As a current feminist topic, Luby’s discussion of collegiate dismissal of sexual violence on campuses and within their departments is still a very relevant conversation. Especially in UConn’s case, where there have been several cases of violent behavior among members of the athletic department. However, the only reformation UConn’s athletic department has received is the cosmetic makeover of their Husky mascot. Some of those who disagreed with Luby’s article said that Luby’s association of the new Husky with rape and condolence of sexual violence made her mentally disturbed. Others poked holes in her argument by stating that Enosch Wolf was suspended from the team indefinitely after charges were pressed against him and they felt that was punishment enough for someone with aggressive, harmful tendencies. Fortunately, Luby also had supporters through all of this who argued that if UConn wanted a physical makeover for their athletic department, they would also have to have a cultural makeover and reassess the ways in which they deal with poor behaviors that universities sweep under the rug in order to protect their star athletes. One supporter of Luby even pointed out that mascots are never “innocuous”, university mascots are symbolic and hold a lot of context. Creating a Husky with a more aggressive demeanor does send out a “Don’t mess with me” message to all those who may oppose it.

                  Not everyone who felt the need to put their two cents in about Luby’s discussion even understood her argument. Right off the bat, many people who read her article immediately discounted her opinions because she identified as a feminist. So in all honesty, most people opposing Luby’s argument weren’t analyzing it seriously; they were simply attacking her use of feminist perspective. One writer went as far as to insult Luby’s area of study and her work in activism for Women’s and Human’s Rights. He described the discipline of Women’s, Sexuality, and Gender studies as a degree in “ax-grinding” and insisted that Women’s rights activism creates victims. Those who opposed Luby’s argument seemed to boil her article down to another “whiny feminist” looking for something to complain about. Overall, Luby’s article was taken out of context in order to make her sound delusional. Those who disagreed with her tried to make her sound like the girl who cried Husky, rather than heeding her warning of the threat posed to young women on college campuses.

                  I found the thread of events following Luby’s publication on the Feminist Wire absolutely horrendous. Luby received rape threats, death threats, and endured verbal abuse on campus after word got out about her article. I also found it ironic that Luby’s article about sexual violence and rape culture at UConn illicited rape threats. One of Luby’s supporters pretty much summed it up when she wrote, “Strong, brave empowering women are speaking up about the rape culture that we live in… and in response, society is threatening to rape them. Thank you, society. Because we needed our point proven further.” After reading the article the first time through, I thought that Luby’s letter to UConn’s female president was an effective analysis of how universities tend to handle sexual violence and ignore rape culture. Initially, I saw little to no flaw in her argument. It wasn’t until after I saw someone comment on Luby’s article saying that Wolf and McCombs had both received punishment for their actions that I found any real pitfall. Although Wolf was removed from the team indefinitely and McCombs was suspended for 10 months, I still agree with Luby’s argument that UConn does not appropriately resolve issues in their athletic department. Simply removing two troublemakers does not eradicate the real problem. Those boys and all the other athletes should be receiving counseling services and remedial sessions on how to handle aggressive or violent urges as Luby suggested. That would more effectively reduce the chances of violence against women on UConn’s campus, while also eliminating their athlete’s negative behavior.

                  Luby’s article was clearly effective in that it received attention and caused a great deal arousal, despite whether or not the response was positive or negative. Luby’s article was largely discussed and analyzed on many different platforms, although some of those platforms were misogynistic and demeaning. Researching UConn’s mascot makeover and the controversy surrounding it reaffirms my belief that online activism can be a very effective and progressive way of relaying information. However, since not everyone on the internet is likeminded and accepting of criticism, almost any form of online activism is bound to receive some sort of backlash or negative response. Therefore, we should be prepared for the possibility of hateful responses when we engage in online activism.