294 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/20/15 8:28pm)
The date was June 20, 2001. Andrea Pia Kennedy-Yates, in the span of an (unsupervised) hour, drowned all five of her children in the family bathtub in Houston. Her motivation? She claimed that she had failed as a mother and that the only way to save her children from the Devil was through the ultimate sacrifice —giving up (murdering) her innocent children, saving them, but accepting her eternal damnation. (Keep in mind, the eldest child was 7 years old.) The court proceedings lasted for 5 years and garnered national attention. Growing up in Houston, I personally remember this case more than any from watching the news throughout those years. The defense in the trial fought for — and won — the trial on the basis that Yates was clinically insane. There is no doubt about this, as countless medical evaluations proved it over and over again. Throughout the course of the defense’s argument, it came to light that the Yates family were religious students of a man named Michael Peter Woroniecki. Woroniecki teaches an interpretation of Christianity than can easily be compared to that of the Westboro Baptist Church — full of vitriol and ridiculous twisting of the Bible. Now, where did the Yates family become familiar with this man’s teachings? Auburn University, where Russell “Rusty” Yates, a student at the time, and later husband of Andrea, met Woroniecki as he traveled around the country as an evangelist. The defense in the trial focused heavily on this connection, as after Rusty left Auburn, he became even more engrossed with Woroniecki’s teachings and, upon meeting his wife some years later, brought her into the fold. Woroniecki’s teachings, combined with Andrea’s mental illness, served as the perfect combination to lead to the tragic events on that summer day in 2001. Fast forward to this past November. On Nov. 3, two earnest-looking street preachers occupied the concourse in between the Student Center and Parker, preaching their interpretation of the Bible to anyone who passed by, often to disgust and anger by students and faculty alike. The Auburn community is familiar with these kinds of demonstrations, but this was a unique one — these street preachers were Mr. Woroniecki’s son and daughter. Dangerous teachings such as the Woronieckis’ — which have proven to end in terrible disaster — have no place on our campus. Unfortunately, as a public institution, we have certain requirements to allow public forum, and as outlined in the University’s policies, this area is only confined to the steps of the RBD Library. (i.e. the aforementioned demonstration between the Student Center and Parker should have been shut down immediately) While we can’t ban groups such as the Woroniecki’s outright, we can sustain dialogue with our fellow colleagues when such incidents do arise. Had someone challenged Mr. Woroniecki’s beliefs when he was at Auburn, or Rusty’s once he started falling into the fold, those 5 children could very well still be alive. We as an Auburn Family need to protect each other. We have to. Drake Pooley Harbert College of Business Senator
(04/13/15 5:30pm)
When discussing the need for greater funding for higher education, it is important not to simply say that we need more money. It is important not to complain amongst ourselves about how expensive tuition is. It is important not to simply blame Auburn administration, the Board of Trustees or even the state legislature for the current financial situation that the University finds itself in. It is important to hold them accountable, though, and to ask questions.
(04/09/15 10:10pm)
This February, students across the country celebrated Black History Month. They read books by black authors, wrote research papers on civil rights activists, memorized Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech and watched videos about the Underground Railroad. And as they learned about the struggle of the past, many began to recognize it in their own present – when a cashier squints suspiciously when they walk into a store, when they turn on the news and see another person who looks like them lose his life to senseless violence. These lessons are anything but history.
(04/15/15 6:56pm)
In response to “Without Warning: Student media restructuring” on April 1, 2015
(04/07/15 4:54pm)
College Democrats and College Republicans: Entitled, Indifferent or Downright Disrespectful?
(04/03/15 4:10pm)
To whom it may concern,Today while on campus, I saw a high school student touring campus with his parents. This student and his parents picked up a copy of The Plainsman and were astonished by several of the front page articles — namely the 'War f@#$%!& eagle' headline and the STD check article. While I appreciate the need to attract readers by publishing headlines that ask for attention, I am also heartbroken that this front page potentially deterred this student and his family from attending our university. While The Auburn Plainsman has a duty to report news that is relevant and interesting to the student body, its editors should be cognizant of the fact that the audience is one of all ages — not just college students. In the future, I hope to see articles on the front page that I would not be ashamed to share with potential Auburn students.War Eagle!
(04/02/15 11:32pm)
Letter to the Editor,
(04/09/15 8:54pm)
Racism plays an unfortunate role in our culture today. Just in the past year, America has seen events such as the Ferguson riots, controversy over the Washington Redskins franchise name, drunken fraternity brothers singing obscenities on a bus and many more incidents.
(03/02/15 9:35pm)
Dear Kris;
(02/16/15 8:30pm)
Dear Editors of Auburn Plainsman,
Would you please print my letter in your 'Letters to the Editor'? This would be a great help to me in completing my state project. Thank you!
(02/05/15 10:00pm)
Mr. Puchner seems to have accidentally proven the exact point he set out to argue against.
To quote, "The reality is, government and judges have no power to define what marriage is" Yep! That's kind of the point there, Joe. Judge Granade's argument hinges on the issue that the state has no power to limit what marriage is. In particular, that two pieces of legislation were unconstitutional in their definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
To be precise, the plaintiffs were not represented equally under the law because the state overstepped their bounds in defining what a marriage is. So you and Judge Granade agree there. But I don't think Mr. Puchner understands that. Further, the "basic truth" that a marriage is a quote, "monogamous, exclusive and permanent union" is not thereafter made false by exchanging "between a man and a woman" for any other pairing, be it man and another man, or what have you.
Again, Mr. Puchner seems to have a pretty good idea of what a marriage should be, but not a clue why it shouldn't be extended to gays. He goes on to say, for the second or third time in the article by this last paragraph, that "it's not a question of equality, because the unions are intrinsically unequal." He never comes close to explaining how those unions are intrinsically unequal.
I think he just really enjoys the word intrinsically, but isn't quite sure what it means. I've read his op-ed three times now and I still can't see it. But what do I know? I'm just a political science and philosophy student. We don't ever have to read anything dense and confusing.
Even if you believe a marriage is a purely religious construct, in which the government has no grounds to interfere, you must then become comfortable with the fact that some churches will be willing to perform marriages between same-sex couples. If you want to remove the government from it entirely, then under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, no marriages are legal, per se.
To that end, if no marriages are legal, then what are we even arguing about? Same-sex marriage must then be honored or dishonored in the same way that your different-sex marriage is just as legally bunk. If that's what you really want, let the churches decide.
With the scores of churches across the nation (and already in our state) saying they will bless same-sex unions, I think you might not like the results, Mr. Puchner. In conclusion, it seems, indeed, that Mr. Puchner absolutely wants the government to define what marriage is.
As long as it's what he thinks it is. The thought that the government has no place in defining marriage is only convenient insofar that it doesn't grant freedom to those who don't subscribe to Mr. Puchner's personal definitions (admittedly shared by numbered hordes of ignorant Alabamians). Make up your mind, Mr. Puchner.
Evan Smith is a senior in philosophy and political science at the University of Alabama in Birmingham.
(02/03/15 7:00pm)
I was disappointed, yet not surprised, that the opinions board of The Plainsman voiced their support of Judge Granade's recent attempt to redefine marriage. The view of the staff reflected the popular sentiment that the movement to legalize gay marriage is grounded in equality, but, after just a bit of thought, one can clearly see that same-sex "marriages" and marriages between one man and one woman are intrinsically, by the very essence of what they are, unequal.
The disagreement on this issue is not over whether or not all marriages should be treated equally, but rather over what sort(s) of relationship(s) constitute(s) a marriage. Only by answering this first, most basic question can we judge whether or not a policy is treating marriages equally. Even the proponents of same-sex marriage draw lines when they define marriage, with unions between more than two people as one example of an emotional union they exclude from their definition of marriage, thus making it imperative that we actually answer the question of what marriage is.
Marriage is more than just companionship, and never in the history of humanity, save the past few decades, has marriage been reduced to such a vacuous definition. Clearly, marriage must be based on something more than just love or intense emotion. After all, intense feelings for one another is not an experience limited just to couples, and if marriage was simply based on consenting adult romance then the state would no interest in recognizing "marriage" at all.
The reality is that governments or judges have no power to define what a marriage is, but have a responsibility to enact policy that reflects the basic truth of marriage as a monogamous, exclusive, and permanent union between a man and a woman, or judging if a specific policy violates or upholds marriage equality. In any case, the basic question of what marriage is must be answered. Bringing a man and woman together, permanently and exclusively, for the purpose of creating and nurturing children, is a clear governmental interest. This is marriage. Same-sex unions do not have an equal public purpose. It's not a question of equality, because the unions are intrinsically unequal. Marriage involves more than just contract law for consenting adult romance. Our state, and society in general, has a clear interest in preserving traditional marriage, and unelected and unaccountable judges should stop undermining this societally necessary institution.
Joe Puchner, University of Alabama student
(12/02/14 8:30pm)
I wanted to speak about the chanting at the Iron Bowl.
(11/22/14 5:55am)
In response to some remarks expressed in a Plainsman article entitled, "Alabama not included in same-sex marriage legalization," which ran on October 30, 2014, the College of Education Diversity Committee would like to express our resolute support of LGBTQ rights and marriage equality.
(11/14/14 2:30pm)
Greetings-
I was sitting in Alumni Center Saturday, Nov. 8, waiting to attend the football game. I found a copy of The Auburn Plainsman beside me, and the article titled above (Students address offensive costume) was the first I read.
Let me say I've always loved the conviction and enthusiasm of all things college, including my own days here in Auburn, thus my interest in a publication I hadn't read in over 35 years.
Toward the conclusion of the article, Shannon Arthur is quoted, concluding with, "... African-American students don't need to feel like the red-headed stepchild anymore."
Ms. Arthur, like all of us do on occasion, fell back to a cliche, and while I am absolutely certain she meant no harm whatsoever, she needs to understand this type of cliche, from way before her birth, was born in an era when stepchildren, as if they could control their own destinies as children, were viewed as second-class -- and this is the very global topic that is the focus of the article.
I think of another cliche phrase from that general era, That [usually referring to an event or action] would harelip the Pope! or one of its iterations, equating the unfortunate congenital cleft lip with inevitable mental dullness.
(11/04/14 10:00pm)
In the Oct. 30 edition of The Plainsman, Becky Hardy, editor-in-chief, profiled Patton Chambers, a student who is "homeless by choice."
From my understanding of the article, Chambers relies entirely on University facilities for typical activities of daily living; he sleeps in the library nightly, he eats minimal meals like oatmeal and peanuts and he carries his belongings in a heavy-duty backpack.
"I just want to experience something," Chambers said when discussing his motivation for choosing to be homeless.
Chambers' minimal lifestyle shouldn't be condemned, as many notable figures took similar paths on their searches for enlightenment.
However, I want to challenge this image of homelessness by asserting that Chambers' story is not representative of the stories of most individuals who are experiencing homelessness, including people in Auburn.
What Chambers fails to acknowledge is an overwhelming majority of situations of homelessness are not sparked by the desire to explore life, nor are they thoroughly planned.
Life crises like poverty, a sudden job loss, domestic violence, insurmountable medical bills and even a family unaccepting of a LGBTQ relative can lead people to the streets.
The National Coalition for the Homeless speculates almost a quarter of the homeless are United States veterans, unable to reintegrate into society.
Homelessness is not, as Chambers would have readers believe, "an endless vacation." In fact, those who are homeless are susceptible to high rates of violence, substance abuse and mental health issues. Furthermore, being homeless can impede access to quality medical care.
Chambers said if he got an intense illness or something happened in his family, he would quit his homeless lifestyle.
For most individuals experiencing homelessness, quitting is not an option.
On Saturday, Nov. 8, as Auburn's campus buzzed in anticipation of the game against Texas A&M, Auburn police responded to reports of the body of an older adult man lying lifeless under the bridge of the South College interstate exit.
The appearance of the body and lack of identification suggest the man may have been homeless.
When we choose to concentrate on stories like Chambers' and ignore the stories of those who did not choose to be homeless, we don't seek to understand the underlying causes of homelessness, and thus don't work toward reducing homelessness in our own communities.
To find out how you can advocate for those who are homeless, go to the Alabama Alliance to End Homelessness's website at http://www.alaeh.org/.
(10/29/14 3:00pm)
Dear Editor and Citizens of Alabama,
I'm writing to you to say hello from the smallest state in the union, Rhode Island. I am a seventh grade student at Goff Junior High School in Pawtucket, RI. For my geography class we are working on a semester long project on a particular U.S. state. I chose your state because I love the Auburn Tigers.
Could you publish this letter so that your readers could help me on my project?
I've realized that first hand information from citizens of our chosen state is more helpful than anything I could get online. If your readers could send some information, pictures, or tourist information it would help me so much with my project. Your readers can send the information right to me at school. Thanks for the help.
Sincerely,
Medeski D.
Medeski D. is a seventh grader at Goff Junior High School with Mr. Gilmore's fourth-period class. Information can be sent to him at 974 Newport Ave. Pawtucket, RI 02861
__________________________________________________________________________________
To whom it may concern:
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for reading this letter and the letters of my students. The project they are working on can be a tremendous success with your help and the help of your readers.
Let me take a minute to tell you about our school and students. Pawtucket, Rhode Island is an urban school district founded in the birth place of the mill industry with the first, water powered mill. Slater Mill is not more than a five minute walk from our school. Like any urban school district, Pawtucket has its share of challenges. Roughly about 80 percent of our students qualify for the free or reduced lunch program. However, Goff Junior High School is classified as being a typical junior high school in the state of Rhode Island. This is a rating given by the state for schools that are making progress and moving in the right direction educationally. The students here at Goff take an active interest in school and responsibility for their studies.
By publishing their letter and hopefully your readers' response, they will be able to produce a written report, poster board and oral presentation.
Hopefully when you decide to publish the students letter I am requesting an edition in the mail or be notified when it will run so I could look at your online edition. It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and help in providing a worth while and rewarding project experience for my students.
Sincerely,
Brian Gilmore
Brian Gilmore is a seventh grade geography teacher at Goff Junior High School in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. He may be reached at gilmoreb@psdri.net.
(10/24/14 4:52pm)
In response to Editorial: Are they leading by example?
(10/23/14 10:45pm)
In response to Editorial: Are they leading by example?
(10/27/14 1:30pm)
Main idea: Though I agree with Emma Watson, a certain understanding of feminism can lead to a breakdown of the wait 'til marriage before having sex rule, which hurts our ability to have a long-term, fulfilling, committed love relationships.
I'm not backlashing against the movement for sure; I'm in favor of it. I do believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities, and therefore, I am a feminist. The rates of domestic violence against women, the common-ness of eating disorders among teenage girls, and the conversations I've had with women about how self-conscious they were or are as teenagers, are all awful things, and they make me pretty sad. I applaud Emma Watson for making a move against such things. I try to make this sort of move in my daily life.
However, feminism seems to be identified with a breakdown of the wait 'til marriage rule. To cite a few examples, in Watson's speech, she said, "It is the thesis that I have the right to make decisions about my own body." I assume she is referring to abortion, but often, this is also understood to mean that women should be encouraged to have sex outside of marriage. Or in an online article written awhile ago entitled "18 Things Women Shouldn't Have to Justify," one of the things was "Whether or not they're having sex, and to what degree." One more; in "Flawless," the non-Beyonce voice says, "We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are."
To clarify, Beyonce's line is vague, but I think she means it should be OK for women to have non-marital sex, just like it is for men. If that's what she means, I'm saying that it shouldn't be cool for men either. Additionally, I do not mean that women or men should be shamed, like classified as morally bad, impure or less valuable for having sex outside of marriage. This is such a common problem among people who hold the wait 'til marriage view; though no one makes anyone wear an actual scarlet letter anymore, the "shameful and impure" stigma for men and women who have sex outside of marriage is very alive and well, deeply wounding women and men every day.
All I want to suggest is in most circumstances, it is terribly sad, not bad, not morally shameful when a man or woman has extra-marital sex and in doing so, compromises their ability to enjoy a lifelong committed love relationship. I want to emphasize that I use the word compromise here, rather than destroy. An explanation of why sex outside of marriage compromises our ability to have a fulfilling long-term love relationship would take many pages; I believe it has to do with what it means to be a person in a human body. All I want to say here is that many of the people who have the kind of happy, fulfilling life that we want believe in waiting. It is no accident or coincidence that the two go hand in hand.
To conclude: Watson's feminist thesis, "Women and men should have equal rights and opportunities" does not imply that men or women should have sex before marriage.
