During the past two months, I have learnedthat one of the most commonly misunderstood positions in current campus politics is that of the anti-Playboy activist. In his column "The Double Standard of Choice," (May 10, 1995), Dan Richman '95 succeeded in wrapping up his obvious personal confusion with the separate issue of the abortion debate. He not only rashly overgeneralized about the personal stances of the ranks of activists, but he also blatantly mis-stated the goals of the coalition of students who are opposed to Playboy Magazine's visit.
One of the interesting characteristics of the anti-pornography movement is that it is one of the few political actions that is comprised largely of people from both the left and right ends of the spectrum. This is because the issue can be looked at from several drastically different perspectives, including that of a dedicated feminist who considers pornography to be clearly connected to sexual assault and that of a deeply religious conservative who thinks that porn is the immodest display of the body, which encourages sinful thoughts and actions. What the two sides have in common is their disgust for the porn industry, including Playboy.
As many people know, at Dartmouth there is a good blend of vocal liberals and conservatives; as a result, the coalition formed to respond to Playboy consists of quite a few feminists, several right-wing conservatives and a bunch of politically moderate students, faculty and administrators who could all agree on one thing: Playboy's visit warrants some oppositional action. So Richman's assumption that "[t]here should be little doubt that the overwhelming majority of the Playboy protesters are also pro-choice" is unfounded.
Yes, one could guess that many of the activists support abortion rights for women, but I personally know several people involved in anti-Playboy activity who are pro-life. In fact, I am a protester, a feminist and a member of the Dartmouth Coalition for Life. While Richman would have the campus community believe that the anti-Playboy and pro-choice movements "unquestionably" consist of the same groups of people, I take issue with such an unsubstantiated assertion.
However, Richman did not simply make assumptions about the protesters' political ideals, he also incorrectly compared the goals of the pro-life movement to those of the anti-Playboy action at Dartmouth. Many pro-lifers openly advocate the illegalization of abortion because they believe the current law effectively supports and condones over one million murders per year; pro-lifers certainly want a woman's legal choice to be limited.
On the other hand, the stated purpose of the coalition responding to Playboy is to "[coordinate] an oppositional response to Playboy Magazine's visit to Dartmouth on May 8-9, 1995 ... [through the planning of] a variety of educational opportunities for the community to discuss and learn more about issues that may arise from this visit, making us all better informed potential consumers, models, conscientious objectors and others in regard to the Women of the Ivy League issue." These goals are glaringly dissimilar, yet Richman jumps to the conclusion that we who are anti-Playboy oppose a woman's right to pose for the magazine. Where in the world did he come up with that? If he had bothered to ask one of the protesters about such a stance, he would have discovered our real intentions.
In the course of my anti-Playboy actions, I have met many people, none of whom have supported opposing the legal right of women to pose. Also, no one has advocated the use of intimidating tactics to bypass the law and stop women from choosing to pose. Rather, we wish to expose the character, intentions and effects of Playboy Magazine. We have shown films, put up posters, held a protest, brought a resolution to the Student Assembly, written letters and columns, created a home page on the Web and spoken out. We have never attempted, in any way, to hinder a woman's choice. Please, get it straight.
