Last Friday, The Flat Hat first reported the latest chapter in the ongoing debate about Williamsburg’s three-person housing rule, when at least 38 students residing in six off-campus houses were found to be in violation of the controversial law. Tenants were offered an opportunity to sign a document saying they were violating the law, after which the city would allow them to remain in their houses until the end of the semester; still, the city’s stated reasons for offering these concessions are indicative of a policy that is generally unfair and largely geared toward discouraging students from seeking off-campus housing.

p. The city, both at the time of the law’s implementation and at now, has argued that property values are diminished due to damages by over-occupancy. Yet the students who were reprimanded all lived in houses that are in excellent condition (see page 1). By placing unreasonable restrictions on owners’ ability to rent their property, Williamsburg is decreasing property values more than any group of four well-behaved College students could.

p. According to Williamsburg Zoning Administrator Rod Rhodes, the main complaints about these houses did not center around noise complaints, but rather a decreased number of parking spaces available on the street. As any student with a car on campus knows, parking in Williamsburg is limited, and students who abuse their parking privileges by blocking residents’ spots should pay a fine and limit their parking in the future. But to serve notice to 38 students, and limit all students’ housing options in the future by stepping up enforcement of the rule solely because of a parking violation is a gross over reaction. Williamsburg’s past behavior toward students, including imposing arbitrary standards on students wishing to vote in the city, suggests that the rule is less about what the residents of these houses are doing, and more about who they are.

p. The three-person limit on off-campus housing has been a point of contention between students and the city for years. It leads students to feel as if they are treated like second-class citizens, souring what could be a powerful and mutally beneficial relationship. Students donate thousands of hours of community service to the Williamsburg community every year, but student leaders remain focused on the issues of housing and voting. The city’s continued insistence on this rule robs both College and city of the potential benefits of a more friendly relationship.

p. Threatening to evict students, and, in a sense, coercing them into signing an incriminating document of guilt, is surely not an effective or just way to solve a parking issue. Moreover, the city’s shifting rhetoric in regard to the three-person policy — ranging from property damage, to concerns of partying and noise violations and now parking — underscores the point that the city’s motives are aimed at preventing students from living off campus.

p. Janet Morana, founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, spoke at the College as part of Students for Life’s annual Pro-Life Week. Morana has been active in the pro-life movement for 18 years, and in 2002 she and Georgette Forney decided to refocus the pro-life movement, making it more woman-centered. The result of this change was the development of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign. Rather than focusing on politics, Silent No More centers on post-abortive women who, until now, have been silent. But, “it’s time that we hear those voices,” said Morana before putting in a video of Silent No More members giving testimonials.

p. Forney and Morana contacted women who wanted to share their experiences about the pain of abortion through pregnancy resource centers, which often offer post-abortive counseling. During the March of Life in 2003, these women gave candlelight testimonials about their abortions and the healing process. According to Morana, the campaign was flooded with volunteers.
In the video, women spoke of the silence that surrounds abortion and the strength they found in a group where that silence was broken. “All of us were hurting, but no one was talking about it … abortion is not the solution,” one woman said.

p. Women also spoke of many pressures they faced that led them to believe that abortion was their only choice. Each woman who spoke was surrounded by women holding signs that read “women do regret abortions” and “I regret my abortion.” Men spoke about how abortion affected them, wishing that they had been more supportive when their child’s mother needed them. Finally, the president of Priests for Life relayed a message of love, saying, “we who oppose abortion do not oppose those who have abortions.”

p. After the video, Morana continued to speak about the purpose of the campaign. One of the objectives is to make abortion “unthinkable” by reaching out to girls considering abortions with women who can say “I’ve been there.” Their message runs counter to the belief that women need abortion. “Abortion is not good for women,” said Morana, citing the abortion-breast cancer link, women who die or have complications from abortion and the lack of basic medical regulations in abortion clinics. She also named three “founders” of legalized abortion: Norma McCorvey (Roe in Roe v. Wade), Sandra Cano (Doe in Doe v. Bolton) and Dr. Bernard Nathanson (called the “founder of the abortion industry”) who all became pro-life.

p. During the question-and-answer session, Morana answered a question that is often posed to pro-life advocates: are pro-life people pro-birth because they stop caring once the child is born? In response, she described a ministry in New York called Good Counsel Homes, which assists mothers in schooling, job training and placement and finding permanent housing. Locally, women can contact one of two pregnancy care centers for assistance, CareNet (1-800-395-HELP) and Catholic Charities (757-220-3252).

p. Morana represents an important shift in the pro-life movement, which counters the argument that pro-lifers are anti-woman by embracing the experiences of women as the center of pro-life work. It keeps people from feeling torn between the choice of caring for women or for children. This holistic approach leads to common ground between the pro-life and pro-choice sides, arguing that women’s rights and physical and psychological well-being should be protected.

p. Beth Zagrobelny, the Public Affairs Officer of Students for Life, is a sophomore at the College.

I am appalled at some of the reactions I’ve seen regarding last week’s successful Sex Worker’s Art Show. The performance has not only been described as obscene, degrading, pornographic and immoral, but its mere presence has been used to further slander President Nichol’s name and reputation. I am truly at a loss.

p. To begin, the only people who could possibly categorize the Sex Worker’s Art Show in such simplistic, negative terms are those who did not attend the performance. Yes, there was nudity. There were suggestive costumes, burlesque performances and lots of pasties. But could we please take a moment to give the 400 students in attendance, the 300 more students who were turned away at the door, the dedicated organizers, the supportive faculty members and the performers themselves the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility that the Sex Worker’s Art Show might have some positive messages?

p. As a feminist and women’s studies major, I very easily understand the moral opposition to pornography. I certainly do not condone the type of oppressive, demeaning pornography that occupies much of the mainstream industry, and I care very deeply about the atrocities committed around the globe involving child prostitution and sex trafficking. In fact, I find many representations of women in the mainstream media wholly degrading and sexist: female sexual submission, women depicted solely as sex objects and the strict ideals of feminine beauty. These are extremely significant issues in my life, both personally and politically, and I do not take them lightly.

p. To hear such outrageous attacks on the Sex Worker’s Art Show, then, offends me in a very deep and personal way. Yes, the content of this performance is controversial, and I would certainly not persuade anyone to attend who expressed discomfort. I myself was made uncomfortable by some of the performers’ messages and artistic pieces. But this show, unlike anything else I’ve come across, actually makes an effort to render sex workers visible — no longer faceless and silent.

p. These are people with real stories, real experiences and real worldviews. These are people with varying opinions on the sex industry, and their places in it. These are people who express themselves in many different artistic forms: dance, prose, humor and creative performance. The one tie that binds the performers in the Sex Worker’s Art Show is their desire to finally be seen as real people. How can one call a group that gives subjugated women a voice “degrading to women?”

p. For too long, the mainstream sex industry has created a culture of sexual domination and submission, sex modeled on rape and sexual objectification. The Sex Worker’s Art Show seemed to fly in the face of such gross contortions of sexual agency and desire. For once, the women (and men) in the sex industry had a voice and could share their experiences, both good and bad.

p. Last week, one of my professors asked the following rhetorical question: “Why is it that it’s not okay if people are offended by a sex show and want it removed, but it is okay if people are offended by a cross and want it removed?” I thought he was joking, but in the past few days I have come across many similar opinions connecting the show with the Wren cross controversy. My feelings on the matter are rather simple.

p. Firstly, the Sex Worker’s Art Show is a one-time event, not a permanent performance, organization or display on campus. If some students were not comfortable viewing the show, they could stay home or attend another one of the many events on campus. If the show had been altogether prohibited, however, no student at the College could have enjoyed the performance. This is what I would call censorship.

p. Secondly, the Wren cross was not removed. The display times for the Wren cross were changed, which I do not see as a form of censorship, but rather an issue of accommodation for a diversity of religious beliefs. While I do recognize and respect the anger and disappointment that many felt after the cross decision was made, I think it is unfair and unreasonable to liken that situation to the absolute prohibition of an event on this campus. These situations are not analogous.

p. Lastly, it seems clear that those connecting these two incidents have one goal in mind: an attempt to further compromise the reputation of President Nichol. Even though Nichol was quoted by the Virginia Gazette saying, “I don’t like this kind of show and I don’t like having it here,” his opponents have painted his decision to not censor the show as tacit approval. While I don’t agree with President Nichol’s personal opinion of the Sex Worker’s Art Show, I certainly respect and appreciate what seem to be his general feelings on the situation: I don’t personally approve of this show, but I can’t prevent students from making the choice to organize, promote, and experience it themselves.

p. One goal of the Sex Worker’s Art Show and the students who brought it to campus was to stimulate discussion and debate regarding sex, sexual agency and sex work. Many of the critiques I have heard so far, however, are not only outlandish and unfair, but have come from those who never even saw the show. I would love to have a fruitful discussion of the different reactions people had towards certain performances and their feelings on the show’s messages but only in an open-minded, constructive and honest manner.

p. __Devan Barber, a junior at the College, is a Staff Columnist. Her columns appear every Tuesday.__

**Nichol cross cartoon causes outrage**
**To the Editor:**

p. I am offended by the horrible cartoon in The Flat Hat showing President Nichol carrying a cross. “Loving students” are shown in the background and to the right you show a Roman soldier labeled “alumni” attacking Nichol with a weapon.

p. First, I am offended that you show the student body in the cartoon as “loving” to Nichol when hundreds of students have signed the petition at www.savethewrencross.org to reverse his policy, his agenda has embroiled our College in unnecessary controversy and, despite admitting error in removing the cross without discussion and study, he refuses to return to the former policy while his committee meets. This ensures continuing controversy, expense and distraction from the College’s “core mission”— to use Nichol’s words — of educating students.

p. Next, I am offended as an alumnus of the College because alumni do not persecute Nichol, but instead strongly disagree with his change in policy. In a 275-year old Christian Chapel, the former policy allowed those preferring the use it cross-free to do so upon request. This common sense policy served the College well for many, many years with few concerns expressed. Thousands of alumni have respectfully asked Nichol to change the policy back. He has stubbornly refused, preferring to let the concerns of a relative few count more than the concerns of the many thousands who have let their voices be heard that the former policy struck the right balance for the College.

p. Lastly, I am offended as a Christian because Nichol is certainly not a self-sacrificing figure as was Christ, but has doggedly pursued his personal agenda of making the College politically correct. Showing him as a Christ figure when he is ignoring the pleas of Christian and non-Christian students and alumni alike to return the cross of Jesus to display is shameful. It seems the only religion that can be made fun of in America today is Christianity. All others are “off limits” to the politically correct. I cannot imagine you publishing a cartoon making fun using graphic images important to a Muslim or a Jew, for example. Those types of images have spurred religious violence around the world.

p. I write this simple letter, and ask that you apologize publicly for the cartoon.

p. **__— Andrew McRoberts, ’87__**

**SA bill poses environmental threat**
**To the Editor:**

p. During a recent SA meeting, freshman senators Scott Morris and Andrew Blasi proposed the New Campus Improvement Act. Their bill seeks to add a sidewalk from Dupont Hall to the Commons as well as an asphalt path from Dupont to the Keck Lab. Along with six Dupont and Botetourt residents, they complained about the “heap of mud which is just not attractive.” Although these concerned students had safety and aesthetics in mind, the impact of adding to the impervious surfaces on campus outweigh the benefits.

p. As any geologist will tell you, increasing the area covered by impervious surfaces, such as sidewalks and concrete, will adversely affect the pathways and timing of flow during storms. Water that falls on these surfaces does not infiltrate into the groundwater system as it would, for example, on vegetated areas. Rather, water flows over these surfaces and enters streams more quickly. This creates the potential for local flooding in places such as College Creek during large storms. In addition to the effects visible on campus, locations downstream would also be affected.

p. By adding to the total area of ground covered by sidewalks and paved paths, storm water will pond in places where the water table is close to the surface, such as in the Sunken Garden. In fact, places where mud exists after storms will likely get worse if paths are added. Puddles and pondage are ubiquitous on campus because in many places the water table is less than 10 cm from the ground surface — you could extract groundwater by poking a straw into the ground.

p. However, all is not lost. Solutions to the problem include adding vegetation. Plants utilize the available water and reduce the height of the water table, in turn eliminating ponding. In addition, gravel paths, such as those near Common Glory, are more environmentally friendly because they allow water to permeate through the surface without generating a mucky mess. In the future, I hope that bills will be passed that account for long-term environmental effects.

p. **__— Erik Haug, ’07__**