Yet another piece in the University Chronicle. This time I am tackling the wearing of pajamas in class. Seriously!

Starts here:

What is up with the pajamas at the Atwood mall at 1:00 pm in the afternoon? Granted pajamas are a disgrace at 8:00 am in class, but in the afternoon, you look amazingly lethargic.

Last time I checked pajamas were sleep wear, not going to class clothes. I know there is no “dress code” for SOC 229 but I am pretty sure if there was, it wouldn’t be pajamas.

They might be comfortable and warm, especially in the MN cold, but they are not appropriate for day wear in public.

Even more disturbing is that this trend can even be seen at bars at night; people go out drinking in their pajamas.

How do you expect me to take anything you say in class serious when you are wearing what you sleep in? How do you expect your professor to take you seriously?

You obviously have not thought about what it means when you walk around in public pajamas.

Let me spell it out for you. First of all it tells me that you are too lazy to bother about your appearance; you couldn’t care enough to put on a pair of jeans in the morning.

You paint a picture of a late riser, wearing pajamas to class tells me you can’t wake up on time.

It also gives me the image that you didn’t shower. In all probability half your classmates didn’t shower at the 7:45 am class, but they’re trying to look decent and wearing normal clothes is comforting (again unlike you, they tried).

The point of showering before class, especially if you were at a keg party the previous night, is essential. Vodka, Rum and Tequila are bearable smells in the morning, but beer is just unforgivable.

These might seem like trivial things but they can make or break you in and after college.

If a professor knows that you are the pajama wearing, beer drinking slob in class, there is no way they are going to believe you when you have a reasonable excuse for not handing in a paper.

Students are very quick to use the line “what I wear should have nothing to do with what I write”.

On the contrary, we might be working and studying under bureaucratic institutions, but we remain social animals, who read social cues and make judgments on them.

People will deduce what kind of person you are from what you wear, how you smell and how you carry yourself.

These are often feelings that people will share with their friends and co-workers and an opinion of who you are is formed.

You might feel this is unfair, but that is what happens. It has become common knowledge now that companies search potential employees on Facebook to surf out the “irresponsible” drunks, and they can conclude your irresponsibility from a couple of pictures. 

Imagine what the people who have met you and sat next to you in class have concluded about you.

Believe me when I say I am not a goodie two-shoes, but I do think that you should be mindful of the way you present yourself to the world as it might have an impact on your future.

I am not talking about things you can’t change, I am talking about things you have control over, like wearing pajamas or coming to class half drunk or wearing sandals with socks.

These professors are the same people you will ask for a recommendation letter one day. You do not want it to include the words pajamas or beer in it.

College is a time of self discovery, conversations over bonfires, learning your alcohol tolerance and make out sessions.

It is also a time to craft out your future, a time to plan your life, for some it is a time to mark their place in the world. It’s a time when you can make yourself to be what you want to be and be respected for it.

All it takes is a shower in the morning (even for a 7:45 a.m. class), no pajamas in class and making sure you have gum and other strong spearmint sweets to kill the beer smell.

First appeared on: http://www.universitychronicle.com/opinions/portrayal-of-the-self-in-college-1.2041290 

This has been a long time coming. I wrote this piece for the school paper as well. I think Steve Biko would be proud!

Starts Here

Most people who know me know that I am South African, actually even those who don’t know me; they at least know that I am not from around here.

My country of origin is situated at the southern tip of the African continent. Now there seems to be a general confusion about “Africa.”

I want to take some time and this piece to clarify a few misconceptions about this continent, and yes it is a continent and not a single country.

Excluding the much disputed Western Sahara territory, the African continent consists of 53 countries that include the islands associated with the continent like Madagascar.

The nations on this continent have different social, political and economic structures.

In other words South Africa is different from Ghana, Ghana has nothing to do with Morocco and you cannot take a bus ride from Senegal to Tanzania, so the probability that I have a met a friend of yours that has traveled to Ethiopia while I lived in South Africa is zero to none.

So please stop asking me if I know a friend of yours that did volunteer work in Uganda and expect me to say I ran into your friend, as if Uganda is a twenty minute taxi ride from South Africa.

Why even assume that I have been to Uganda? I have found that even people of African descent (people who were born and partially raised in Africa) use the word “Africa” as an umbrella term when describing social, political or economic issues facing the countries in the continent.

Even “Africans” themselves, especially those in the Diaspora, keep on perpetuating the idea that “Africa” is a culture, as if there’s one homogeneous way of life across the continent.

Franz Fanon was much attuned to this phenomenon when he stated that “the native intellectual who has gone far beyond the domains of Western culture and who has got it into his head to proclaim the existence of another culture (which is the African culture) never does so in the name of Angola or of Dahomey.”

This overarching look at the African continent is not geographically sound and leads us to more misunderstanding of the continent, its countries and most of all, its people.

I was once told that I am a bad representation of “Africa” because of my sexual orientation.

This was puzzling on many accounts; firstly I have never claimed nor have I been elected to represent my country, let alone a continent. There is no one way to be “African,” no one holds a monopoly on “Africaness” (whatever that means).

There are various ways to be “South African” (Zulu, Christian, Xhosa, gay, Afrikaans, Muslim, farmer, straight, traditional ect.), can you imagine then the multiple ways one can be “African.” 

This leads me to the war(s) issue; although there are several conflicts going on in the continent involving different countries, the majority of the continent is fairly stable.

I am not saying attention shouldn’t be drawn to the bloody areas, what I am saying is that you need to be specific with regards to the “war torn Africa” you are talking about.

You can’t just throw around statements like “there’s war in Africa” without both qualifying them and stating where in particular is this war.

This blanket treatment of Africa is not only annoying; it shows a lack of geographical knowledge and an extreme sloppiness when it comes to details.

I am sure this happens with other continents too, like Asia but I still think it’s more exaggerated with Africa. It’s uncommon to hear people talking about Europe as a continent in the same broad way as people do about Africa; people are usually more specific about the countries located within that continent.

So next time, before you introduce me to your friends as “my friend from Africa”, after I specifically told you that I am South African, think about whether you would do the same to your German, English or Norwegian friends.

I think that there’s something extremely lacking in the geography departments (and society as a whole for that matter) in this part of the world when people who have graduated high school and are pursuing degrees in institutions of higher learning cannot distinguish the difference between a continent and a country.

The piece can be found here: http://www.universitychronicle.com/opinions/africa-a-continent-not-a-country-1.1994048#3 

 

This post also first appeared in the University Chronicle and will probably make some people think I am a goody too shoes, and I really am not. I think that educational/cultural institutions should be respected. Carrying on in the library like it’s your bedroom or a pub is unacceptable. Read on and tell me if you agree.

Article starts here:

I have been at SCSU for the past three semesters and I have come to the conclusion that a bulk of the SCSU student body knows nothing about library etiquette.

This sad realization couldn’t have been truer than last night, where one woman had to tell three men to keep it down as we were on the third floor, where no conversations should be taking place as this is the quiet floor.

I was even more bedazzled when I went to the second floor and a guy was listening to what I am sure was the new Jay Z song,  and I could hear it playing as far as ten feet (I wish I was  exaggerating).

I had to check and remind myself that I was at the library and not the Red Carpet.

Even more puzzling is that no one else looked as disturbed by this as I was.

A few weeks back this one guy had the audacity to eat his lunch in the library, a Subway sandwich of all things, not peanuts, chips or chocolate, a sandwich. He looked like a first year student but his behavior is still inexcusable.

There are a multitude of signs in the library that state “no eating” and “no noise” and yet students seem to be oblivious to them.

The library is a public place where people with different personalities and goals congregate. But the primary role of the library to provide us with a place to study, to do homework, and to work on projects, with as a little noise and disturbance to others as possible.

A place where your younger siblings cannot annoy you, or your roommate wanting to watch Big Brother while you want to read, a place for you to be productive in the pursuit of scholarly success. The library is our source of information when doing research; it aids us in “deconstructing” theories (to use a popular term) made up by other thinkers.

This is a place where the next “big idea” might be formulated and loud music might disturb that process.

This is a place that houses works of people who have not only helped us understand the world, but also enabled us to change it. When you enter the library you should understand that you are amongst great minds, leaders, revolutionary people and in this respect the library should be treated with reverence along with the people who use it.

The Miller Centre has rooms for group discussions, the third floor is the quiet floor and the first and second floors groups are allowed (which I personally think is too generous; they should be limited to one).

In a perfect world, the whole library would be silent. No exceptions. That is why you have group study rooms.

I am not one to advocate for enforcements anywhere, but I think the library might need them.

In recent times I find myself only really appreciating the library on a Friday night, Saturday or Sunday during the day as these are the times with the least amount of traffic and only within these times is the library a true learning sanctuary.

With that said, here are few library etiquette tips you might want to remember the next time you are in the library:

Sitting on the tables is not right, that is why there are chairs. You can do it in your room or at your partner’s house, but not in the library.

Please keep Beyonce, Linkin Park and Flo Rida to a minimum. We know they are fabulous artists, but you are disturbing me with your “Single Ladies” while I am trying to understand E=MC².

I know it is tempting to show your friend the new spoof of yet another music video on YouTube and laugh out loud, but please refrain until you get to Atwood or your room.

It is one thing for your phone to ring at maximum volume (while it should be silent) but answering it and having a twenty minute conversation is obnoxious. The gossip might be juicy, but really, we don’t care.

It is really not a hard math equation, if you want to converse with a friend, go outside.

Being hostile to someone who is trying to shush you because you are noisy (on the third floor no less, where you should be silent) is unacceptable.

Remember the library is for public use, it is not just for you. As with all public institutions you need to respect those who use it with you. Library rules are not there to stifle your lifestyle; they are there to make sure we all make adequate use of the library to ensure maximum learning. Now, I understand you might not want to learn, but please, do not disturb those us who want to.

http://www.universitychronicle.com/opinions/the-miller-center-is-not-for-miller-time-1.1937702#

My second opinion piece for the university paper was published today. The title speaks for itself. Enjoy. Think. Criticise. Question.

Here is it:

Numerous scholars have maintained that the main difference between humans and animals is our ability to think, our consciousness. This consciousness is what has guided us to create the world structures that we have today (and also to terminate them if we want).

It is this consciousness that has driven us to transition from feudalism to industrialization, which lead us to modernity and finally the present times (who some call post-modern times). During these periods so much has happened, all kinds of revolutions, two World Wars, colonization, voyages of discovery, the start up and fall of empires, the start up and fall of social movements, the list goes on.

Human kind has really been through so much, so much that this piece cannot do justice to human history. Now my consciousness was really sharpened when I enrolled in an institution of higher education back in 2004.

This was a time of real change in my life as I was learning, growing, and coming into my own. What I loved the most about the university environment was the freedom to question and the platform for criticism. Coming from a home environment where adults cannot be questioned and you keep your criticism to yourself, because you are a child, and subsequently don’t know anything, and shouldn’t have anything to say.
Remember when you sometimes asked your parents the “why” questions? They either get annoyed and tell you “because I say so” or give you a bent version of the truth. That does not occur at the university (or at least it shouldn’t), questioning and criticism are part and parcel of the university culture and curriculum.

It is through questioning and criticism that we form social, political and even economic affiliations, as we see the need, because we asked questions. This questioning and criticism is not only for some, but for all.

There has been a tendency of late, which I have found on television, radio, regular conversations, books, newspapers and even some professors, where some people are seen or portrayed as above questioning and/or criticism.

It really boggles my mind when public figures are portrayed as un-penetrable as if their ideas are without fault.

I hate to break to you, but nobody is above criticism, not president Obama, nor president Potter, no SCSU department, not Vandana Shiva, not my boss, not Dr. Phil, not bell hooks, not even Oprah is above criticism, not Foucault, not Judith Butler, not Nelson Mandela,  not even a black gay man from Africa in a social justice type program  is above criticism, and did I mention no religion is above criticism either (try a “sociology of religion” class and you will know).

The workers movement was born out of questioning class, the civil rights movement was born out of questioning race and human rights, the “sex movements” came out of questioning gender and so on and so forth.

Now, just because you have the platform to question and criticize, does not mean you have to abuse it. You need to know all the facts surrounding the issue you are questioning or criticizing, your arguments need to be valid and you should be able to back them up.

The university is where most of us find our freedom, where we can go against the tide, with reason of-course. So next time someone tells you that you can’t question or you feel scared to criticize, do it anyway.

You might be doing them a world of good, they might not have thought about the aspects of an issue you are thinking about. Remember we are different from animals because we have an ability to think, we can discern right from wrong (sometimes anyway).

Because we have this conscience, and we can reason, nobody, absolutely no one is above criticism, not even my mother, who I love dearly.

Retreived from: http://www.universitychronicle.com/opinions/no-one-is-above-criticism-1.1917183 

This is an opinion piece I wrote for the school paper. It is really inspired by one of my favourite philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche.  The quote really summaries my thoughts about being different.

Here is it:

Friedrich Nietzsche once said that, “the individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe”.

This is something all of us can identify with.

I imagine you have all been in situations (some of us our whole lives) where you are forced to be something you are not, just so you can fit in.

Conformity is something that gets my low-cut bikini briefs in a knot, as it robs people from being themselves and, most of all, it suppresses creativity that one might possess.

The people who conform to certain ways of being are hard to miss on this campus. The people who hang out in groups of four or five, all dressing the same (khaki cargo shorts, sporty sneakers, and AE or Aero t-shirts, caps with symbols). They hang around people who look like them and use the same vocabulary (which consist of f*&% that bitch, that’s so gay, x-box, fag).

Who can forget the groups with the same hair color (usually blonde), the same coach bags and the same Victoria Secret scent?

They are often the ones who play saint during the day and slut by night.  I swear they are all born of the same mother.

Yes, such groups provide safety in a campus world filled with judgment, low self-esteem and a constant need for validation.

One question: How much does this conformity cost?

I have to say though, I have found a group of individuals who refuse to conform to whatever it is that society deems as “normal”. I find myself spotting these people all over campus.

This is the guy who does not find pleasure in sport and prefers theatre, or the one that sports gloss now and again, or the one that actually likes to read TIME magazine.

I have also run into some gals who would rather play video games than go shopping, whose hair does not define them.

I am talking about men and women who make us question the masculinity/femininity divide.

I am talking about people who do not take their SCSU peers’ into consideration when they are trying to define themselves.

These individuals color outside the lines and, in so doing, venture into uncharted territory.  This is not easy as there is a social price to pay when you go against the grain.

When you start to question (and criticize by actions) what is “normal” behavior, there are real social consequences.

Western society (particularly the United States) is a puzzle. While “individuality” is praised, it is also very much shunned.  You have to be an “individual” that looks, acts, talks, dresses, and does everything like everybody else.

Most of us that have dared to color outside the lines have paid dearly with the loss of friendships and weird stares at the mall or cafeteria.

Even worse is when people believe you have no right to exist.

This is to all who are different and punished for it: know that someone is watching and cheering you on.

Most importantly know that you are inspiring to someone else who refuses to be overwhelmed by the tribe.

So in the midst of the abuse, the taunts, and the rude stares, remember what Nietzsche summarized succinctly: “If you try it (i.e. going against the tribe), you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself”.

You can find the piece at : http://www.universitychronicle.com/opinions/and-they-all-look-just-the-same-1.1906430 

Shocking new research has found that one in three men who have sex with men (MSM) in Soweto is HIV positive. This is said to be the first study to examine HIV and the community of men who have sex with men in the South African township.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), found that the highest HIV rate was among MSM who identified as gay, at 33.9 percent.

They further estimated that the rate of HIV infection for bisexual MSM in Soweto to be 6.4 percent and 10 percent for straight identified MSM.

“Our findings clearly indicate that targeted prevention and treatment for men who have sex with men in townships are urgently needed,” said the study’s principal investigator, Tim Lane, PhD, MPH, assistant professor at the UCSF Center for AIDS Prevention Studies.

Of the study’s 378 participants, 34.1 percent identified as gay, 30.4 percent as bisexual and 31.7 percent as straight. All but one of the participants were black South Africans and all of South Africa’s black African ethnic groups were represented in the sample.

The authors say that the study showed that MSM’s sexual identities predicted their sexual behaviour with other men.

Gay identity was highly correlated with the exclusive practice of receptive anal intercourse and straight and bisexual self-identification was highly correlated with the exclusive practice of insertive anal intercourse with male partners.

“With the correlation of sexual identity and sexual practice, control of condom use in same-sex partnerships tends to be in the hands of bisexual and straight MSM. This finding demonstrates the pressing need to promote condom use among bisexual and straight-MSM for same-sex as well as heterosexual relationships,” said Lane.

“…despite South Africa’s legal advances in gay rights, stigma and de facto segregation are reflected in the disproportionate rates of HIV infection.”

The authors also looked at other risk factors and found that HIV infection was also associated with being older than 25, lower incomes, purchasing alcohol or drugs for a male partner in exchange for sex, having receptive anal intercourse and having any unprotected anal intercourse with a man.

HIV infection was significantly less likely among men who have sex with men who were circumcised, smoked marijuana, had a regular female partner or reported unprotected vaginal intercourse with women.

Quite significantly, Lane said that the findings clearly suggest that for this population of MSM, circumcision could be protective and that “MSM should not be excluded from circumcision programs.”

Although the effect of circumcision reducing the rate of HIV infection among heterosexual men has been well demonstrated in various studies in Africa, there has been little research on this issue with regard to MSM.

The Soweto study contradicts US-based research presented last week at the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta, during which Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said that circumcision “is not considered beneficial” in the case of anal sex.

Those researchers did admit that their results could have been skewed by the fact that 87% of the US men involved in the study were circumcised (around 80% of American men are circumcised) and they may have had too few uncircumcised men in their sample group.

According to Lane, “Despite South Africa’s legal advances in gay rights, stigma and de facto segregation are reflected in the disproportionate rates of HIV infection.”

Source: http://www.mambaonline.com/article.asp?artid=3569

This is one of the best quotes I have seen lately. From Lady Gaga. This woman reminds me of the word, transgression. She is so what middle America needs right now.

“I just want to be clear before we decide to do this together: I’m gay. My music is gay. My show is gay. And I love that it’s gay. And I love my gay fans and they’re all going to be coming to our show. And it’s going to remain gay.”
–Lady Gaga, on what she told Kanye West before agreeing to tour with him. As quoted in the September 2009 issue of Out magazine.

This article was sent to me via e-mail and I enjoyed reading it as it really hits important points. I think that as the gay community is often bullied by religious fundamentalism, it tends to react by bulling back. I think that we could (as Tariq mentioned) live harmoniously with religious people, it is just easier said than done. What is also important here is the context because Europe, America, the gay community and others, cannot expect people to change their religious beliefs, but people should respect ”others” as people regardless of belief or “lifestyle”.

Tariq Ramadan: Islam and Homosexuality

 

All the worlds’ major religions and spiritual traditions—from the majority view in Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism to Christianity and Islam—condemn and forbid homosexuality. The great majority of rabbis hold the same position, as do the Pope and the Dalaï Lama, notes Tariq Ramadan.

 

Tariq Ramadan is Professor of Islamic Studies at the Faculty of Theology, Oxford University. He is also president of the think tank European Muslim Network in Brussels. This article appeared in his website TariqRamadan.com.

 

Middle East Online    First Published 2009-07-29

The Islamic position on homosexuality has become one of the most sensitive issues facing Muslims living in the West, particularly in Europe. It is being held up as the key to any eventual “integration” of Muslims into Western culture, as if European culture and values could be reduced to the simple fact of accepting homosexuality. The contours of this de facto European culture is in a state of constant flux, shifting according to the topic of the day. Just as some insist, as do the Pope and certain intellectuals—often dogmatic and exclusivist defenders of the Enlightenment—that Europe’s roots are Greek and Christian (thus excluding Muslims), so several homosexual spokesman and the politicians who support them are now declaring (with an identical rejection of Muslims) that the “integration of Muslims” depends on their acceptance of homosexuality. The contradiction is a serious one: does Christianity, which forms the root structure of European culture, and which purports to embody European values and identity, not condemn homosexuality? A curious marriage. Unless the contradiction is intended to stigmatize Islam and Muslims by presenting them as “the Other”… without fear of self-contradiction.

 

We must reiterate, as does Isabelle Levy in “Soins et croyances” [1] that all the worlds’ major religions and spiritual traditions—from the majority view in Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism to Christianity and Islam—condemn and forbid homosexuality. The great majority of rabbis hold the same position, as do the Pope and the Dalaï Lama, who condemns homosexuality. For these traditions, as for Freud (who speaks of “perversion”), homosexuality is considered to be “against nature,” an “expression of disequilibrium” in the growth of a person. The moral condemnation of homosexuality remains the majority opinion of all religions, and Islam is no exception. It would be senseless to wish to deny the facts, to contradict the textual sources and to force believers to perform intellectual contortions so that they can prove they are in tune with the times.

 

But the question is not whether one agrees with the religious texts, the beliefs and the convictions espoused by individuals. It is to determe what is appropriate behavior in the societies in which we live together. For more than twenty years I have been insisting—and drawing sharp criticism from some Muslim groups—that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam, but that we must avoid condemning or rejecting individuals. It is quite possible to disagree with a person’s behavior (public or private), while respecting that person as an individual. This I have continued to affirm, and gone further still: a person who pronounces the attestation of Islamic faith becomes a Muslim; if that person engages in homosexual practices, no one has the right to drive him or her out of Islam. Behavior considered reprehensible under the rules of morality cannot justify excommunication. There is no ambiguity, and ample clarity: European Muslims have the right to express their convictions while at the same time respecting the humanity and rights of individuals. If we are to be consistent, we must respect this attitude of faith and openness.

 

Today we are witnessing an upsurge of unhealthy, ideology-driven movements. To affirm one’s convictions and respect others is no longer sufficient. Muslims are now being called upon to condemn the Qur’an, and to accept and promote homosexuality to gain entry into the modern world. Not only is such an attitude doomed to fail (the majority trends in both traditional and reformist Islam, as in other religions, will never waver on this question) but it also reveals a new dogmatism—and a whiff of colonialism, not to mention xenophobia—at the heart of so-called modern, progressive thought. Certain prominent intellectuals and lobbies have ordained a new form of political correctness; they would like to force everyone to be “open” or “liberal” in the same way. At first glance, this open, liberal thought would seem to warrant respect; but it reveals a troubling tendency to impose its own dogmas, leaving little or no room for the convictions of traditional philosophical, spiritual or religious world-views. Betraying the ultimate goal of modernity, which should help us manage freedom and diversity, we are now told that there is only one way to be free and modern. Both dogmatic and dogmatizing, this trend, in the name of liberal thought, is a dangerous one, and should alarm all women and all men, whether atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians or Muslims. It strikes at the very heart of our freedom of thought, of the most intimate aspects of our lives, of the ways we strive for social and intellectual emancipation.

 

Let us not delude ourselves. These developments, along with recent tensions surrounding the return of religion, its accompanying fears, and the social visibility of homosexual “believers” is directly related to the presence and new-found visibility of Muslims in our Western societies. We, as societies, can choose to exacerbate these sensitive issues and to exploit the natural stresses created by the arrival of new immigrants to demonstrate the impossibility of integrating Muslims, and the danger they are said to represent. There are political parties that may win elections by playing on these themes. The long term outcome will be to exacerbate social divisions, and will ultimately prove counterproductive. Social cohesion will become impossible, and daily life will be undermined by mistrust and insecurity. It is time to stop playing this harmful game, and return to a more just and reasonable approach.

 

The good news comes from the younger generation: cultures and religions cannot stop them from getting to know one another, from living together, and from sharing both spaces and hopes. They are the future; there can be no doubt that they will leave our past fears far behind.

 

Source: http://rain.org.za/tariq-ramadan-islam-and-homosexuality/