Counterpoint THE WELLESLEY COLLEGE
NOV
JOURNAL OF CAMPUS LIFE
& DEC 2010
VOL. 33
/ ISSUE 3
H T R O F O G AND WRITE
US
ARTICLES
INTERESTED? EMAIL US COUNTERPOINTMAIL@WELLESLEY.EDU
EDITORIAL STAFF Editors in Chief
HANNAH ALLEN ‘12 SARIKA NARULA ‘11
Managing Editor Copy Editor
Counterpoint The Wellesley College Journal of Campus Life November & December 2010 Volume 33 / Issue 3
CHRISTINA GOSSMANN ‘11 ANTHEA CHEUNG ‘12 ALEXANDRA CAHILL ‘11
Webmaster
DESIGN STAFF Layout Editor Artistic Director
CAMPUS LIFE
MYRIAM TAIBI ‘12 JEAN M. KIM ‘12
HO LUM KWOK
4
SARIKA NARULA
5
MISS MANNERS
7
BUSINESS STAFF Treasurer
ANNA COLL ‘12
STAFF WRITERS HANNAH ALLEN ‘12, ALEXANDRA CAHILL ‘11, ANTHEA CHEUNG ‘12, ANNA COLL ‘12 CHRISTINA GOSSMANN ‘11, SARIKA NARULA ’11, RACHEL SALMANOWITZ ‘12, MARGARET VAN CLEVE ‘11, SHARON TAI ‘13
Returning to a 2001 Rolling Stones Article
Miss manners Manners: Do we use them here at Wellesley?
ARTS & CULTURE CHRISTINA GOSSMANN
TRUSTEES MATT BURNS MIT ‘05, KRISTINA COSTA ‘09, BRIAN DUNAGAN MIT ‘03, KARA HADGE WC ‘08, EDWARD SUMMERS MIT ‘08
Back in the day Alumna Desiree Rogers comes back
CONTRIBUTORS JULIA GALL ‘12, JEAN KIM ‘12, ANNA PRENDELLA ’11, KARIN ROBINSON ‘12, VICTORIA ROYAL ‘11, SHARON TAI ‘13, JAMI-LIN WILLIAMS ‘11
According to Jay Dixit
9
Our excited professors and autocratic leaders Introduction to macroeconomics
MELISSA EVANS
11 99 bottles of beer on the wall Oktoberfest in Munich
SUBMISSIONS Counterpoint welcomes all submissions of articles and letters. Email submissions to counterpointmail@firstclass. wellesley.edu. Counterpoint encourages cooperation between writers and editors but reserves the right to edit all submissions for length and clarity.
Photo / greenchange.org
SUBSCRIPTIONS
PO L I T I C S LOUISA MEURY
13 Prop 19 The Legalization of Marijuana
One year’s subscription: $25. Send checks and mailing address to:
Counterpoint, Wellesley College 106 Central Street Wellesley, MA. 02481 Counterpoint is funded in part by the Wellesley Senate. Wellesley College is not responsible for the content of Counterpoint. Counterpoint thanks its departmental sponsors at Wellesley: Economics, Russian, Theatre Studies, and the Newhouse Center for the Humanities.
counter point / nov & dec 2010
page 3
According to Jay Dixit
I
Returning to a 2001 Rolling Stones Article BY HOLUM KWOK
n no real, alternative, or imagined universe, now or in the future, will Wellesley ever be “badass”—unless one is referring to our intellectual caliber, the rugby team, or the way people get destroyed on community for being politically incorrect. But according to Jay Dixit, “badass” we are. The girl with the pearls and the preppy top might be an annoying Wendy Wellesley in class, but in Dixit’s world, she lives a secret life dedicated to sexual promiscuity, preying on male exchange students, and self-degrading desperation. I kid you not, there is honest journalism for proof. Before I continue with my tirade, I must acknowledge that I’m digging up a buried hatchet. Except wait, did we even bury it in the first place? For those who just read nonsense, yes my brain is a little fried from midterms and finals, but it’s also because you haven’t read “The Highly-Charged Erotic Life of the Wellesley Girl”. If you think Kristen Dunst’s annoying character, Julia Stiles’ bad acting, and the weak plotline in Mona Lisa Smile was an insult to Wellesley, you might want to turn the page. Back in 2001, Jay Dixit wrote an article titled “The Highly-Charged Erotic Life of the Wellesley Girl” that was published in page 4
Rolling Stones. The article, true to its title, investigates the sex culture at Wellesley, which I realize, is an oxymoron for some. He points to alleged confessions by professors and testimonies of male exchange students to argue that Wellesley women are beyond sexually liberal, verging on indecent and for the lack of a better word, slutty. Salacious rumors of professors having sexual relationships with students, individual accounts of the sexual benefits that came with being a male exchange student at Wellesley, and stories of romantic relationships between students and dining hall staff, all make for a juicy article. The question is: how accurately or better yet, inaccurately does it depict the real sex culture at Wellesley? I don’t plan on being sued for defamation, so I will not go as far as accusing Dixit of false reporting. However though, I highly doubt the validity of his reporting, his depictions of Wellesley do somewhat accurately reflect the common misguided assumptions that men, or should I say boys, impose upon Wellesley women. In his article, Dixit quoted David Kent, a male exchange student at Wellesley in the late seventies, “I became incapable of talking to a girl without thinking
counter point / nov & dec 2010 2010
Ho Lum Kwok ’13 (hkwok@wellesley.edu), is a badass, though she is not on the Rugby team.
Photo / Rolling Stones 2001
CAMPUS LIFE
how much she craved me and what she’d be like in the sack.” Another male exchange student from Connecticut College reported feeling like Tom Cruise because of his popularity. Although there’s undeniably an inverse relationship between the number of options one has and one’s level of desperation (can’t argue with psychology), it is not immutable. Desperation decreases with self-respect, which fortunately, Wellesley Women radiate with. I often discover that men have difficulties grasping this fact. To any younger MIT or Harvard David Kent(s) who plan on attending future Wellesley parties—don’t, because chances are, we aren’t “craving” you. Not even close. To make these assumptions are to insult a woman’s intelligence, dignity, and self-respect. I find myself avoiding Wellesley parties precisely because of such assumptions. Men arrive at Wellesley with an inflated ego and an extremely misguided perception of how desperate and sexually frustrated Wellesley women are. They act obnoxious, conceited, and expect us to surrender without first bribing us with wit or charm. This is also why I avoid looking at men—exchange students, friends, boyfriends, or shameful regrets—around campus. I go on Wellesley BroSpotter later to see what I missed. I refuse to indulge their self-flattery and ego. Jay Dixit is an old enemy, and what with Duke’s new sex scandal, Wendy Wellesley the badass is back to being Wendy Wellesley with the pearls. But being at a women’s college means we will continue to face irritating assumptions about the choices we make. Since this seems like an incurable situation, I cue the silver lining: if this is the cost of living in my pajamas without being self-conscious, roaming the halls half naked, and talking with my mouth full during dinner without shame, then “slutty,” I will be.
CAMPUS LIFE
Back In the Day Alumna Desiree Rogers Comes Back to Visit Wellesley
Photo / observer.com
M
BY SARIKA NARULA
ost Wellesley women, if they don’t know her by name, are at least familiar with Desiree Rogers’s most recent job: social secretary of the White House under the Obama administration. When I first heard that she was coming to campus to give a lecture, I immediately remembered the Community thread of less than two years ago, announcing that another Wellesley woman
had been appointed to serve President Obama. Among the outpouring of support for this alum (Wellesley ’81), there was also a decent amount of criticism thrown into the mix. Not criticism of Ms. Rogers, but rather a critique of the position she was offered—some scoffed at the position of social secretary, wondering if it was an insult that the job of “planning parties” was offered to a woman, and one
of great intelligence to boot. I pondered this, but soon after that somewhat cliché critique was shot down, the original poster being told that the position of social secretary entailed much more than planning parties, including curating the White House, and that even the job of planning parties well was one that required a brain. After hearing Desiree Rogers speak on Wednesday, the 6th of October, it is clear
counter point / nov & dec 2010
page 5
that no matter what she did under the Obama administration, she certainly possesses a brain as well as an incredible passion for life. Despite (or maybe because of ) her impressive list of credentials— Wellesley alum and Harvard MBA, CEO of Johnson Publishing, the first African American social secretary—she also has a playful outlook on life. She began her speech that night, but stopped to take a sideways step and show the audience what she was wearing, joking that her choice of clothes must have been the main question on our minds. She then joined in the audience’s laughter, saying, “Sometimes it’s good to make fun of yourself. In fact, a lot of times it’s good to make fun of yourself.” She reminisced about Wellesley, something I was very curious to hear about. It’s certainly one thing to hear any alum reminisce about this place, and describe how it was ‘back in the day’, but when it’s a famous alum, you suddenly want to know everything about their experience, and freakishly compare it to your own. She was alternately serious and playful, describing how she fervently avoided any exercise at Wellesley, and the fun she had throughout college, but also how Wellesley stayed with her after graduation, through the support of the alumnae network. Although Rogers knew what a supportive community of women meant before she came to Wellesley, having grown up with positive female role models around her. She described how, although her grandmother was only schooled up to the eighth grade, she started a daycare business, which grew into a community of women that Rogers could look up to, and aspire to be a part of. Though she has been part of several female communities through the years, she found something unique about Wellesley, stating that she had never since duplicated this amount of concentrated female intellect in one place. page 6
Interestingly, however, she followed her discussion of Wellesley with one on gender equity. Ms. Rogers rattled off several statistics—the usual on how women get paid less for the same job a man does, and how the better educated the woman was, the larger that gap was. At this point, I was starting to wonder where the title of Ms. Rogers’s talk, “The Making of a Woman,” would show its relevance. That was when she surprised me. Though she acknowledged that the world was approaching its goal of gender equity, she was surprised to find that as we approached this goal in the workplace, the life satisfaction and happiness of women was decreasing. She posed the question, has advancement of the gender opened up other issues? Are we liberated? She could not answer these questions, but instead of analyzing them decided to pass on her wisdom to the generation of women seated before her. The way Ms. Rogers chose to do this was through examining what was successful and meaningful in her own life. She separated these events into larger points of life, most of them clichés or things we already inherently know (Carry yourself with confidence, savor everything in life, creating change is rewarding) but also things we tend to forget in our busy, stressed-out lifestyles. Though at first I was extremely eager to hear more about her position as social secretary, I found that in the end hearing about her overall experiences and wisdom were more rewarding than her discussion of her job at the White House. Every story she told about her various jobs and life experiences were with the objective of urging people to follow their gut, do their best, and challenge themselves, while also remaining true to themselves. But this theme of remaining true to oneself, or indeed figuring out who one is, was not an easy one to maintain, and Ms. Rogers acknowledged that, stressing that she always made time
counter point / nov & dec 2010
for herself. Indeed, she told us that she makes time for others as well, finally sharing her most difficult and personal experience with us: her diagnosis of cancer ten years ago. As she first said that shocking word, “cancer,” there was a collective gasp from the crowd. It was clear there were questions in everyone’s mind—what type of cancer was it? How was she treated? These questions, however, didn’t matter; what actually mattered was her experience, and that she shared it with us. She urged us to savor everything in life—every relationship, every experience, even every day, encouraging us to “Smile at the person next to you. If they don’t smile back, who cares? At least you don’t have to be a frowner.” By the end of Ms. Rogers’s talk, I felt that I had heard a lot of clichés and tested wisdom, but none of it seemed truly repetitive. Especially as a pensive senior in her second to last term at Wellesley, it sounded like good advice that many of us often disregard. Ms. Rogers’s last piece of advice, asked during the question and answer session at the end, was in fact geared towards graduating seniors and recent alums. When asked for advice on finding a path in life, she smiled as if to reassure everyone in the audience. She started describing how her ‘path’ had not been conventional or easy to come by, and that there were many paths out there that could lead to success. In the end, however, all she needed to say was contained in these words: “Take a deep breath. It’s going to be ok.” Sarika Narula ’11 (snarula@wellesley.edu), though a pensive senior, is definitely not a frowner.
CAMPUS LIFE
Miss Manners
W
Manners: Do we use them here at Wellesley?
Staff Art / Jean M. Kim ‘12
hen thinking about famous alumnae, people often mention our predecessors who have moved on to become much acclaimed politicians or journalists. One alumna who is often forgotten is Judith Martin, the celebrated author who is better known as Miss Manners. Her column for The Washington Post, among other newspapers and publications, allowed readers to write in with etiquette questions ranging in topics from the proper glass for red wine to the right hostess present for the first meeting with a future mother in law. Of course, many of the topics she wrote about pertained to high society, but since we’re all college students, we figured it was better to write about Wellesley-specific etiquette questions. Our trial run will hopefully prove
fruitful and if you enjoy our advice, let us know so we can continue writing for you. Dear Miss Manners, I have been seeing a guy for a couple of weeks now. Since I like the escape of getting off campus, I’ve been exclusively traveling to his place. I am now starting to grow weary of the commute and would like him to come here; I also feel comfortable enough with the relationship that I can display him publicly. I am nervous about proposing this because it would be a drastic change in the status quo and I’m afraid about his reaction to a place like Wellesley. Furthermore, can I subject him to dinner in Tower on his first visit to Wellesley? What if he doesn’t want to come here? Sincerely, Tired Traveler
Dear Tired Traveler, First of all, it is very reasonable for you to ask him to make the trek. After all, feminism means both sexes are equal, right? You could perhaps mention to him that epithet about women and men being equal, in order to persuade him with an intellectually based argument. Yes, Wellesley can intimidate boys, but I’m sure he will survive a visit. If you have reservations, maybe its best to ease him into the overwhelming experience of an estrogen-filled dining room. Perhaps have him come over for a movie and popcorn, and then after a little while he can happily join you for dinner? I am sure a quality gentleman would be happy to visit you, so ease your mind!
counter point / nov & dec 2010
page 7
Dear Miss Manners, My next door neighbor listens to a lot of really obnoxious foreign pop music, and only seems to want to play it late at night, when I’m either frantically trying to finish a p-set, or trying to sleep. Part of my problem is her music is just awful, it’s like poison in my ears. I literally cannot stand a single thing she plays; if it were something better, I might be more forgiving. How can I tell her to stop? Sincerely, Musically aware and Annoyed Dear Annoyed, Your best bet is to kindly remind your noisy neighbor of the campus-wide quiet hours. If she does not respond well or continues to be rude, you could remind her, or perhaps talk to your RA about other solutions. I would suggest that you refrain from commenting on her music taste; that might not be the best way to encourage her to cease the music. If the problem persists either send her part of your music catalog or buy earplugs. Communal living has the misfortune of things like these; I’m sorry for your challenges. Dear Miss Manners, Recently I had an unusual and upsetting experience in the Clapp Library. I was studying for my second econ midterm on Monday night around 7pm. I was very clearly working hard and I was by myself at a small table, meant for maybe three people at maximum. This girl, who I had never met before, decided to sit down at my table without even acknowledging me, nor asking for permission to sit across from my seat. I was surprised by her manner in sitting down without any sort of recognition of my presence, and for the fact that she sat down despite there being multiple open spots all over the library. She did her work quietly, and seemed to be completely unaware of my existence, despite my multiple glares at her. I ended up moving, because I felt as though her presence was interfering with my cost benefit analysis; in fact, her prespage 8
ence was costing my studying more than I was benefiting from it. Do you feel like this mystery student was behaving appropriately or that I was overreacting, and do you think I would be within reason to ask her to leave, and if so, how? Sincerely, Wendy Wellesley Dear Wendy, I do empathize with your situation- it is challenging to be productive in a distracting environment, and I know how important your midterm is to your success in your future, and for the rest of your life. So yes, you have every right to be upset. I would like to remind you that tables are for the students in general and this student’s error was not in sitting down with you, but the fact that she did not ask you prior to just making herself comfortable. Unless she has a good reason for sitting with a perfect stranger in a very close space, it’s a little bit bizarre to share a table with someone else. If there are other tables available, you could move, or you could tell her that you have friends who are on their way, and immediately text your friends, asking them to join you, although that is not necessarily a fool proof solution. You could ask her to leave, but there is no way to do that politely, unless you say that you have OCD and are incapable of working unless you’re alone. There is no good solution, unfortunately, unless you want to work in your room and hope that your roommate stays away. Good luck, and perhaps you can prevent such future attacks by taking up the whole table with your papers and other materials. Dear Miss Manners, Last night was my roommate’s birthday. We had made plans with a few close friends to go out to dinner at the Cheesecake Factory and then an hour before dinner, one of her friends sent me a brief text message saying she had a lot of homework and didn’t think she could make it. I asked her if she was sure, and if
counter point / nov & dec 2010
perhaps she could spare a few hours. She never responded and we went without her, there was en empty space at the table. My roommate was visibly upset, but we still managed to enjoy ourselves. I know it is a sort of situation that can’t always be prevented, but I was rather upset, mostly on behalf of my roommate. I’m upset enough to tell her friend that she was out of line, and I only wish that I could have convinced her to change her mind prior to dinner. What can I say to defend my roommate and make her friend realize that she made a mistake? Sincerely, Concerned Roommate Dear Concerned, You are very sensitive and sincere and your roommate is lucky to have you in her life. I’m sorry that a friend had unfortunate timing. Yes, her friend was out of line for canceling last minute and for the way in which she cancelled so casually. If she had been able to give you more of a warning, maybe some hurt could have been prevented on behalf of your roommate. It is typically unacceptable behavior to cancel last minute in other areas of life-can your doctor cancel your physical last minute? Can you decide to not go to an interview because you don’t feel like it? No. Yet this same logic is rarely extended to important social gatherings. As much as you would like to convince her friend otherwise, you cannot be the powerful force who determines her behavior and choices. I’m sure she did have a lot of work, and I hope she managed to finish it; it’s a shame she was unable to attend the birthday party, but cancellations do happen, and you can’t always prevent them. Perhaps you can convey to your roommate’s friend that her absence was palpable, but that’s all you can really do. I guess you know who not to invite to the next soiree. Miss Manners knows which fork is used first.
ARTS & CULTURE
On Excited Professors and Autocratic Leaders Introduction to macroeconomics BY CHRISTINA GROSSMANN
W
Photo / timeinc.net
hen I took Econ 102, Introduction to Macroeconomics, in the Spring of 2008, I first encountered the extremely rational, observatory and sometimes morbid side of Economics – and absolutely fell in love with it. “This is the best time to take this course!” an excited Professor Malhar Nabar would proclaim in front of the board, next to his neatly stated daily class agenda. He threw his arms up in the air. “We got hyperinflation in Zimbabwe and we got the financial crisis hitting the world!” Those are a true economist’s words. Many things have changed since then. Professor Nabar left that same year to join the fun in D.C. at the International Monetary Fund, the recession has officially ended, and Zimbabwe’s inflation is down from 79,600,000,000% (second place in
the world’s hyperinflation record books) in 2008 to 5% this year. While Professor Nabar is hopefully retuning soon and much attention and critique has been awarded towards the official recession end and unofficial lack thereof, I would like to look at little closer at the case of Zimbabwe. Besides viewing it as an interesting and unfortunate case study, I had not paid too much attention to it – until this past summer, when I spent several months in South Africa. South Africa has been shaken by violent xenophobic attacks in May of 2008. The attacks were directed towards black African foreigners and within-South Africa migrants, but mostly against Zimbabweans. In a matter of weeks, the attacks spread from a township in Johannesburg to the entire country; 62 people died and over a hundred thousand individuals were
displaced. In 2010, one could still feel the tension that had caused the attacks and was simultaneously perpetuating itself. Phrases such as “Those Zimbabweans cause this country’s problems! Why don’t they go back to their country? They work for peanuts because they have no unions. They take our jobs! We have enough problems of our own!” were sometimes openly stated among South Africans but much more often were muttered behind closed doors. It is not easy to take a side. Since 1994, when Nelson Mandela was elected president, inaugurating the country’s democratic era, tens of thousands of newcomers have been pouring into South Africa, in particular into the greater Johannesburg metropolitan region. In the late 1990s, the number of newcomers exceeded twenty thousand per month, despite progressive deindustrialization and urban unemployment rate of almost forty percent in Johannesburg alone. But what exactly had happened in Zimbabwe to force its citizens to migrate? Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, when Robert Mugabe and his party, the Zimbabwe African National Union, were elected. Since then, Mugabe has been the autocratic head of state. Naturally, not without strong opposition. However, whenever oppositional movements dared to manifest themselves, they were violently taken down. The civilian population continuously protested against declining living conditions, but they were ignored. They were so discouraged in their political freedom that during the 1990 elections, the voter turnout was down to 54%, and, with Mugabe’s reelection, living standards declined further. By the late nineties, 25% of the Zimbabwean population had been infected by HIV. Things were looking bad and the population was desperately urging the president to do something, to bring some kind of change, equality. The so-called equality came in 2000.
counter point / nov & dec 2010
page 9
page 10
vina,” an huge-scale eviction effort. Without alternative housing provision, shanty-town populations became homeless overnight. In 2006, the United Nations World Health Organization declared life expectancy in Zimbabwe as the lowest in the world: 37 years for men, 34 for women. Another presidential election came around in 2008 and although the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) gained majority of seats, Mugabe declared that MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai had fallen short of the required 50% to take office. For the first time in decades, Mugabe was seriously threatened politically. And he was furious. Thousands of villagers, thought to have voted for the Mugabe’s opposition, the MDC, were displaced, tortured; hundreds were murders. Three months later, Tsvangirai withdrew from the run-offs. Instead, “global political agreement” (GPA) was put into place: Tsvangirai became prime minister, while Mugabe remained president. He still has pretty much the full political power. This is why Zimbabweans leave their country. The Zimbabwean exodus is estimated at 3 million, and many emigrate
counter point / nov & dec 2010
Christina Gossmann ‘11 (cgrossmann@ wellesley.edu) economic writers can be morbid too.
!"#$#%&%'()*+,-$($./,0./12),/#*
Land redistribution had been a topic since the liberation movement; although they made up only 1% of the population, whites owned approximately 70% of the most optimal land for large scale farming. In 2000, the government attempted to pass a new constitution that would have enabled compulsory land acquisitions without compensation. When this constitution failed to pass, the “Fast-track resettlement program” originated. This gained land was then “redistributed,” but unfortunately, in a corrupt manner, resulting in hundreds of thousands of black farm workers losing their jobs and homes. The international community and press were outraged, sanctions were imposed, Zimbabwe suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations and charged of human rights violations during the land redistributions. With little effect, it seems. Of almost 280,000 whites who once lived in Zimbabwe, approximately 12,000 have remained, reports The Economist. The hundreds of thousands homeless and jobless farm workers settled in slums, rapidly emerging around towns and cities. Criminality and illegal trading increased. Mugabe’s solution to the informal settlements was “Operation Muranbats-
to neighboring, booming economy South Africa. Mugabe’s reelection was followed by the nation’s highest hyperinflation ever. A government that can no longer raise enough taxes to cover government expenditures, will print more money to pay for the national bills. The controversial land reforms and Zimbabwe’s increasing isolation from the international community caused the public lose credibility in the government’s ability to fight inflation effectively; and inflation expectation, as Professor repeatedly emphasized during those sweet Spring days of 2008, is the most substantial cause of inflation. If your people no longer believe in your currency, you might as well stop printing it. Finally, after Zimbabwean currency lost its value, it was abolished and replaced by the American dollar in 2009. Since then, it seems, conditions have improved, thanks to the drastic inflation drop and Tsvangirai’s political presence. This year, nearly 420,000 of those Zimbabweans who had fled from their country, have returned. Although 80% of the population are jobless, the economy is growing for the first time in years. What comes next is really what matters. Zimbabwe is supposed to have another general election by the end of 2011. Mugabe plans to run for election, and he is determined to succeed. But there is hope that the MDC will actually take over the government next time; after all – mind the morbidity – Mugabe is turning 87 next February.
ARTS & CULTURE
99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall Oktoberfest in Munich
I
B Y M E L I S S A E VA N S
Photo / davidglobalvagabond.com
had wanted to go to Oktoberfest ever since my layover in the Munich Airport two months ago. Oktoberfest hadn’t even begun and the airport was packed with enticing memorabilia. We tried figuring out how to make it happen, but it was all rather complicated. We could take a German or Austrian train, but then we would be left homeless for the night. All of the hotels and even hostels in Munich are sold out months in advance. Our next game plan was to stay in a tent. Oktoberfest is so popular that people pay 50 Euros a night for a four-person tent in a field. However, I was uneasy about the safety of an un-lockable tent in a field full of drunken Germans. At the last minute it was looking like my dream was not going to be realized, when we discovered that Erasmus had a trip planned. The Erasmus
Student Network is an organization that holds events for international students in Europe. They provide great opportunities to meet people, and learn about the culture of your new home country. Suddenly my free time became consumed with finding the perfect dirndl to wear to Oktoberfest. Superficial, perhaps, but I wanted to take my cultural experience to the next level. For those who don‘t know, a dirndl is a traditional German or Austrian dress. It has a fitted, lowcut bodice, full skirt, and a little white shirt that goes underneath. It’s also usually worn with an apron and knee high socks. In America we often see questionable versions of these on Halloween. The real thing is not exactly cheap though, and I basically spent an entire month’s food budget on Oktoberfest. Probably
not a bad thing considering that eating and breathing are both difficult activities in a dirndl. The Trachten Outlet, where I bought my dirndl, was run by an expert. In my opinion, it was tight enough initially, but she kept on repeating “Ein Dirndl soll eng sein,” (A dirndl is supposed to be tight.) until I caved and let her take it in even more. She also emphasized the importance of the apron bow. The bow of one’s apron should be tied to the left if single, and the right if taken. Once properly outfitted I was prepared for anything. Erasmus had their own seven-car train, which departed from Vienna at the stroke of midnight on a Thursday. Amusingly enough, all the student dorms’ move-in day was that Thursday. After frantically moving all of my possessions into my new dorm room, I rapidly pulled on my dirndl
counter point / nov & dec 2010
page 11
and ran to the train station. The running probably wouldn’t have been necessary if I hadn’t spent so much time chatting up my new Austrian roommate trying to convince her that I wasn’t an insane American. Spending 20 minutes braiding my hair probably didn’t help either. Making sure that over 200 international students were checked in was chaotic to say the least. Eventually the train was filled with international students and we were on our way. The ESN train is affectionately known as the “Party-Train” and it has, as you can probably guess, a disco car. Blaring music, tables bolted to the floor and free alcohol all night long. It’s likely the best and simultaneously most dangerous pre-gaming of Oktoberfest in its history. Wearing a dirndl in a train full of drunken students was an interesting experience. Generally it just meant that I had to take pictures posing with half the train. Because the train was moving everyone got slammed into everyone else at random intervals and most of us got drenched in beer. Some people were more responsible than others, but many arrived at Oktoberfest praying that they would never have to drink again. That day a friend of mine came up to me and asked if I knew where he spent the previous night, because he couldn’t seem to remember. The beautiful thing about Erasmus is that nobody knows anyone in the city, and everybody is willingly to make new friends. We all bonded through our shared Party-train experience, and I spent Oktoberfest with the people from our compartment that I had just met. Oktoberfest has a bad reputation in Europe for rapidly turning into a drunken disaster. A German guy I met in my new dorm told me that he went to Oktoberfest last year and was shocked by the debauchery. He said that last year it was still warm outside and as a result everyone got sick all over the place. What I observed didn’t live up to the hype of crazy drunken escapades, but the amount of dirty old men was unprecedented. We were sitting in a page 12
section full of Erasmus students and were constantly plagued by two older far-fromgentlemenly men who kept propositioning any girl who sat next to them. Our newly found Dutch friend dubbed one of them “The Greasy Man” not only because of his slimy behavior, but because of his awkward comb-over which was comprised of no more than a few strands of hair. In most instances our large pack of students spared us the usual harassment. During the five minutes that it took to reach the bathroom I had several encounters of the obscene kind including when one man yelled “Jawohl” at me, and then toasted me with his Maß. I’m getting ahead of myself, however. Let me describe the general splendor that is Oktoberfest. It only lasts for two weeks every year and it actually takes place in September, with its end being the first weekend in October. There is an official ceremony to mark its start, in which the majority of Munich taps the first barrel of Bavarian beer. The huge field in Munich it takes place on is known as “the Wies’n,” which technically translates as “the meadows,” but when you say the meadows, everybody knows what you mean; “Oh, the infamous meadows, I was drunk there once…” The main attraction is the beer tents. They are in fact tents, but more in the arena of circus tents than camping tents. The tents are filled with long wooden tables, and generally have stairs to a second level of seating. Each main brewery in Germany has their own tent, where they serve their own brew and you’re not allowed to take beer out of the tents. Erasmus had seats in the Löwenbräu tent, which had a giant growling sculpture of a lion outside. All of the tents had themes, and while taking in the scenery, I noticed that one tent was shaped like a huge gingerbread castle. One Maß holds one liter of beer and the glass beer steins are insanely heavy when full. At one point someone grazed my forehead with their Maß and I still have a bump there. Quite literally all they serve is beer, and only their beer. I
counter point / nov & dec 2010
heard one girl make the mistake of asking in English if they had water and getting immediately and sharply rebuked by the waitress. Each trip to a table, the waitresses carry four or five beers in each hand, an impressive feat considering their weight and the fact that these women look like middle-aged mothers in dirndls. It wasn’t unusual to see them carrying upwards of ten beers with their arms in a circle around them. The huge tents are lined up along a main road, and the rest of the park is filled with carnival rides and food. You can order some foods in the beer tent, like pretzels, and chicken, but sweets and non-beer beverages are only available outside. Gingerbread hearts are very popular at Oktoberfest. People buy them for their lovers and friends, or like in my case, themselves. The gifted gingerbread hearts are then worn by a string around the loved one’s neck, a lovely addition to their already festive Oktoberfest attire. I’ve already discussed my love of Oktoberfest women’s wear, but now we should move on to the other gender’s attire; lederhosen (“Leather-pants”). Even though the term translates as leather pants, they are typically leather shorts. I saw a few men with full on pants, but not very many. Lederhosen don’t have a zipper, just a flap with buttons, which I think is similar to the butt-flap on long-johns. You should be glad to know, however, that I did not investigate this curiosity. After a day full of curiosities, and twenty-four hours after our departure, we all returned to our home-sweet-home, compartment 7 in train 4, and fell into a collectively peaceful slumber until we returned to Vienna early the next morning. The aftermath of Oktoberfest, including buying groceries while still clad in a dirndl was equally amusing, but another story entirely. Melissa Evans ’12 (mevans@wellesley.edu) would like to live in a Gingerbread house and wear a dirndl every day.
POLITICS
PROP 19
O
The legalization of marijuana BY LOUISA MEURY
Photo / Time Magazine
n November 2, 2010, the State of California voted down Proposition 19, the initiative to legalize marijuana. Prop 19 would have made it legal for those over 21 to buy, cultivate and use marijuana on a recreational basis, essentially putting it in the same category as alcohol. This would make it safer, taxable and controlled, but would also make it harder for minors to obtain. (After all, drug dealers don’t exactly discriminate based on age, while liquor stores with ID scanners definitely do). California is a traditionally blue state, but recent voter initiatives paint it pretty red. (Remember Prop 8, anyone?) Prop 19, however, seems to be almost above the red/blue divide. The list of government higher-ups who opposed it include both (Democratic) state senators, both gubernatorial candidates and, of course, the governator himself. On the social end, perhaps it is reminiscent of the days before the war on drugs, the glory days of the beats, Dylan and Haight-Ashbury. However, taken
from another angle, Prop 19 is far more economic in nature, decreasing regulation and opening markets. Above all, Prop 19 is a strategic move to counter many of the larger problems facing the golden coast. So, why is Prop 19 a good thing? First of all, let’s examine California’s many problems. The biggest issue is undoubtedly the economy. California is notorious for having one of the highest budget deficits in the nation. Part of this can be attributed to our property tax system. Thanks to Proposition 13, a people’s initiative leftover from 1978, homes are not taxed based on the current value, but on what the owner initially paid, meaning that my parents pay taxes based on the price they paid in the 1980s, which is not reflective of the more than doubled value it holds today, due to inflation and rising property value. Prop 13 is part of why the educational system is ranked at 49th out of the 50 states, as property taxes fund public projects such as schools and libraries.
Problem number two: California’s public works, including education, the Department of Motor Vehicles, roads and infrastructure. Despite the fact that Cal Berkeley is the best public institution of higher learning in the United States, there is really nothing else worth mentioning, academically. When I was in elementary school, we not only had art and music, but Spanish and PE at least three days a week. In my home district, art, music and Spanish were cut before I left elementary school, and now PE has been cut from a force of 15-20 teachers for the whole district, to one. How, then, would the legalization of marijuana help infrastructure as well as the economy? According to the government, the effects of marijuana usage are, essentially, laziness and poor job performance, and that is really the last thing we need in a state that has the worst budget deficit in the union. However, the domestic economy from marijuana amounts to 14 billion dollars in California, which would
counter point / nov & dec 2010
page 13
create approximately 1.4 billion dollars in tax revenue per year. Beyond the tax revenue, however, legalization would create up to 110,000 new jobs and expand the economy by 23 billion dollars annually. It would also decrease expenditure spent on arrests, police force and the penitentiary. One website even listed a decline in racebiased drug arrests as a “pro” of Prop 19. If Prop 19 had all these potential positives, then there must be something else that made everyone vote it down, right? Let’s examine the effects of marijuana. According to the government’s website, “In one study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life, and career status.” However, it also says, “the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time,” and “it is not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or is used in attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence.” In contrast, it is legal for 18-year olds to buy and use cigarettes, which are unquestionably connected to lung cancer, and for 21-year olds to drink alcohol, which, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, “may have extensive and far–reaching effects on the brain, ranging from simple ‘slips’ in memory to permanent and debilitating conditions that require lifetime custodial care. And even moderate drinking leads to short–term impairment, as shown by extensive research on the impact of drinking on driving.” On the whole, it seems that marijuana has fewer harmful far-reaching consequences than substances that are legal. It is not that these effects are desired or healthy, just that they are less than those negative consequences associated with alcohol and tobacco. So really, who would the legalization of cannabis hurt? Drug dealers. And honestly, we’ve been after them for years, so Prop 19 seems like a good way to finish them entirely. The legalization of marijuana page 14
would eliminate the black market within California and decrease the violence on the California/Mexico border and within Mexico (cartels get about 70% of their income from exports to the United States). Remember what happened after Prohibition was repealed in the 1930s? The black market and mafia wars effectively ended. So even if you did not care about the awful economy and pitiable state of education, isn’t it our duty to try to decrease violence in Mexico, when we do so much to create it? The US essentially fuels the drug cartels’ civil war, and after years of exploiting them for cheap labor via NAFTA, it seems about time to take responsibility for ourselves and attempt a good neighbor policy. What is our problem with cannabis? Is it the fact that there is not a lobbying firm like big tobacco, with their hand in every politician’s back pocket? Or is it just that the lifestyle associated with marijuana doesn’t exactly connote a productive society? And really, why do people care what their neighbors do, so long as their kids get a decent education and their aging grandfather doesn’t have to wait in line at the DMV for four hours just to re-take his license test? Aren’t some issues bigger than our own petty qualms? Or perhaps, if the legalization of marijuana would help dispel racial bias, this is at heart a race issue. After all, Free Weezy day probably spiked the sale of cannabis nationwide to 4/20 levels. Regardless of individual proclivities for or against marijuana, it seems a shame that we have to wait another two years to see this on the ballot again. After all, the demand will never go away entirely, and it seems the easiest way to create tax revenue without actually hurting anyone except for a small and select group that the government has been after for years (ie., drug dealers). Nonetheless, there are two logical arguments against legalization. Like in Massachusetts, marijuana has been decriminalized in California. This means that anyone caught with under an ounce is charged with a misdemeanor and fined
counter point / nov & dec 2010
100 dollars. Really not that bad, right? A DUI goes on your record, but possession of marijuana does not. Further, medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996 (and the urban legend in my town goes that if you just pay the right person 60 dollars, you have a card that you can use at the “clinic,” unlimited, for a full year). But, the language used in Prop 19 forces local governments, rather than the state, to set the regulations and prices. Supposedly, these measures could incur large implementation costs, which would then outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, the federal government’s restrictions would not actually permit the unrestricted legalization of marijuana due to interstate commerce laws. The case study of the Netherlands would actually support this decision; open borders within the EU permit the movement of marijuana, even in those countries that do not actually allow the sale of the drug within their borders. The problem arisen in this culture of “drug tourism” is the influx of non-Dutch Europeans, and the violence they attract with illegal dealers of “harder” drugs near border-city coffeeshops. Examples of this violence have been seen in California and Seattle, where owners of medical marijuana have been targeted as well. Violence will no doubt always follow drugs, but this is not a new theme, and it seems that the southernmost border is in much greater need than others. I’m sure that there are hidden costs which I do not understand, repercussions that cannot be predicted, but it seems most likely that a lot of the votes against Prop 19 are born of fear-- fear of the consequences of legalization, fear of change, and fear that legalization would not bring in the revenue expected, leaving the state devastated and full of newly created, legal potheads. Louisa Meury ’11 (lmeury@wellesley.edu) knows someone named Mary Jane.
WE WANT
YOU
for counterpoint writing - art - layout
Release your inner monologue
where it can be read, pondered over, thought about, inspire ideas, create controversy, challenge views.
Counterpoint