The debate continued until Tuesday afternoon, when I attended (and presented at) a ceremony in the Women’s Building. Hosted by the ArtSci Council, this ceremony honored deans, professors and instructors for outstanding teaching. The awards were presented by students.

The ceremony was really quite interesting. Each student presenter had a very personal story of why s/he had nominated the faculty member for the award, but it was clear in every case that these professors went above and beyond the call of duty. Doubtless, every honoree seemed to be extraordinary at the hard and often thankless act of teaching. Every honoree, in word and deed, recognized that teaching went beyond outstanding classroom instruction and into the realm of office hours and personal lives. The student presenters’ anecdotal evidence spoke of uncovering passions they never knew existed, thinking in ways they never thought possible and of discovering the joy of mentorship. I’m ready to graduate, but listening to the students’ stories made me want to stay an extra year just to take classes from these inspiring faculty members.

Much of the Forum pages of Student Life are devoted to criticism. And rightly so: Washington University students should have high expectations of professors, staff and administrators (they also should have high expectations of each other, something we too often forget). In educational terms, undergraduate institutions should provide a rich environment in which students can intellectually and personally maturate. In economic terms, Washington University’s students pay a lot for this education and thus appropriately expect a lot in return. Student Life, and its op-ed page in particular, serves an important function by giving students a voice and a “forum” in which to debate campus, national and world issues. I am sure the griping, gaffes and letter-to-the-editor generating columns will continue. For that I’m glad.

But, amidst all of this criticism, we do not say thank you enough. Tuesday’s ceremony was a reminder that, despite our gripes, we are pretty lucky. We attend a first-rate University where the vast majority of professors and staff are sincerely devoted to their jobs, where most administrators keep students’ best interests at heart and-most importantly-we exist in a community where people do seem to genuinely care about each other, annoyances aside. Many in this world are not afforded (or cannot afford) such an education, and we cannot forget that.

So, in this final column, I would like to say thank you.

Thank you to the administration, who has successfully guided the University’s ascent into the realm of top research institutions while not losing sight of the attributes of our community that made such an ascent possible.

Thank you to my professors, who have provided me too many eye-opening classes, ways of thinking and challenges to count.

Thank you to the University’s professional staff, who work long hours to recruit, serve and provide more opportunities to the students here.

Thank you to the landscapers, food service workers and laborers who work to keep our campus beautiful and, with their easy smiles and good attitudes, help lighten students’ days.

Thank you to anyone I forgot.

And thank you to my readers, who have provided me with encouragement, criticism and feedback along the way.

Good luck!

Mr. Traverso also rails against the women’s student clubs on our campus-there are nine (gasp!). Here, he makes several errors: first, he claims that such clubs discriminate because they ban men. Most women’s groups on our campus do welcome discussion with men (and, I imagine, are more than willing to get their hands on Mr. Traverso after his letter-a little boxer-burning, perhaps). Some even actively reach out to address not only issues of feminism, but issues of masculinity as well. Next, Mr. Traverso declares that there are no men’s groups. He does mention Black Men/White Men (which is a men’s group…) but forgets One in Four and the new discussion group devoted to talking about the challenges of meeting expectations of manhood in a hyper-masculine society. And, unlike Mr. Traverso predicts, these men’s groups are not labeled “sexist” by women. I doubt that membership in one will, as he claims, “permanently damage my chances at running for political office”-though his letter just might.

The thing that Mr. Traverso misses is America’s long legacy of not only educational inequality, but creating educational disadvantages. As Gilda Lerner outlines in her book The Creation of Feminist Consciousness, power structures always favored men in churches, colleges and early schools. If women subversively gained power with such structures, the power structure was changed. Women seeking an education had to constantly reinvent the wheel because their history was never documented, meaning role models were rare. Unfortunately, the disadvantaging continues today, but in more insidious ways-girls drop out of math and science programs in high schools fearing they are “too smart;” examinations of classroom discourse show teachers overwhelmingly affirm male participation; studies show that pre-primary girls are now encouraged to play with blocks, but that even feminist teachers praise them merely for doing so (“Look! Jane is playing with blocks!”) while boys have to create something with the blocks to earn praise (“Wow, Dick-you are quite the engineer!”). Is that equality?

Now I’m sure that Mr. Traverso would claim women on our campus are equal-after all, there are nine SGAC groups devoted to women’s issues. But, might the mere existence of such groups speak to a problem? With all those pre-meds, women on our campus surely cannot fear science! Why, then, is our School of Engineering overwhelmingly male? Our School of Law has about an equal male/female ratio. Why, then, does my female friend in the Law School have to watch images of scantily-clad women pop-up the screen savers of her male classmates? Is seeing your future colleagues display images of your gender in sexually suggestive poses a new, er, “maxim” of legal education? Is that equality?

While the University continues to make attempts to recruit women faculty, its staff of full-time professors remains overwhelmingly male (our secretarial staff, in contrast, is predominantly female). With tenure determination usually after five to six years of assistant professorship, and tenure depending on major publications (perhaps a book), women desiring tenure must often delay childbirth. Does that fact that much of higher education’s tenure-system ignores women’s biological clocks symbolize educational equality?

All of his inflammatory remarks aside, Mr. Traverso is wrong. Female-only scholarships can “help the cause” by ensuring that females have the means necessary to continue their advancement not only into college itself, but into higher education and the professions. Many women still live in families where money is saved for the son’s college education but for the daughter’s wedding. Even though Mr. Traverso would like to believe that women’s-only scholarships are awarded only on the basis of sex organs, they are actually awarded because women continue to exist in a world of educational institutions-pre-primary to post-secondary-that often systemically disadvantage females, define female educational achievement by masculine qualities and endorse the same type of misogynic rhetoric found in Mr. Traverso’s letter. If fighting that means women have the advantage in finding college funding, so be it.

The idea of paying the executives is not revolutionary. As Student Union points out, executive officers of other student governments are paid for their work. It is worth noting that, yes, CS40′s executives are compensated, but in the form of free housing-a sort of voucher from Residential Life-not cash, as SU proposes for its executives. And I have no doubt that the Student Union executive officers do invest a substantial amount of time in their positions-time that may, in fact, detract from their ability to hold paid on-campus jobs (though the notion that “working” for SU 9 to 5 ends all chances of holding an on-campus job is false-a few departments, especially the Libraries, hire students in the evening).

But, as the Student Life editorial board (of which I am an UNpaid member, to clarify an issue raised in the letter to the editor from the executives published Monday-I write these weekly rants free of charge!), did not endorse compensating executives, I too am against compensating the executive officers on our campus.

The executives have been smart politicians indeed. After nearly complete silence on executive compensation, including no press release to Student Life, campaign week has featured a campus firestorm in which the executives used the sensitive issue of financial aid to justify spending potentially thousands of dollars on compensating four students. They claim that financially needy students are discouraged from running for executive positions because of the lack of compensation. Thus, the lack of payment-rather than the widespread student sentiment that SU is an irrelevant, popularity-driven, high-school StuCo run amock-must be the reason why two executive positions were unopposed.

There is, perhaps, some truth to the financial argument, but the issue runs far deeper. The very notion that the Student Union executives feel they deserve compensation is an example of Student Union’s shameless self-promotion and overly-inflated opinion of itself. Evidence of that phenomenon is everywhere: in the editorial board’s candidate interviews this weekend, over half of the candidates were, when asked, unable to identify any weakness (though they made sure to tell us lots about “Free Food Thursday” and the new party bus). Rather than immediately presenting information about commencement or Senior Week, the Senior Class website (2004.wustl.edu) opens with an enormous picture of the senior class officers, suggesting that what is best remembered about senior year is their attractiveness. And on Monday, the “above the fold” portion of SU’s regular back page ad of Student Life featured not information about campus issues, a notice that candidate statements were inside, or an urge for students to vote, but a full-color picture of the departing, lame-duck executives. What, exactly, was the purpose of spending several hundred dollars of the student activities fee for that photograph (besides self-aggrandizement?) Next thing you know, we’ll have a shrine outside the Women’s Building. Could all of this self-promotion be, er, compensating for SU’s tarnished image?

The fact of the matter is that while, yes, Student Union’s executives do invest several hours per week in their “jobs,” hundreds of students on this campus do exactly the same with their activities (notice the semantic difference) and never ask for payment: the organizers of Diwali, CNYF, and Carnaval are not asking for compensation; the musical directors of a cappella groups are not asking for compensation; the stars of PAD’s productions are not asking for compensation. These students are equally committed to their activities as the SU executives. They likewise forgo extra hours at their campus jobs to participate. To say that the SU executives deserve payment simply because they have offices in the Women’s Building while other students pursue their activities in classrooms and theaters is, frankly, narcissistic. When combined with Wednesday’s full-page ad about executive compensation, again funded by a few hundred dollars of the student activities fee spent by the whim of the executives (while individual candidates and groups asking for block funding win votes by hanging flyers and shaking hands), the arrogance is alarming.

Student Union is an activity, not a job. Students who hold on-campus jobs are paid by departments, not the student activities fee, and they are compensated hourly for tangible production. Students do not deserve compensation for extra-curricular activities, and to offer it in the case of SU executives begins a slippery slope toward a mentality that students deserve some sort of reward (credit or cash) for anything and everything but their partying. That’s not what college is about.

In December 2002, sickening allegations about rape and sexual harassment surfaced at the Air Force Academy. Cadet Beth Davis described to military officials her ordeal of being raped by an upperclassman. Soon, other cadets came forward with their own disturbing stories of verbal and physical cadet-on-cadet abuse. A Vanity Fair interview with victims last year recounts their awful stories of a harassment-leaden hierarchical power structure in which male upperclassmen coerced scared first-year cadets into oral sex, rapes and an appalling variety of other abuses while other cadets, instructors and administrators stood on the sidelines.

Over sixty women cadets now claim to have been assaulted at the Air Force Academy; last May the Department of Defense inspector general released a report that nineteen percent of current female cadets reported being victims of sexual assault. Of that group, 81 percent were too scared to report the assaults, and 42 percent of those who did report the incident said that they experienced retaliation of the sort that Davis experienced: after promises from the Air Force that her rape would be investigated, her commanders refused to return her calls or e-mails and closed the investigation six months later, issuing her demerits for sexual activity in the dorms but disciplining no male cadets. After a media firestorm, the Air Force finally relieved token Academy leaders of command. There is no doubt the men deserved to lose their jobs, but the greater problem is that no systematic plan seems to be in place to address a culture that tolerates harassment, endorses rape and persecutes victims. Where, exactly, is the honor or leadership in all of this? Perhaps the Air Force Academy should abandon its falcon mascot in favor of the Cowardly Lion.

Unfortunately, the problems are not limited to the Air Force Academy. In the past 18 months, over 100 female soldiers, crossing all military divisions, have claimed they were sexually assaulted by fellow American servicemen while serving during the latest Persian Gulf conflict. Two weeks ago, the Air Force admitted it is “investigating” 92 assault allegations in the Pacific theater. A recently released Veterans’ Administration study estimates that 30 percent of female victims experienced a rape or attempted rape while in service.

Sgt. Audra Wood, a married woman serving in Iraq, was struck in the head by a rock while she walked back from guard duty. She was tied and gagged, then raped by a U.S. soldier. The military’s response was not evacuation or counseling, but a request that Sgt. Wood take a polygraph test. Capt. Heather Arlinghaus, married with two children, was raped at Fort Knox, Ky. while five months pregnant. Weeks after the rape, the military has yet to process her rape kit, saying DNA processing takes weeks. Rape kits are routinely processed in days, if not hours, in the civilian world, and the military managed to process Saddam Hussein’s DNA overnight.

Such flooring numbers and examples make it clear that for many women in the military, the enemy is fellow Americans in their unit and a military power structure that turns “investigations” into interrogations.

All of this shows that the military is failing its own soldiers and, quite simply, refusing to take claims of rape and sexual assault seriously or, at the least, provide sensitive treatment and counseling for the victims. The actions of the men perpetrating the rapes and sexual assaults are unconscionable, but equally despicable is the military culture that permits and fuels the devaluation of women. The time has long past for the military to stop talking about leadership and start showing America what leadership really means by prosecuting perpetrators of sexual violence and sanctioning commanders who have ignored systemic sexual harassment.

Last month, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a stinging report entitle “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science.” The report was accompanied by a statement signed by some sixty leading scientists, including twenty Nobel laureates. The full text of the report can be viewed online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html.

The lengthy report details disturbing examples of the misuse of scientific evidence. Most disturbing, however, are its conclusions:

“(1) There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies,

(2) There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government’s scientific system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration’s political agenda,

(3) There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about ‘sensitive’ topics,

(4) There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.”

For an administration so obsessed with bringing “American ideals” and democracy to other countries, it seems that in the case of scientific policymaking, the Bush administration’s actions-censorship, distortion, misinformation-are distinctly anti-American.

Picking and choosing data that best supports policy positions is nothing new in politics, of course. But, as CBS News.com columnist Dick Meyer points out, “What’s different is that the Bush administration stands accused of politicizing and bullying processes of government that are designed to be above the fray of partisanship and ideology.”

Son needs to learn from Dad: scientific findings should be above politics. When Americans learn to distrust even the scientific agencies of their government, it is hard to know where they should turn for accurate information about health and the environment. The Bush administration’s manipulation trounces on fundamental notions of academic freedom and knowledge validation.

A few examples:

For years, anti-abortion activists have claimed that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer. These activists pushed for scare-tactic laws requiring doctors to inform abortion-seekers about this risk. For five months, the National Institute of Cancer’s website posted information that seemed to support the link, adding the legitimizing force of what Meyer accurately describes as “the nation’s premier clearinghouse of cancer science.” After an emergency three-day conference called by Congress, the information was pulled off the website: the link was not science, but politicized propaganda. Oops.

On the CDC’s webpages about HIV/AIDS, data about condom efficacy and studies showing that condom education did not increase sexual activity was replaced by scientifically-questionable abstinence information. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ report says, “When a source inside the CDC questioned the actions, she was told that the changes were directed by Bush administration officials.” Oops.

In an August 2001 address to the nation on stem-cell research, President Bush explained his compromise position: research on existing lines could continue, but no new lines could be used. He said, “As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist.” The Council on Bioethics, the formation of which President Bush announced in that very speech, recently concluded “By September of 2003, twelve of the eligible lines had become available to federally funded researchers.” That’s a difference of 48-scientifically significant by any accord. Oops.

Shortly after taking office, Mr. Bush pulled America out of the Kyoto treaty on global warming. Convinced that global warming was fake, he directed the National Academy of Sciences to look into the issue. Meyer reports, the National Academy “concluded that global climate was indeed changing because of man-made factors.” Too late-we were already out. Oops.

Washington University’s population is full of students, staff, and faculty concerned with and dedicated to the advancement of science. The Bush administration’s political manipulation of scientific data should be an affront to those on this campus investing their lives in scientific research. Scientists value truth, honesty and credibility-three things that, at least in scientific policy, President Bush lacks-no oops about it.

Not surprisingly, the TV pundits had a heyday. Dr. James Dobson, founder of the conservative group Focus on the Family, was interviewed by Aaron Brown on CNN’s “Newsnight.” Dobson’s comments are a classic case of double-speak:

Dobson: What [gay marriage] means is that the definition of marriage will mean everything. And when it means everything, it means nothing.

Brown: Are you more accepting of the idea of civil unions, something that provides the same legal guarantees of marriage, but under a different word?

Dobson: No, that’s what we call quasi-marriage….I’ve already mentioned that the so-called rights issue can be dealt with. But just don’t call it marriage.

Let’s, finally, be clear: most of the advocates of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage-including the amendment’s author, conservative kook Rep. Marilyn Musgrave-would just as happily ban gays altogether. Their way of dealing with that pesky “so-called rights issue” is the constitutional sanctioning of discrimination. Bush has officially joined their camp.

Despite Dobson’s admonishment to treat all people “compassionately,” his organization’s website is laden with the classic claims against gays: homosexuality is fake, a result of confusion; gays are actively recruiting young boys in schools into a lifestyle of sex, drugs and cosmology; gays are having rampant oral sex with multiple partners in the restroom just off Main Street, USA. My favorite section is the “bookstore,” which includes titles like A Parents’ Guide to Preventing Homosexuality and Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle. The Family Research Council, another Bush favorite, claims that gays are disease-laden. I even learned about the perilous “Gay Bowel Syndrome” (I’ve assume it’s closely related to “Bush Bowel Syndrome,” which involves a large pole of some sort). If that’s not enough compassion for you, be sure to purchase your ticket to “Love Won Out,” Dobson’s “dynamic one-day conference addressing, understanding, and preventing homosexuality.” It’s sad that you’ll be exploring such dark issues in sunny Pensacola, Fla.

As it turns out, Bush, Dobson and Musgrave are about as compassionate as Jerry Falwell. Their rhetoric-insidiously disguised in the form of books, conferences and “compassionate conservatism”-makes it pretty clear that they believe “God hates fags,” too. The thing is, their proposed Constitutional amendment will do far more harm than any hateful sign Jerry Falwell waves at the next gay funeral.

Since Constitutional war has been declared, I’d love to ask the Bush administration and their allies a few questions.

Bush surely feels the Founding Fathers are on his side. If I could, I’d ask James Madison if he thought his marriage was threatened when Thomas Jefferson slept with slaves.

I’d like to ask FCC chairman Michael Powell if he thinks there should be a Constitutional amendment banning boobs-gay men just might go for that one!

I’d like to ask CIA director George Tenet if he’s enjoying being out of media spotlight for a few days, since his boss apparently thinks that protecting marriage is more important than obtaining intelligence that actually prevents terrorist attacks (or does Bush just think it’s more likely to win him votes now that polls show Kerry and Edwards beating him?).

I’d like to ask Lynne Cheney if she bought A Parents’ Guide to Preventing Homosexuality after she learned her daughter was a lesbian. Or, did Dr. Dobson give her a complimentary copy?

Now that we’ve had a few gay weddings in San Francisco, I’d like to ask Laura Bush if she feels her marriage with George is threatened by all of those couples outside City Hall. If she does, how does she protect herself when Lynne Cheney’s daughter and her partner come over for dinner? Will her love for George be stronger after she knows the Constitution bans such blasphemy?

If you cannot tell, I’m a bit confused why Bush, Dobson, Musgrave and all of the representatives who have endorsed her amendment think that the remote marriage of two men or two women threatens their spiritual well-being. I’m even more befuddled how a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will make them feel any more blessed.

I do know that passage of the marriage amendment would make them feel vindicated, because constitutional banning of gay marriage is about as close to banning gays as they’ll get. And thank God for that.

(1) Is snow removal really that difficult? After this semester’s first storm, I almost needed ice skates to get to class. After the second storm, it’s like the Red Sea overflowed on campus. Is a significant portion of our endowment invested in Morton Salt?

(2) Why don’t the automatic doors going into Mallincrodkt ever work for more than a day at a time? When they don’t work, why are they so heavy?

(3) I’ve written numerous papers in Times New Roman. Is there a Times OLD Roman?

(4) Why is our campus signage so mismatched? Take a look at it: some signs use the new logo. Others use the new logo. Some just say “Washington University.”

(5) Where are the REAL walls of the underpass? How many inches of paint cover them?

(6) Why are the School of Engineering’s buildings so confusing? Shouldn’t engineers have designed the easiest buildings to navigate on campus?

(7) Do people, like, write emails to professors w/o capital letters or any sort of punctuation you know like “class 2day was so kewl ttyl in ur office ;)”

(8) Does anyone ever actually BUY Course Listings at the bookstore? If so, why?

(9) If another all-female a cappella group starts, will the Greenleafs still call themselves the premiere all women’s a cappella group?

(10) Can Arts & Sciences fit any more departments into Busch Hall? Speaking of Busch, why is it always twenty degrees warmer than any other building on campus?

(11) Why are the food court restrooms in Mallincrodkt so nice and the restrooms at the bottom of the stairs so gross?

(12) Who designed Edison Theatre? Had s/he ever seen a play before? Did s/he have a kink in his neck?

(13) What are all of those huge photographs that hang in Mallincrodkt? Does anyone know who those people are?

(14) Friedman Lounge has 4 walls and 4 different surfaces (windows, wood paneling, white paint, and tree wallpaper). Did someone think that was pretty?

(15) Speaking of interior decorating: when Eads was renovated last year, why did they put in navy flooring on staircases with black railings? Am I the only one who has noticed this?

(16) And, who decorated the Gargoyle?

(17) How many floors are packed into Ridgley? Was it designed by dwarfs?

(18) Speaking of height, why is one urinal in the men’s restroom on Eliot 2 for NBA players while the other is for 3 year olds?

(19) Was William Greenleaf Eliot T.S. Eliot’s great grandson? Great great grandson?

(20) Has anyone ever used the “ride board” in Wohl? If so, did you make it home?

(21) Who was Ike, and why did he have a Place? Furthermore, why did it feature a gazebo?

(22) Who designed the traffic flow in Ursa’s? Had s/he ever eaten at a fast food restaurant before? Are those arrows in the tile floor supposed to mean something?

(23) Why are the holes in the trash cans at Holmes Lounge smaller than the plates?

(24) Who chooses the music that plays in Mallincrodkt? Why is it so loud after 3pm?

(25) Why do the computers in the Arc constantly freeze?

(26) Do professors have a secret meeting at the beginning of every semester to make sure that all tests and papers are due the same week?

Are these life’s important questions? No. But it might be interesting to know the answers.

Unfortunately, such abuse is not rare. Any website of an animal abuse prevention agency or humane society provides a list of abuse cases that is appalling in length and gruesome in detail. Dogs with heads and limbs twisted off, cats dumped in trash bins, family pets with smashed teeth and mutilated eyes.

It seems most reasonable people would believe that such cases warrant prosecution. Unfortunately, many state and municipal animal abuse laws are wimpy or non-existent. Even where there are laws against animal abuse, their enforcement depends on judges and prosecutors who feel that the lives of domestic animals should be of value. Sadly, this is often not true. A Kansas City lawyer defending a woman who had stabbed to death her cat and its five kittens argued, “If you can go out and shoot a dear with a bow and arrow, you ought to be able to stab a cat.”

That lawyer’s shocking and deplorable words-meant to explain away the crime of domestic animal abuse by comparing it with the legal act of hunting-raise an important question: why, in a world so fraught with human problems, should the abuse of dogs and cats matter?

One answer is moral. Humans should be humane, and humanity begs us to care not only for other humans but also for the animals we have domesticated and brought into our families. Concern about domestic animal abuse does not trivialize child abuse or violence against women. Decent, humane people should be repulsed by abuse of both animals and humans because permitting either detracts from our humanity in general.

Another reason is that animal abuse is often a precursor to violence against humans. In their national publication The Prosecutor, the nation’s prosecuting attorneys note that a child prone to abuse animals often grows into an adult prone to abuse other humans (mainly spouses and children). A study reported in the same magazine found that 36% of men convicted of sexual homicide had committed animal abuse in childhood; 46% in adolescence. Another study in The Prosecutor noted that in 88% of families where children were abused, animals were abused too. These statistics force the realization that the problem of domestic animal abuse is a matter for everyone’s concern: solving this problem is not only the right thing to do on behalf of cats and dogs, it is also the smart thing to do on behalf of human beings.

All too often, animals have no voice. As humans, we need to advocate that cases of animal abuse should be vigorously prosecuted and guilty abusers sentenced seriously. Who will speak for the animals if humans don’t? Who will solve their problems if we are unwilling to take action? Merely acknowledging the problem of animal abuse with a shake of our head or even a tear in our eye is not enough.

What can we do? Animal cruelty laws must have more “bite:” the torture, mutilation or killing of a dog or cat should be considered a felony, punishable by imprisonment and required counseling. When we elect judges and prosecutors, we should examine their animal abuse case records. When we see cases of animal abuse, we must report them (since, after all, the victims cannot report for themselves). Most of all, we need to change our throw-away mentality toward cats and dogs: while the media attention surrounding the abused dogs found Tuesday will likely ensure them homes, the fact is that 8 out of 10 shelter animals are euthanized. While putting an animal “to sleep” is sometimes necessary, the vast majority of the 35,000 dogs and cats euthanized daily in America are healthy animals on the losing end of a deadly competition for space in crowded shelters.

To do nothing about the abuse of domestic animals and unfettered overpopulation is only to perpetuate the problem. For moral and intellectual reasons, surely we can find room in our hearts and minds to speak not just for the 28 dogs found Tuesday but for all abused animals.

Indeed, the exposure of Jackson’s breast created a fervor: shortly after the incident, CBS’ switchboard was overloaded with angry callers demanding an explanation (or, I’m sure, in some cases, inquiring exactly what sort of cosmic ornament adorned Jackson’s nipple). Timberlake and Jackson soon issued apologies for the incident, first labeling it a “wardrobe malfunction” (begging the question: does Jackson wear nipple ornaments on a regular basis?) then, after realizing how lame that sounded, clarifying the stunt was only meant to reveal Jackson’s red brazier (begging the question: who wears a bra that rips in half?) By most measures, it seems that the incident was a planned stunt, and that CBS (now the target of an FCC investigation and possible fines), its affiliates, the NFL, and-worst of all-viewers were all the unwitting subjects of Timberlake and Jackson’s tasteless trickery.

And tasteless the incident, and really the entire halftime show, was. Commentators who have bemoaned the transformation of the Super Bowl halftime show into “Hustlers hit Houston” have a point. It seems ironic that the halftime show-formerly reserved for such asexual routines as marching bands and field goal contests-has become a forum for an MTV-produced sexual spectacle, considering that the price of Super Bowl tickets meant that, for most attendees, Jessica Simpson’s ever-articulate exclamation “Houston, Choose to Party!” was an admonition rather than an invitation.

Yet much of the “bra-ha-ha,” while justified in its righteous anger that halftime family fare was diluted to a half-wit’s pierced privates, misses the real point. When, exactly, did the Super Bowl (with its heavy dose of beer commercials and athletes acting ridiculously without the aid of celebrities) become America’s family event of the year? The controversy is but a sign, albeit one seen by millions, of America’s detrimental obsession with youth and celebrity. The exposure of Jackson’s breast exposed a much larger problem.

Signs of that obsession are everywhere. Instead of magazines like Newsweek or Time dominating newsstands in the (family-friendly?) grocery store, the prominently displayed titles are Cosmopolitan (inevitably with a must-read story about mind-blowing orgasms), People (with exclusive coverage that “oops!” Britney and Justin did “do it”), and the tabloids (with rumors of weight gain, drug addition, and homosexual tendencies). In view of our obsession with celebrity dysfunction, why were we so surprised by Timberlake and Janet’s “wardrobe malfunction?”

Unfortunately, the obsession runs deeper than such publications. Now, mainstream newspapers and cable news networks obsess over youth and celebrity. Such coverage and the ratings it generates indicates Americans are more likely to remember that Michael Jackson was twenty-one minutes late (!) than they are to know the names of twenty-one government leaders; are more likely to be impassioned by Martha Stewart’s questionable trading than questionable accounting practices that have affected thousands; and want to know more about Britney’s mocking of marriage than the quest for gay marriage.

CBS’ choice of MTV to produce the halftime show was no surprise. If reality TV, commercial advertising, and ratings analysis are any indication, the 18-25, maybe 34-year old demographic that MTV appeals to dictates America’s agenda (despite holding little political clout and, in many cases, real buying power). It’s obvious that such an obsession with youth discounts older generations. But more ominous, I think, is that our generation has apparently earned the reputation as preferring spectacle over substance. We’ve mistaken MTV’s “Real World” for, well, the real real world.

As the “nipplegate” apologies, excuses, and largely symbolic investigations continue, I hope that America realizes that what led Timberlake and Jackson to test the limits of decency isn’t so much a culture of indecency but a culture obsessed with youth and celebrity. Until we focus on more meaningful headlines and understand that celebrities are not, in fact, representative of our generation’s values, today’s college students will be manipulated as mindless consumers rather than respected as world-changers.

While some students have complained that Olin looks no different on the outside, that’s really not the case: while the building still is an architectural anomaly given Washington University’s “collegiate gothic” aesthetic, the new windows, entry plaza, and roofing represent a significant improvement over the old exterior. Plus, the upcoming attention of George Washington’s statue will hopefully clear up our name’s origin.

Inside, Olin is now among the most pleasing buildings on campus. The design is consistent floor-to-floor, and a coherent “look” has been created from floor to ceiling, shelving to furniture. The additions of windows to levels 2 and 3 have considerably brightened the library, making it a pleasing place to spend an hour or two reading in between classes.

Most impressive, however, is the attention to student needs that is evident in the renovation’s results. In this regard, Olin’s renovation should serve as a model for future renovations on campus. Thoughtful elements include numerous types of seating (tables, individual carrels, plush chairs and ottomans); group study rooms; seating at computer stations; lights, power outlets and Ethernet connections on tables; copiers in well-planned spaces instead of randomly placed in lobbies. And the Arc, the new technology center, has numerous thoughtful features, from adjustable computer tables to the booths with swinging monitors that facilitate group work (the only thing that mystifies me is why the University invested in two plasma screens simply to explain that the Arc’s name comes from its curved wall). Additionally, the relocation of library services-circulation, the help-desk, ILL, etc.-to one central counter on the first floor makes understanding and navigating library resources easier. As administrators and student leaders know, ascertaining the needs and wants of students is not an easy task; the University Libraries deserve praise for seeking and incorporating sensible student feedback.

Hopefully, Olin’s renovation will not only serve to make it a nice place to be, but a place to be used: evident in the redesign are elements that should increase the use of Olin’s resources. The new signage, both directional and on the stacks, is an enormous aid in finding resources. The “new books” shelving on the first floor easily alerts students to new holdings that may meet their needs. The journals-now shelved so patrons can easily see their cover and flip through them-are more accessible. The Arc’s technology training resources are an important addition to an increasingly-wired campus. Individual offices for subject librarians should facilitate student contact with these knowledgeable stuff members. Most importantly, the relocation of the special collections unit, and the addition of classroom space within the unit, should encourage professors to take advantage of some of Olin’s unique holdings.

Now that Olin is renovated, the University Libraries should play careful attention to maintaining the facilities. Part of the problem with the old Olin, it seemed, was that everyone decided quite early that the building was weird and ugly, and treated it as such. Already, I’ve seen some troubling signs in the new Olin, especially dirty restrooms (although, since ABM left campus over break, dirty restrooms seem to be a trend across campus). As the improved conditions bring more students to Olin, the upkeep needs to match the rise in traffic: light bulbs in study carrels need to be replaced, restrooms need to be stocked and maintained, copiers need to be serviced regularly, furniture needs to be reupholstered when it wears out. Such attention-to-detail will ensure that the thorough (and costly) Olin renovations will be of long-term benefit.

Congratulations to the construction firms and the University Libraries for a great update to our campus. When Olin is rededicated in May, cybercafe in place and all books in order, all those responsible for the long-term project deserve a pat on the back and a big “thank you” from students. Keep up the good work!