MEET THE GUM STAFF A word from the editor
you should say hi. we don’t bite. unless you ask nicely.
Dear Friends, Thanks for picking up this copy of the GUM! If you want to write for this “exciting” publication, please email us at [gum]. If not, then thanks for reading this issue! This semester we, like many Grinnellians, addressed a variety of challenges. What does the GUM even stand for? Are we trying to report on news, like the S&B? Do we exist to proliferate art like the Grinnell Review?
SHADMAN ASIF Managing Editor
Shadman is not a photographer. He is actually a camera.
From the outset, rivals and pretenders wondered whether we could live up to our hype, and continue publishing frequent and insightful stories that Grinnellians would read on the internet and in print. SPARC did not completely grant us the money we requested and deserve. Later, we and our writers got too close to “popping the bubble.” An article that we published challenged the efficacy of Grinnell’s Title IX processes, and mischaracterized a college process...in the process. Subsequently, all of our editors resigned. Technically. Then my resignation was not accepted, and my mental health degraded in part due to the effects of the entire ordeal. Our new staff experienced their share of challenges this semester too. But I won’t write for them. Thankfully, conflicts that we must mediate internally and externally are the very sorts of concerns that we strive to cover in the GUM. In this issue, you’ll find stories about Grinnell’s problems with Title IX, reflections on personal fitness and which dining plan to choose, and even an assessment of our academic, sexual, and psychological standing as Grinnellians. The stories in this edition of the GUM describe issues integral to our personal identities, and to our identity as something emblematic of Grinnell. Maybe one day people will say that the GUM defines “the Grinnellian experience,” but it’s more likely that I’m remarkably hubristic. Nonetheless, I know that we haven’t described every compelling story or reached every Grinnellian who wants to tell their own story. So if this is your first time reading us and you want to share a story, once again, please write us an email or find one of us in person. Thank you very much, and write for us if you want to make your personal more political. Until then, enjoy the GUM. Best, Nathan Forman ‘15 Editor-in-Chief
1
ROSIE O’BRIEN Layout Editor
Rosie tries to make art out of anything she can, and maintains that there is a great deal of artistry in the way we end things.
NATHAN FORMAN Editor-In-Chief
Nathan Forman is available for employment. He is best reached via LinkedIn.
MAX CHRISTENSEN Creative Editor
Max blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah nyoom nyoom nugget. Blah blah Max nugget nyoom.
TJ PEARSON Copy Editor
TJ spends most of his time contemplating the health of the squirrel population on campus.
2
CONTENTS
Is the Grinnell Bubble all in our heads?
4 5
16
8
It’s hard to deny that humans enjoy games of some sort or another. When I discuss games, I am referring to a simplified series of theoretical choices with limited outcomes, so they do not need to account for unpredictable factors or be very realistic. Some of us play little games in our daily routines: compete with your friends for the weirdest combination of dining hall foods, get the most upvotes on YikYak, create incentives for finishing your paper before midnight. Sometimes our games are fun, and sometimes they are simply necessary, but they can also foster an unhealthy campus culture.
8 13
9 10 13
5
14
17 19 23 24
3
Students engage in a great deal of theoretical discussion on this campus, and while important, theory (like a game) does not always account for the unpredictability of life or the myriad factors which prevent us from absolutely categorizing everything. So we play a lot of games in academia: for example, constructing models that describe political conditions allows political scientists to momentarily sidestep the randomness of the universe and the volatility of human emotion in pursuit of organizing human institutions, wars, social movements and more (can you guess my major?)! As a Grinnellian, you have probably heard of “the bubble” by now, but let us engage in the theory of what that means. Does it allude to how rarely the divide between the town of Grinnell and Grinnell College is crossed? That can’t be true, because plenty of students live off-campus. Many more enjoy going downtown for movies and dining, or shopping at Goodwill and Second Mile.
15
9
by Rosie O’Brien ‘16
19
Does “the bubble” allude to the rules that don’t seem to apply to us? Students certainly notice when police officers come on campus. We know we are not impermeable to state and federal laws, and yet it upsets us when officers are in our space-- even on Block Party, which is hosted off-campus. This College is a space where our housing, meals, and sometimes tuition are largely provided for us. We can apply for funding for nearly any activity available to students, and the rest of the world does not often directly threaten our lifestyles. The campus itself is a tiny rectangle in the center of another tiny rectangle in the center of Iowa. We students are actually very sheltered by this College. If this is such a progressive community, why do we notice a breach in the bubble more violently when an outside force bursts in, and not as much when we venture outside of this place? It is my tentative hypothesis that students at this College have a tendency to build barriers around our own lives; we often shut out legitimate, lawful or diverse discourses of others because the Grinnell College Bubble protects us from many of these things. I notice it most
when I overhear conversations bashing on conservatives, talking about “The Administration” as if we don’t know their names, and making assumptions that everyone feels trapped and stressed on this campus. These ideas are all problematic in their own ways, and exemplify my conviction that we tend to construct little transparent boundaries that protect our fragile assumptions and biases, which burst unhappily when reality pokes us. When the outside world challenges the Grinnell Bubble, especially (lately) when it comes to alcohol use, marijuana policy and sexual assault policy, students notice immediately. We become alarmed when the “real world” threatens to pop our bubble, rather than when we step out of it ourselves and engage with the other side. That is not to say that everyone has their heads stuck in bubbles; recently, students have made amazing efforts to reach out and change the way we relate to those outside of the student bubble. However, the implications of thinking that the real world is indeed the problem, and that Grinnell is simply existing on its own terms, can be damaging to how we perceive ourselves as agents of change inside the walls of the bubble. Students are aware that our practice of self-governance reinforces the divide between Grinnell and other academic institutions. But self-gov also emphasizes the divide between our enclosed theoretical world and the practical limits of our very real (very conventional) geographic and political surroundings. Obviously, not everything on this campus is a fantasy, but I want to provide a warning against thinking the opposite: it can be easy to forget that this campus is the real world too. Despite our weirdly small environment, we need to respect the lives of those outside our bubble. Essentially, we must strive to pop our own bubble by opening up to the rules of reality, while still cultivating a tradition of diversity and theoretical exploration. The bubble is a game, and sometimes we make up our own rules on this campus, for better or for worse. A professor once told me that if activists truly want to enact change, we have to stop playing by the rules. I absolutely agree, but on one condition: that the rules are understood equally on both sides. Whether because of our self-governance or our geographic location, this tiny College bubble does not operate on the same scale as the world that surrounds us. There is no “public” audience at Grinnell College; we are our own audience. In the end, the rules to this game are different, so our rule-breaking has to be different too.
4
On the night of Thursday, Nov 20, Lyle’s Pub hosted an event called “Title IX Rewind” as a part of “It’s On Us,” a national campaign that stresses communal responsibility in preventing sexual assault. Moderated by SGA president Opeyemi Awe and Loosehead Senator Hanna Lee, a panel of faculty, staff and administrators answered student questions about Grinnell’s policies concerning Title IX. Part way through the event, a group of silent student protesters came in dressed in black and wearing red tape over their mouths, carrying signs with bold-faced questions for the administrators.
?
instructed specifically not to use the word rape. Anna Banker, one of the protesters, maintains that “they’re [the administration] telling student-survivors that they can’t talk about the outcomes of a hearing in which a student is found responsible.” Ian Byrd, another protester, chimed in that “they’re not allowing people to use the word rape.” “Right,” Banker corroborated, asking, “why does the college report sexual misconduct as rape in the Clery Act, but then not allow students to [use that terminology]?” Another key issue was that of students feeling safe on campus. This is very much related to the perception among students that consequences for those found responsible for sexual misconduct are neither strict enough nor sufficiently enforced. As no-contact orders are a consequence directly related to students’ feelings of safety, I started my interview with Conner and Voos by asking about how these are enforced on campus once they have been served. Conner said that “if a student believes that the no-contact order has been violated in some way, then they can come forward to campus safety or to myself to raise that in an official way.” She explained that, unlike a restraining order, there is not a specific distance required between the two parties. In the case in which there is a no-contact order between two people, the college asks that “the second person arriving to smaller places take the initiative to leave.” This neat assessment glosses over two issues of
by Sarah Farbman ‘16 After the event, I spoke with several of the protesters to ask why they were protesting and what they hoped to see change. I also spoke with Andrea Conner and Angela Voos, the Dean of Students and the Title IX Coordinator, respectively, to follow-up about some of the concerns student protesters had raised. While the two conversations revolved around similar themes, there were several areas of discrepancy, which together point to a larger disconnect between students and the administration. I will highlight areas of concern from both parties, though there are many more concerns that I do not have space here to address. I will also address some of the inconsistencies between the two conversations. I would like to stress, however, that both my interview with protesters and my interview with Voos and Conner should be seen as two conversations amongst small groups of individuals rather than conversations between the monolithic bodies of “The Students” and “The Administration.” In our interview Thursday night, the first concern that the protesters raised was that of silencing. The red tape they had worn over their mouths is a nod to the Red Tape Campaign, a movement at many other colleges and universities that “protests the silencing of rape survivors and meaningful conversations about sexual violence.” Many of the signs that the protesters carried addressed concerns of silencing, both regarding which words victim-survivors are allowed to use and the ways that they feel college policy impedes them from fully describing their experiences in public forums.
5
Voos claims to be unsure about the source of confusion regarding freedoms and limitations that students have when speaking about their experiences. “There is a misperception. I do think that we need to specifically state in our policy that people are encouraged to use the language that best describes their experience.” However, the student protester reported having been
But more concerning than the policy aspects of no-contact orders are the way in which they are enforced. Conner informed me that if a person feels that their no-contact order has been violated, they can talk to the administration. However, if students feel that they are in imminent danger, they should “call campus safety and security, [who] would come right away to dispel the conflict.” However, anecdotes from students suggest that security does not always respond as promptly or as effectively as Conner promises. Besides no-contact orders, there is a question of consequences more generally. Banker said“the fact that they allow students whom they have found responsible for multiple counts of sexual misconduct back on campus” is particularly alarming. The protesters shared with me several anecdotes, both with specific names and without, of students who had been found responsible for one or more cases of sexual misconduct, sometimes violent or egregious, who had been allowed back on campus after only a brief suspension. In other cases, even a suspension is not employed, which Banker characterized as a mere “slap on the wrist.” At the pub on Thursday, students asked the panel why those found responsible for sexual misconduct are not expelled. While Voos later said that “students have been expelled and it is an appropriate and important consequence,” at the talk, Conner explained that instituting automatic dismissal for students found responsible for sexual misconduct neglects the variations across cases of sexual misconduct. Some victim survivors do not seek expulsion as a punishment for a finding of responsibility for sexual misconduct, and that should be respected. While Voos and Conner acknowledged that expulsion is an option that they sometimes will use when considering cases of sexual misconduct, the protestors I spoke with, and those who raised the issue at the pub, felt as though the option is not exercised frequently enough. Instead, students who have really hurt others are allowed to remain on campus.
In response to these concerns, Voos assured me that “an individual who’s experienced something has every right to describe what they’ve experienced in their own words” to whomever they want at any time, but she clarified that the word ‘rape’ is not in college policy language simply because they “wrote the policy to be as expansive…as it could be.” At the panel, Voos said that the college will not use the word rape in its policies because ‘rape’ is a criminal offense and Grinnell, as an educational institution, cannot find someone guilty of rape as a crime. Conner furthermore suggested that some of the silencing people feel may be due to college and legal policies about retaliation. Retaliation is defined as discrimination or harassment by either party involved in the sexual misconduct process towards the other. A complainant or a respondent may retaliate against witnesses, respondents, or complainants, to punish them for engaging in the conduct process or to dissuade them from further participation. The idea is that students are allowed to tell their story and name names within their own support network, but in a public setting they must speak “broadly” and not use names or identifying characteristics.
of sexual misconduct and Sam requests a no-contact order against them. If Sam is served a no-contact order, the order places the same onus on Sam to avoid Alex as it does Alex to avoid Sam. Is this policy a fair way to give responsibility to both parties and to speak to the notion of retaliation that Conner addressed? Or does it privilege the guilty party over the victim?
concern that the protesters raised. The first is that the no-contact orders seem utterly bidirectional. For example, take the fictional case of Alex and Sam. Say that Alex is found responsible
When pressed about the way in which overly light consequences (or the perception thereof) may diminish students’ feelings of safety, Voos and Conner walked me through the range of consequences they can dole out. Conner maintains that student perception of consequences is tricky, however, because “the complainant doesn’t always see the whole complement of outcomes.” For example, the college may confidentially require an alcohol assessment for a respondent found to have a substance abuse problem. Alternately, a respondent may “downplay what was required of them.” But Conner acknowledges that that is “only a tiny layer of the answer…because typically when something feels not serious enough [to the complainant] it means because it was not dismissal.” Voos insisted that “we try to make the best judgments we can about safety…if we think there’s imminent danger, we’re gonna act. We have acted.” Perhaps these actions are insufficient, or
6
perhaps they are merely perceived as insufficient; either way, both the protesters and other students at the pub event expressed that they do not feel safe on campus.
Select Statistics
For their part, the protesters I talked to are livid with administrators for a myriad of reasons, not least because, from their perspectives, they’ve seen and experienced silencing, lying and hypocrisy from the administration in regards to sexual assault cases. I asked the administrators if they perceive this anger and to respond to this undercurrent of Us vs. Them, Student vs. Administration sentiment. Conner acknowledged the sentiment, saying that it would be “generous to call it an undercurrent.”
Taken from The 2013 Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Crime Statistics/ Fire Safety Annual Report
When asked about the cause of this divide, Voos suggested that sexual assault is a thorny issue and that people are never going to be happy, per se, with the outcome. Conner mentioned the need to “keep the dialogue [between students and administrators] going…One of the ways that we can [bridge this gap] is to continually take little risks to try to earn people’s trust.” The focus on trust is not entirely off-base, as the protesters I spoke with blatantly said that “the administration lies.”
Type of crime disclosed in Clery Report
Ultimately, there are two facets to this issue. There is the way in which the college adjudicates cases of sexual misconduct, and then there is the dissatisfaction and anger of some students toward the administration, sentiment which fuels a growing sense of divide between some Grinnell students and some of the administrators. Before we can even hope for cases involving sexual misconduct to be handled in a way that does not leave victim-survivors picking up the pieces, we will have to examine, understand, and address the growing sense of divide between some students and the administrators responsible for the handling of these cases. Conner may not have been wrong in saying that such work will require open and honest dialogue. But it requires much more than that. Turning this Us vs. Them mentality into a functional relationship will require honest and critical assessment about the differences in circumstance between students and the administration. I do believe Voos and Conner when they say they are trying to help students in a rough position. But I also believe that they are juggling the ever-present legal pressure of potential lawsuits and the top-down social and financial pressure from alumni, trustees and other donors of maintaining the College’s reputation. The tenure of each student here is very brief. We are not professionals; we are intelligent individuals with a wealth of knowledge and competence, but we are students. We are learning. It is the responsibility of administrators, who have been here and will be here for much longer than us, who have or should have the benefit of professional training and experience, and who find themselves on the advantageous side of a power dynamic, to take a position of leadership in understanding the experiences and feelings of students who have been involved in cases of sexual misconduct at Grinnell. Adjudication of sexual misconduct is never going to be clean cut. But there is a gap between college policy and student experience. For their part, the students I spoke with feel mistrustful of the school’s title IX processes, and even unsafe. When talking about student health, mental health, and safety, the stakes are too high to ignore these feelings, or to address them ineffectively or blindly. And if, in the adjudication of these cases, the administration prioritizes any concerns other than those of student health and safety, then there is a problem with the way sexual assault cases are handled on this campus. It is a problem that will not be solved until students and administrators can better understand one another. It is a problem that will require administrators to be willing not just to answer questions, but also to ask them.
7
SELF-GOV IS DEAD ...AND SGA KILLED IT
# of Instances
by Max Mindock ‘15 Unless SGA was able to invent a time machine, I doubt Kington was able to sign the amendment to create Campus Council.
Sexual offenses, forcible (Rape, Sodomy, Sexual Assault w/ object, fondling) in 2013, Residential Facilities
8
Sexual offenses, forcible in 2013, total
8
Sexual offenses, forcible in 2012, Residential Facilities
15
Sexual offenses, forcible in 2012, on campus
18
Last fall, the SGA Cabinet and Joint Board came together to change the name of Joint Board to Campus Council. Oh, cause you know, there’s nothing better for them to do. The Cabinet followed all of the proper guidelines put forth in the SGA Constitution. Well, at least one or two of them.
Sexual offenses, forcible in 2012, total
18
The SGA Constitution states, “All amendments must be ratified within two weeks, excluding time when the College is not in session, by sixty percent of the students voting and approved by the President of the College.”
Dating Violence, total number of reported incidents in 2013
1
Dating Violence, total number of reported incidents in 2011, 2012
0
Hate Crimes characterized by Sexual Orientation Bias, total reported in 2013
1
All information used in this table was provided by Grinnell’s 2013 Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Crime Statistics/Fire Safety Annual Report. The data presented above specifically pertains to Grinnell College in Grinnell, IA, and not to incidents reported at the Grinnell-in-Washington, nor the Grinnell-in-London programs.
To start off, let’s play a game. If you were to divide the governments of Sweden, Canada, the Grinnell Student Body, Somalia, North Korea, and Iran into two groups, what would they be? I’d put the Swedish and Canadian governments in a select group that follows their constitutions, while the Somalian, North Korean, Iranian, and Grinnell Student Government fall into a group that fails in even the simplest task of following the instructions put forth in their constitutions.
6 Reasons Why Norris is a Soviet Hellhole
By Aaron Mendelson ‘15
1. Do You See a Difference Between These Buildings?
You may exclaim, “Well, wait! What did SGA do to deserve this foul treatment?” Two words: Campus Council.
So there are two things that must be fulfilled for this requirement to be met. Did the all-campus vote for Campus Council get at least 60%? Yep. Was the amendment approved by President Kington? The answer is not clear, but what is clear, 100% clear, is that Kington did not approve the amendment within the two-week window. For proof, all you need is basic arithmetic. The amendment was proposed on September 25, put to a vote on September 27, was closed to voting on October 8, and the grievance period, the period in which the results can not be released to anyone, was not over until October 9.
2. A society of the proletariat (first years) with a small number of intelligensia (second-through-fourth-years). 3. Residents share communal Kitchens. 4. The layout is designed to preserve the power of an oppresive authoritarian administration. 5. The masses are pushed into forced labor
6. Vodka
September 25 to October 9 was 14 days the College was in session. 14 days without approval from President Kington. Unless SGA was able to invent a time machine, I doubt Kington was able to sign the amendment. While this may seem like merely an insignificant timing issue, the most discouraging aspect of the situation is that later in the semester, SGA Cabinet used the 14 day approval process as grounds for failure for a separate amendment that had already passed an all-campus vote with over 60% approval. None of this is new. It was all laid out in a wonderful Scarlet and Black article last year, but as a new semester of Joint Board is starting and SGA Cabinet insists on labeling this atrocity of democracy as Campus Council, I think it is especially important to once again remember the most important thing: Long live Joint Board.
8
Future Lobbyist Bruce Braley voices support for the #GrinWell Challenge Joe Wlos ‘15 Former Representative Bruce Braley, the failed Democratic nominee for Iowa’s open Senate seat in 2014, warmly endorsed the #GrinWell Challenge at the St. Francis Manor Fun Run & Walk on a bitter cold October weekend. “I think that it’s very exciting that Grinnell College students have an app available that allows them to get information about their lives and their lifestyle to make them healthier,” Rep. Braley said. Grinnell College President Raynard Kington launched the #GrinWell Challenge this semester, encouraging students to record their sleeping patterns, fruit and vegetable intake, exercise, and restorative time on a smartphone application developed by Grinnell AppDev. The challenge’s goal is to promote wellness and healthy habits. As students began signing up for the challenge, prominent voices on campus showed some skepticism. In an editorial, the Scarlet and Black strongly critiqued the #GrinWell Challenge for ignoring broader issues, such as the lack of adequate counseling services at SHACS. Rep. Braley compared aspects of the #GrinWell Challenge to his Shawn Johnson Fitness for Life Act, which incorporates heart monitors and other equipment in school physical fitness curriculums to combat childhood obesity. Gymnast Shawn Johnson, the 2008 Olympics gold medal, partnered with Braley in 2011 to work on the bill. “It’s all about educating young people that fitness is a lifetime commitment and the things that we can do to help motivate people to exercise more and watch what they eat from their earliest age to the end of their lives,” Rep. Braley said. “It’s not only good for them, [...] but it does a lot to decrease our overall healthcare costs, if we help people make good choices about their lives.” Rep. Braley visited Grinnell to serve as the honorary race director for the St. Francis Manor Outrageously Orange Fun Run & Walk. Over one hundred members of the community, including the Grinnell College Student Athlete Advisory Committee, braved the near-freezing temperature and wind chill to run the two-mile course. “We want to challenge all ages to stay healthy, active, positive and energetic,” Fitness Specialist Kristin Kahn said in St. Francis Manor’s press release. At the event, Kahn also thanked Grinnell College’s baseball players for their participation. Rep. Braley’s lively mother, Marcia Braley, joined the congressman at the Fun Run. A longtime resident of neighboring Brooklyn, Iowa, Mrs. Braley has a deep personal commitment to physical fitness. Before coming to Grinnell, she had already walked three miles on Saturday morning, and she planned to walk three more miles later that day. While taking classes from the University of Northern Iowa part-time to earn her degree in education, Mrs. Braley would drive from Brooklyn to Cedar Falls for over an hour to attend her 8AM classes, rain or shine or snowstorm. She encouraged Grinnellians to stay fit and show up to class. After all, most Grinnellians only need to walk a few minutes to attend classes in Noyce, Bucksbaum, or ARH—barely a tenth of her morning routine.
9
Transferring Into Educational Privilege by TJ Pearson ‘16 Transferring to a new college is stressful as hell, regardless of the reputation of the institutions involved. But, before I arrived on campus in Spring ’14, I faced a whirlwind of anxieties related to the rigor, prestige, and general environment of Grinnell compared to my original school, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. As some of you might suspect, Grinnell is a radically different institution than SIUE. Examining the endowment sizes alone makes a powerful statement: Grinnell’s 1.554 billion for 1,700 students compared to SIUE’s 18 million for 11,000 students. From the beginning of the application process until my arrival, I was worried that I was not Grinnell material. I applied to Grinnell as a transfer student twice: I was rejected for the Fall ’13 semester and then admitted for Spring ’14. When I was initially rejected, I naively felt like I wasn’t good enough for such an acclaimed college, like I would always be intellectually less than those who attend a “Top 20 Liberal Arts College.” My mom didn’t go to college, my dad went to SIUE, and they both work relatively standard middle class jobs. I (once again naively) thought that my background was radically different than the average Grinnell student, I had dreamed of jumping from a Midwestern, middle class lifestyle to something different. With the Fall rejection, my aspirations felt invalid. I did not belong at Grinnell College, and consequently I did not belong to the wider community of social progress that it somehow represents. Over the past year or so, I’ve learned that the “intellect” of a person has nothing to do with where that person’s background or college, and that my school’s reputation does not wholly
determine my identity. But before these revelations, my transition here was plagued with fears of not being good enough, viewing myself as an outsider to the bourgeois atmosphere that I perceived Grinnell to be. For me, these insecurities stem from how my personal identity relates to modern higher education. I was fully aware that Grinnell is unique in its tendency to enroll students from underrepresented backgrounds, and this is why I was bent on coming here: I thought, “if there is a school that my family can financially handle that also aligns with my ideals, it’s Grinnell.” In recent media, Grinnell College has been pinned as a leader in enrolling an economically diverse student body. Behind only Vassar in a New York Times ranking, Grinnell’s student body apparently represents a wide range of economic backgrounds compared to peer schools. SIUE is diverse, but in a profoundly different way than Grinnell.
10
suing academic endeavors, and I know Grinnell students who plan on entering employment-particular programs after Grinnell. But, in general, Grinnell’s curriculum is geared towards academic post-graduate ventures, while SIUE’s is focused on pre-professional training.
The differences between Grinnell and SIUE are complex, but a brief history of the schools illustrates the ideological, cultural, and economic difference between the two schools. In 1846, Grinnell was founded by a notoriously progressive group of abolitionist ministers. SIUE, founded 111 years later in 1957, was created in response to social pressures regarding the growing need for higher education in the developing St. Louis Metro-East area. Southern Illinois’s need for higher education relates to a history that my parents lived through, a history with which my family and I identify. In the late 1950s, East St. Louis, which was the largest Southern Illinois town with 83,000 people, was considered a healthy semi-urban area suitable for family living. A sharp economic decline coupled with racial tensions caused a rapid mass migration, a “white flight,” from East St. Louis to surrounding towns like Belleville (where I grew up), Fairview Heights (where my mom and dad’s families white-flew to in the 60s), and other small cities or towns. East St. Louis’s economic devolution influenced most of the area, as families like my parents’ relocated to cities all throughout Southern Illinois. SIUE was created partly in response to this demographic shift. Based on my observations of SIUE’s student body, many students are from the same background as me, but many others come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds as well. The State of Illinois provides at least some financial aid to students with high need, and SIUE enrolls a significant population of these students. However, many upper class Illinois families send their kids to SIUE, receiving little to no financial aid. Overall, then, SIUE’s student body represents a diverse range of economic backgrounds. SIUE and Grinnell both display some diversity, but the differences between the two schools far outweigh the similarities. The primary divergence is the general motive behind a student’s decision to attend each school, a decision tied to the institutional goals of each school. From what I understand, both Grinnell and SIUE have succeeded in their respective goals. Grinnell (although some would reasonably disagree) values free thought, enrolls students from a diverse range of backgrounds, and intellectually prepares students for a wide range of academic and professional endeavors. SIUE values an education more practical to the economic needs of the surrounding communities, enrolls mostly students from the local area, and prepares students to enter into more specialized job markets like engineering, nursing, and computer information systems management. Grinnell students typically pursue intellectual interests, while SIUE students typically study a particular field that will ensure them a certain employment opportunity. However, this is not to say that these schools narrowly educate their students; I know several SIUE grads who are pur-
11
Having studied at both schools, I’ve seen how these differences are manifested on a visible, personal level. A concise way to exemplify this difference in student attitudes is the average reaction to my major, philosophy. At SIUE, the answer was usually something like: “What can you do with that?” or simply “Why?” At Grinnell, that sentiment is barely present in people’s reactions. Instead, students ask something like: “What kind of philosophy are you most interested in?” or “What do you WANT to do after Grinnell?” These responses certainly represent the missions of the schools: SIUE students are in school to qualify themselves for future work experiences, and a philosophy degree has no apparent value to the current job market. Grinnell students, on the other hand, seeking the “honorable discharge of the duties of life” and “free inquiry,” are also studying areas that have no immediate or apparent relationship to the labor market. Liberal arts majors make up 43% of SIUE’s student body, while Grinnell’s is 100% liberal arts majors by definition. The opportunity to study what I want to, rather than what I need to or should study improves the intellectual aspect of college learning. SIUE provided me with a valuable education in different liberal arts subjects, but the student atmosphere did not challenge me to go beyond the immediate course syllabus requirements. An undergraduate culture is undoubtedly related to an institution’s purpose. Grinnell’s emphasizing of on-campus residency, school-wide events, and self-governance contributes to an intensely unique collegiate experience. The Grinnell experience aligns with my personal identity (or my ideal personal identity) more closely than the SIUE experience does. Here, my understanding of course material is enhanced by discussions at every DHall meal, every weekend party, and almost every peer interaction in general. I consider Grinnell to promote a more interactive, engaging, and social type of learning than SIUE, and I consider this type of learning an enormous privilege. Some of you may have not considered the privilege that we are afforded as Grinnellian, liberal arts students. Most SIUE students chose SIUE in consideration of two factors: cost and post-grad employment. SIUE is the cheapest undergraduate state school in Illinois, and it offers programs that promise stable employment opportunities to its graduates. Many SIUE students come to SIUE with a particular program in mind, like nursing, civil engineering, or pharmacy. Essentially, the average SIUE student’s choice to attend is based on the school’s affordability and its ability to offer them job security after graduation. Grinnell is unique to its peer colleges, as many students admitted are given enough aid to be able to afford enrollment. But, most SIUE students are not aware of schools with aid like Grinnell, nevertheless the complex admissions process that Grinnell requires (in comparison to SIUE). Aspects of admissions like the dreaded Common App, the insane standardized testing preparations, and the rigorous AP classes that Grinnellians are accustomed to speaking of are not familiar processes to the average Southern Illinois pre-college student.
The many liberal arts courses that I took at SIUE were taught by well-qualified professors. In fact, I maintain that the faculty at SIUE is generally comparable in quality to the faculty at Grinnell; most professional academics will tell you that academia is saturated with capable teachers and researchers. Moreover, most liberal arts class sizes were not much larger at SIUE than at Grinnell. The difference in rigorousness and quality of liberal arts courses between SIUE and Grinnell, then, is mainly characterized by the difference in the undergraduate environment. Class conversation at Grinnell facilitates an intellectually engaging learning experience, and SIUE does not offer the same kind of engagement. But what is the source of this discrepancy?
the sake of learning. And if we do consider Grinnell to display a better educational model, the question then becomes: how do we change political and economic forces in such a way that allows for the average American to have these educational opportunities?
SIUE and Grinnell greatly differ in the socio-economic standings of their students. Many SIUE students work 20-30 hours per week while taking a full or part-time course load. Grinnell students could not conceivably work a job with these kinds of hours. Grinnellians use the term “work” to describe a research paper, a reading, or another academic project. At SIUE, academic projects are referred to as “homework,” and “work” typically indicates wage employment. Grinnellians ask each other: “How much work do you have tonight?” Contrastively, SIUE students ask each other: “What time do you work today?” or “How many hours do you work per week?”
When I arrived at Grinnell in January 2014, I was worried that I wasn’t prepared for, smart enough for, or comfortable enough with the Grinnell culture. Throughout my time here, I’ve realized that this environment is nothing more than a different culture: a way of life that Southern Illinois did not introduce me to. Participating in spontaneous critical discussions, attending lectures with friends, and excitedly planning out class schedules are a few components of this culture. Southern Illinois has its own culture too, one that is not fixated on intellectual activities.
If you were going to school full time to get a degree in nursing while working part-time to pay your tuition/bills/family living expenses, how concerned would you be about Descartes’s mindbody problem? Even most Grinnell philosophy students are annoyed by this problem, but if you’re putting yourself through 4 years of SIUE to secure a certain job, thinking about such an abstract, disconnected, and life-detached contemplation seems like a waste of time. I have always loved thinking about these problems, and I think all kinds of people, regardless of demographic background, can enjoy entertaining these problems too. But not all people are able to center their college decisions on the question, “Where will I explore interesting ideas the most?” In fact, I would argue that most Americans today premise their college choice on the question, “Where will I be able to afford and earn a degree that qualifies me for a job?”
We don’t have to worry about paying bills or feeding our families, at least in the same way that many SIUE students do. Our educational experience is supported by excellent financial aid that allows us to focus on school and not employment. Simply stated, more money needs to be put into higher education, whether private or public, if the Grinnellian educational model is to be available to the general population.
I left SIUE because I craved an environment that would house my social and educational wants. Before my time here, I felt foreign to, and even rejected from, the identity that I wanted to embody. Luckily, Grinnell has taught me that I am not alone in pursuing an identity that does not parallel my background. Many students here come from more disadvantaged backgrounds than I do, and many of them perform better in school than me. Levels of intellectual capabilities are not inherent to class or race, but class and race certainly condition people’s opportunities to develop and appreciate what they want. The full time SIUE student who works 20 hours a week simply does not have the time and energy to take up rigorous academic “work.” At Grinnell, our goal is to take up this work as our full time job, and I thoroughly enjoy this full time position.
I consider myself incredibly privileged to be able to explore the ideas that I want. Many of my friends at SIUE have the intellectual desires and capabilities to explore such issues, yet lack the socio-economic background to do so. SIUE students have the resources to pursue the academic lifestyle, due to passionate professors that strive for student participation. Unfortunately, many students cannot use these academic opportunities because they’re too busy outside of the classroom with jobs and families. Grinnell is by no means the only place where intellect can be exercised, but it is a rare place that this intellectual exercise is prioritized. By placing students in an environment where everyone is able to focus on school and campus community, Grinnell provides a powerful education. But are we actually privileged? Are these educational opportunities necessarily better than those prevalent at SIUE and similar schools? This is an important question, one that requires a thorough understanding of the relationship between the higher education system and the modern political economy. Nevertheless, we shouldn’t feel guilty about this possible privilege, but I do think we should feel responsible to give more people opportunities to learn in the “liberal” sense: to learn for
12
The Grinnell College community needs to ask more questions about how it can support low-income and first-generation students.
Beyond Admission: How to squeeze that “30 minutes of movement” into your daily #grinwell routine by Diane Lenertz ‘15
How Can Grinnell Support Low-Income and First-Gen Students?
by Emma Lange ‘16
The New York Times released its “Most Economically Diverse Top Colleges” list yesterday, and Grinnell ranked second for its commitment to recruiting students in every income bracket. As a first-generation third-year student, I have no doubt that Grinnell’s Admissions and Financial Aid Departments deserve this high praise, but it is imperative to remember that support for low-income and first-generation college students must exist beyond admissions and financial aid practices. Admissions cannot create further economic diversity once a class has arrived on campus. At that point, our entire institution must provide exceptional support to preserve economic diversity until graduation. Nationally, 89% of low-income, first-generation college students in the United States do not finish their degree in 6 years, with 25% dropping out after their first year. Grinnell’s retention rate for both first-generation and low-income students is much higher than the national average, and four-year graduation rates for all students remain high (see graph above). Many factors contribute to this relative success, including the fact that it is much more difficult to fall through the cracks at a liberal arts school of 1,600 students than a public university of 30,000.
13
But our graduation rate for these students can still be improved. Grinnell must intentionally support low-income and first-generation students during the four—or more—years between accepting an offer of admission and receiving a diploma. We cannot simply measure the experience of economically diverse students at Grinnell via retention rates. We must also ensure that these students have the same quality experience during their
time on campus as their non-first-gen, non-Pell-eligible, non-low-income peers. One problem has already been solved. Before September 2014, Grinnell’s first-gen community met once each year in April during the last weeks of the school year—a time that was far too late to provide support to students who may be struggling to complete their classes. Thankfully, this academic year is beginning with an entirely new approach to support these students. Programming is starting earlier and occurring more often so that students can form relationships with members of the college community who can help them handle issues earlier in the semester and help them extinguish larger fires later on. This is far more beneficial than hearing retroactively about support systems that might have been critically important if they had been aware of them months, or even semesters, earlier. College-sponsored programming is only a first step, though. As students, we pride ourselves on our openness, yet we are still extremely incapable of having candid conversations about class outside academic settings. Even then, our discussions revolve around denouncing others’ classism, while evading our own class. The Grinnell community as a whole needs to ask more questions about how it can support low-income and first-generation students. How can our campus create more allies? How can we create an environment that enables productive discussions about economic diversity? Only together can we support the incredible economic diversity that our Admissions Department has been able to provide. Our one-on-one conversations need to reflect that commitment to make Grinnell truly inclusive.
14
CW: Sexual Harassment/Assault
Grinnell Police Department (GPD) as much as any Grinnellian— maybe more. My experiences with the GPD have affirmed that You’ve got to admit, Grinnell College–as far as most institutions they are nothing but a bunch of narrow-minded morons with too go–is halfway decent when dealing with sexual assault and ha- much time on their hands, who think that giving broke kids tickrassment issues. While far from perfect, there are lovely individ- ets for riding bikes or throwing parties will somehow improve uals like Angela Voos and systems to educate students, create society (and enlarge their members). However, one day I decidsafe environments, and help victims heal. However, in regards ed I needed to call the GDP about an incident. to creating safe environments, the borders stop at the edge of 6th Street. Over the summer, I was running errands late one night, and two guys were parked outside my apartment for no reason, yelling I personally spend as little time on campus as possible. I live things at ladies. The first time I passed them, they just catcalled, off-campus, I work at Saints Rest, and if I have a moment to which at this point doesn’t even register in my mind. The second myself, I’m at Rabbitt’s or Solera. While the college goes great time that I passed them, I heard one guy mumble to the other, lengths to educate students about how to deal with sexual ha- “I’ll pay you $10 to pop that chick’s skirt up and fuck her in the rassment, not everyone has the privilege of a Grinnell educa- butt.” tion. This is not to say we are smarter or better than anyone— we just literally talk about these issues all the time. Going through the motions, I walked upstairs to my apartment and locked the door. I decided that his comment was not casual At Saints Rest, my female coworkers and I are regularly asked catcalling, but an actual threat. I had no intention of reporting invasive questions and receive inappropriate comments. We these men, but I definitely did not want them outside my apartoccasionally endure the breaking of physical boundaries. These ment. Without thinking, I called the GPD and described the sitactions are unwanted. At the college, we could complain about uation. I simply asked if someone could swing by and tell these the treatment, and the administration would attempt to deal men to be on their way, or if they were drunk, to give them a with the situation. Off-campus, though, there are no resources ride home. to diffuse the situation. A couple minutes later, I received a call from the station saying My mother would tell me to call the police. Now, I hate the the officer was outside and he wanted to talk to me. I specified that I did not want to be seen by the men I was reporting, be-
Living Without an RLC:
Navigating Sexual Harassment, the GPD and the Real World
cause this is a small town and that could put me in far more danger. She clarified that the men had left, but the officer still wanted to talk to me. I went outside to find three cop cars blocking off Main Street, four cops milling around, and the two men being given field sobriety tests. The two men locked eyes on me, completely enraged. The cops immediately started babbling that I should prosecute and that the two men had a history, so I would have a good case. I asked if we could move inside a building, because I felt uncomfortable talking about this in front of the two men. Indeed, I didn’t want them to be breathalyzed–I just wanted them to leave. The cops said our conversation would only take a minute. Fifteen minutes later, as the two men memorized my face, the cops said I could leave. Sexual harassment does not just happen within the 3-by-4 blocks of campus. I am positive that calling a friend is more effective than contacting the dangerously bored Grinnell Police Department if you need help. Is there anything we can do to create a safe space that reaches outside of campus? How can knowledge of the definition and wrongness of sexual harassment and assault extend beyond
the college? When you feel threatened, who can and should you call for help? While I can’t claim to have all the answers, I think Grinnell College has a lot of assets that could have far-reaching effects for the entire community. For example, why is our conversation about sexual harassment and assault restricted to campus? We have so many intelligent (and trained) people who could broaden discussions to include the larger community. We shouldn’t hoard their talents. Moreover, I do not want to paint the GPD as maliciously trying to harm me, and I’m definitely not recommending that individuals in hostile situations should flatly refuse to call the police. I would bet that they want to do their job well, but they probably do not understand how to mindfully approach and deal with issues of assault and harassment. I think the GPD would benefit from a training day focused on how to deal with situations and victims of sexual harassment and assault in an appropriate and more conscious matter. Again, these are not necessarily all the answers. However, we are not doing enough to include problems that happen off-campus in our discussions about assault and harassment. Grinnell College—the institution and its students—needs to stop reserving our education and understanding of sexual harassment and admit that we are part of a larger community.
Meet Your Grinnell Police Department Command Staff! Grinnell Police Chief Dennis Reilly
Captain Theresa Pedersen
Sergeant Chris Wray
Sergeant Dan Johnson
by Hannah Quicksell ‘15 15
Sergeant Ben Gray (no photo available)
16
In early October, a group of twenty Grinnell students gathered in the backyard of 1008 High Street to talk about police presence at off-campus houses. Off-campus senator Rachel Keen ’16 and Violeta Ruiz Espigares ’15 organized the event to give students the opportunity to discuss their common experiences with the police and to inform students about their rights. “It’s like clockwork, even when there are no parties on High Street the police are there,” Keen said. “They shine lights into houses and harass students on the street.” Ruiz Espigares lives at 1008 High Street and is concerned with how the police approach students for seemingly indiscriminate reasons. She explained that on a Saturday night in September the police drove in front of 1008 with their lights on and came to the porch. When the residents opened the door, the police entered and told them there had been a noise complaint. The police then took the names of the residents of 1008 so they could contact them in the future if there were any more complaints. Four days later, on Wednesday, a different police officer returned to ask for house members’ identification. “I was eating hummus on the porch when they came on Wednesday” Ruiz Espigares said. “We weren’t committing any violations, there were no complaints. The hummus porch life isn’t wrong.”
Can Grinnellians and the GPD Get Along? Students respond to off-campus police presence by Carl Sessions ‘15 Because there appeared to be no reason for the officer to be there, Ruiz Espigares said that they asked why he needed their names. “He said ‘I’m not asking,’” Ruiz Espigares said, which the residents took to mean that they had no choice but give their identification to the officer. “We were very confused because we had our info taken on the Saturday when there was a complaint, but apparently he didn’t know that or something. It’s not super clear.” Nathaniel Tingley ’15, resident of 1005 High Street, thinks that the seemingly-high level of off-campus police presence during the beginning of fall semester is nothing new. “They do this every year,” Tingley said. “And since NSO they have been a lot less in our face. What they said to me during NSO is that they’ve been having a lot of problems right now, and last year there were problems at this time, but that the problems normally turn down.” When asked if he senses that police policy has changed over the years, Tingley shook his head. “I was in Joint Board three years ago when the police came and they said the same things as they did when I talked to them on my porch this year,” Tingley said. “They say that they don’t want us to not have fun—they just don’t want parties to be a nuisance or dangerous for the neighborhood.” Neither Tingley nor Espigares Ruiz have spoken with their neighbors about how parties on High Street may disturb them. “I’ve been playing beer die in my front all year and no neighbors have come forward to speak with me,” Tingley said. “I don’t know if that’s because they [want to talk but haven’t approached me] or if they expect it because it’s a student-dominated street.” Tingley added that he has never seen the police shut down a party—rather they rely on their presence alone to end it. “The police are allowed to come into houses if the door is open or if they are invited in,” Tingley said. Ruiz Espigares said that residents of High Street houses, like all people, are liable for having intoxicated minors on their property even if they are not drinking at the time, or if the house in question did not provide the underage students with alcohol. The meeting in early October was held, in part, to inform students to whom responsibility is assigned in situations like this. Ruiz Espigares and Keen are planning to get legal advice from a lawyer to advise them about student’s rights. They are also planning to work with Vice President of Student Affairs Iulia Iordache ’15 to communicate with the police about what the police expect. The goal is to eventually schedule a meeting between off-campus students and Chief of Police Dennis Reilly. “We’re still planning an off-campus meeting with police for after break,” Keen said. “But first we’re working through some of the concerns and ideas raised at our picnic so we can get everyone to have the type of meeting with the police they want.”
17
18
Perceptions & Misperceptions How aware are Grinnellians about campus trends? The answer may surprise you... This semester, the Grinnell Student Analytics group conducted a confidential survey to better understand Grinnell’s campus culture. Over 300 students responded to the survey, with a relatively even distribution of academic divisions and years, making the poll results highly accurate. To understand the results and release the report to the campus community, the Grinnell Student Analytics group is happy to present our findings in this semester’s issue of the Grinnell Underground Magazine.
Do you participate in intercollegiate sports? 23% percent of students in the survey responded that they are members of intercollegiate sports teams at Grinnell. The phrase “intercollegiate sports” was specifically broad to guage membership in organizations such as Ultimate Frisbee, which may not always be considered full varsity sports. When asked to estimate the number of students who participate in intercollegiate sports, respondents on average guessed that 33% of students populate these teams. While we can’t be sure if an accurate sample was obtained to correctly estimate the true number of participants, it is possible that student athletes have a social presence on campus that is larger than their actual number of participants.
average guess
15%
actual amount
To measure happiness, our survey asked respondents to track happiness on a scale of 1 to 7. Quantifying happiness can be difficult. Sometimes respondents simply choose a middle amount. In this case, many respondents flocked to the scale’s upper levels, indicating a number of students very pleased with their experience.
Respondents estimated on average that 18.3% of Grinnellians do not receive financial aid to attend Grinnell. That number is very close to the College’s federally reported 20122013 number receiving any scholarship or grant aid: 15%. Of course, the College cannot track all students receiving outside sources of financing for their attendance, but overall, this was an accurate campus perception.
Survey respondents guessed that less than half of Grinnellians identify with a religious faith, matching the school’s liberal perception. However, at 38%, the average guess was still too high. The actual number of survey respondents who identify with any religious faith was actually closer to 30%.
38%
average guess
30%
actual amount
2%
mode level of happiness
happiness level of “1”
average level of happiness
happiness level of “7”
4.9
Do you identify with a religious faith?
19
How happy are you?
5
What percentage of students don’t receive financial aid?
18.3%
Shadman Asif ‘16 | Nathan Forman ‘15 Aaron Juarez ‘15 | Emma Lange ‘16 Aaron Mendelson ‘15 | Devan Steward ‘15 | Joe Wlos ‘15
12%
In general, how happy are Grinnellians? After asking students to measure their own happiness, survey respondents estimated the happiness of their peers. While the average and mode guesses–4.5 and 5, respectively–are fairly in line with the averages of the previous question, the distribution of results suggests a different interpretation. Respondents were more normally distributed, but when responding about personal happiness, many more students chose higher and lower amounts. This suggests that Grinnellians have a good baseline about the amount of happiness on campus, but personal differences vary widely.
4.5
average guess of happiness
5
mode guess of 20 happiness
How hard do you work in your courses?
How interested are Grinnellians in monogomy?
The workload of Grinnell can’t be considered legendary–after all, members of the student body experience the constant flow of labs, essays, and tests every day. Measuring workload on an arbitrary 1 to 7 scale isn’t necessarily the most accurate statistic. A better measurement may be comparing the number of assignments students regularly complete. However, when asked to assign an arbitrary number, respondents gravitated toward “5” and “6,” with the average response at 5.28 and the most common response at 6.
5.28
average response
6
mode response
Grinnellians are, on average, extremely interested in entering a monogomous relationship. When asked on the survey, 79% of respondents indicated that they would be interested, while 21% stated that they had no interest. However, only one third of respondents answered that they are currently in a relationship... So perhaps there are a lot of Grinnellians out there, looking for the perfect someone.
How hard does your major work? When comparing the overall personal assessments to assessments of majors, it’s clear that respondents hold their peers in high regard. Although the most common rating is still a 6 on the scale, the average is slightly higher, although it is not necessarily statistically significant. Fewer respondents chose to rank their peers at the lowest possible work rates–an interesting observation, which might indicate that respondents believe that students in their major are, in general, hard workers.
5.38
average response
Are you in a monogomous relationship?
79%
interested in a relationship
34%
reported in a relationship
How sexually active is Grinnell?
6
mode response
How hard do all Grinnellians work? For this final question in the academic workload series, respondents showed the variation. While they held their majors in high regard, the mode response indicates that survey participants viewed the student body as working slightly less than themselves and students in their major. These results cannot necessarily be generalizable, because while the distribution of divisions was fairly accurate, the actual distribution of majors was far from the College’s actual amounts of students.
21
Are you interested in a monogomous relationship?
5.02
average response
5
mode response
At the conclusion of our survey, we asked Grinnellians about sexual activity on-campus. This qustion was difficult to analyze. As survey respondents helpfully pointed out, it’s very hard (if not impossible) to measure sexual activity on a scale of 1 to 7. These arbitrary numbers cannot fully portray the full depth of sexual experiences, and a “4” on the scale may mean something very different to different respondents. However, we decided to make the best of these results, and analyze the responses to the poll in the broadest ways possible. The yellow graph pictured here represents the estimated
Did you enjoy this report? Questions, comments, concerns? Interested in Grinnell Student Analytics? Attend our regular Monday meetings in the Grill at 7PM.
sexual activity of students at Grinnell. The normal distribution is expected, even in a way predictable, given the arbitrary nature of the 1 to 7 scale. But when asked to estimate their own sexual activity, survey respondents guessed a much lower number. In fact, the mode response was “1.” Perhaps these results leave more questions than answers. Is there a non-arbitrary way to measure sexual activity on campus without being intrusive? Would we want to know that private information, even if we could measure it? At the moment, at least, those questions are above the GSA paygrade.
22
Don’t Choose Your Dining Plan Yet ... Again
By Joe Wlos ‘15
I Slow- Danced at
This semester, Grinnell’s dining hall debuted longer hours and reusable “to-go” boxes. While certainly nice additions, how much extra are you willing to pay for these services? Depending on your dining plan, you may be paying up to $580 more than you would pay at the door.
Harris
This summer, the GUM calculated the value of each meal plan and found that most plans were overpriced, given last year’s cost of meals at the door. Now, the GUM has recalculated the costs with updated prices. Three of the plans are too expensive when using the new prices charged for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. For these options, forgoing the plan and paying at the door of the dining hall is a cheaper alternative. The Any 15 Meals plans are overpriced by approximately $100, and the Any 10 Meals Plus plan costs an astonishing $580 more than the value it offers. To calculate the value of each plan, the GUM multiplied the number of meals by the amount charged to diners who lack a plan or a guest pass. At the door, breakfasts cost $8.00, lunches cost $10.00, and dinners cost $13.00. This total was added to the dining dollars and the number of guest passes in the plan. (The data table can be found below.) For example, the 80 Meals Plus plan offers $130 in dining dollars and $1040 in dinners for a total value of $1,170. Because 80 Meals Plus costs $1,120, students save $50 when they enroll in the plan. If you are a student living off-campus, your best bet is the
By Dhruv Gupta ‘17 Nathan Forman ‘15 and Linnea Hurst ‘15
Lunch Bunch plan, which saves $40 over the course of the semester. The other low-end option, 65 Meals Plus, is cheap but only saves $20 total. The economics of the dining hall are complicated. The real cost of meals is dependent on many factors, including the number of workers and the price of ingredients. If you currently use an option that isn’t cost efficient, there’s still time to change your meal plan. Take this opportunity to save some money, while still retaining access to the locational convenience of Grinnell’s dining hall.
How does your dining plan stack up?
The table below is based on the at-the-door cost of meals with 15 full weeks of usage. Plan
Dining Dollars
Guest Meals
Pay at Door
Value
Cost of Plan
Full Meal Plan
$0
$65
$3,135
$3,200
$2,923
Any 15 Plus
$225
$65
$2,535
$2,825
$2,923
Any 15
$0
$65
$2,535
$2,600
$2,700
Any 10 Plus
$295
$65
$1,815
$2,175
$2,755
80 Meals Plus
$130
$0
$1,040
$1,170
$1,120
65 Meals Plus
$165
$0
$845
$1,010
$990
Lunch Bunch
$0
$0
$750
$750
$710
23
Dhruv: It’s funny how moments work. You’re never absolutely there. Time passes and one moment goes to another. Time marches relentlessly, maneuvers indefinitely, and moves forward constantly. Extreme emotion and abnormality from the daily routine stick out in our minds. And there I was, creating memorable moments. The point of this night, as far as I could tell, was to break the norm of a Harris dance, and thus cohere to the norm of our classrooms, the dining hall, Harris during Biden’s speech, and all other “proper” and sober spaces, where asking consent before physical contact and making eye contact when you’re interested are the norm… normception. I did what society asks of mannered young men like me but not what people do on the Harris dance floor; I was prim and proper, I asked for consent, and I always, always left room for Jesus.
assured me that this kid was legit, but I still couldn’t imagine someone bold enough to ask fellow Grinnellians to slow dance at the first Harris of the year. Thankfully as soon as I met the gallant Gupta all my fears melted away, similar to the hearts Dhruv would melt later that evening in Harris. He was dressed in a suit and tie, but Dhruv’s transformation into a chivalrous squire transcended mere waistcoats and cufflinks. Dhruv carried himself with a genteel air that would make Jane Austen’s Sir Darcy jealous. He performed a deep bow before taking the drink we offered him. Dhruv had completely transformed into a courtly suitor. We burst onto the Harris dance floor with the passion of a thousand steeds. Unfortunately there were no future Mrs. Elizabeth Bennetts to be seen.
10:00PM
11:00PM
Dhruv: The night started off the way my nights usually do–alone, doing some task I deem useful. I was writing a song; a task great for my soul, but terrible for nearly everything else. (Check out Dhruv’s music here.) Two hours before midnight, Nathan, Linnea, and Joe–the editors of the GUM–arrived outside my doorstep. After pre-gaming for a bit, we headed off fearlessly towards the task at hand.
Dhruv: Within a few moments, I had gotten on my knees, kissed a hand, and gotten someone to slow dance with me. Looking into the eyes of someone while slow dancing is a highly intimate moment. Much more so than the grinding from behind that Harrises usually consist of. Luckily there was no pressure on either party to do well (thank god). The abnormal venue only made the experience so much more exhilarating. Defying the music and the atmosphere, I simply settled into a world where it was just me and my partner slow dancing.
We arrived at Harris to find that we were the first few people there. Apparently these veteran fourth-years had forgotten the basic rule of Harris. It doesn’t ACTUALLY start until 11:00PM! Disheartened, we headed off to a nearby party in order to kill time in a college student’s favorite manner. And before the clock ticked an hour closer to the start of a different day, we were back in Harris. Linnea: I was nervous when we approached German house, the abode of the legendary Dhruv Gupta. Joe and Nathan had
Well, I did so until the awkwardness overcame my ego, and I hastily departed looking for another individual to slow dance with. I repeated the activity with at least seven others. Some danced to amuse me, others out of pure novelty, but everyone seemed to really enjoy themselves. Apparently the "respectful" course of conduct is now novel enough in Harris that it amuses people.
24
I only faced two rejections the entire night. I even danced with an individual who identified with the same sex as me. It didn’t matter that he was of the same-sex; it was simply dancing. Nathan: As we entered “the handsome and eclectic Harris Center” for the second time that evening, I turned to my right intending to give our magnificent knight some last minute advice. Yet to my surprise and elation, Dhruv was not next to me anymore but in the middle of the dance floor, on his knees, kissing a girl’s hand.
In other words, Dhruv and his partners stood out (and not just because Dhruv is tall and they were slow dancing). Dhruv and his partners traversed the crowd of gauche and gazing gawkers with grace, standing out as the only couple with expressions of pure jubilation. 12:30AM Dhruv: I left the building more content than after any previous Harris, but right as I was leaving, two close friends approached me. Most of our conversation was lost in the sound, but I distinctly remember, “Why are you slow-dancing? You aren’t in seventh grade anymore.” After assuring my friends I would never dare do such a heinous activity again, I left the vicinity of
“What does it means to be prim and proper, and does society have a place for the values that defined the 50’s?”
“I have always been a strong proponent of turning this (SGA) Harris into bureaucratic Harris, where people come dressed as office supplies, emails, or other nouns that are in a bureaucrats’ jargon, but I digress.” . Harris, happy to have a quote that works wonderfully for this commentary. Linnea: What can be said about Dhruv's adventure? Certainly that many Grinnellians are not only willing to slow dance in Harris, nay, they enjoy the chance to do so. What does this mean though? I think it means that Grinnellians are excited to break the norms of the spaces they inhabit (in this case subverting what we think of as the normal way to dance at Harris). But more importantly I also think Dhruv’s success at SGA Harris reflects that people react positively to being given the option to say “no” to a dance, to be able to voice their consent while making eye contact and without being physically grabbed. While the physical positioning of traditional slow dancing isn’t exactly equal either, with the male partner’s hands on the female partner’s waist, it is a lot more equal than the traditional “grinding” position. For women especially, grinding both conceptually and physically is often unequal and demeaning. Women are usually approached from behind, grabbed by the interested party without being asked for consent, and often don’t even look their partner in the eye the entire dance.
by Diane Lenertz ‘15
None of us editors had harbored much hope that our lionhearted prince would actually get the chance to slow dance in Harris– whether due to lack of physical space or rejection after rejection–so watching Dhruv waltzing (to Kanye West ft. Big Sean & Jay Z – Clique) was a euphoric and redeeming experience. The Grinnellians who accepted Dhruv’s hand naturally began to dance to the beat of the song playing. Thankfully, our dapper duke never failed to firmly yet tenderly slow the movement of their bodies to a beat not unlike that of the pacemaker that keeps Dick Cheney’s failing heart pumping.
When first pitching this story idea to Dhruv, we had no idea the results would have us comparing grinding to slow dancing through the lens of gender. We actually began the evening light-heartedly ridiculing the concept of slow dancing, saying things to Dhruv like, “Don’t get too sad when everyone denies you.” But this story wrote itself as we stood on the dance floor and watched as Dhruv and his dance partners exemplified how important it is to treat your crush the same on the dance floor as you would in the Grille (eye contact, respect, asking for consent before touching–you know, just the basics…). By the end of the night Dhruv, our enduring flower, was physically tired out, because waltzing can be a workout. But if he was as gleeful as I was after this experience, then his spirit flew with the seagulls and brushed the clouds all night long. Hey, that is what consent and respectability does to ya. Take notes, kids. This could be you next time a Harris rolls around.
25
26
Write for
email [gum] for more information