I'd like to put some perspective on the issue of rules & regulations. First of all, ever since I started teaching here 28 years ago, I've heard the same mantra about how Uni is becoming more repressive. If that were true in even half the cases, Uni would be little short of a concentration camp. The last time I looked, that didn't seem to be the case. The halls are as noisy and messy as ever and the student lounge is still open, and seems to have expanded into the CRC, which I think is good. Granted, there have been changes, such as signing in at dances, but those were mostly forced on us by a changing world that makes students more vulnerable to harm and the school more vulnerable to law suits. I, along with many others, was sad to see those changes, but accepted them as necessary. As far as "the massive amount of new rules and regulations sweeping the school" are concerned, maybe I'm clueless, but what other rules have been instituted besides the one about grinding at dances? (More on that later) Also, how are those a "clear sign of political corruption"? That's a term that suggests to me bribery, rigged elections, and political extortion. The term "religious authoritarianism" and the example given both puzzle me. Once again, the times and law dictate that the school not be seen as favoring one religion over another. Any policies toward prayer groups, etc. are determined by that one principle. Concerning the example cited of an informational meeting taking place on Yom Kippur, my guess is either that, for some reason or other, Student Services was limited to that one night or it just overlooked what that date corresponded to. Either way, I find it hard to view SSO as, insensitive, let along religiously intolerant. The one example given of new rules concerns the style of dancing known as grinding. I agree with school policy on this and PDA overall because it takes what our culture has traditionally seen as a private activity and makes it public, thus blurring and confusing the lines between the two. Would you like to see your parents or teachers grinding with one another in public? I especially think of the students who don't have a significant other to share their feelings with and how they feel having the existence of others' relationships virtually thrown into their faces by the couple next to them on the couch. I'm not just being hypothetical here, but speaking from my own high school experience. I remember very well how it felt being on the lonely end of such a situation, and I have to believe there are plenty of students at Uni that feel that way as well. Finally, the example of the lack of military force at Uni isn't as irrelevant as it might seem. Many public schools, besides having much stricter control on their students, keep their doors locked and have police officers on duty to keep order, although this is presumably to protect students from one another. By contrast, Uni has an open campus, unlocked doors, free periods for the students, and no security force to maintain order. So where is the repression that is so often complained about? Jessica's letter is nothing unique and this is not a personal response to her. Rather, as I said above, it's indicative of an ongoing attitude or perception I've encountered ever since I came here (which is twice as long as most of you have been alive), but one with little basis in fact. In fact, what amazes me is how little this place has changed in that time. Stupid kids.

First off I'd like to say that I do agree some rules drive me nuts. For instance: I still sit on Uni tables despite Mrs. Kovacs and I probably always will. The thing we seem to forget is that most of this we brought on ourselves. Example one: Grinding I have no problem with grinding. I did it at Uni dances years past and it was fun. That being said, there is a line between grinding and masturbating in public and it was crossed last year. We brought up the debate by our own misuse of a free system. There was a backlash and now we are facing it. I still have fun at Uni dances despite the no grinding and if other kinds of dancing aren't your style then feel free to have your own party. It won't rain on my parade. Example Two: Dirty dishes I'm sorry guys, but I don't want to have to smell your dirty dishes for a whole week before they are gotten rid of. The rule started because people didn't clean up after themselves and it's totally fair. Don't even get me started about the mugs in the CRC... I hate rules as much as the next person especially because I've grown up in a house with few concrete ones, but we brought most of these on ourselves due to our proto-aristocratic behavior so think about that history analogy when your griping that the latest dance sucked.

Essentially, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. B on this one. However, I've spent a good deal of this semester researching the Radical Whig Ideology Jessica speaks of, and I'd like to shed some light on that, as well as a few other things. The Radical Whigs were not opposed to rules being made. In fact, they wanted legislation--they saw it as a way to maintain checks and balances. If you ask me, the Radical Whigs would see grinding and PDA as something morally corrupt and regard the rules limiting it as just that: a check against something that could potentially get out of control. Also, as Devin has said in response to several of the grinding articles, the school is giving us freedom enough by allowing us to have dances at all. Most other schools in the area don't even have as many dances as we do. And like Mr. B noted, we have the added privilege of the lounge and now the CRC. Maybe the faculty and administration at Uni is just trying to make sure that we don't overstep our boundaries as students despite all the freedom they've given us; maybe they have more of an insight into such matters. I don't think that they're wrong--in fact, most students at the school don't seem to have a problem with the stricter rules on PDA at dances or not. Mostly, it's limited to the junior class and the rest of us have maintained our support of the teachers and their wisdom. About the religious issue, I strongly identify with Judaism and I have two things to note about Yom Kippur. First off, the school's actually done us a favor by making it a day off--otherwise, all the Jewish students would have to make up their work or skip services. Also, if the SSO meeting was in the evening, then there's no basis for a complaint--our holidays end at sundown. At best, I think Mr. B is totally right about the SSO--I'm close with Lisa and Ellen, and I've never seen a malicious side exposed from either of them. Worst-case scenario, the SSO isn't Jewish and we, as a minority, are well aware of that--don't speak for us. I also don't think religious beliefs are influencing a dress code. In fact, I don't think there's a dress code present at all. Today, I wore a T-shirt with a hammer and sickle on it--that demonstrates a fair amount of freedom to me. If your complaint is that teachers don't want to see their students wearing too little because it's uncomfortable, you should realize that a fair amount of the other students concur--that's not a lack of freedom. The truth is, some things just aren't appropriate for school, or the eyes, regardless of religion. Finally, you can't just write off the absence of a standing army in peacetime to prove your point--as you did take this argument from what you learned in history class, you should also realize that a historian never sculpts their source material to suit their argument--it's immoral and is in fact indicative of propaganda, which the Radical Whigs obviously would have despised and seen as yet another warning sign of tyrrany and misused power. As Mr. B said, there are indeed schools that do lock students in the buildings--Uni's actually an anomaly. If you're not back from lunch in time at other schools (if you're allowed out at all--another right we've been graced with at Uni), you're locked out. At pep-rallies, you're locked in. This year, I skipped those to eat out and was not denied reentry to the school. Obviously, Uni's a lot more lax than other schools. Instead of trying to warp an ideology you don't fully understand to fit a bias you've adopted, you should examine why you came to Uni in the first place. Our reputation is that we grant students immense freedom to do what they want--the fact that you were allowed to write this column is a sign of our liberty in and of itself. As far as I can tell, the revolution you speak of is going to be quickly put down, if it ever gets its feet off the dance floor. -Jono

Sarah, I suggest you don't attack the faculty based on false assumptions. I'm referring to this comment: "The faculty and the administration don't want to deal with grinding students, allow them to voice their opinions, or reach a compromise. So they just ban grinding and hope the problem will go away. That is not the way mature and cooperative people should handle controversy." This is a very harsh accusation that is entirely untrue. Mrs. Kovacs, Mr. Butler, Mr. Russel, and Ms. Patton visited Student Council earlier this year and had a long discussion with Student Council officers over the grinding policy. By doing this, they dealt with grinding students, allowed the grinding students to voice their opinions, and tried to reach a compromise. They were mature and cooperative throughout the entire meeting. The compromise they made was that they continue chaperoning dances if we stop grinding. You see, a compromise is something where both parties get some of what they want but not all of what they want. Allowing as much grinding as students want would obviously not be a compromise at all, nor would teachers refusing to chaperone dances. Here's another harsh attack you made on the school administration and teachers: "As of yet, I haven't felt like we have been given much voice in the matter. Note to everyone, keeping us out of a representative seat is a form of political corruption too." The irony here is that by posting this claim, you've already proven yourself wrong. You are on an online forum where students can comment on school issues. It is clear that teachers read these comments and articles, since they also post their own responses. Thus, you are getting a voice in the matter which you are using to complain about not getting a voice in the matter. Since the confusion among students is still rampant, I will try to say again what I said in my previous post on the grinding issue: students do not have the right to hump at school dances if the school doesn't allow it. The school is sponsoring the dances. The teachers are taking time out of their lives to come, sit around, and watch kids dance. How would you like to sit around for three hours watching your teachers and parents dance? What if your teachers and parents were grinding for those three hours? The teachers are volunteering to chaperone, and if there's something that makes them uncomfortable they should be allowed to object to it. But remember, this doesn't mean grinding is banned from students lives. You can still hump in privacy or at a dance that does allow grinding, just not in front of teachers and parents. And honestly, when you think about it, how bad do you really want to bump uglies with boys and girls while your Math teacher and you friends mom watch?