When I read that Graham Spanier denounced Sex Faire and Cuntfest in a letter to Pennsylvania legislators, I was disappointed. I felt, as woman and as a student, sold out.

I wanted him to make an impassioned plea to the senators about the importance of events like Sex Faire. I wanted him to stand firmly behind Womyn's Concerns, firmly against sexual assault, and firmly in the face of anyone who tried to blackmail us into abandoning our freedom of speech.

But now, a week into the appropriations meeting, I'm not sure what I want. And I'm not sure if Graham Spanier should take the role of rebel administrator. I'm starting to wonder if President Spanier made the smarter move by becoming a governmental martyr, making concessions and apologies needed to appease the powers that be so Womyn's Concerns, Young Americans for Freedom and the Monty Python Society can all continue their work here at University Park, and that the entire Penn State community receives the funding necessary to keep our school running efficiently, inexpensively, and well.

Do we need a strong leader, one who will tell the legislature, "Hey, back off, Jacko! We'll celebrate cunts whenever, wherever and however we want. This is the United Freakin' States!" Or do we need someone who says, "Gee, well, it looks like we stepped on some toes, we'll consider this next time — there will be a next time, cause you really don't have much legal ground to stand on — let's kiss and make up, and get back to business. Can we have that $27 million now?"

No matter how I try to rationalize his letter, I'm still sad he wasn't more emphatic and resolute in his support of recent events, instead of sounding so damned apologetic. And while I'm not completely comfortable with his pledge to "minimize shock value" of such programs, I'm placing my hope in the integrity of his phrasing, which seemed to indicate equal cooperation between staff and students as opposed to internal censorship from the administration. I also recognize the significance of the letter's timing and audience and reexamined his role in the entire controversy.

Spanier is treading on very thin ice here. His job has him answering to everyone this campus embodies: men, women, conservatives and liberals alike. And despite the best efforts of Rep. Lawless, Spanier's trip to Harrisburg originally had nothing to do with the Sex Faire.

Once a year, our president treks to the capitol and makes a plea to the state for more money. Money to fund the university's academic programs, pay its professors and, in theory, keep tuition manageable.

Sex Faire, paid for out of pocket by the members of Womyn's Concern, should have nothing to do with the funding the state doles out to Penn State. And most of the legislature seems to know that. President Spanier knows that as well, which is why his letter to the state legislators was so nonconfrontational: He wasn't going to get into a fight about something that shouldn't even be contested, our government-sanctioned rights to free speech. But at the same time, he tried to smooth the feathers of the conservative Appropriations Committee.

As head of what is essentially a billion-dollar business, President Spanier's role is to protect the best interest of his "clients" — the faculty, staff and students he serves. He is not meant to be some vigilante educator. Strength of convictions is not a job requirement. We have the lowest student-to-dollars ratio in the Big Ten and the largest tuition of the Big Ten state schools.

Tuition is going up every year, chances of securing housing are going down. We have master plans and mission statements in place to ensure the degree you leave with will continue to maintain a high academic reputation and that the campus can grow in status and facilities in the coming years. To do all this, to lower tuition and build up programs, like our new IST school, we need money. And to get money, sometimes you have to pander to those who control the purse strings.

Again, though, I wondered how much of his letter's soft, apologetic tone was Spanier being sincere and how much of it was him playing the politics that inevitably come with being president of a large university. I also read and reread what little I could find about this letter and realized though he took a lot of prefacing and pretty words to get there, the final message was this: We are not going to deny our students freedom of speech.

Yes, he said, these festivals embarrassed me, and yes, they may have been what some consider poor taste, but that's not the point. The point is my students have the right to say whatever they want, and you have no legal ground to stand on. Now let's kindly move back into your jurisdiction, which is providing us funds to educate the children of Pennsylvania.

I hope Spanier really means this and that his actions in the coming year support the message he's put forth to the Appropriations Committee. As long as the university remains supportive and tolerant to diversity of opinion, personal responsibility to plan our events and decide what is and not appropriate, and the freedom to educate our peers, then Graham Spanier is doing his job.

I still wish our president was more supportive of certain issues on campus; I'm still upset at his silence last semester after hate mail and sex crimes permeated the campus. But it's not his job to instigate social change within the university. He's not that type of leader. That responsibility lies in our hands. It's his job to ensure our hands remain free to do so.