Where have we come to as a higher-education community? If we were to believe the article on Playboy's latest "obstacle" to women's respect, as so artfully written by Gwenn Miller, we would be no further than our dim-witted, hairy ancestors.

Last time I checked, there was nothing wrong with admiring an attractive person, whether male or female. The reason many journalists are employed in a television field is that they are either knowledgeable and experienced in that given field or are attractive enough so that we might care what they have to say.

Miller wrote a column in Tuesday's Collegian that was one of the most nonsensical and inane pieces of journalism I have ever had the displeasure of reading. To believe her ranting is to say that we are a people not driven to look and perform to the greatest extent of our gifts.

And I guess that a perfect women wouldn't enjoy ogling Brad Pitt's bare torso. Furthermore, to assume that "... for the sake of our eyesight, neither sportscaster has ever done so" is to make pre-judgments that there are no respectful men or women on this campus that would enjoy such a carnal delight.

The majority of sportscasters are ex-players or coaches, and in the NFL, women are not. These female journalists may be knowledgeable, but let's not forget that they were hired for their looks, not for their limited expertise on the Wing-T.

Let's not cry every time Playboy runs a survey, because without them, many very talented women would be writing stories for an unnamed paper, not in front of the camera making a huge paycheck.