Tuesday, February 24, 2004

SPILF Preventing the Objectification of Men
Apparently, there is a bit of controversy going behind the scenes the at the Stanford Public Interest Legal Foundation Auction (or SPILF Auction) which takes place each year to support law students who work in the public interest field over the summer. Frequently auctioned items include autographed portraits of a "hero" (Thurgood Marshall), trips to the airport, and home cooked meals. An anonymous reader emails me this story about one item which won't be in the auction.

Several weeks ago a 3L student associated with the SPILF auction approached a group of 2Ls and convinced them to put together a calendar to be auctioned off at the SPILF auction. The group of 12 individuals were finally persuaded by SPILF leadership to put together the calendar featuring pictures of each of the individuals, one per month. SPILF leadership promised to incorporate the calendar in the live auction, noting that it would probably raise a lot of cash. Also encouraged to create a similar calendar, a group of 12 1L men decided to do the same. After literally spending hundreds of dollars on props and production costs for the calendars, the SPILF board decided that the calendars would not beauctioned in the live auction because it raised "much controversy" related to "the objectification of men." (as if the men in the calendar were sacrificing honorable careers in order to capitalize on their physical appearance!) Ironically, the SPILF board thought that it would be permissible to auction the calendars in the silent auction. Isn't this just another example of a "solution" by controlling liberals that (i) addresses a non-existent problem and (ii) doesn't even come close to addressing the supposed problem?

Jenn Chou, of SPILF, writes
1) it was never promised as a live auction item
2) both calendars WILL be in the silent acution
3) there was no "protest" in moving it to silent; the entire board was in agreement
4) i've given you all the reasons for why it was moved to silent, none of which invoke viewpoint or content-based discrimination

No comments: