C
Washington University
Political Review 16.3 | April 2012 | wupr.org
Lambert Airport
Inset Map:
Bigger than Central Park in NYC! Take that NYU! You ain’t got what we got! ...just never go here at night...
Forest Park
HOW THE AVERAGE WASH U STUDENT SEES ST. LOUIS
My primary supply of alcohol.
Open 24 glorious hours!
Schnucks
Go here to leave St. Louis, and dodge tornados!
To: Missouri Where the buffalo roam, and probably some hicks too.
Danforth Campus All I really need to see of St. Louis ...right?
To: North St. Louis
SLU
Uh... WTF is a Billiken?
hmmm, now that I think of it... I don’t know if I’ve ever actually been north of the loop...
Midtown ...empty space to drive through
Dogtown haha, what?
By: Seth Einbinder & Matt Callahan
Budweiser Brewery
Mississippi River
Like a giant lazy river, but with more chemicals, trash. And possibly bodies.
To: East St. Louis
Zombie apocalypse + Call of Duty + Despair
Finally, St. Louis is good for something... ...its great at brewing crappy beer!
1
Editors’ Notes WUPRites, Former Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill is famous for saying, “All politics is local.” Applying this important truism, we bring you our latest issue on politics at its most local level: the politics of Washington University in St. Louis. The university is a microcosm of political issues that are played out on a national level, and examining these issues on such a small scale helps us to see the familiar national political relationships in our everyday interactions. If we can understand how political forces affect us directly, we may be more willing to engage locally in political efforts that might otherwise seem futile nationally. Think globally, act locally. National politics is a presence on our campus. Political activist groups attempt to raise awareness of national issues and energize students to strive for an activist spirit. Universities as institutions are featured in political debates on the role government should play in higher education or research funding. The university faces difficult decisions regarding undergraduate education, including decisions on professor tenure and socioeconomic diversity. The university’s clout is measured both by its relationships with students and professors, its physical presence on campus, and its relationship to the St. Louis community. Student relations also have important political consequences. Race and gender relations on campus, for instance, have larger political implications. Sometimes, we even seek to structure our university in political terms. Student Union does its best to imitate Congress, right down to the coalition-building. From Bristol Palin’s potential campus visit to a searing anti-Palestinian advertisement in StudLife, we are inundated by political controversies daily. One of the Political Review’s chief missions is to combat political apathy on campus. In keeping with this aim, we hope you finish reading this magazine thinking more about how political issues affect you directly on campus.
Sincerely, Corey Donahue Hannah Shaffer Editors-in-Chief
Taiwanese Student Organization Delta Sigma Pi
2
Association of Black Students Muslim Students Association
Table of Contents WU-SLam
Spanish Language Volunteers Program
Lunar New Year Festival
Student Health Advisory Committee Campus Kitchen
Student Forum on Sexuality
Cast & Crew WU Cypher
Wash U Politics
Wash U Raas WashU Bhangra Korean Students Association
14
5
Jewish Student Union KWUR Academic Team Filmboard Model United Nations All Student Theatre
Washington University Political Review Dance Marathon
Student Group Budgets Ashoka (Over $5,000) for 2011-2012 Will Dobbs-Allsopp
Association of Latin American Students
10 18
Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin
Washington University’s Sore Thumb Peter Birke
12 20
Sexual Assualt on Campus: Statistics, Definitions, and Culture Anna Applebaum & Hannah Shaffer
Invisible Systems Mike Kovacs
$22,000
Washington University’s Expanding Footprint Nick Hinsch & Alex Zasso
The Tenure Tradeoff Siddharth Krishnan
$20,000.00 $20,000
16
$18,000
8
Coming to Terms With “Self-Segregation” Andreas Mitchell
$16,000
Where Are All the Women? Underrepresentation of Female Leaders on Campus Moira Moynihan
$14,000
15
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
6
$2,000
$0
Missouri Compromised Gabe Rubin
3
Staff List Editors-in-Chief Corey Donahue Hannah Shaffer Executive Director Bryan Baird Programming Director Cici Coquillette Staff Editors Anna Applebaum Peter Birke Nick Hinsch Siddharth Krishnan Director of New Media Taka Yamaguchi Treasurer Will Dobbs-Allsopp Directors of Design Stephanie Trimboli Audrey Westcott Layout Team Mitch Atkin Ismael Fofana Charlotte Jeffries Beenish Qayam Henry Osman Emily Santos Managing Copy Editor Stephen Rubino Copy Editors Kelsey Berkowitz Krupa Desai Abby Kerfoot Moira Moynihan Henry Osman Mary Prothero (Molly) Celia Rozanski Sonya Schoenberger Katie Stillman Miriam Thorne
Staff Writers Joey Berk Alex Bluestone Michael Cohen Matt Curtis Neel Desai Seth Einbinder Jay Evans Nahuel Fefer Kim Gaspar Arian Jabdabaie Alex Kaufman Abby Kerfoot Kevin Kieselbach Mike Kovacs Raja Krishna Ben Lash Trevor Leuzinger Martin Lockman Andrew Luskin Lennox Mark Fahim Masoud Molly McGregor Andreas Mitchell Zach Moskowitz Moira Moynihan Mariana Oliver Daniel Rubin Gabe Rubin Stephen Rubino Razi Safi Sonya Schoenberger Shelby Tarkenton Jared Turkus Megan Zielinski
Michelle Nahmad Karly Nelson Grace Preston Hannah Shaffer Alex Vitti Audrey Westcott Board of Advisors Dean Ewan Harrison Political Science Department Robin Hattori Gephardt Institute for Public Service Professor Bill Lowry Political Science Department Professor Andrew Rehfeld Political Science Department Unless otherwise noted, all images are from MCT Campus. The Washington University Political Review is a student-led organization committed to encouraging and fostering awareness of political issues on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis. To do this, we shall remain dedicated to providing friendly and open avenues of discussion and debate both written and oral on the campus for any and all political ideas, regardless of the leanings of those ideas.
Front Cover Illustration Audrey Westcott Editorial Illustrators Mitch Atkin Laura Beckman Elizabeth Beier David Brennan Kate Cohen Esther Hamburger Dara Katzenstein David Maupin
Submissions editor@wupr.org
4
Wash U Politics By The Numbers $180,000
16.3
12.6
Average household income of a Wash U student, according to WUFUSE survey.
National percentage of persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
National percentage of black persons.
213
3
10
Number of Wash U student groups listed on the Student Union website.
Percentage of students of Hispanic or Latino origin at Wash U.
Percentage of black students at Wash U.
7
$5.3 billion
119
Percent Pell Grant recipients at Wash U, last among the top 25 ranked schools.
Market value of Wash U endowment as of 2011.
Number of male Full Professors in Arts & Sciences.
15
$4.5 billion
24
Percent Pell Grant recipients at Rice University.
Market value of Rice University endowment as of 2011.
Number of female Full Professors in Arts & Sciences.
Wash U Politics
Missouri Compromised Gabe Rubin
spent years teaching at University of Chicago Law School. Still, Wash U is at the very least the academic behemoth in Missouri politics. Former Missouri senators John Danforth and Jim Talent both have roots on campus (though Danforth never attended as a student). Missouri political clout grows on the walls here, with names like Crow (a former senator), Danforth, and Gephardt (a former House Minority Leader) adorning buildings across campus. But compared to institutions producing US presidents, these names are small potatoes. While famous alumni comprise only a part of a university’s political reputation, Wash U still lags behind in a highly visible arena. Somewhat incongruously, U.S. News and World Report consistently ranks our political science highly among political science
The culture of avoiding conflict has endured on Wash U’s campus—a result of a unique cocktail of geographic and political factors.
G
eorge Washington wielded uncommon influence by seeming to transcend politics. John Adams nominated him to lead the Continental Army, seeing him as the unifying figure that could turn the thirteen colonies into the United States of America. During his presidency he warned of the toxic effect that political parties would have on American government, a prescient forecast for the future of the American republic. When it came time to rename the Eliot Seminary in 1857, few names were safer than that of our first president, a proud Virginian who fought to create the Union that was now coming apart at the seams. The culture of avoiding conflict has endured on Wash U’s campus—a result of a unique cocktail of geographic and political factors. When pitted against its eastern Ivy League cousins, Midwestern Wash U carries a natural chip on its shoulder. Founded 217 years after Harvard, Wash U could never become an “establishment” institution capable of pumping out senators and cabinet secretaries with an alarmingly high frequency. Former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford, Wash U’s most well known political alumnus, rose to national prominence on the coattails of fellow Missourian President Harry Truman. Their eastern counterparts viewed both with derision for their simple Midwestern roots. Even when compared to its two Midwestern rivals, Northwestern and the University of Chicago, Wash U is dwarfed in political stature. The University of Chicago Economics Department played a key role in Ronald Reagan’s presidency with Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman serving on the Council of Economic Advisors. “The Chicago School” of economics also gained its fair share of notoriety for its role in advising Augusto Pinochet, the longtime derechista dictator of Chile. Northwestern can currently claim Attorney General Eric Holder as an esteemed law school graduate; and President Obama
departments nationally. The story here is in the details. Though the department holds the quite respectable rank of 15th for American politics, they shoot up the list to 7th for political methodology. Mirroring its other strengths, Wash U finds its political prowess in the scientific analysis of politics more than its execution. Analysis rarely makes headlines, even if it provides the backbone of a story. Wash U’s climb in the national rankings has been rapid, and many on campus hope the ultimate summit remains in the distance. In many ways, Wash U stands out as the Brazil of American academia. Overcoming the tumultuous decades of the sixties and seventies [think of the burning of the ROTC building and the destruction of the sociology department], Brazil has capitalized on particular drivers of growth [think of the university’s love affair with Biomedical Engineering] to assume a role as one of the top developing nations [universities] in the world. Brazil shrugs off many of the political pressures considered by European nations and the US, preferring to let commerce dictate foreign policy. While eastern universities often serve as staging grounds for major political and ideological battles, Wash U remains focused on reputation growth and the hard sciences, putting off political affairs for future generations. We seem to have flipped the words of John Adams: “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.” With increased admissions selectivity, a growing endowment, and wider name recognition, Wash U will gradually develop as a politically conscious and active institution. The eastern establishment has faded, and the well-heeled men from New York and Boston no longer have exclusive control over the pipeline to Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. Wash U will have its cabinet secretaries—just as soon as it has its engineers.
Gabe Rubin is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at grubin@wustl.edu.
5
6
Wash U Politics
Where Are All the Women?
Underrepresentation of Female Leaders on Campus Moira Moynihan | Illustration by Laura Beckman
W
hen it comes to student organizations on university campuses, women are wildly underrepresented. While they may comprise a large portion, or even the majority of a given student group, women are often absent when it comes to leadership roles. Though women are outperforming men on college campuses across the country, representing 58% of four year university graduates in 2011, there is a disconnect between academic success and peer leadership. This egregious lack of representation sets a dangerous precedent for female leadership in the “real world,” and we must consider the causes and implications of this underrepresentation. This predicament is not unique to Wash U. At college campuses across the country, women tend to take on behind-the-scenes roles or leadership roles in “softer” issue groups. This leaves the task of taking on high profile leadership positions to men. Princeton University has a similar problem; in 2011, its Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership released a 114-page study tracking the lack of female
leadership in the high-performing university. Its findings match anecdotal evidence all too well. While women have finally achieved parity in undergraduate enrollment by the 2000s, this decade also marked a sharp decline in women’s leadership on college campuses, falling from 31.4% to a mere 17.1% of leadership positions in student government. This dramatic decrease marks a growing trend in the United States, as women’s rights devolve in the midst of reproductive debates. And our national political climate suggests that a substantial number of people still believe a woman’s role rests solely in the private sphere. Given the parallels between women’s representation on the national stage and women’s representation in campus communities, we can use the same models that explain women’s underrepresentation in politics to explain their underrepresentation in campus leadership. In her 2009 article “Why Are Fewer Woman than Men Elected? Gender and the Dynamics of Candidate Selection,” Wash U Professor Mona Lena Krook identifies four stages of becoming elected to political office. A woman must be eligible to run, desire to run, become a candidate, and finally be elected. This path is the same for men and women, so the question becomes the following: at which stage do women fall away? In national politics, female representatives repeatedly tell stories of how they did not even think to run until someone suggested to them that they would be good candidates. Though these women are perhaps not explicitly discouraged from becoming leaders, our cultural narrative suggests that roles of leadership—and, more generally, roles within the public sphere—are reserved for men. Similarly, though most of the women on our campus are eligible to run for many positions of
leadership, they lack the aspiration. In the most recent round of Student Union elections, these theoretical obstacles were borne out. Women were a distinct minority of the candidates, and even the positions they were running for were less powerful than those of their male counterparts. Only one member of the newly elected executive board is a woman. Women’s underrepresentation becomes a cyclical problem. Women may not want to run because they feel that it is not “their place.” Consequently, there are too few female role models, and the lack of role models reinforces the stereotype that women are not suitable for these positions. In fact, in the Steering study, women cited “having a mentor” as one of the most important factors for running for office. We would all like to believe that on a progressive campus like that of Wash U, this lack of female leadership representation is not present, but our current situation suggests otherwise. As women lead so few of the most prominent campus organizations, especially in elected positions, the needs of a campus majority are not being adequately met. While this problem is serious in and of itself, the implications of this pattern of behavior are still more troubling. Women who run for student body government are significantly more likely to run for elected office later in life; and as the pool of female college leaders dwindles, so too could the number of female congresswomen down the road. 2010 marked the first time women lost seats in Congress since 1979, and the United States ranks an embarrassing 90th in women’s descriptive representation with a mere 17% of congressional representatives. We need to consider the gender gap in leadership now. Not only will it affect the future of our campus but the future of our country. Becoming aware of these issues is a crucial first step, and open engagement and honestly can help us work toward gender parity in campus leadership.
Moira Moynihan is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at moira.moynihan@wustl.edu.
7
My goal... figuring out my passions and how I can make a positive impact. On Google campus At the San Francisco Pride parade with fellow interns
With the Senior Class Council
Talk to people who have completed internships. Ask about applying and about their experience.
Alex Cooper, who will graduate in May 2012 with majors in Urban Studies and Operations and Supply Chain Management, interned with Google in San Francisco last summer.
Getting to know myself...
After attending a summer program at Yale Medical School, I realized I wanted to do something else. I’d been taking Urban Studies courses, which I liked, so I switched majors. In the summer of 2010, I interned with the Clayton city manager as part of my Urban Studies program. I learned a lot about the inner workings of city management and local government, which was very exciting to me. I knew then that I was heading in the right direction.
Tech blogs I read regularly
Bringing my story to life...
Then, in the summer of 2011, I interned in Google’s Finance Department, learning about financial planning and analysis. While I am not a finance major, I love public policy and this experience opened the door to corporate policy.
Up next...
My dream is to become a senator: balancing the needs of all constituents and, ultimately, making the decision that serves all involved best is difficult but fascinating.
from passion springs purpose
“Make a point to meet other interns and managers outside of your team.” - Alex’s Career Tip
Upcoming Events Junior Jumpstart – Early Registration Deadline March 31 Junior Jumpstart is a one-day conference for third-year students to explore their career interests after final exams in May. Regular registration deadline is April 30. Finding an Opportunity Abroad Workshop – April 4 For those searching for either a short-term international adventure or a more long-term life as an ex-pat, this workshop will prepare participants for the challenges faced while finding an internship or job abroad. Peace Corps Info Session – April 19 Find out more about serving as a Peace Corps volunteer.
Upcoming Job & Internship Deadlines American Public Health Association American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) Fund for the Public Interest National Research Center for Women and Families United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) U.S. Department of Transportation PolitiCorps Apply and read more in CAREERlink at careercenter.wustl.edu.
8
Wash U Politics
The Tenure Tradeoff:
Wash U places more of an emphasis on research than teaching: this may not be a bad thing Siddharth Krishnan It’s Complicated Universities are peculiar organizations. A student’s relationship to a university can take multiple forms; but fundamentally, we, as students, are its customers. On paper, we pay to prepare for the rest of our lives, but anyone who has had a work-study job or a research assistantship will tell you that students are also the university’s employees. Perhaps most importantly, the university and its students are expected to make each other look good. By going out and making an impact in the world, we give the university a good name: the same good name we use to further the reach of our impact. In short, it’s complicated. What, then, can students expect the university to consider when hiring professors for tenure or tenure-track positions?
academics and good communicators in a classroom. (This writer has certainly had plenty of professors who are both.) However, the system as it is structured is not intentionally designed to train teachers. Doctoral candidates are expected to perform research for their entire program, usually around five years, while taking a certain credit requirement. Along the way, they act as teaching assistants for two or three courses. This is hardly adequate preparation for facing a lecture hall with eighty students. The way tenure is structured means that teaching—especially for undergraduate classes—is almost an afterthought. This means that the good professors in the classroom are the ones who want to be good, or are naturally gifted. They do not have to be, nor are they trained to be. Many students have expressed their dissatisfaction with this tenure process. Teaching, they argue, should be given more weight than
The good professors in the classroom are the ones who want to be good, or are naturally gifted. They don’t have to be, nor are they trained to be. Wash U is a research university. In order to get tenure, a professor must also be a high-quality researcher, which means different things in different fields. Usually, it means publishing journal articles and, ideally, books. In the natural sciences, a professor directs a lab and mentors graduate students. Teaching, while not wholly irrelevant, is arguably the least of the major criteria. In short, a research university cares more that a professor can further a body of knowledge than impart it. Professors that primarily teach are usually called lecturers and receive both less pay and job security. The previous argument implies a trade-off between good teaching and good research abilities. Yet, professors can be both brilliant
it is now. After all, the returns of engaging, effective teaching are enormous. Not only are we more focused in a classroom, we learn more, and we may find what we love to do because of an inspiring professor. Moreover, tuition is not cheap, and for the amount one pays for a Wash U education, a student would be justified in asking for the best classroom experience on offer. Why We Really Go To Wash U Economists, like Michael Spence in his seminal 1973 paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, have extensively studied the impact of education on a person’s wage. The assumptions at play are that a liberal
Machine Shop from Washington University News Bureau, circa pre-1955.
Wash U Politics
Interior view of Physics Department in Crow Hall from Washington University News Bureau, October 1, 1954. arts education is a good thing, but not as important as getting a good job. While it’s clear that a higher education level (up until a point) means a higher income, it’s not clear why. One theory frequently cited is that education imparts skill sets that workers use. Another is called signal theory, which argues that what we actually learn at college isn’t important: it’s important that we were at college, because it signals to an employer that we mean business. While both are no doubt feasible theories, the latter is more relevant to Wash U. The actual material that we learn isn’t too different from what a student at another university would learn. And the fact that we pay so much more is a function of the importance of name brand. This is a generalization. The liberal arts education provided by Wash U may not be found elsewhere. However, getting a job often outweighs the liberal arts approach for most students. The basis for this is anecdotal, but the number of students who complain about the cluster system, and take easy classes to ‘get the requirement out of the way’ is suggestive. Unfortunately, therefore, we overestimate the importance of professors; Wash U students are capable of succeeding in most courses without a brilliant instructor. A good textbook, help sessions, and practice are usually enough. We don’t primarily enroll in university to learn from a professor. Many of us are here to tell employers, graduate schools, and investors that we are worth hiring. What Research Does By hiring professors who are brilliant in their field and constantly publishing, the university furthers its name. When this happens, it attracts the best and brightest students, research funding, and more professors. The university grows in stature and size, and even helps to create a fertile environment for local job growth. This has been Wash U’s story; and in its eyes, its duty to its students has been fulfilled. The ultimate question boils down to determining what a university’s obligation to its students is. Ideally, we would have the best minds and the most engaging professors. Unfortunately, that may be asking for too much; but between furthering the body of knowl-
edge in academic disciplines and giving us its reputation, Wash U is doing plenty. Without its emphasis on research, the university wouldn’t begin to approach its current endowment value of $5.35 billion. The university’s recent push towards the biomedical sciences has left students in other disciplines feeling a little hard done. While an underfunded department isn’t ideal, the departments that do well offer a compelling template. Until recently, the Biomedical Engineering department had two of the most cited chemists in the country. With an army of graduate students, and a publication or two every year, they convinced investors that money spent on their department was money well spent. Arguably, Wash U needs to work just a little harder than most peer universities to attract the best talent. While St. Louis is a richly storied city, it sometimes struggles to retain researchers who would rather live in Chicago, New York, or in California’s Bay Area. To that end, nothing keeps the best minds like the promise of funding, and nothing procures funding like rewarding the best minds. In the end, the winners are the students. Signaling aside, students have the opportunity to engage with the best in the business. Many students even perform research under their guidance. Even if none of this were the case, however, having a Wash U education on one’s resume counts for a lot more when the university consistently supports the world’s brightest academics. Any further disagreement with the University’s way of appointing tenure boils down to disagreements over what the university’s obligation to its students is. Ideally, we would have the best minds and the most engaging professors in the classroom. In order to get that, however, American research universities teaching requirements need an overhaul. Unfortunately, this may be a pipedream. Personally, I’ll take having a class with an academic celebrity as a pretty good consolation prize.
Siddharth Krishnan is a junior in the School of Engineering, He can be reached at siddharth.krishnan@wustl.edu
9
10
Feeding Frenzy Andrew Luskin
College Democrats Pinkos: Leigha Empson, Benjamin Parker-Goos, Sean Janda, Jake Lichtenfield Predictably, the College Dems are the largest political student group at Wash U. With an email list of over six hundred members, you’re probably a College Democrat already. If not, search “WashU College Democrats” on Facebook. Several execs hold Student Union positions, so members have the chance to rub elbows with the pseudo-powerful. The College Democrats are focused on the election, and are already funneling students to Democratic campaigns. They expect their numbers to keep growing, and this fall, they will register every incoming freshman to vote. The College Democrats co-host many of their events with the College Republicans, including Campus Crossfire (March 28), where the two sides will debate healthcare. The Democrats plan to win the debate, since, as one Dem said, “we always do.” The College Republicans are not intimidated, though. “If it comes to a debate,” they declared, “we know we’re going to win.” With so many members, how could a group like the College Democrats be so inconspicuous? It may be tied to the Dems’ ongoing failure to produce a T-shirt with a donkey and a joke about asses, or sweatpants accusing the Republicans of having junk in the trunk.
College Republicans Suits: Jun Yoon, David Parker After a period that they describe as “pathetic,” the College Republicans are becoming a formidable force. Though smaller than the Democrats, the Republicans have been remarkably active, and their numbers are rising faster than those of the housing bubble. This spring, the Republicans made a
splash on campus by painting the underpass with a black-and-white scrawl about debt incurred during Obama’s presidency. Though the Democrats planned to respond, they have postponed doing so. “Typical Democrat behavior,” said College Republican President Jun Yoon. Responding to the underpass painting, one Dem said, “We’re gonna stay positive, unlike the Republicans.” Although the College Republicans narrowly missed out on bringing Ron Paul to campus, they remain committed to bringing more conservative figures to speak, like Colin Powell ($150,000) or Rush Limbaugh ($100,000 and a Bears Den half ‘n’ half). Ann Coulter is available for the goodwill clearance-rack rate of $30,000. The College Republicans make excellent use of their SU funding: purchasing Jimmy John’s sandwiches and sponsoring a field trip to a shooting range. They make it clear that the money is used for food and transportation;no SU funds are spent on gun rentals or ammunition. I assume that they support Planned Parenthood funding. To join the College Republicans, drop an email at washucollegerepublicans@gmail.com.
Green Action Star Children: Kentaro Kumanomido, Adam Hasz, Wei-Yin Ko If you’re not afraid to show off your radical, anarchist ideas about nitric oxide levels in the troposphere, Green Action is the group for you. Along with switching the campus to 100% clean energy, Green Action seeks the removal of coal company executives from the Washington University Board of Trustees, where they “steal Wash U’s prestige for their companies.”
Wash U Politics When one of those companies, Arch Coal, made plans to blast away sections of Blair Mountain, Green Action held a protest in front of Brookings. Blair Mountain has been a symbol for organized labor since 1921, when mine workers engaged corporate thugs in a bloody battle. With both their environmental and populist passions engaged, Green Action is still fighting to keep Arch Coal from “destroying their town” and “poisoning the drinking water.” When Barack Obama visited St. Louis on October 4, 2011, Green Action raised $500 to get two members into a fundraiser. During Obama’s speech, the activists unfurled signs protesting the Keystone XL pipeline, then politely asked Obama to cancel the pipeline. They did not disrupt the event further, and they were not removed. Their reputation with local hippies may never recover. For those interested, Green Action occupies DUC 236 every Tuesday at 8:00.
WUPR Wonks: Hannah Shaffer, Corey Donahue If you ever get caught in the rain, the magazine’s thick, glossy pages and original artwork can be folded into a durable and stylish hat. WUPR provides a forum for political discussion through their magazine and events, such as an upcoming panel on women in politics. The editors stress that you don’t have to be a political junkie to submit an article, but they refuse to say whether WUPR is a gateway club.
quest is $3,000, with $700 spent on Kimbap rolls and bubble tea. They expect fundraising efforts to cost $904, and they expect to raise $960. Their Cookies ‘N Cream event will raise $100 and cost $251.94, but students can “imagine that every scoop of ice cream and piece of cookie sold will help to provide freedom to someone living in hiding and fear.” How did they know my favorite way to eat ice cream? Most egregious is their plan to spend $300 to fall down in front of Olin Library at Monday, October 15, at 9:00am. Make it count: if you want to engage the sympathies of Wash U students, don’t do it at 9:00 on a cold Monday morning. If you have a big heart and accounting skills, LiNK meets Fridays in Ursa’s Fireside.
The Student Body It turns out that these groups hate petty political bickering just as much as you do. Like Athens and Sparta fighting together against the Persians, or cats and dogs united in their struggle against laser pointers, campus activists see apathy as their greatest enemy. The clubs are more than just a way to turn student activity into free food. “You need to find the issue that really gets you motivated,” said Jake Lichtenfield, treasurer for the College Democrats. Their president, Leigha Empson, agreed: “Take fifteen minutes on Google News every day…just be aware of what’s going on.”
A growing organization, WUPR’s hope for expansion is threatened by SU budget cuts. Don’t be surprised if the editors try to make this article more favorable to the [ed. note: lovely] College Democrats who are on SU Treasury.
“Read op-eds on both sides!” another Dem shouted, as the comments rained in.
WUPR plans to redouble their focus on Wash U, but the Editors-in-Chief are careful not to step on StudLife’s toes. They explained in great length how WUPR is not inferior to StudLife, just different, until they were both satisfied that they agreed with each other.
If a group interests you, show up to an event or a meeting. Worst-case scenario, you’ll get a free sandwich. Above all, don’t let Washington’s squabbles make you apathetic. When good people think that they can do nothing in politics, only the bad ones remain. After all, there has to be some reason voters keep sending them back.
To join, drop in at a meeting on Thursday at 8:00 in DUC 234, or email editor@wupr.org. Tragically, WUPR’s events often feature cookies from Doughto-Door.
Liberty in North Korea Comrades: Amie Kim, Kevin Kim Along with drawing attention to human rights, Liberty in North Korea (LiNK) attempts to raise money to bribe Chinese officials. It takes $2,500 in bribes and fees to get a North Korean refugee out of China. LiNK’s total budget re-
The Republicans have the same vision: “I wish people understood more, read up more, and opened up their minds,” said President Jun Yoon.
Andrew Luskin is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. His email is atluskin@wustl.edu
11
12
Wash U Politics
Sexual Assault on Campus:
Statistics, Definitions, and Culture
Anna Appelbaum & Hannah Shaffer
D
uring our years at Wash U, we have listened to many of our friends describe instances of sexual assault that they have experienced at the hands of other Wash U students. Frequently, these cases are not clear-cut—one person may not intend to violate the other person; one or both of the individuals have been drinking; a verbal refusal at one point is followed by silence at a later time; physical and verbal cues seem to contradict each other; or the consent of one party is ambiguous in any number of other ways. The pervasiveness of “acquaintance rape” and the ambiguity of “consent” on our campus motivated us to investigate sexual assault at Wash U. Lies, Damned Lies, and (Absent) Statistics? The information we found was illuminating, but only after a lengthy and roundabout search. The data on sexual assault on our campus is limited, difficult to locate or gathered non-rigorously. The disappointing lack of statistics coupled with the absence of a sexual assault prevention coordinator on campus (until 2010) suggests that our community could afford to take this issue more seriously. Moreover, many of the statistics that we did find on sexual assault at Wash U and on college campuses generally were inconsistent and confusing—using different terms, reaching different conclusions, and conducted in different years. The one statistic that remains unchallenged is that students on university campuses are at higher risk for sexual assault than their non-college peers. To illustrate the wide divergence in statistics, consider the following studies. A 2004 survey by the Washington University Committee on Sexual Assault, now called the Advisory Committee on Sexual Violence and Prevention, revealed that approximately one in five women and one in ten men have suffered rape or attempted rape by the time they left Wash U. In 2007, a survey of our student body conducted by the American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment found that 3.5% of women had suffered penetration or attempted penetration against their will over the past
12 months. And using a representative sample of more than 1000 female students nationally, some form of “unwanted sex” was experienced by over 50% of those questioned. Yet the widely reported national statistic for rape and attempted rape on college campuses is 15% and 12% respectively—or collectively one in four. The lack of consistent data is telling; it further confirms the ambiguity of cases of sexual assault on college campuses. Redefining Categories of Sexual Assault The issue of consent, and more specifically the ambiguity of consent, rests at the heart of these statistical puzzles—and the term plays a starring role in both Wash U’s and the state of Missouri’s definition of sexual assault. Put simply, if one party does not (or cannot) consent, a rights violation has occurred. Given the lack of precision in the above statistics and the inability of our current categorization to capture the nuances of sexual assault, we need an expanded vocabulary to describe instances of sexual assault that captures shades of consent. With this expanded set of terms, we can better understand ambiguous cases that may involve alcohol, an absence of a “yes” but a lack of a “no,” or a “no” without a physical rebuff. In the spirit of obtaining a more finely tuned language set to describe acts of sexual assault, it is worth considering legal definitions of acts that result in death in order to introduce more precise definitions of sexual assault. In order to prove first-degree murder in a court of law, a prosecuting attorney must demonstrate the “premeditated intentional killing of another.” Manslaughter (or, depending on the state, involuntary manslaughter) is the unintentional, unpremeditated killing of another (e.g. inadvertently hitting someone with a car). Consequently, the two charges carry different penalties. In the case of manslaughter, we would never deny or discount the fact that a person is dead; the end state is the same as that of first-degree murder. Yet our society and courts recognize that intentionality matters and that punishment should be sensitive to this difference.
The one statistic that remains unchallenged is that students on university campuses are at a higher risk for sexual assault than their peers.
Wash U Politics Although the murder-manslaughter analogy to sexual assault is far from perfect, when a sexual violation has been perpetrated unintentionally and without premeditation (perhaps as a result of the ambiguous consent of one of the parties), we should consider redefining its label. We should not ignore or belittle the violation in question. The consequence—a person has been violated—is the same regardless of the intention. But in certain cases we need not cast the perpetrator as an evil character, one who viciously violates others. And we need not label actors with the stigmatized term “rapist” or “victims” in all cases. A sexual assault equivalent of manslaughter— for instance “negligent sexual misconduct”—may be more fitting in particular instances on the Wash U campus. This expanded vocabulary could have a variety of positive effects on campus, in addition to being beneficial in its increased precision. The first positive effect could be to increase the percentage of reported sexual assaults. In 2009, five rapes were reported at Wash U, down from seven rapes reported the year before. These numbers are in sharp tension with the often-cited national statistic of 15% mentioned above and even the Wash U statistic of 3.5% (which amounts to approximately 120 women out of an undergraduate population of 3,500 women). Since most college cases involve acquaintances rather than strangers, the decision to report a sexual assault would often require accusing friends or, at the very least, someone who will continue to be in your immediate campus environment. With the addition of “negligent sexual misconduct” as a possible category of sexual assault, people may be more likely to admit to themselves and to others that a sexual assault has occurred. Put simply, students may be more likely to report the incident. The second positive effect would be that our discourse on sexual assault can stop dividing women and men immediately on the question of whether rape has actually occurred. You might remember your discussion after “The Date” during freshmen orientation. This absolute dichotomy—“rape” or “not rape”—works to the detriment of any productive engagement with the issue or with specific cases on campus. Therefore, if a less stigmatized category is introduced, men may be less inclined to instinctively become defensive.
this Catch-22—where social validation comes from sexuality but the more sexual you act, the more you may be blamed –…[and they] are constantly negotiating an impossible balance, constantly concerned that admiration may change to contempt.” While we may like to hold on to the comforting notion that things are different on our campus, they are not. You may do well on tests and participate in class, but you will still have to concern yourself with how low your dress should be on weekends. Imagine that you choose one night to wear that dress with the revealing décolletage. Now consider the 1995 study that reveals that, when faced with a scenario of sexual assault (between a man and a woman) and an accompanying photo of the woman dressed provocatively, respondents are more likely to judge the woman as responsible and the man’s actions as justified. When sexual assault occurs, women are often seen as “being a tease” or “asking for it.” And yet women are looked down upon for dressing too modestly. Women face these complicated pressures when deciding whether to report sexual assault—and for men the situation is still more difficult. Why do we not talk about male victims of rape? As previously mentioned, in 2004 the Washington University Advisory Committee on Sexual Violence and Prevention found that one in ten men were survivors of rape or attempted rape. Yet on the rare occasions that this subject surfaces in discussion, we primarily limit it to a location clearly demarcated as outside the realm of normal society: prison. Men in prison are raped because they have no other choice; they cannot fight back. From this mindset springs the idea that outside such toxic environments, men should be able to fight back and defend themselves. According to Katherine Baker, “All rapes, in part, are about sex and masculinity and domination. But some…are predominantly about sex, some… are predominantly about masculinity, and some…are predominantly about domination.” Since men are supposed to be dominant and since sexual assault is fundamentally about powerlessness, the idea of being of a victim often leads to intense self-loathing, guilt, and shame. The social role of a “real man” is also often homophobic. Both gay and straight men are sexually assaulted, yet both are reluctant to report incidents because of the implicit connection society makes between sexual assault and sexual orientation.
Women are expected to be sexy, but not too sexy.
Examining Culture and Sexual Pressures In addition to reclassifying the categories of sexual assault, we also need to understand how cultural norms create an environment that allows for so much miscommunication concerning sexual assault. In other words, asking “why” is just as important as carefully categorizing and responding to an existing phenomenon. Sexual assault deals with a violation of the normal conventions of sexual behavior. How do our expectations of what constitutes normal sexual behavior for men and women lead to such a toxic and stagnant discussion of finding the person at fault? Women are expected to be sexy, but not too sexy. They are expected to strike the perfect balance between “virgin” and “whore,” between mother and temptress. After all, women gain much of their social power from making use of their sexuality. The most popular girls in high school are often the ones who focus the most on their appearance and best use their looks to communicate status and power. Yet cross the forbidden line of too many boys or too little clothing, and a girl is instantly disrespected as loose or a slut. As Jackson Katz writes in It Takes a Village to Rape a Woman, “Young women [are] caught in
A Way To Move Forward If someone is accused of “negligent sexual misconduct,” perhaps the best solution is to require the accused and the accuser to meet separately with a professional counselor. Without diminishing the severity of the situation, this method would provide a more appropriate response to ambiguous cases of sexual assault than legal action. Of course, depending on the circumstances, the counselor may determine that the case is rape and report it to the authorities. Dealt with in-house and with discretion, this less punitive means to address certain cases of sexual assault could allow women and men to be less silent on the issue. We do not have all the answers, and our suggestions for Wash U are far from exhaustive. While you may disagree with our prescriptions, the status quo is unacceptable. Anna Applebaum in a junior majoring in the Interdisciplinary Project in the Humanities. She can be reached at a.applebaum@wustl.edu. Hannah Shaffer is a senior majoring in Economics and Political Science. She can be reached at hannahbec90@yahoo.com.
13
14
STUDENT GROUP BUDGETS (OVER $5,000) FOR 2011-2012 Asian American Association Alpha Phi Omega Outing Club Mr. Wash. U. Debate Team WUTV
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Harambee Christian Ministries Asian Multicultural Council OneWorld Wash U Relay for Life Taiwanese Student Organization Delta Sigma Pi Association of Black Students Muslim Students Association WU-SLam Spanish Language Volunteers Program Lunar New Year Festival Student Health Advisory Committee Campus Kitchen Student Forum on Sexuality Cast & Crew WU Cypher Wash U Raas WashU Bhangra Korean Students Association Jewish Student Union KWUR Academic Team Filmboard Model United Nations All Student Theatre Washington University Political Review Dance Marathon Association of Latin American Students Ashoka $22,000
$20,000.0 $20,000
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Will Dobbs-Allsopp
Wash U Politics
Coming to Terms with “Self-Segregation” Andreas Mitchell
W
ash U has a self-segregation problem. The problem is not that communities centered on certain identities exist, but that the practice is criticized and labeled as “self-segregation.” This term takes the word “segregation,” which is inextricably linked to nearly a century of legalized oppression, and applies it to individuals who find value in hanging out with one another. Segregation is what my father experienced when he grew up in a racially stratified Charleston, West Virginia, where he was scarred from being denied access to “white only” movie theaters, skating rinks, and amusement parks. It is a word with such heavy and specific historical meaning that it should be used only with the greatest care and precision. “Self-segregation” implies that minorities have returned to such a period of injustice, only this time they brought it upon themselves. It calls up images of entrenched barriers, implying that identity-based groups create tension by fostering a segregated environment. The term fails to acknowledge the value of identity-based communities, suppresses open dialogue, and consequently creates social tension within the broader university community. Identity-based groups bring benefits to their members, who are often affected by the continuing existence of racism and discrimination in the United States. Acts of racism happen regularly, with recent incidents occurring close to home. In 2009, six black Wash U students were denied entry into Mother’s Bar in Chicago, and in 2010, cotton balls were placed in front of the Black Culture Center at Mizzou. In addition to these explicit actions, discrimination also manifests in subtler ways. Microaggressions are common acts of implicit racism, such as when a person locks his car doors as a black man walks by, or when a mixed person is asked, “What are you?” in reference to her ethnicity. These experiences are frequent and over time can lead to psychological distress and feelings of disenfranchisement. Such incidents, among others, can cause minorities to share a set of similar experiences. At Wash U I found a home in the mixed community, where I could talk to friends about handling the “what are you” question or responding to jokes that challenge my mixed identity. The mixed community provided me with a safe space to talk about my experiences among people who had the background to understand and help me work through them. While Mixed as a student group welcomes anyone who wishes to attend meetings, sometimes I deliberately seek out multiracial friends to talk to. I find they have more of a basis to understand many of my experiences, some of which I
simply could not explain well to a non-mixed friend. I owe much of my self-esteem and healthy development at Wash U to the mixed community here. In addition to experiences, people of the same identity might also choose to associate on the basis of common interests, beliefs or practices. Slavery and segregation created minority communities that developed their own customs while they were legally excluded from mainstream society. Thanks to an incredibly strong group identity, the black community fought for and achieved legal equality in the 1950s and 1960s. These united efforts helped minorities develop strong cultural connections through struggle. The common attitudes and practices that developed in minority communities under systemic oppression deserve to be protected through associations among the individuals who hold them. Common traits and experiences are at the foundation of strong groups that enhance the lives of their members: they help build trust, understanding, and meaningful relationships. All groups at Wash U— not just identity-based groups—have these characteristics. In fact, they are at the core of why people associate at all. If identity-based groups have the same qualities as other groups, then the concern with those groups must be with their effect on the university community as a whole. Only if identity-based groups in particular were doing things to increase social tension in the Wash U community would there be cause to single them out. In my experience, however, tension typically does not result from the existence of groups but from a lack of communication between them. Every student belongs to a number of groups; groups of friends, freshman floors and student groups help make the Wash U experience special. The key to maintaining a healthy campus climate is for groups to value and understand one another. Understanding is a process that requires all parties—students and student groups—to listen and actively engage in dialogue. By putting some groups on the defensive, terms like “self-segregation” impede progress toward a more open and productive dialogue. Eliminating that phrase from our student body’s vocabulary would signify a collective change in attitude, from passive misunderstanding to active engagement. This is a quality we need to see on our student body. Open dialogue is the way to achieve it.
Common traits and experiences are at the foundation of strong groups that enhance the lives of their members; they help build trust, understanding, and meaningful relationships.
Andreas Mitchell is a junior majoring in anthropology. He can be reached at amitchell@go.wustl.edu.
15
16
Wash U Politics
Washington University’s Expanding Footprint Nick Hinsch & Alex Zasso WUPR: How does the university make decisions about development in the community? Cheryl Adelstein: Our Loop retail and student apartment development is really our very first significant investment off campus. We make investments there all the time. We’ve bought occasional buildings in the community, for example we bought 560 Trinity, and we invested in that. But this is the first time I can think of that we’ve actually said we’re going to build a university building off of our campuses… second to the Kayak’s building, this is the first time we’ve gone off campus in a major way to do something like this. And it took a lot of thought, so I don’t know if there’s a matrix about how we make these decisions in general, because this is the first time we’ve done it. This decision was made for a variety of reasons: one, because we had demand for these apartments, so we know there’s a reason to build something. Two, we had the property,
we had a combination of property in a location that made sense to do this kind of work, and third, the work itself, the project itself, totally fit into the goals of the community. If we were to turn around with that same property and say, oh, what we need is 4 more academic buildings and let’s put them there because we own the land, that meets the criteria of having the demand and owning the land, but that would not be a use that met any community plans or standards. So I think all of those three things came together to make this a decision we could make. I think that until we are in a situation where we find ourselves building in the community a lot, I think we’ll be making these decisions on a case by case basis. WUPR: The university’s off-campus housing is operated by a subsidiary called Quadrangle Housing, and we’ve also seen mention of a new subsidiary called Parallel Properties which is going to be leasing to non-University tenants. Why does the University operate with subsidiaries in this way? Are there tax advantages, is it a branding issue, or is there another reason? Rose Windmiller: Well, in terms of Quadrangle, in order for us to pay taxes on property that is not
Wash U is increasingly buying and developing real estate in neighborhoods surrounding its campuses. We sat down with Cheryl Adelstein, the university’s Director of Community Relations and Local Government Affairs, and Rose Windmiller, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Government and Community Relations, to discuss the university’s goals and future plans for these areas.
used for University purposes we put it into Quadrangle Management. So Quadrangle management is the separate entity we need as a nonprofit to pay taxes on retail. Quadrangle Housing is where we have our graduate housing and it’s still used for educational purposes so the property in there is still tax exempt. But we do have a small subset of apartments now that, for a variety of reasons, are maybe not the best for graduate students.
Wash U Politics
CA: I’ll give you a specific example. We have a variety of two bedroom units, really nice two bedroom but they only have one bath. So graduate students generally are not gravitating to these units. Not that there’s anything wrong with the units- they’re perfectly nice, but they don’t know each other and they want their own bedroom and their own bath. RW: So when we originally purchased a lot of the graduate housing, we sort of bought it in a big lump package. And so we took what we had and we managed it the best we could but what we found was, as Cheryl said, some of the buildings just are not suitable to graduate students. But we are also concerned because we don’t want inappropriate landlords to take over, we don’t want it to be a speculative kind of deal where someone would come in and buy a property but maybe not take care of it. So we’ll continue to own but we’ll put it back on the tax rolls and we’ll open it up to anyone who chooses to live there and rent from us. CA: But we’ll use good judgment about who we rent to and all those kinds of things. WUPR: So it’s about being in control of the landlord-tenant relationship?
in the Loop at Enright, we think it’s really strategic and also catalytic. People see, hey, the university is investing there and we think it’s a great neighborhood. And hey, there’s an infill spot there, maybe I’ll build a building or maybe I’ll go buy a building and make a condo, and maybe this would be a good place for me to buy some property. They’ll have a different view of the neighborhood than, ‘Oh, this is potentially a place where I can get a cheap piece of property and flip it.’ They’re going to look at it as a substantial real estate investment. We want good owners, good landlords.
get withdrawn and the project get put on ice?
RW: We provide longevity to the neighborhood, and that’s the most important thing to the long term health of the neighborhood: to have long term ownership as a stabilizing influence.
WUPR: What are the university’s plans for North Campus?
WUPR: So you see yourself as a stabilizer in the neighborhood? RW: Well, our students are stabilizers.
WUPR: What’s the status of the Loop Trolley? It seems to keep being pushed back.
RW: But it’s also just trying to be a responsible neighbor, because the people who own property in Parkview Gardens in the last several years are all good owners, and we feel that we’re a good owner too. We take care of our property, and we take care of our tenants, or students, and we hope that that continues. And so rather than just immediately sell properties to owners that maybe we aren’t familiar with, it’s better for us to hold on to them and rent for a while. And see whether or not there are people that want to pick up buildings.
RW: Well, I’m on the Loop Trolley Company board for the university, and the date for construction hasn’t been moved, it’s just whether or not the local match to the federal funding of $25 million can be raised in a timely manner. We really have to have commitments both from private fundraising and also federal matching money, CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) grants, historic tax credits, those kinds of things. If we can get commitments from all of these parties by May, then construction is scheduled to break ground by the end of the year. It’s about a nine month construction project; it doesn’t actually take very long to build.
CA: We think that the onset of the Parkview Gardens plan and with our plans to make this major investment
WUPR: Do you think that it’s possible that the match wouldn’t be raised and if so, does the federal grant
CA: And property maintenance.
RW: I think anything is possible, but I’m pretty confident that the local community will raise the match. If for some reason it doesn’t, then the money, the $25 million that the federal government has awarded… it’s not as if it’s sitting in a bank in St. Louis. It’s been awarded but it hasn’t been disbursed. I’m confident that people are doing everything possible to make sure that the Loop Trolley goes forward.
CA: North Campus is 11 acres, it’s fully in the city of St. Louis, and it’s the university’s site for future growth. There’s no specific plan for it, but we envision someday there will be further academic and administrative uses there, and that will be generated by demand. WUPR: So it can be campus number two? RW: We’re not going to call it campus number two, or campus-lite, you’re not going to hear that from us. CA: Further academic and administrative uses. Let me give you an example. Let’s say there’s a national competition and Wash U has the opportunity to apply for a major energy lab, a major national institute of energy. Where are you going to put it? We’ve got 22 acres sitting next to a MetroLink station a mile from campus. It becomes a very strategic asset for you to do that with. And you can imagine, if there’s going to be a major institute there, there’s going to have to be an administrative building next to that, maybe an engineering building will want to go by it. So I think you have to be opportunistic, you have to keep in mind that we have it, and you just have to be ready when the right opportunities come.
Nick Hinsch is a sophomore and Alex Zasso is a junior. Both study in the College of Arts & Sciences.
17
18
Wash U Politics
Washington University’s Peter Birke | Illustration by Kate Cohen
I
have always been drawn to Eliot Hall, and I frequently study there. The building’s lack of Wi-Fi prevents me from engaging in any of the innumerable cyber amusements that impede productivity. Its drafty rooms keep me from dozing off. Perhaps my draw to the building is similar to Guy de Maupassant’s attraction to the Eiffel Tower. The French writer dined in the tower’s restaurant every day because it was the only place in Paris where he could avoid catching a glimpse of the one thousand foot structure. To put it bluntly, I find Eliot Hall ugly. It is for this reason, however, that I refuse to join the chorus of students rejoicing in the University’s announcement that it plans to bulldoze the building this summer. More Iron Curtain than Ivory Tower, the building was constructed in 1974 and reflects the ideals of Brutalism, a modernist architectural style noted for its concrete exoskeletons. Eliot sticks out amongst the neo-gothic buildings that dominate the Danforth Campus. Its incongruence certainly factored into the University’s decision to demolish it. Wash U is very particular about and protective of its brand, as evidenced by its recent legal skirmishes with student bloggers over the utilization of various permutations of “Washington University.” Their self-consciousness extends to the architecture of campus. The built environment is representative of how we as humans conceive of and value space. It is an exercise in expression, but
The bell chime recordings at Graham Chapel are the University’s form of collegiate gothic Muzak: every fifteen minutes, students and visitors alike are lulled with yet another reminder that they are on an elite institution’s campus. also in instruction. The buildings around us significantly shape the way we think. The University is aware that the campus generates impressions in those who visit. Like any good marketer, the University capitalizes upon nearly every opportunity to shape the minds, subliminally or consciously, of its customers. Most of the Danforth Campus reflects the collegiate gothic architecture of the original Brookings Quadrangle. Buildings are constructed in a kind of reverse Botox: architectural wrinkles such as arches, grotesques, gargoyles, and spires are added to invoke the setting of an “elite” college campus we are so accustomed to seeing in the movies. Images of Oxford and Cambridge, tweed jackets with padded elbows, and heavy books flood our consciousness when we walk through the Danforth Campus. The bell chime recordings at Graham Chapel are the University’s form of collegiate gothic Muzak: every fifteen minutes, students and visitors alike are lulled with yet
another reminder that they are on an elite institution’s campus. Other architectural facets contribute to the University’s marketing narrative. Simon Hall is designed in a Prairie School style that captures the innovative spirit of the American frontier—and also, the University suggests, that of its business students. The narrative works. A perusal of Wash U’s page on College Confidential, a college admissions forum, reveals that, for many prospective students, the school’s picturesque campus seems as much of a reason to attend as its rigorous academics. We become intoxicated with the buildings, which gleam like supermarket displays, waiting to be purchased. Nothing is inherently wrong with the visceral attraction to campus aesthetics. It is what we see when we first visit a school. Unlike an academic department’s quality, the architecture of a campus is so concrete, so real. Problems arise, however, when the
Remembering Mudd Hall For 25 years, Seely G. Mudd Hall was home to the Washington University School of Law. Built on the ground that is now the Charles F. Knight Center, Mudd Hall shared Eliot Hall’s architectural style. The building was demolished in 1998 and replaced with the Thermidorian collegiate gothic Anheuser-Busch Hall. A 1998 article in the Washington University Law Quarterly suggests that no tears were shed by its former denizens at the demolition. The old law school building, Mudd Hall, was dedicated in 1972, but it quickly became inadequate, unlivable, and obsolete. Mudd Hall was reportedly an award-winning example of the hopefully now extinct architectural style of “Neo-Brutalism,” but its facilities were “not designed for today’s needs in legal education.” Deficient facilities, however, were only a small part of its problem. In addition to the brown liquid (sometimes affectionately called “Mudd sludge”) that some classroom ceilings leaked, the building from its first days was cold, musty, and foreboding. The accreditors colorfully described the deficiencies of Mudd Hall as follows: “A population of about 800 people . . . are crushed into 60,000 square feet of space. The sweaty and noisy propinquity in the offices, corridors, and toilets—literally everywhere in the building—reminds one of a Manhattan subway at rush hour.”
Wash U Politics 19
Sore Thumb authenticity is manufactured, when form does translate into function. This problem is illustrated by the University’s expressed intention to erect a fence in the North Side residential area along Forest Park Parkway. In a November 17 Student Life article, Brian Newman, project manager for the installation, presented aesthetics as one of the reasons to construct the fence: “This is the first part of our campus [people] see when they come in from the airport. We want to present an attractive face to visitors, and this is an easy way we can do that.” I have heard of very few walls described as “attractive.” Why is aesthetic appeal so important for this wall? It is, as Newman states, just as much for the visitors as it is for the safety of residents. And it is off-campus locations, not the North Side, that have been the source of safety concerns over the past few years. A gate that is accessible with a University ID will do nothing to stop students from crossing in the middle of the street. Regardless, the image of safety must be sold to potential customers. We see other conflicts between form and function in the University’s recent addition to its collection of collegiate gothic buildings. Unlike the stone frames of Brookings Quadrangle, buildings such as Seigle Hall and Green Hall are built of reinforced concrete covered with only a thin veneer of granite and limestone. Their similitude with their gothic forefathers only goes skin-deep. One could interpret such a structure—gothic on the outside and steel on the inside—as a symbol of the Wash U power dynamic: industrialists wearing academicians’ cloaks. I am not aiming to brew conspiracy theories or deride corporate influence on universities. Industry support for our university provides exceptional opportunities for students. My aim instead is to challenge the marketing ploys that the University presents to us. Do we look beyond appearances? Do we accept without question the college experience that the University sells us or do we actively create our own? A college environment is a unique place where students can shed social norms and challenge status quos. The most important lessons we learn here are not those that please us. Rather, it is with the ideas that cause us discomfort—and even upset us—
where we find opportunities for growth. As college students, we overcome the temptation to ignore complicating evidence in our papers. We refuse to caricature our ideas or other people. We learn to grapple with contradiction. Do we do the same with our campus environment?
The Danforth campus will soon suppress the building that confounds our convenient notions of a college experience. Should we really be so pleased? Peter Birke is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at peter.e.birke@gmail.com
20 Wash U Politics
Invisible Systems Mike Kovacs
O
nce a semester, Wash U students find themselves in front of computers perusing listing after listing of courses for the following semester. Given the easy access of the course catalog through WebSTAC, browsing and comparing classes for registration has become an effortless process. Scrolling through the different departments, scanning timetables, and balancing different course materials, students can consistently arrange a schedule well suited to their interests and needs. Making course selection easy for students is an important task for the university. As it turns out, the catalog is made with almost no formal institutional organization or interdepartmental coordination. The main university-wide regulation is a single deadline early in each semester, the date by which every department must submit its course listings. For Fall 2012, that deadline was January 27th, just ten days into the start of the spring semester. Dr. Matthew Brown, a lecturer in the history department, considers the first week of classes to be a “pressure moment.” All course selections in the history department are planned in the span of this single week by back-and-forth emails with the department’s Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS). Yet the system governing professorial registration in the history department is different from that in the English, phys-
ics, and Italian departments, among others. Every department has developed its own informal system to govern course selection efficiently and effectively. While the history department squeezes planning into a week, the English and the Italian departments plan months ahead. The English department, for instance, deals with course assignment through a more communal process than the history department by structuring itself in a formal hierarchy, with the department chair at the top. This chair usually accepts the recommendations of course assignments made by a formal curriculum committee, represented by the different fields within the department. Subdivisions such as the early modern group and the postmodern group stand at the base of this committee hierarchy. Unlike Dr. Brown, who unilaterally chooses courses, Dr. Steven Zwicker, an early modern English professor, discusses and coordinates the courses he would like to offer with the other three early modern English professors. The four professors in the group balance graduate, 300-level, and 400-level courses, as well as course material to maximally appeal to student interest. This set-up gives the professors choice while ensuring a range of course offerings within a single field. For the next level up in the hierarchy, one representative from each subfield submits the course offerings to the curriculum committee. The diplomatic nature of the committee ensures that each field will be represented equally in the course roster. While the history department similarly contains subfields that require balance in the course offerings, its de facto system is entirely different. Each professor is exclusively in direct communication with the DUS and the department chair. The DUS considers all the
courses offered, the professors on leave, the trends of student interest, and tries to create a schedule from the individual proposals made in the first week of classes. The two heads coordinate, rather than dealing with communities of professors. Looking at other departments, there are still different ways of devising schedules. In the physics department, the delicate balancing act of course offerings is managed not by the chair, but by an assigned faculty member. In the Italian department, among the smallest departments, the two tenured professors alternate every few years as DUS. The DUS designs the schedule for the upcoming year, after discussing and planning with the other four professors. The issues each department faces are closely tracked. One DUS even compared students to “clientele” whose demands and interests must be predicted and met year by year. All the departments pay attention to enrollment data to note trends in student interest, but departments also consider factors central to their own needs. Because physics professors often organize graduate classes around their research interest, for instance, their system of course registration involves graduate student input. Departments vary in size, student interest, organization, and flexibility. Therefore, it is not surprising that each department’s system to finalize course listings varies accordingly. Yet like any branch of a greater institutional structure, departments face similar issues: how to avoid competition, fulfill student interest, maintain prerequisites and major and minor courses. These complicated systems to design course listings are comparable to political systems. The goal of granting professors freedom in their teaching must be checked against maintaining a department’s balance of subfields. There is an invisible city of systems behind the pale yellow WebSTAC screen, which students ignore as they balance classes, times, and interest. Students are generally unaware of the ease, efficiency, and choice they have in registering. These systems are part of the impressive machinery that the university runs behind the scenes to allow every Wash U student to survive his or her four years.
Mike Kovacs is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at makovacs@wustl.edu.
William Greenleaf The Eliot Swamp
Shepley West
WYDOWN BOULEVARD
SHEPLEY DRIVE
Schnucks
Hurd Heitzman Myers
SoFoHo Ligget/Koenig
Graham Chapel DANFORTH UNIVERSITY CENTER
Music School Alumni House
CLOCKTOWER
Simon Hall
Mudd Field Brookings
Holmes Lounge
BROOKINGS DRIVE
McLeod Carroll Carnaghi King Stahl Wrighton The Georgia Heusted MetroLink Connections
WALLACE DRIVE
Medical School
Anthony Popeo is a senior majoring in economics and minoring in communication design. He can be reached at abpopeo@gmail.com.
points of exit that take passengers deeper into St. Louis. This ambitious system uses a naming convention that would resonate with the community and makes regular and express stops at highly concentrated areas on campus.
Street
Quad/Green Space
Building
Hub Station (Express Stops Here) Station
Washington University Transportation Authority
N
Forest Park Prkwy Skinker Blvd
FORSYTH BOULEVARD
SAM FOX
ENGINEERING
FOREST PARK PARKWAY
Danforth Campus Rapid Transit System
Brown
EPSci
CUPPLES II LOPATA HALL
Anthony Popeo
Hard Sciences
LIBRARY
LabSci WoBo
HOYT DRIVE
Varsity Athletics
Francis Field
Seigle Hall Law School
Mudd North
SNOW WAY DRIVE
Loop
SKINKER BOULEVARD
The creation of this transit system is rooted in my interest in maps and urban economics. I left my internship in New York this past summer missing the underground means of transportation that connected the city so seamlessly. The goal of my proposed network is to move people efficiently across campus and the St. Louis community, paying attention to those areas that are more actively attended and the
BIG BEND BOULEVARD
Athletic Complex
Village East
THROOP DRIVE
Upper Row
VILLAGE
Forest Park Prkwy Big Bend Blvd
21
22
“Best farm to table restaurant” Peoples choice St Louis Magazine July 2011
“Best Breakfast” Riverfront Times 2010
“A List” St Louis Magazine 2010
“36 Hours In St Louis” “40 Best Restaurants
New York Times
in st. louis” St. Louis Magazine 2010
“people’s choice Best grass fed beef Burger” Whole Foods Cook Off July 2011