Students can do more to support diversity in sexual orientation

David Louk made an important point in his op-ed about the unthinking ease that often characterizes homophobic remarks. Acceptance of queer people at Stanford is often tempered by the use of demeaning language that even those affected have learned to tolerate or ignore.

Although offensive expressions may seem to be more of an annoyance than an important issue on campus, the presence of this language may be indicative of a culture that claims to tolerate diversity in sexual orientation but does not actively support this diversity.

Several campus groups work to change this situation, including the Queer / Straight Alliance, which hosts anti-homophobia workshops in dorms to challenge heterosexism and make queer issues more visible. Clearly, it takes more than a workshop to change individual behavior, but if you are concerned with homophobic remarks in your dorm or student group and would like to do something about it, QSA is available atqsalliance@gmail.com as a possible resource.

Even simple steps like hanging an “I support queer rights” sign on your door or refusing to tolerate homophobic comments can be a start to making the campus a more actively aware and appreciative place for those of all sexual orientations.

In order for queer rights to be more than a slogan on the door, queer and queer-allied students alike in every dorm and house on campus must be willing to speak out for what they believe in, even — and — especially in moments that otherwise would pass in silence.

Anna Rafferty

Hannah Leslie

Leaders, Queer/Straight Alliance

Administration needs to fix DoorKing systems

In regards to the recent intruders in dorms, I place a large portion of the blame on residential housing services who for the past two years have failed to properly set up the DoorKing systems that they so readily flaunt as their solution for residents propping doors open.

For the past two years, DoorKing listings have been incomplete and inaccurate. Just last night I went to visit some friends at Xanadu and not only were their names unlisted, but a friend of mine who had lived there the previous year was still on the list!

The administration needs to get their priorities straight. If they are going to provide this great DoorKing system and tout its benefits, they need to do THEIR PART and actually set them up properly.

Eric Furtado

Senior, Computer Science

Arguments against legalizing

marijuana ignore important facts

Michelle Keller’s Jan. 27 story ("The Great Pot Debate") is carefully balanced to give voice to both sides of the contentious issue of marijuana smoking.

I have a problem with both arguments. They focus on the drug as if it alone causes addiction. True, drug addiction is determined partly by the drug’s properties, but primarily by the genetic makeup and environment of the drug user. A person who uses one drug to excess usually uses other drugs to excess. The user — not the drug — is the cause of the excess.

Keller speaks of heroin as being “highly addictive.” Not so. The probability of an average person becoming addicted to heroin is about 2 percent, based on that famous follow-up study done on Vietnam vets who had used heroin overseas. The 2 percent figure is consistent with the experience of pain clinics and burn clinics who prescribe opiates to their patients.

Heroin dependence today seems higher because the people who choose to inject an illegal drug are hardly a random sample of Americans; rather, they are an addiction- prone, risk-seeking subset of Americans.

Those who would prohibit marijuana because it “can be abused” or “causes addiction” are too ignorant to be deciding public policy.

John Chase

Palm Harbor, FL