Mr. Dan Savage, who has little intellectual value to contribute to the campus community. Employing the typical tactics of the left, the DTH printed five response letters that comprised over one third of the entire editorial page under the headline “Students weigh in on Carolina Union Activities Board inviting Dan Savage to speak on Feb. 2.” Some of the letters even contained personal attacks against me that had nothing to do with the topic of my original letter. We have all heard the laments of liberal students and administrators about the funding cuts made by the North Carolina state legislature and their supposed disastrous effects on the University. Many of those who complain about the funding cuts and possible tuition hikes are the ones who said that Mr. Savage has a valid viewpoint to present on campus. Let’s be frank: Savage does nothing more than writes columns that answer some really bizarre sex questions and smear conservative leaders using deceitful tactics. (And before you counter, “Who are you to say what is bizarre and what isn’t,” I suggest you actually read the garbage Mr. Savage has written.) To be fair, $18,500 amounts to a very small amount and not hosting Mr. Savage on campus would not have balanced the University budget, but the event is a good example of the kind of waste that has occurred in recent years at UNC, and I called out those involved. I want to make clear that I am not against Mr. Savage being invited to campus to speak, but rather, I am against paying for the event with student fees.

UNC prides itself on developing future leaders to solve the problems of the world. What kind of message is sent when you pay someone to come to campus who uses the most ridiculous tactics to smear his political dissenters. Most famously, Mr. Savage holds responsibility for the Santorum “Google bomb,” his public campaign attempting to change the definition of the word “Santorum” from the last name of the presidential candidate to a sexual neologism involving anal sex. If that was not enough, Savage recently commented on Bill Maher’s TV show, “I wish [Republicans] were all f—ing dead,” surely that’s effective rhetoric to achieve your political goals. Mr. Savage’s most disgusting action was when he volunteered for Gary Bauer’s 2000 Presidential campaign in an attempt to infect Mr. Bauer and his campaign staff with the flu. The next time the Carolina Union Activities Board decides to allocate money, maybe they should choose a speaker more in line with the mission of the University, preparing students to become the next generation of leaders capable of improving society, and not an unaccomplished political dissident.

I will even go so far as to say that the use of student funds to bring any speaker to campus as ridiculous from the start. After all, we are not here to listen to communists and sex experts, but, rather, we are here to get an education. Why should we drive up the cost of education just so we can host a few lunatics on campus? The hypocrisy of the left exposed again.
Some of those same students, who cried out about being part of the 99% and demanded a free college education, stood in opposition to my concerns. Please explain to me how you propose to provide a free education while wasting thousands of dollars helping students improve their sex lives. (On second thought, please do not.)

Stepping back from my position on the use of student funds to bring political insurrectionists to campus, let me discuss the actions of the DTH in handling the “community’s” responses to my letter. It is not particularly surprising for the DTH to participate in an assault on a conservative viewpoint on campus, particularly one that hints at socially conservative values. The DTH, in their handling of the responses, cemented their position as a left-wing rag that fails to report any story with accuracy and makes every attempt to portray conservatives as outside of the mainstream. The heading of the response letter section makes it appear that everyone at the University disagrees with me and agrees with the writers of the letters.
Despite the fact that we are talking about UNC, I am pretty sure it is safe to say that that simply is not the case. We saw the DTH use similar backdoor trash tactics with its handling of the Psalm 100 issue earlier in the year. Maybe we should donate a journalistic ethics guide to the editors of the DTH. Better yet, we should purchase it with student funds.

The actions of the DTH are symptomatic of a larger problem here at UNC: the strong anti-Christian bias. Of the many different intellectual responses possible in response to my letter, exactly zero of them were printed. Instead, the DTH printed five response letters that attacked social conservatism and largely left the issue that I brought up, namely, the use of
student fees to bring subpar speakers to campus, unaddressed. As I pondered the mafia-like suppression techniques employed by the DTH, I thought back to the Psalm 100 issue earlier in the year. The DTH and its liberal allies want to discredit the voice of Christians on campus. When they smell the scent of social conservatism, they attack.

UNC should be a place for discussion of ideas—not a place where the views of conservatives and Christians are suppressed. It is time for the DTH to become a fair forum for the discussion of these ideas. As conservatives, we believe in the ideas that made America great: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the DTH and the campus community were
confident in the effectiveness of their liberal ideology, then they would not be so defensive. I did not write my letter to espouse my socially-conservative view, but rather I wrote the letter to expose what I found to be a waste of student funds. Instead of using its editorial page as a forum as discussion, the DTH decided to attempt to minimalize the point of view presented in my letter in fear of the fallacies and hypocrisy of campus liberals being exposed. As conservatives, we will not be silenced by the outrageous actions of the DTH,
but rather we will be empowered by them.

 
Without a doubt, the most callous treatment of human sexuality at this university is produced by third year medical student and DTH columnist, Perry Tsai. His topics range from “praying away the gay” to examining whether or not men on average think about sex every seven seconds. It is not so much, however, his topic choices – some bizarre, others expected – that most offend (one expects as much from a liberal columnist writing about sexual health); rather, it is his degrading attitude towards sexuality. Sexuality is something beautiful –so beautiful, in fact, that societies have for thousands of years sought to enshrine it within marriage. In the sexual act, a man and a woman come to become one flesh; to give themselves, entirely, body and soul, to one another in and through love. To render this act down into a mere pleasuring of oneself is the equivalent of coating the paintings of the Sistine Chapel with gasoline, stacking the canisters, and blowing the entire place to kingdom come. Or, to use a less overtly religious example, it is the same act of mad desecration as fiddling while watching Rome burn.

Quite frankly, it’s sacrilegious, and Mr. Tsai, along with those professing a similar view of sexuality, revels in it for precisely that reason. To turn to the cold reality of fact, Mr. Tsai’s last five topics have been the following: “All Day I Dream about Sex?” (December 4th, 2011); “Let’s talk about…Gender” (November 22nd, 2011); “Yes, It’s Strong enough for a Man” (November 8th, 2011); “Can you really pray the Gay Away?” (October 24th, 2011); and, last but let me assure you not least, “To Cut or not to Cut, still a
question” (October 10th, 2011). Now, for a columnist dedicated to concerning himself solely with sexual health, none of these topics perhaps are surprising. Ignoring the obnoxious phrasing of the last, most of the titles are not even particularly partisan.

What is so pernicious here, however, is not the topics; rather, it is the free embrace of a sexual libertinism that ignores the dignity of the human soul. “All Day I Dream about Sex?” explores the variances between sexual drives in men and in women. Taking as its sociological evidence a single
study at Ohio State University, which reported thoughts concerning sex to occur (on average) 18.6 times per day in men and 9.9 times per day in women, the article quickly leaps to its ideological preconceptions of human sexuality. Mr. Tsai implicitly argues that the lesser number of thoughts concerning sex in women is due to, primarily, sexism still at large in
today’s society, conditioning women to be ashamed of indulging in sexual activity. Consequently, women are repressed and need to realize their own freedom through unashamed “erotophilia” – a term meaning, literally, “love of sex”. Of course, Mr. Tsai and those ascribing to the outdated worldview of sexual libertinism don’t really love sex; they love only pleasure and, thus, they are no more progressive than any other creature on or below the earth. Yet, evidently the editors of the DTH considered Mr. Tsai’s exploration of men and women’s sexual desires as worthy of the honor of being included in one of the nation’s foremost college newspapers. An earlier article by Mr. Tsai, “Let’s Talk about…Gender,” provides another glimpse into his seeming inability to develop a nuanced argument as well as his complete lack of respect for human sexuality. The article centers on the idea that the way in which the English language has developed – over centuries and continents – affects the way in which we treat the differences between men and women.

Citing an unnamed study, which in Mr. Tsai’s (as well as at least a few DTH editors’) mind nonetheless suffices as evidence, Mr. Tsai argues that gendered languages affect equality between men and women in society. Fine. I don’t take too much issue with probing to determine if language could possibly be a factor in gender inequality. What I take issue with is the pushing of a pointless and erroneous ideological viewpoint that ignores its only actually named evidence, as Mr. Tsai does later. In addition to the unnamed study abovementioned, the article mention another study recently executed by the journal “Sex Roles” (note the name) that studied 111 nations to determine if grammatical forms affect gender equality.

Natural-gender languages – those languages, such as modern English, which “use gender only in words that reference to people” – scored higher on average in gender equality
than both gendered and non-gendered languages, though the differences between the three categories only ranged between roughly“0.05-0.07 on a scale of 0-1”. Nevertheless, the article concludes that we all collectively need to eliminate the scourge of gendered constructions from English. Why in the world would such measures be necessary with a language belong to cultures the own article admits score among the highest for gender equality? The conclusion to this “news-worthy” discussion of sexual health, with its blatant lack of
skillful argumentation and citation, is the following “In the meantime, we’ll to find other ways in the fight against gender inequality [in addition to reducing gender bias in language], even though it will be long and hard. That’s what he/she said.” After failing to produce substantial evidence, after failing to correctly interpret the evidence cited, after failing to draw any clear conclusions, the article finishes with a “that’s what she said” joke, playing upon the subject of the article with a wit reminiscent of middle-school playgrounds. And it is precisely this complete degradation of human sexuality that is so offensive, so childish, and so very pathetic. Sexual health means more than justifying immature and unsophisticated jokes about sex. It means more than justifying a devil-may-care, no-strings-attached lifestyle.

Those are the daydreams of men and women, who, often through no fault of their own, dwell in a fairyland of perpetual adolescence, in which pleasure alone is enthroned and worshipped. In the light of reality, sex is about the gift of self: entirely, freely, and irrevocably. Until those embracing sexual libertinism (such as Mr. Tsai) wake, their words will remain childish, and their eyes will never gaze upon the murals of the Sistine Chapel – because they were fixed upon the matches and the gasoline the entire time.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once pointed out a subtle yet significant change in our political discourse: a few decades ago, you would be walking along and see something that you disagree with and would casually remark, “There outta be a law.” Today, that person is much more likely to say, “That’s gotta be unconstitutional.” The perennial protests against tuition hikes at UNC have shown that the reverse is true too. When we like something, we proclaim it a right and declare it sacrosanct. This is not only a gross misunderstanding of the true nature of rights, but also preemptively shuts down potentially productive negotiations because rights should never be compromised.

There are many reasons to oppose tuition hikes, especially in the midst of a recession. But the recent protests—spearheaded by the usual suspects in groups like Students for a Democratic Society—ignore all sober thinking in favor of declaring university education a right. Their letters to the editor say things like “Rise up and demand an end to the unjust system that charges you unconstitutional tuition rates” or “Free public education at UNC and other institutions is written into the state constitution.” Let’s unpack that. In reality, university education (at least under the North Carolina constitution) is not a right. Our constitution reads: “The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.” The crucial clause there is “as far as practicable.” This leaves the state a lot of wiggle room to determine what actual cost of tuition ought to be. Given the recent budget cuts, our university trustees determined that tuition need to increase to ensure the university could provide a high quality product to the citizens. There was nothing unconstitutional in their decision.

Even if university education were a right, that still wouldn’t help the protestors’ cause. There is not a universal right to free public education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The fact that we have an admissions process should make the manifestly obvious. In addition, the UNC system includes many other schools that help provide a university education to the populace. UNC-Chapel Hill is not alone in this endeavor. But you can’t take their whole “university education is a right” claim seriously to begin with. They fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of our government ensuring the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The leaders of the Revolution did not set out to ensure Happiness for all—only that the government would place no external constraints that would inhibit our pursuit to that end. The idea that someone has a right to the work or labor of another—what the protesters are implicitly claiming—is antithetical to our founding.

Even outside of political theory, the “university education is a right” clarion call is unhelpful at best. The whole point of political discourse is persuasion. You can have the best idea going, but if you can’t get 50 percent plus one, you won’t accomplish anything. Claiming education is a right shuts down any meaningful discussion about the financial realities that this university faced and the means by which we could fix it. The most recent debate over tuition bore this out. The SDSers did their best to turn it into a yelling match—“Education is a right!”—full of meaningless gestures (i.e., innumerable marches down to UNC General Administration). What did they accomplish? Nothing. Tuition is still going up. We could modify their usual “No dialogue with hate” to say there’s “no dialogue with irrationality.” Any attempt at a response by Student Government, administrators, or the trustees was discarded because “education is a right!” While Student Body President Mary Cooper’s plan was ultimately not accepted, we should applaud her for at least attempting a substantive response
to the financial realities that our university faced. Though this isn’t to say SDS’s actions were completely useless. Their aimless chanting and drumming—all aimed at “repudiating the process”—descended to a level that is the perfect metaphor for their underlying beliefs: farcical.

For over forty years, the Association of Student Governments (ASG) has purported to represent the needs and interests of students to the UNC General Administration, the UNC Board of Governors, and the North Carolina General Assembly. Ironically, the same students who are supposedly represented by the organization have never had a voice in it and have never had the opportunity to decide whether they want to pay the fee that funds it. However, this is all changed, as UNC-Chapel Hill will became the first school in the UNC System to put the
matter to a vote. Student Congress, by an overwhelming vote of 25-10-1, finally decided to put the matter of UNC’s participation in ASG and the ASG fee to a school-wide referendum on February 21. In the referendum, students were asked a simple question, “Should UNC-Chapel Hill continue its participation in ASG, continue to send delegates to its meetings, and continue to require each student to pay the annual $1.00 ASG Fee?” If a majority of students indicated that they wished to leave ASG, the Speaker of Student Congress would be responsible for presenting a petition to the Board of Governors asking that they exempt UNC from payment of the ASG fee. If a majority of students indicated that they would like to remain within ASG, Student Congress will be responsible for preparing “a list of  recommendations for how ASG might more effectively communicate the needs of UNC-Chapel Hill students to the General Assembly and the UNC General Administration.”

Given ASG’s history and its litany of failures, it is fairly disappointing that only 43 percent of students voted “no” on this referendum. Indeed, the abject failure of the organization is caused such disparate groups as the College Republicans, the Young Democrats, the College Libertarians, and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Straight Alliance (GLBTSA) to unite in opposition to ASG. This is because this issue is not a conservative or a liberal issue. It is a Carolina issue, an issue that unites every student on this campus because it affects every student on this campus. In such trying economic times, students deserve advocates who are not afraid to make their voices heard. Your surprise at such seemingly diametrically opposed groups being able to unify around this issue will quickly evaporate once you examine ASG’s budget. Out of its $256,727 annual budget, ASG spends only $11,875 (4.6% of the budget) on advocacy. Out of its $256,727 annual budget, ASG spends over $119,205 (46.4% of the budget) on salaries, stipends, and travel expenses. Out of its $256,727 annual budget, ASG spends nearly $24,000 on an office, $4250 on an end of year awards banquet (for itself), while the ASG President alone receives $5500 per year for his “service.”

What does ASG have to show for the hundreds of thousands of dollars it spends each year? Over just the last four years, in-state tuition has increased over 82 percent (from $3856 per year to $7008 per year), and just last month, ASG endorsed a 13.5 percent tuition hike for next year. If we are to believe that ASG takes its job seriously, how can it justify its track record? If ASG’s primary job is to represent students’ concerns to the Board of Governors, how does it justify not only acquiescing in, but also outright endorsing such tuition hikes? If all ASG is going to do is act as an apologist for the administration, who needs it? If I want to know why President Ross thinks such increases are necessary, I can simply pick up a newspaper. I do not need to pay other students over $250,000 per year to be told to put up or shut up. The fact of the matter is that ASG is no longer a functional organization. It employs a small army of bureaucrats who preside over an opaque and labyrinthine bureaucracy. Membership in the organization is restricted to only the highest-ranking student government officials on each campus. Additionally, whenever concerned students criticize even the minutest aspects of the organization, they are met with a barrage of threats and intimidation. In the course of a debate on the aforementioned resolution at a recent Student Congress Rules and Judiciary Committee meeting, Atul Bhula, President of ASG, insisted that no one in the room (your humble author included) knew anything about ASG. He also insisted that members of congress had no place criticizing the “important” work ASG does. Such arrogance is typical of ASG’s leadership and symptomatic of an organization that is beginning to realize its own irrelevance.

Now, this is not to say that the idea behind ASG is necessarily a bad one, only that that idea’s current manifestation (i.e. ASG) is corrupted and rotten. There is some value in intra-system cooperation. There is also some value in having a student seat on the UNC Board of Governors. However, ASG is not the only way to accomplish this. A much cheaper (and dare I say, effective) method for enabling cooperation across the UNC System would involve just a very simple Council of Student Body Presidents. This group could meet only when necessary to coordinate strategy and would avoid the expenses of ASG’s monthly meetings. Additionally, the seat on the Board of Governors currently allotted to the ASG President could simply rotate among the Student Body Presidents (i.e. Chapel Hill would have the seat in January, NC State in February, etc.). All of the extraneous delegates, committees, and officers would be eliminated.

Additionally, should the organization require money (though, it is worth noting that ASG did fine for 30 years without any money), it could seek money from the participating student governments. Under the current system, ASG receive funding from the Board of Governors (via the ASG fee), the same body it is supposed to lobby for policy changes. The conflicts of interest in this arrangement are obvious and explain the organization’s general uselessness. If instead students directly funded the organization, it might be a little more receptive to their concerns. This new system would cut out much of the unnecessary bureaucracy that has become a hallmark of ASG. It would be much simpler, much cheaper, and much more efficient. In the recent referendum, 43 percent of the students on this campus said that they would like to end our relationship with ASG. If ASG does not take the concerns of these students seriously and simply ignores the calls for reform (as it has done in the past), it will lose the small speck of legitimacy it holds. Should ASG ignore these concerns and ignore these calls for reform, Student Congress would be fully justified in calling another referendum in the future.

According to an email I received from a member of the policy review committee, there are four actions that they may take:

1. Implement an “all-comers” policy where belief-based  groups cannot take a prospective members beliefs’ into account when  considering them for membership
2. Implement a modified “all-comers” policy where you can  take their beliefs into account, but none related to “personal  characteristics” (i.e., “a Christian organization couldn’t require that  gay members believe homosexuality is a sin”)
3. Require student leaders to sign a non-discrimination  statement or require student organizations to incorporate a  non-discrimination statement into their bylaws.
4. Make no change.

The first two are highly problematic. Consider the current policy: “Student organizations that select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs (e.g., religious or political beliefs) may limit membership and participation in the organization to students who, upon individual inquiry, affirm that they support the organization’s goals and agree with its beliefs, so long as no student is excluded from membership or participation on the basis of his or her age, race, color, national origin, disability, religious status or historic religious
affiliation, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or, unless exempt under Title IX, gender.”

This policy is comprehensive and mediates between the need for free and open access while allowing belief-based organizations to ensure that their members adhere to the organization’s mission statement. Given the multiplicity of beliefs to which an organization may adhere, it also gives both members and the organization flexibility to determine the extent to which a member must support its beliefs before their membership is called into question (i.e., many College Republicans, myself included, disagreed with President Bush’s TARP program, yet were allowed to remain members). So why is a change necessary? The member of the committee gave a rationale for a potential change:

“The current policy is the legacy of legal action taken against the university nearly a decade ago. It allows for political and religious groups — groups based around a set of beliefs — to
limit their membership to students who profess agreement with those beliefs. This is technically different from discriminating on the basis of personal characteristics, which is what the rest of the policy addresses. However, recent history has shown us that this can become problematic for individuals who are required by organizations they are members of to hold beliefs which could be considered antagonistic toward their personal characteristics. Furthermore, what beliefs are required for membership is open to interpretation with each successive leadership — what it means to be Christian or Conservative is hardly set in stone. In fact, that discussion is in part why many of these groups exist. This can potentially jeopardize members down the line who were formerly in good standing.” This is in keeping with the sentiments expressed by Thomason, Terri Phoenix, and other participants to the Daily Tar Heel which seems to indicate that some change will occur. Also, knowing the other members of the committee, I strongly suspect some change will be made especially given the outside pressure seen last semester for retribution against Psalm 100.

Whatever change is made will be the first step in regulating what precisely student groups may believe. The impetus behind the policy review is a perfect example. While I consider Will a friend and disagreed with Psalm 100′s decision to vote him out, ultimately, the decision was up to Psalm 100 as to whether or not Will was upholding their mission statement. And properly so. The moment the university decides whether or not certain beliefs are acceptable is the moment that we’ve effectively ended the idea that the university is supposed to be a free marketplace of ideas. Even on the face of it, the proposed changes are laughable. Why should Young Democrats be forced to accept my membership, even though I fundamentally disagree with their values and beliefs? They might want to accept my dues money, but should I be able to vote on which endorsements they make or be elected to their executive board? Should a contingent of College Republicans be allowed to try and dictate YD policy or be present and able to vote when sensitive decisions are being made?

For larger groups such machinations probably aren’t an issue, but for smaller organizations like Carolina Review the chance that a few liberals could dominate the group is very possible. Recent actions taken against the Review by fringe organizations indicate that this could be a real threat. Or take the issue of representation. After the presumed new policy is in place, could someone who disagrees with the Campus Blueprint join and do anything in the name of the organization simply to embarrass Blueprint? Will magazines like The Siren be able to take editorial stances any more or refuse to publish articles they think don’t uphold their brand of feminism? What about the Muslim Students Association? Their bylaws require that only members can serve in leadership positions, while, to be a member, one must “strictly accept doctrines prescribed in the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as practiced by Ahl-Al Sunnah Wa Al-Jama’a.” In what world does it make sense that MSA would have to accept a non-Muslim as a leader?

Even if the policy only bans belief discrimination based on personal characteristics, that leaves the door wide-open for interpretation. Homosexuality is fairly straightforward, but a
“characteristic” is simply “a distinguising trait, quality, or property.” What would fall under this category? Unpopular opinions (i.e., “homosexuality is a sin”) may be the first to go, but the administration would have set a strong precedent for far broader powers to determine which beliefs would pass muster, effectively wielding veto-power over those beliefs. Vanderbilt University implemented a similar policy to the one UNC is now considering which put the Vanderbilt chapter of the Christian Legal Society in violation. Last September, the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) sent Vanderbilt a letter which brought out a crucial point: “[W]hen it comes to religious groups on campus, Vanderbilt’s failure to recognize that religion is also a belief compromises those groups’ ability to effectively communicate their messages. Part of CLS’s expressive purpose is to communicate to other law students what it sees as the Christian message.”

On that point, the Christian Legal Society is no different than any other belief-based organization. In the rationale that the committee member gave me (above), he said that our concepts of Christian and conservative are not “set in stone.” No one disputes that. Yet it is still the right of an organization to define what it believes to be Christian or conservative. In our own history, the Review was founded in 1993 after a disagreement over the direction the original Carolina Critic was headed. A later split occurred when some members wanted to go in a more “human interest” direction and founded the Blue & White. If Will Thomason felt as though Psalm 100 were not upholding true Christianity, he had every right to start his own Christian a cappella group. No one- including Psalm 100- could stop him. But the fact remains that belief-based organizations are fundamentally evangelical in nature insofar as they have a set of beliefs and it is their intention to publicize those beliefs and recruit new adherents to its standard. In a follow-up letter to Vanderbilt, FIRE outlined a set of hypotheticals that I hope the policy review committee considers before making a final decision:

• If one of the leaders of Vanderbilt’s Muslim Students  Association were to convert to Christianity, is the group required to  maintain that person in his or her leadership role despite the fact that  he or she is no longer Muslim?
• Vanderbilt informed the Christian Legal Society that  its requirement that student leaders “lead Bible studies, prayer, and  worship” was against the policy because it implied that these leaders must  hold certain religious beliefs. How do you suggest religious groups at  Vanderbilt fulfill their purposes without leaders who can accomplish such  core tasks of religious leadership?
• While this dispute was originally confined to religious  organizations, your statement of January 20 states that all student organizations must accept any student as a member or a  leader. If a group of straight students—the majority at Vanderbilt—were to  join the Vanderbilt Lambda Association, vote themselves into office, and disband the group or alter the group’s mission, what recourse would LGBT  members of the Lambda Association have?
• If a member of the College Republicans joins the  College Democrats to discover their plans for political activism and  report those plans back to the College Republicans in order to thwart them, do the College Democrats have any way to stop him or her? Under this policy, must an ideological student journal like Vanderbilt’s Orbis accept editors or publish columnists who disagree with, mock, or denigrate its progressive political views?
• Many groups in the Occupy movement choose to make  decisions by consensus. How could a Vanderbilt-based Occupy group operate  if a small group of students joined specifically to prevent the group from  acting in any way by constantly preventing a consensus from forming?If a student were to join an environmentalist group like Vanderbilt SPEAR and then use his membership in that group to  increase his or her credibility when publicly criticizing the group’s  positions in the Nashville or Vanderbilt newspapers, what could the group  do to prevent this?

The reality is, under an “all-comers” or similar policy, there would be no recourse for the groups in the above situation. Student fee money became an issue last fall, but the fact remains that Psalm 100 members also pay into the pool that is disbursed to student organizations. Why should they not be eligible to receive money simply because the university thought Psalm 100 fell short of “inclusivity” benchmark? Of course, a voucher system for student fees would resolve this issue quite nicely, but the university administration seems to believe regulating beliefs is the best way to go. If UNC decides to expand our nondiscrimination policy, they will have joined Vanderbilt- to quote FIRE- in “abandoning America’s pluralistic tradition by banning religious and political student groups from making leadership decisions based on their religious or political beliefs.” That pluralistic tradition has long been the underpinning of the liberal arts enterprise which UNC will jettison and, in doing so, make a mockery of our motto lux libertas. That’s definitely not the Carolina Way.

Bart Ehrman was up first. For thirty minutes, he would attempt to invalidate the extent to which we can trust the New Testament. He knew he was the villain in this battle. To open, Ehrman asked how many on the audience would identify themselves as Bible-believing Christians. Over three-fourths of the hands shot up. Ehrman laughed while asking a follow-up question, “So how many people are here because they want to see me get clobbered tonight?” Almost every hand flew up. It was great to see both debaters have such good humor about an inevitably heated subject. Pleasantries aside, Ehrman, beginning with the claim that the New Testament is lost, clarified the process by which books were copied in the ancient world: by hand. It can be reasonably assumed, he stated, that since humans are not machines, numerous errors, whether on purpose or by mistake could and most likely were made. Ehrman then emphatically and logically described a cycle of transcription errors in which the copy with mistakes was then copied with even more mistakes and so on and so forth. He argues that this snowball effect got so out of control that now he can say with certainty that we cannot reconstruct the original.

Ehrman’s argument was constructed around three key problems. The first problem: What does “original text” even mean? Ehrman again highlighted the problem of dictation and the scribe mistakes. In addition, he used 2 Corinthians as an example by outlining that it is not on letter but up to five separate letters that have been “cut and pasted” together, creating “our” letter. The second problem: Where are the early manuscripts? Ehrman bolsters his case by pointing out that we have no surviving copies from the first century. To further embolden his argument, we only have one copy from the early second century. And shockingly, 94 percent of our manuscripts are from the ninth century or later. In addition, Ehrman revealed that there are more than 30,000 discrepancies between the manuscripts. The murmurs in the crowd were clearly audible with this statement and for good reason. That is a lot of differences no matter to whom you are talking. The third problem’s premise centered around the fact that scholars simply cannot agree on the issue. Heated disagreements exist on major parts of the New Testament as a result of these apparent discrepancies. And with that, Ehrman conceded the floor to his competitor, Dan Wallace.

Wallace opened with a concession that the early documents were lost. However, the New Testament was not. To dispel Ehrman’s argument on the sheer numbers of textual variants that exist between the two manuscripts, Wallace raised an interesting point. The reason for these discrepancies is that the Bible has far more manuscripts than any other piece
of literature in existence. It is not even close. He described that if all of the New Testament copies were stacked up, they would reach a mile high into the air. That he argues helps justify the otherwise staggering number of discrepancies. Another vital point to Wallace’s defense of the New Testament was his statement that there are enormous gaps of eight hundred years or more for the earliest copies of the leading Greco-Roman authors like Homer. And yet we seem to take these scholars’ words as the gospel. We only take issue with the validity of the Bible. Wallace went on to further hammer this point home.He pointed out that we have three times more New Testament manuscripts within the first two hundred years than the average Greco-Roman author has in two thousand years. Yes, two thousand years. His point? The New Testament is far and away the best and most reliable manuscript of the ancient world. And with that, Wallace ended his time at the podium.

The two were then exposed to a myriad of questions from the audience and both handled themselves admirably. The audience gave them a rousing ovation and the night concluded. It was tough to decipher who actually emerged victorious. In the end, however, the winner of this debate is irrelevant. This event means more. It should serve as a shining example for the Carolina Way. This campus that boasts so often of its inclusivity and openness very often falls well short of its mark. It continually attracts like-minded scholars and politicians who simply “preach to the choir.” I think we can all agree that this is not healthy. Only through questioning and debate can a true dialogue begin. Only by exposing students to both sides of major debates, does Carolina truly fulfill its duty. After all, only through exposure to alternative opinions, can one really understand all the nuances of one’s own argument. What are we afraid of? Having our minds changed? If our minds are somehow magically changed by one eloquent speech than our original philosophy must have been a mere façade with no substantive backing in the first place.

To quote Proverbs 27:17, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Yes, I am a strong believer in Jesus Christ as my savior, but that does not mean I am afraid of differing opinions or life outlooks. Bring them on. This is what a true liberal arts education is all about and UNC-Chapel Hill can and should strive to do better at promoting this sort of  education. On this fateful night, however,  in Memorial Hall, a healthy and true “open” education was provided.

Wallace  Ehrman

What graphical analysis and “Gone with the Wind” teaches us about friendship

Few would argue with me when I say that Scarlett O’Hara was a bitch.  She used her feminine wiles to twist and manipulate men, causing enough destruction in her wake to constitute a
four-hour movie.  Scarlett seized the attention of any man she fancied in a way that even the composers of “carpe diem” would be impressed.  Of course, the only man she could never fully seize was Ashley, but, even by the end, she got her chance.  Now, I am not justifying Scarlett in all the chaos and broken-hearts she caused, but I do beg the question: maybe there is something we are missing.  Maybe Scarlett didn’t manipulate every man in her purview just for the sake of it.  Perhaps she reigned in every man she could in order to keep her options open so that she would never have to be alone.

Scarlett O’Hara faced the same issues that many of us face here at UNC, despite the appalling male/female ratio: we are constantly surrounded by guys.  I don’t mean that we attract men from all corners, but rather, for whatever reason, we are better friends with the guys than the girls.  There may be many causes of this scenario, but the general conclusion is that we don’t associate with our female compatriots because we like spending time with guys instead. At first glance, this is a great scenario: guys aren’t catty, they can do all the heavy-lifting, and you have someone to walk you home late at night.  They are protective and caring and will follow you in your shenanigans if only to make sure you get out of it okay.  I appreciate this- I really do.  But, as with everything good in life, there is a constant caveat: Guy/girl friendships are inherently unstable. Go ahead and read that statement again: Guy/girl friendships are inherently unstable.  There are many different facets of this conundrum, but, as I sit here brooding to Alanis Morrisette, I want to focus on the age-old quandary that can explain this apparent instability: Guys and girls can’t just be friends.

For those of you who oppose this, I bite my thumb at you.  I myself am a recent convert to this appalling notion, but I cannot deny life-experience.  So hear me out: Blessed are those who have not seen and believed. You’ve heard the stories before.  Maybe you’ve seen the recent YouTube video of interviews in Utah that showed women running away when they discovered that their best guyfriends may be interested in them.  Let’s face the facts: there’s this little thing that happens when guys and girls get together.  It’s called attraction.  It doesn’t happen between everyone.  It may happen when you first meet and fade through time, or it may suddenly creep up on you when you weren’t expecting it.  Either way, when two people of the opposite sex get together, it is quite likely that at least one of them may experience a hint of attraction.  This may not sound like much, but, like the stubbed-out cigarette that starts a house fire, this little hint is all it takes to cause calamity.

Let me tell you a story, illustrated by the lovely graph nearby.  Point A: guy and girl meet.  They slowly become friends, and their friendship deepens and grows stronger in an array of ways: exponentially, piece-wise, linearly, take your pick.  As time passes, and they become closer, something happens, they reach the Critical Point (Point B).  This is that time when
you are constantly texting, hanging out daily, and always thinking of things you want to tell the other person.  Maybe you’ve shared some secrets and opened up in a way you didn’t quite expect.  Because of this, we could dub this the Point of Vulnerability or the Point of No Return. At this point, there is only one way to continue to get closer to this person, and that is by dating.  If you are both interested in each other, then congratulations!  You may proceed to Point C.  For the rest of us, this is where things get ugly.  Quite likely, one person will become interested in the other.  When the other person learns of this, either by a direct confession or through the grapevine, that individual will likely panic.  Maybe they don’t even like each other, but perhaps there is that slight hint of attraction, and this is enough to scare them.  One person thinks the other wants to take the friendship farther than he/she wants to go.  All that matters is that, because of this curse of attraction- be it real or imagined- one or both of the parties will freak out.

This leads to Point D- the Crash.  Again, this can be logarithmic, piece-wise, linear, or a direct nose-dive, so long as it entails losing months of deep, personal interaction and trust.  No more texts, no more hanging out, and you may have to fight for him to walk you home. This is not the only way to get to the Crash.  Maybe the guy got a girlfriend, and no respectful girl would stay that close to a guy when he’s already got a girl on his arm. This shows another inherent way in which guy/girl friendships are incredibly sticky situations. Ideally, when
you hit Critical Point, you would plateau out to Point E, so that you friendship maintains its depth without the romantic chaos.  However, Point E will likely only be reached if you became friends with a person who is already in a stable relationship.  Or the guy or girl is gay so there is no potential for attraction.  Yes, I can use this graph to prove the necessity of gay best friends. Now the Crash is not necessarily the final endpoint. The friendship can be built back up again, if both parties try, if only to reach the Critical Point again and face the same fork in the road.  This creates a sine function. Likewise, you lucky few who made it to Point C, you can still crash.  You may hit rock bottom, or you may try to join back in this masochistic loop.

Of course, there will always be a few exceptions to these rules.  But the few exceptions do not mean the rule is worth throwing out because, for those of us who are not exceptional, this is our bleak fate. So what does this mean for us and for our dear Scarlett? Let’s give her a break- she was only fighting for survival by clinging to as many guys as possible in hopes that there will be at least one who has approached but not yet hit Critical Point.  Instead of judging her, let’s turn our attention to the heart of the matter and try to overcome the calamity that occurs at Critical Point. Maybe you, like Rhett, frankly don’t give a damn and will just let the chips lie where they fall.  If this ignorance-is-bliss mantra works for you, then more power to you. But, for those of us who would prefer to build our bomb-shelters before the missiles are launched, it may behoove us to take a look at a few alternatives to disaster.  1) You could avoid becoming friends with the opposite sex, but we all know that running away solves nothing.  2) A wise friend  suggested we communicate better so we know where each other stands.  This could work if you don’t mind awkward DTRs (determining the relationship conversations).  Or 3) we could strive to keep our relationships free of romantic interludes or mixed signals.  This means don’t excessively flirt, tease, manipulate, or flash that sultry smile we all pretend we can’t do.  Note, I said “excessively”- after all, we are
only human.  It is in our nature to unconsciously attract or lead on.  I’m not here to fix us as people, I’m only trying to advise on a small issue in the realm greater human problems.

We could argue back and forth the woes and bromides entwined in this system: “love like it’s not going to hurt” or “boys stink” or whatever other things you tell yourself to make you sleep better at night.  The point is this: getting really close to a person of the opposite sex (becoming friends with a capital “F,” if you will) is dangerous; still, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the risk.  Sure, some friendships are destined to be gone with the wind, but for those who strive to reach Point E, remember that tomorrow is another day!