Why was Cuffs targeted by the Office of Judicial Affairs? The answer to this question is not easy to pinpoint, and looking deeper into the issue raises more questions than it answers.

Prompted by the Dec. 15, 2003, Daily article “Pain and Pleasure,” an investigation was opened into a possible assault, which is claimed to have occurred during a demonstration meeting put on by Cuffs on Nov. 10. While the woman in question was unharmed and, not even five minutes after the demonstration, exhibited no signs of injury, the heart of the matter is that the exchange occurred between two consenting adults.

This case is clearly not about assault, where one party is exploited by another for personal, non-mutual reasons. Why not? The exchange at the Cuffs meeting was welcomed and consensual.

Classifying it as otherwise is simply willful ignorance. The “injury” — if one can even define it as such — definitely fell short of the type of injuries seen at ultimate Frisbee tournaments, hockey games or a bit of racquetball at the Rec.

Nor did the incident increase the risk of, say, cancer — which actually does happen at ISU Cigar Club meetings (by consenting adults, of course). What separates Cuffs from other groups and activities is that they are left unprotected by Iowa law, giving employers, landlords and even universities the legal right to discriminate for no reason whatsoever.

What good does that do, though? Is Iowa State scared of having a diverse campus, where the free exchange of ideas is welcomed and promoted? Perhaps. When the Durham Center and Student Services Building were defaced with hate messages in the fall of 2002, it took ISU President Gregory Geoffroy and Vice President for Student Affairs Thomas Hill two weeks to respond to a Daily article (Nov. 19, 2002) with their Dec. 3 letters. Maybe the university is simply unable to handle these issues.

Or maybe Iowa State is more concerned with uptight alumni than current students? If that is the case, Iowa State ought to reconsider its priorities and favor community over future donations. Even if the university would rather secure alumni donations than live in the present by attending to the needs of current students, it is doubtful that a disregarded student body (see budget cuts, the tailgating lot fiasco, etc.) will be hugely eager to pour money back into this town after graduating and leaving Iowa.

Lack of clarity over the Cuffs case has served no one and resulted in pointless and unproductive conspiracy theory.

There is no evidence to support such speculation, but we have unfortunately been left hanging by the university.

Student members of Cuffs have been hassled away from their studies while trying to defend themselves and community, ISU lawyers have spent unnecessary time (and thus, our money — and lots of it) working on the case, and the university has painted itself as an intolerant institution.

The university’s inability to address the situation has led to other unsavory results. Apart from the theories, students have been writing in to the Daily degrading one another with demonizing statements.

The unfortunate truth is that beating an opponent in public debate is often easier when the said opponent has been reduced to a label. It’s a poor debate tactic, and typically employed when one has no reasoned argument, but that hasn’t stopped people from using it against members of Cuffs. That will probably continue so long as Iowa State leaves the issue unaddressed.

Why does Iowa State allow this to continue spiraling out of control?

An elegant solution exists. Iowa State has the chance to fill in the gaps in discriminatory Iowa law, and make everyone happy by having Cuffs members fill out waivers clearing the university and its lawyers of liability (whether or not injuries are worse than those suffered in a game of ping pong).

That way, Iowa State would be covered, Cuffs could continue providing a useful and educational service to the ISU community and the image of campus could return to one of more tolerance.