2008 Woodie Awards
Sex sells, condoms save
Kelsey Shannon
Issue date: 10/23/02 Section: Commentary
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Two short weeks after its implementation, the University's condom policy is having an exceptional effect. According to statistics recently released by the Office of Residence Life, sexual intercourse involving two unmarried students is down 86 percent over last month. Student Jane (name changed) explains why, "Well, you know, like usually, I would just be like, hey, John, there's like a condom on the door over there. My roommate just went downstairs to get the mail. You can probably, like, be in and out before she gets back. But now that the condoms are gone, and you know, you have to go all the way to CVS, I've just given up. Besides, now that I know that Georgetown and the Catholics and all are against the whole sex thing, I don't go past third base. Well, sometimes third and a half. Hehe."
Obviously, my witty introduction is completely fabricated. A truer tale of the current situation would be something like this:
Two short weeks after its implementation, the University's condom policy may or may not be having an effect on student life. H*yas for Choice and the rest of the liberal community are outraged by the school's suppression of their presumed right to free speech. Conservatives and many moderates are impressed with Georgetown's decision to stick to its guns on an issue so vital to Catholicism. The rest of the student body, particularly those not living in dormitories, have long since moved on, chalking up the decision as "just another way Georgetown interferes in our lives," but not really caring. No one will report, or at least admit to, having passed on sex because of the unavailability of a free condom.
Still, somehow, this whole thing matters. Even while it passes to the second tier of campus debate, the issue remains a potent one for those who continue to consider it. So here goes.
The University has every legal right to do what it is doing. The outsides of students' dorms are community space and not a designated "Free Speech Area" like Red Square. As such, the school can control what goes up on these doors. Those who argue otherwise either misunderstand the issue or are misconstruing Georgetown's actions. The question, though, is not whether Georgetown may enforce these rules, but whether it should.
Obviously, my witty introduction is completely fabricated. A truer tale of the current situation would be something like this:
Two short weeks after its implementation, the University's condom policy may or may not be having an effect on student life. H*yas for Choice and the rest of the liberal community are outraged by the school's suppression of their presumed right to free speech. Conservatives and many moderates are impressed with Georgetown's decision to stick to its guns on an issue so vital to Catholicism. The rest of the student body, particularly those not living in dormitories, have long since moved on, chalking up the decision as "just another way Georgetown interferes in our lives," but not really caring. No one will report, or at least admit to, having passed on sex because of the unavailability of a free condom.
Still, somehow, this whole thing matters. Even while it passes to the second tier of campus debate, the issue remains a potent one for those who continue to consider it. So here goes.
The University has every legal right to do what it is doing. The outsides of students' dorms are community space and not a designated "Free Speech Area" like Red Square. As such, the school can control what goes up on these doors. Those who argue otherwise either misunderstand the issue or are misconstruing Georgetown's actions. The question, though, is not whether Georgetown may enforce these rules, but whether it should.