Friday, November 9, 2001
Volume 66, Number 8

Fear, insanity, and the Stewart nurse

by Brendan Buschman-Kelly

On Sunday October 28, Dean of Students Jon Eldridge came to residence hall Hartzfeld C to talk about the Stewart nurse. It was a Halloween event organized to present the true nature of this beastly ghost that haunts the Lewis and Clark campus.

Eldridge stood in front of the fireplace of the Hartzfeld C lounge, wearing a baseball hat and a rain-jacket. He had a campus-safety incident report in his hand and he wore the look of a camp-counselor ready to take his listeners on a scavenger-hunt into the unknown. He was ready to use this piece of Lewis and Clark folklore to bring a little fear into our daily lives.

We sat and listened attentively, heeding the matter-of-fact tone of voice that Eldridge always employs. His pitch never changed, even when attempting to be sarcastic. It soon became clear that we were supposed to be frightened by this story and so, accordingly, we were. Eldridge informed us through the story that the Stewart nurse originally had a packet of six scalpels that were used to commit her murders and, predictably, one scalpel still remained.

This melodrama was intended to entice fear into the hearts of the listeners, but instead it came out sounding like the ghost stories of summer camp. I felt like a part of a scene where I could expect to hear such stereotypical statements as, "Check the children. There's a madman on the loose."

The air became relieved when Eldridge finished his story. The end was anti-climactic and the body count was not very high. To my ears, accustomed to this type of story, it was not impressive or original. Also, the climax of the story was intended to drive home the very fear that I was supposed to feel, but it ended up unveiling the story's faults.

First, the Stewart nurse never had a motive behind her actions. She was reasoned as simply mad and apt to do anything. Second, it seemed that this story, if viable, would have merited national attention because of its obvious appeal to the media. Would not the National Enquirer stake out the original office of the Stewart nurse with the desperate hope in finding some clue to her intentions or whereabouts? Would not this story be so well enshrined in the college history that it would plague the college's every move? When I asked these questions after the meeting, I discovered that everyone in the room wanted to believe in the Stewart nurse story. This desire existed either for the possible acclaim of being part of a campus with such a storied history or for the desire to reaffirm one's own beliefs about insanity.

In regards to this second need, this story is just another part of a long list of folk stories used by people to distinguish themselves from the dastardly deeds committed by members of society around them. Society sees fit to label their actions as insane. Does this characterization, used on people like the Stewart nurse, not resemble the characterization made recently of Osama bin-Laden? Both are seen as insane persons with no viable motives for their actions.

Motives are the definitive force behind our actions. They bring out our use of reason and give apparent cause-and-effect relationships to the events of our lives. The Stewart nurse, apparently, had no motive for her actions. She simply struck out upon innocent victims of her community.

We claim now that Osama bin-Laden also had no motive for his actions. He simply struck out preemptively upon innocent members of the global community. In both cases, we are the victims of these dastardly deeds and we should be wary of that fact. But we should not choose to give no credibility to the perpetrators of these actions by stripping them of a motive. By believing in the Stewart nurse as simply a capable, mad villain, we are adhering to the belief in insane people always working against us.

Does not Osama bin-Laden fall under that present characterization? We believe now that the Stewart nurse is watching us here at Lewis and Clark while the United States of America says now that Osama bin-Laden is watching us here in the USA.

The point of these characterizations is an increase in our own sense of security. It is very neat to claim a perpetrator of wild deeds to be insane and strip them of their viability. It is also necessary. How else can we feel good about ourselves unless we have a comparison of insanity lurking outside of us?

Someone out there is watching us, but they may not be who we think, and they may not be insane.

Your mail: letters to the editor

Clifton Fels tells it like it is

Let us take a moment to applaud the article "Where, oh where have the protestors gone?" in last week's paper. The article brought up an extremely relevant point that everyone on this campus seems to avoid. The point that while we organized this peace rally (which was highly chastised by The Mercury) we failed to put any real action behind our peace charade. What are we doing on this campus now to advocate for peace? Nada damn thing is the answer. The only thing that's happened is the peace activists spending time to make signs to put up around the campus. Big deal. The majority of the campus probably supports the peace rally anyhow, you aren't really convincing any more people nor has any student that I know made any efforts to communicate their viewpoints beyond this campus bubble.

Clifton's article impacts the main faults of this peace activism on campus with amazing clarity. Why haven't students organized letters or even a petition or some sort of action that you could mail to Oregon representatives representing our school's viewpoint? Right now all that Lewis & Clark is doing is talking the talk, now it's time for those students to walk the walk. Put some action besides sign making into supporting your peace activism. Nothing is happening now that the US is continually bombing Afghanistan, when we need peace the most.

Have we stopped the peace activism merely because we, the Americans, are no longer victims of violence? I sure as hell hope not. I commend you, Clifton Fels, for taking a stand and pointing out the detrimental downfalls and ineffectiveness that LC's short-lived peace activism had on this campus so far. Thank you for speaking your views; I support them whole-heartedly and know that many others do too. I hope your article prompts students to finally walk the talk.

Heather Mooney

Clifton Fels is a hypocrite

Clifton Fels is a self-righteous hypocrite. In "Where, oh where, did all those protesters go?" he criticizes the organizers of the original peace gathering for not organizing another peace event and yet, not once in my three years of activism at Lewis & Clark have I ever seen Clifton even show up at an activist meeting to offer his help in organizing something. Why do the organizers of the original peace rallyhave more of an obligation to act upon their beliefs than he does? Since he seems to think he is so much better informed than anyone else, why doesn't he organize the next peace rally? Is it because Clifton doesn't have a clue of how to organize anything? Instead of getting off of his high horse to help organize another peace rally, he prefers to write pompous screeds in the Piolog about how much smarter he is than everyone else. Clifton would be far more effective in creating social change if he had spent the time it took him to write the article working with the activists on campus to plan another peace event.

The activist movement at Lewis & Clark has been far from dormant since the first peace rally. A couple weekends ago, 6 LC students were arrested protesting logging and reckless endangerment of protesters' lives. Last weekend, a number of LC activists attended a farm-worker conference while others attended a legal training or logging protest. Activists are currently working to organize something about the World Trade Organization in response to the WTO's meeting coming up on November 9th. Furthermore, activists are working on coordinating a day of action with Reed and PSU to protest Staples' complicity in forest destruction and are engaged in a campaign to convince the Bon to supply fair trade coffee. We are also working to allow janitors to be able to take classes at LC like other staff members. In addition, we are working to reduce LC's greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, in the past couple of weeks, we brought to campus two speakers to talk about the School of Americas and US sponsored terrorism. The activists are working, is Clifton?

Granted, these aren't all anti-war events, and perhaps the war is a more pressing issue. However, any good activist realizes the importance of balancing the seriousness of an issue with the actual likelihood of creating change. Since we are more likely to affect change on campus or in coordination with other groups on set days of action, we may be more likely to focus on-campus campaigns in which the decision makers are willing to directly meet with us. In addition we feel it is crucial that other important issues like the WTO and globalization don't get forgotten, especially since the President is currently trying to ram through fast track trade negotiating authority. That said, the activist groups do planto organize anti-war events in the future and would appreciate help from Clifton and other concerned individuals. Perhaps if, as any respectablejournalist would, Clifton had actually talked to some of the activists he seems so intent upon criticizing, he would have known all this. He also would have learned that it is demonstrably false to assert that many activists exclusively devote their time to sign-making.

Clifton asks the peace activists if we know about the USA Act. If he was so concerned about "one of the largest invasions of privacy and policing expansions ever," why didn't he set up an educational table encouraging people to write letters to their congresspeople? Does he know that a close friend of mine was almost killed protesting logging in God's Valley? Does he even care? We all know things that other people might not know, but unlike Clifton, the activists on campus don't pretend that they are superior to the rest of the world because they know something someone else doesn't. Instead, activists try to share this information with others and then encourage people to act upon that information.

The combination of Clifton's condescending, holier-than-thou tone and his lack of real action on any of his strongly held beliefs is truly despicable. All of us, including Clifton Fels, have a responsibility to act on our beliefs and it is hypocritical and all too easy to dodge this responsibility while criticizing others for not fulfilling it. If ignorance is bliss, Clifton is a happy man indeed.

Sincerely,

Julian Dautremont-Smith

Clifton Fels Responds

Let me first of all commend the Lewis & Clark activist groups for the activities they are doing. Whether or not they are accomplishing anything remains to be seen, however. I have received several phone calls and letters from activists who feel that I am a hypocrite and that I am "dividing the liberals". Let me first of all say, that simply because I don't join the LC activist groups in their endeavors, that in no way makes me a hypocrite. I have long thought that LC activist groups were some of the most impotent, utterly useless groups on campus. For the past couple of months, the issues that I have cared about I've written about in the Piolog, in an effort to reach a large group of people. The real hypocrisy is demonstrating for peace while we're at peace, and then shutting up about the war effort once there actually is a war. They may be involved in other missions, and that's great, but I can still--and should still--criticize groups who demonstrate for no reason, and then disappear once there is a reason. As for "dividing liberals", why must I associate with LC activists or respect what they do, just because I am liberal? Just because I'm not wearing a red T-shirt left over from the WTO rally two years ago and waving a sign, does not mean I don't care about peace and justice. The activists who disliked my editorial would believe that because I haven't showed up at their meetings, I'm not doing anything. I argue that if I had showed up at their meetings, it would be then that I wouldn't be doing anything, but hey that's just my opinion.

Agnostic activism? by Keith West I was very enthusiastic when I found out that the Rev. Dr. Bernice King would be on campus to speak. I feel it is only appropriate to begin by complementing her speaking ability. She was one of the best speakers I have been privileged to hear in quite a while. Contained within her wonderful speaking, however, were several persistent themes. One of these was the constant need to re-evaluate our biases. She also issued a very clear challenge to the curriculum we so often present as the whole and complete truth. In addition to these important and constructive arguments was one that seemed a bit more exclusionary. Throughout the course of her speech there were no fewer than 23 separate references to God and/or Jesus. Viewing the speech in a holistic sense gives one the clear impression that religion (specifically Christianity) was essential to the question for social justice. Being an agnostic and also a radical I was rather disturbed by this message, and consequentially walked up to the microphone afterwards to ask if it were possible, in her opinion to work for social justice without believing in a god. Her answer was evasive to say the least. The answer I ended up interpreting out of her response was that god could grant one strength in times of need and therefore was critical to surviving the tough road of a social critic. While I do respect Dr. King?s views on many subjects I am forced to disagree with her assessment here. While faith can be useful for some I do not believe it is at all essential to fight for social justice. More specifically I do not believe that faith in the Christian deity is essential, or even necessarily useful. There are many who have achieved massive social revolutions without the Christian faith, let us examine Mahatma Gandhi for example. While he remained dedicated to the Hindu faith and not the Christian faith Dr. King clearly supports he was still incredibly effective in ending imperialist domination of a nation. If feats such as this can be achieved without the Christian faith Dr. King advocates I would be forced to doubt the accuracy of her claim. Finally I find it difficult to accept that a person's belief in a being that may or may not definitively exist can determine their ability to advocate socially just ideals or activities. If anything, a religious background may provide a person with more of a set paradigm making that much more difficult for she or he to evaluate divergent ethical systems and customs. I would contend that a prerequisite of faith for social change is not only inaccurate and quite possibly harmful, but also demeaning to those who may not believe but still work to make society more just.

One smile, please by Casia Freitas "When the food's not that good, the service should be," my good friend Celia recently announced during another disappointing meal at the Bon. Anyone who has eaten at the Bon knows what a difference it makes to get that questionable brown stuff slopped onto your plate with a smile. This article is written to all of those who have found their fortune serving at Lewis & Clark's very own Field's Dining Hall, but can be applied to anyone working in food service. I have taken the liberty of compiling some tips about simple ways that you, as a server at the Bon, can vastly improve a student's otherwise often undesirable dining experience. First of all, smile. This is the golden rule for anyone in service. Anything served with a smile can be discerned as more acceptable. Secondly, do not display your disgust of the food you are serving. Those students coming to your line have, for whatever reason, decided to try this food and obviously do not think it will be as bad as you may already know it is. Therefore, do not judge their choice but dish up your product with a bit of pizazz. I have never been able to turn down a server advertising his line's offerings through means of some shouting, singing, dancing, etc. All of these strategies are encouraged. They will at least brighten the days of those you encounter. Appreciate those students who do choose to come to your line. I have often felt this guilty need to go to the line of a lonely server, and left disappointed when I didn't receive the proper kudos for my bold action. A little bit of flirting, a kind or humorous word or two are all acceptable responses. Lastly, and this one is the clincher: develop technique in your serving. For example, do NOT plop the carrots over the plate of pasta you have just dished up. If I wanted my carrots on top of the pasta sauce, I'd ask for it, thank you. Your minimal effort to either ask for the preferences of the diner or to carefully create some space on the plate is always much appreciated by diners such as myself. And now that I am at the end, I would like to commend all of you Bon servers out there, so bravely roughing the demanding and often sketchy conditions required by your position in college food service. God knows I wouldn't want to do it. Thank you for keeping students like me fed.

Editor-in-Chief   Erin Haick News Editor   Joe Clock Forum Editor   Clifton Fels Features Editor   Andrew Zahler Arts Editor   Aaron Landau Sports Editor   John Koehn Calendar Editor   Erin Haick Senior Staff Writers   Liz Hummer   Colleen Welch Copy Editors   David Archer   Lizzie Miller   Andrew Zahler Advertising Manager   Mari Ushiroda Web Master   Meaghan Lamarre Advisor   Peter Christenson Copyright © Pioneer Log 2001 0615 SW Palatine Hill Road, Mailstop 121, Portland OR 97219. Phone: 503-768-7146. Fax: 503-768-7130. E-mail: piolog@lclark.edu. Powered by Trillium.

What is it about Green?

by Aaron Green

Q: Dear Aaron,

Okay, I'll admit it. I spend a lot of time at my neighborhood bar. Actually, you can usually find me there between 7pm and 1am, 7 days a week. I love the bar, and I really like meeting new people. I met this really hot guy at the bar last week and we exchanged phone numbers. I really want to call him, but don't want to seem too aggressive or anything like that. How long do I wait before making my move?

A: Dear BarWhore,

Let me begin by saying that there is nothing wrong with spending all of your time at your favorite local bar. In fact, I strongly encourage LC students to spend more time at the bars for the simple reason that bars promote better social skills. And better social skills lead to a better chance of getting laid, which is obviously what all of us are looking for. Just promise me that you won't become one of those BarWhores who goes home with whoever is looking the best at 1am on a Tuesday. Because trust me, after a few shots of Wild Turkey, everyone looks good at 1am on a Tuesday.

Thanks once again to our favorite bartender Steven (of OriTalia fame) for providing the concise rules about when to call. It all really boils down to a matter of timing. If, for example, you get a guy's number on a Sunday-Tuesday night, you MUST restrain yourself from calling at least until Thursday (Friday is preferable). If you get the number on a Wednesday, Thursday or a Friday night, you can call anytime beginning Thursday afternoon. If the chemistry was that hot, you want to get in on the weekend action, so get on that dance card before it fills up. This leaves us with the unfortunate Saturday. It's inappropriate to call before the following Thursday, but you don't want to seem too distant. My advice is to call on Wednesday when you know he'll be at work and leave a non-committal message. You can call again Friday if he hasn't called back, but must write him off immediately should he never respond.

The best advice, however, is that if you meet Mr. Right (okay, Mr. RightNow) at a bar, the best time to get his body/number is the next morning, if you catch my drift. They say that there are other fish in the sea, but you should at least be entitled to catching a few of them, right?

Until next week, take care and don't do anything I wouldn't doÖCiao.

Mystery Box

I'd like to take this opportunity to bitch. Yeah, that's right. There is something wrong with something related to this school, and it displeases me! If only it was more like the way that I wish it was (in accordance with my liking) then all would be well. But nooooo, somebody had to do things differently than I would have, had I done them. Unfortunately I had no input whatsoever! So here's my input now, institution! Here is my demand:

Cater to Me. I have particular wishes that need to be valued and respected. I mean, I pay 28,000 dollars to go here, the least you could do is make my bed for me. If you don't, its like admitting you're a second rate institution, and you're not, because I go here, so something is wrong and confusing. Stop! Hold me, I'm trembling.

Campus unsafe?

by Jovanna Schussel

During the daytime, Lewis & Clark campus appears to be a fairly safe environment for students. There are people everywhere and light posts along all the walkways. However, these light posts seem to be merely ornamental, because when one wanders the campus at night, the majority of those lights are not on.

Feeling safe is a very important part of enjoying a college experience, and not being able to go to the library past 5:00 in the evening because you do not want to walk home in the dark is an unacceptable situation. Lack of lighting limits students, especially females, to staying in their dorms during dark hours if they have any qualms about wandering dark trails surrounded by trees and brush and other such things in which anything could hide.

Sexual assault is not an unknown phenomenon at this school nor any other across the country, which makes one wonder why the administrators here seem to take safety lightly when it comes to adding quality lighting the campus. Recently, the idea of putting lighting on the trail between the reflecting pool and the library was rejected because it was felt that if the area was lit, students was go there to use drugs.

This is a totally unreasonable and ridiculous claim. The area being dark is what would lead to it being unsafe and used for illegal activities. The area of campus between the library and Platt/Howard, and on the south side of the manor house are unlit, leaving students who have to use these paths to stumble around in the dark in an attempt to find their way.

This situation is unsafe and unfair to students. All pathways that are regularly used during the day should be available for use at night, because some people have night classes, need to use the library, or get to their cars in different parking lots. When it gets dark as early as it does now, having to be careful by avoiding certain paths at night becomes impossible and impractical. The College should take that into consideration the next time that it feels that lighting itself contributes to unsafe activities.