Forum Letters – October 28
The Battle of Gamers vs. Feminists leaves USU as a casualty
To the editor:
In the battle of Gamers against Feminists Utah State took the fatal blow.
Oct. 15, Utah State University was to be the location of a presentation by Anita Sarkeesian on how women are depicted in video games. This however was changed with a threatening email the Monday before her presentation. Due to the threat Sarkeesian cancelled her event, because she claimed Utah State was not doing enough in means of security. Because of this Utah State has been subject to bad publicity, even though it was every intention of the University to increase security measures the night she would come.
The day before the presentation was supposed to happen, many students, myself included, received an email from the university describing the situation. I personally did not know about the situation or even the presentation until I received this email. From this email I learned that many students and some of the faculty received a threatening email to Sarkeesian and any who would attend the event. The university began to increase security by working with FBI and Utah’s Information and Analysis Center to try to find out the origin of the email. We tried to do all we could do, but we received a fatal blow from Sarkeesian.
Anita Sarkeesian is the author of the Video Blog “Feminist Frequency,” where she often discusses the subject of how women are portrayed in media. After learning that Utah law allows the carrying of firearms with a valid permit, she cancelled her presentation. From there she had blamed the cancellation to “lack of security.” On Twitter she even stated that she was not intimidated by the threats but she cancelled because of security. Not saying that she should not have cancelled, I am just upset in the way she did it. Due to how she cancelled, feminists and anyone against guns have used this as an example and have hurt Utah State’s reputation, just to further their own causes.
I, however, believe that the focus of all this should have been spent on the man who sent the email in the first place. As far as blame on whoever made the threats, it seems like he just slipped away from blame all together. It was him who threatened Sarkeesian, not Utah State. It was him who threatened any who would go to the meeting, not Utah State. From parts of his email that I have seen he stated that feminists have “ruined his life” and he will get his revenge. Talk about an overreaction. Saying that a set of people ruined his life is preposterous not to mention the fact that he planned to just do a random killing act. That goes to show just how crazy he is. I believe that anyone, myself included, who puts out blame for a ruined life is just not willing to fix things or take responsibility for past actions.
I am a big fan of video games. I was raised on adventures while sitting on my living room floor, and I have spent and will continue to spend much time playing them. From my experience playing video games I would agree with Sarkeesian in her opinion on how women are portrayed in video games. Too often they are over-sexualized, or even demeaned. I understand where she is coming from, so from this, I find myself in a very interesting middle ground between these two extreme groups. There seems to be a raging battle between the two groups in trying to outdo each other, but from this others are receiving damage — Utah State being a great example. The focus of the blame has been shifted to us — the university, our home and place of learning. The blame needs to be placed on the right person or group if necessary. Unfortunately it seems people have been jumping to making this a matter of freedom of speech or about gun laws or feminism. In the end, this is a matter of someone threatening the life of another.
Any who are reading this, I implore you, please remember that Utah State is home to many people who are trying to get their lives started. This university deserves our love and respect. We will owe a lot to this fine place, and I don’t just mean money. In this battle, a gamer delivered the first blow to the feminists, and in retaliation, to me it seems, they threw a punch at Utah State University.
— Vincent Johnson
Concealed weapon carriers could defend free speech
To the Editor:
My name is Benson Munyan. I’m a Utah State alumnus. I’ve been following the events surrounding Ms. Sarkeesian. After your article about campus gun laws was brought to my attention, I express some thoughts on the matter.
A few facts to disclose before I get into the meat of my correspondence: I am writing to you from the University of Central Florida where I am working on my doctorate. The state of Florida does not permit permit holders to conceal carry on university property. In fact, it is a felony to do so here.
Four months prior to moving to Florida to begin my graduate studies, James Oliver Seevakumaran hashed out a plan to go on a mass shooting one block from where I am writing this. He had a plan and had it not been for his a roommate calling the police moments before he intended to execute his plan, the event would likely have resulted in a far more tragic ending. Instead, Seevakumaran shot himself.
We don’t have to put a whole lot of effort into imagining how this would have unfolded had the plan been initiated as planned. People would have died. More would have been hurt. Seevakumaran would have either shot himself anyway, been shot by police or maybe taken into custody. However, had a student been armed and in the path of this individual, the outcome may have been better than it otherwise would have. I am not above admitting this is speculation.
The law of permitting concealed weapons on campus in Utah was challenged to the Utah Supreme Court by the University of Utah. The University of Utah wanted to ban firearms. They also lost in the highest court within the state of Utah.
Getting back to Ms. Sarkeesian.
Ms. Sarkeesian made a conscious choice to cancel her visit to USU. The officials of USU and the police followed the law and, as far as I can tell, best practices within the scope of the law. If Ms. Sarkeesian is disappointed with that or upset with the fact that the law would not be bent for her, that’s her problem, which she is perfectly free to bitch about. Ms. Sarkeesian was never told she could not speak her mind. She was never edited, censored or redacted. She chose not to speak. She made a choice. She was free to choose otherwise.
The letter sent, which was mentioned in your article, seemed to indicate that somehow, banning guns from campus would assure free speech.
This assumption is, coming from presumably otherwise very smart people, absolutely indefensible.
I will use China as an example. China heavily regulates the ownership of firearms. In fact, regular citizens cannot own them as far as I am aware. Funny story: China is hardly known for free speech. These professors and their logic assume that the correlation between guns and free speech is a negative one — that is to say, that fewer guns equal more free speech.
How is it then that in countries around the world, governments control both? Ask the citizens of those countries how they feel about free speech. I would posit that the correlation between guns and free speech is much higher and more positive than they suspect. Gun ownership ensures free speech. If my China example was too farfetched, I’ll give another. Iran 2009. Google it. Would the Iranian government be so willing to gun down their protesting citizens if the citizens could return fire? Maybe. But at least the people would have a fighting chance. How about the Arab Spring? I’m pretty sure unarmed protesters were shot there too.
One last point, and then I’ll shut up. If there is any question about whether or not someone carrying a gun is a criminal on campus, I offer you the following advice: Guns don’t make criminals. No more than a Ferrari does or your computer. It is an inanimate object.
If, gods forbid, the shooting starts, I’d advise you to duck or run. Those are your options when you’re unarmed.
— Benson Munyan
Congressman Rob Bishop knows Utah
To the editor:
There is a reason that Utah keeps electing Congressman Rob Bishop; it is because he has been working with Utah’s issues his entire life, and having been born and raised in Northern Utah, nobody understands them better than he does. In a state that is primarily owned by the federal government (over 60% of it), Utah needs someone who knows how to manage these lands, protect them and has the connections to do so. Rob Bishop’s main goal is to solve problems, not only for Utah but for the nation, and there is no one better or more experienced to solve them.
Why would you elect someone who will go to Congress as a first-term representative with little political experience, no connections and doesn’t understand Utah or Utah’s issues nearly as well as Rob Bishop does? The answer is you wouldn’t; it does not make sense to elect someone who does not understand what they are doing and is incapable of impacting legislation.
Utah needs a Representative who is intelligent, experienced, understanding and pragmatic, and that is exactly what Congressman Rob Bishop is. He is willing to work between the aisle and find the best solutions there are. When you educate yourselves on the candidates, you will see the Congressman Rob Bishop is the best candidate there is. Vote for experience this election.
Congressman Rob Bishop said, “I am committed to helping Congress strike a balance for wise management of our public lands. Protecting private property rights and our Western way of life are goals I have. I am confident that the principles of multiple-use and protecting our environment can go hand-in-hand.”
— Anthony Rodriguez
Carriers will save lives
To the editor:
I have just been reading (last) weeks’ letters to the editor in the Statesman, and yesterday even read an article in the Herald Journal regarding the issue of guns on campus. I have to say to those 200 faculty members who signed a petition to President Albrecht and any other person wishing to ban guns on campus, shame on you. This year I have been hearing a lot of complaints about equality and how our rights are constantly getting trampled on, and yet you refuse to stand up for our constitutional rights. It is our right to carry concealed weapons and yet you would trash my rights in favor of your outdated and childish personal beliefs. Haven’t you figured out yet that these laws you want changed only affect the honest people among us who are no threat to you or this campus? Look at copyright laws for instance. The people that break the copyright laws and steal all their digital media don’t care about laws. They do as they wish. The same holds true for the gun laws. Those that wish to abuse the system will do so at their leisure and with no qualms about breaking the law while the honest few will be punished for abiding by the laws. I don’t personally carry or even own a hand gun but plan to sometime in the future, but I feel safer on campus knowing there are honest and trustworthy people who are legally carrying on campus and are willing to do so in an effort to protect those of us on campus who do not. Faculty members, pay attention as these are the people that will protect you in your classroom when a shooter comes on campus. These are the people that will stand up, put their life on the line and defend us while you cower under your desk. I commend President Albrecht and our state leaders for standing up for these rights when others so readily trample them underfoot without regard to my rights. I commend all of you who legally carry on campus for standing up for what is right and being willing to defend us in time of need. God bless America and the rights that the Constitution gives us. God forgive those that trample upon the Constitution.
—Aaron Curdy