Two weeks ago, I made the unambiguous (or so I thought) assertion that the Beardshear Eight needs a lesson in civil disobedience.

It now appears that some of them also need a lesson in reading comprehension.

My assessment of the Beardshear Eight’s actions was clear, and remains so today. I am neither amused nor convinced by the attempts of September 29th Movement members to take my words out of context and twist them into their soapbox.

Then again, I really can’t say I am surprised. Taking words out of context seems to be a pastime for people on this campus.

I am quite amused, however, by Milton McGriff’s unbelievable and truly remarkable talent for reading minds. After all, he seems to know what I was thinking when I wrote my column. This is a talent the boyfriend has yet to develop, even though I have been dating him for three years.

McGriff argues, “Wilson also thinks the entire Catt debate is only about Catt.” Forgive me if I do separate the issues involved, simply because I agree with the Movement on one and with the administration on all others. (Yes, boys and girls, I agree with the administration; Hell is getting a might chilly.)

I make no apologies for my support of Carrie Chapman Catt and her strategy in winning the vote. I make no apologies for my personal indictment of the Beardshear Eight for their perverted use of the term “civil disobedience.” The only thing I agree with the Movement on is the lack of student involvement in the decision to rename Old Botany.

McGriff assumes I see Catt Hall as the only underlying issue involved in what has grown into one of the most heated debates in the last few years. I do not. My column recognized issues of recruitment, retention and racial violence, and I agree there are many other issues affecting ALL students on this campus that need to be addressed. Anyone who reads my columns on a regular basis would know I am not unsympathetic to students who are legitimately discriminated against.

Catt Hall, however, was the seed for this debate, so that is where I started my column. Too many people on this campus have been afraid to show support for a dedicated feminist who helped women obtain the right to vote. They are afraid they will be labeled racists, sympathizers, or apologists, and some who sprang to Catt’s defense have been so labeled.

Call me whatever you like. I am the whitest white girl you will ever see, who just happened to grow up in Dubuque, Iowa — well known for its cross burnings in the early 1990s. Then again, I currently work for a Des Moines civil rights attorney who handles race and gender discrimination cases. I guess my personal ideology isn’t quite so black and white — forgive the pun.

“Catt Hall is a symbol,” McGriff writes. A symbol of what, I wonder? A symbol of oblivious administrators who failed to do their research and take Catt’s alleged remarks into consideration when they named the building? Perhaps. A symbol of continuing apathy on the part of the administration? Definitely. A symbol of racial intolerance? Excuse me if I object to this characterization.

Symbols are nasty things in the realm of free speech. They have the tendency to be interpreted in numerous ways, and at least one of those interpretations is usually offensive to someone.

Suffice it to say that everyone is offended by something. I find Malcolm X as offensive as McGriff finds Catt. I accept that Malcolm X’s statements about “white devils” and the like were byproducts of his cause and time. McGriff and his colleagues prefer to hold Catt to the standards of here and now. I understand that Malcolm X later recanted from his previously held stereotypes, and I accept his rejection of his past rhetoric. Catt, too, recanted, but she is still asked to burn for her mistakes.

Perhaps the most upsetting is McGriff’s attempt to bring feminism into the debate with the comment, “[Wilson] may even perceive our position as an attack on feminism, although women who consider themselves feminists have been leading The Movement’s campaign to change the name since the very beginning.”

In my column, I made it perfectly clear that I support Catt and that I like my right to vote. I understand the tactics Catt had to use to win the vote. I never mentioned feminists and I prefer that McGriff not use me or feminists as his soapbox. Maybe he would like to play “Who’s More of a Victim?,” but I do not. Yes, feminists support The Movement, but I find McGriff’s flaunting of their support no different than if I were to say, “Yeah, but I have black friends.”

Usually I would not make such a direct response to criticism, but I prefer to be criticized for what I write, not for some amorphous hidden meaning. I do, however, see the advantage in such a methodology. It is much easier to win a debate when you make up the opposing argument.

Theresa Wilson is a graduate student in political science at ISU from Dubuque. She is a second-year law student at Drake University.