Graduate congratulates undergraduates graciously
As an astoundingly well-informed recent alumnus, I too noted the Newsweek article proclaiming Rochester’s status as a “new ivy.” And, upon reading the editorial board’s concise yet brief ode to Enid Arbelo, the woman who inspired us to reach the lofty heights of nouveau elitedom, I had but one thought: I want a do-over.
You see, when it came time for me to attend college, all I wanted was a “name” school. Just as the best NYC bars – Marquee, Cain, Chrons – have single names and undisclosed locations, I knew that the finest universities our country had to offer were all similarly vague in their posturing.
Dartmouth, for example, doesn’t have a single distinguishing characteristic on its campus and doesn’t provide directions. It knows the only students it wants are those enterprising enough to find it. Rochester, on the other hand, so clearly detailed both its purpose and location – a University, in Rochester – that I grew frustrated to the point of referring to it as Yjuovar, a prestigious Scandinavian University nestled somewhere in northwestern New York on a river named after beer.
I realize this confession makes me seem trite and make no mistake: I appreciate the sub-arctic times I spent at Yjuovar earning a degree that would enable me to move to Manhattan and become mired in debt.
However, I do feel as if I missed out on the one thing that incoming classes can seemingly look forward to: Ivy League tail. As anyone who has attended an “old ivy” can tell you, Ivy League tail is like a Rhesus Macaque’s tail: long, sleek, flexible and covered in a shimmering coat of luxuriant Herbal Essences-treated hair.
Non-Ivy tail is more like a Rhinoceros’s tail: short, wispy, coarse and primarily used to keep bugs off its ass. Indeed, it is no secret that Ivy League students get more action than their unvined counterparts; this explains how Yale earned its title as the “FSU of colleges.”
It’s an unfortunate truth, but if my primary source – the Facebook news feed – is to be believed – and it is – Mark Zuckerberg and his Harvard cronies are knee-deep in the good stuff.
And while I don’t know what that last expression means – and I’m not sure if I want to – I do know this: the incoming Class of ’19, or however old you youngsters are, can look forward to a level of uber-intellectual sexual misadventures the likes of which my class could never fathom.
For that, I want to offer you all my respect, my admiration and my home address. I’m confident you know how to use the latter. You’re Ivy League now.
In mirth and Meliora, I love you all.
-Neil Janowitz Class of 2004, Chimneysweep
Letter reviewing “Review” gets reviewed
Does the fact that women “have outnumbered men in college since at least 1983” really mean that equality among the sexes exists in today’s society? This is the argument that Marc Roemer made in his Letter to the Editor last week.
Of course, the answer is “no.” Even though women are graduating with more BAs, they are still only making 73 cents to every dollar a man makes and being underrepresented or ignored on many important issues.
Roemer misses the overall point of the article published in the Rochester Review. The article did not dwell on the fact that women are still discriminated against, but rather made mention of the fact that gross inequalities still exist.
Similarly, Roemer does not understand feminism or its aims. The statement that “women strive for ‘equal rights’ only when they stand to benefit and rarely, if at all, when they stand to lose” simply is not true. Besides, men too would benefit from true equality and no feminist is arguing otherwise. Roemer brings up some good issues. However, if his research had extended a little further, he would understand that many of the arguments he makes are being fought for by feminists.
Roemer claims, “many women I talk to about these issues plainly see the unfairness feminism has created.” Yet, there is not one single mention of an “unfairness” that feminism has created in Roemer’s reaction. He simply states random facts, such as only ten percent of the homeless are female, without making mention of how many more women are living below the poverty line than men.
Roemer made no real argument and simply listed the few areas that he believes women “benefit from” sex discrimination. It is not women who only look for equality when “they stand to benefit,” but Roemer himself.
-Julianne NigroClass of 2009
