Undertakers are people too
I couldn’t help but feel disappointed when I read Monday’s Forum article “Landlords: Key-holding creepsters.” However, my let-down was not caused by statements about landlords, but instead those targeting members of other professions, specifically funeral directors. While I’m sure the lines were intended for comedic effect, calling morticians “crazies,” “sanity-deficient” and fetishists only served as proof of just how misunderstood funeral directors are today, and how media perpetuates misconceptions. Northwestern is an intelligent community and I would have expected more from us, but as shown in Fitzsimons’ article, even intelligent people can be misled.
Think about everything you know about morticians. Where does it come from? Old horror movies? Episodes of Six Feet Under? Tabloid articles about necrophilia? Entertaining, maybe, but they do not accurately represent the caring, compassionate people that comprise the funeral industry. These are professionals who take on the emotionally draining task of creating meaningful and respectful memorials for our deceased loved ones. And I assure you, they do not do it because of some sick obsession or mental imbalance; they do it because they care about people and helping them heal. The very least we can do is show some respect in return.
At some point in everyone’s life, or death, they will require a funeral director’s services. However, I fear misconceptions will stop them from using their funeral director as a resource for coping with grief, but that is the core reason funerals exist. I encourage everyone to take a closer look at the beliefs they hold about, to use the antiquated term, undertakers. It may not seem too important now, but sooner or later, the majority of people will develop a relationship with a funeral director. Fearing them or seeing them as crazy fetishists will only make an already difficult situation more complicated.
– Gayle Shier,
SESP junior
Stop ASG senator elitism
The current ASG rule that non-senators in a committee may not vote on bills is undemocratic. I understand that within Senate meetings, it is important that only senators vote, as it is in the United States Congress, and I agree that it should remain that way. Yet to extend the rule to committees effectively tells all non-senator members of a committee that in the eyes of ASG, whose motto is “Students First,” their voices do not matter and do not count.
A non-senator member may propose a bill,but can’t vote for it or any other bill. Members of ASG want more involvement from the student body, but when students try to become involved they are shut out of the process. The inconsistencies are astounding.
ASG senators have previously stated that they do not want to change this rule. The Senate also previously decided to limit the number of senators, further reducing the number of students who have a say in the goings-on of ASG, the system which is supposed to look out for the students and provide them with the best possible service. The ASG senators need to get off the pedestal that they perceive themselves to be on and pass legislation that actually allows members of the student body to participate in their government.
– Rachel Leess,
Weinberg sophomore
Student Services Committee Member
