Northwestern University and Evanston's Only Daily News Source Since 1881

The Daily Northwestern

46° Evanston, IL
Northwestern University and Evanston's Only Daily News Source Since 1881

The Daily Northwestern

Northwestern University and Evanston's Only Daily News Source Since 1881

The Daily Northwestern

Advertisement
Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive our email newsletter in your inbox.



Advertisement

Advertisement

Chen: Pink is not a cure for cancer

After nearly a week of the Susan G. Komen versus Planned Parenthood debacle, I’ve finally realized why I get so annoyed by the color pink.

Before I pick my bone with the overly pink-clad philanthropists, I’d like to point out the complete lack of correlation between a particular color and cancer research.

I’ve never understood why those pink ribbons are everywhere. From tennis racquets to pepper spray, it’s literally impossible to escape the mass-produced ubiquity of Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

So is pink supposed to be the cure? Was Susan G. Komen the one who established the rule of wearing pink on Wednesdays?

In a sense, I’m glad that the breast cancer foundation momentarily decided to cut its funding for Planned Parenthood.

Though my respect and allegiance aligns with Planned Parenthood, I’m definitely not part of the minority.

In the course of three days, its supporters raised $3 million – a feat that serves both as an affirmation of America’s support for reproductive health and a long overdue indictment to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The latter not only antagonized itself and undercut its intents but also revealed a sliver of its deceptive and monopolizing nature as a barely non-profit organization.

CEO Nancy Brinker may have flaked out on the foundation’s little political stunt, but she hasn’t escaped public reproach and certainly won’t escape mine.

Aside from finally having a reason to hate on pink, my newly substantiated conviction against the Komen Foundation brings me to question its integrity as the self-proclaimed “leader of the breast cancer movement.”

Since 1982, the Komen Foundation has invested $1.9 billion in the field, or so it claims on its website. But in spite of its hefty investment, the organization as a whole has failed to make clinical progress.

According to independent charity evaluator charitynavigator.org, about 80 percent of the organization’s funds goes to program expenses, but only 25 percent of that is for scientific research. In the past decade, Komen hasn’t had any breakthroughs in finding a cure.

In fact, a woman has a higher risk of getting breast cancer today than she would in 1975. Due to various modern health trends like late childbearing and obesity, cancer rates have been steadily increasing. According to sociologist Gayle Sulik, author of Pink Ribbon Blues, 30 years ago, the breast cancer rate was 1 in 11. Today it’s 1 in 8.

Though we can’t blame Komen for the rise in breast cancer incidence rates, something fishy is going on here.

As for the rest of the foundation’s money, what exactly is it going toward?The official website calls it “promoting awareness,” but I call it the mindless infestation of pink. In other words, the Komen Foundation is an evil marketing genius.

By branding the noble cause of fighting cancer with its stylized pink ribbon, Komen has gained paramount support from countless corporations, including gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson. Through the omnipresence of that little pink ribbon, the image of a breast cancer survivor has become commercialized, mass-produced and even sexualized.

The Komen Foundation also undermines other cancer organizations and nonprofits advocating for essentially the same cause because it hogs considerable corporate backing.

In the past year alone, Komen has filed 16 legal oppositions against other charities through the patent and trademark process.

Instead of working in collaboration with other research groups and fundraising coalitions, Komen alienates all other nonprofit organizations to maintain its status as the philanthropic alpha dog.

With all said and done, Susan G. Komen for the Cure did not, in fact, establish the rule of wearing pink on Wednesdays. That was Regina George.

And while I can’t necessarily equate a frivolous, fictional villain with a charity organization, I did point out some of the foundation’s characteristics that are uncannily similar to Regina and her Plastics.

At the end of the day, fighting cancer is still the ultimate cause of any breast cancer foundation, and it’s an honorable cause through and through.

But at the heart of that mission is research, which is much more important than fundraising, marketing and, most of all, that annoying shade of pink.

Cathaleen Chen is a Medill freshman. She can be reached at [email protected]

More to Discover
Activate Search
Northwestern University and Evanston's Only Daily News Source Since 1881
Chen: Pink is not a cure for cancer