With the end of the year, many college seniors are stressing about their future employment – or lack thereof. They should relax a bit. The job market, overall, is looking up.

The National Association of Colleges and Employers publishes quarterly reports on college grads’ starting salaries by major. They claim their Spring 2005 Salary Survey shows that “average salary offers to new college graduates are climbing at a steady pace.”

Of the top 10 highest-paying majors, nine were engineering (the tenth was accounting). In general, science, engineering and business grads have higher starting salaries than liberal arts and social science grads.

But liberal arts students aren’t doing too poorly, because starting pay for liberal arts graduates is up 4.2 percent from last year, to $30,337. This follows a comparable increase in Fall 2004. English majors, moreover, beat out even the well-performing liberal arts group, with salaries soaring 8.1 percent in Fall 2004. Economists and financiers will see more of the money they love with a 5.1 percent pay hike. Virtually across the board, starting salaries are increasing.

At least, that’s what the raw numbers suggest. Some salaries are increasing slower than inflation (roughly three percent per year), meaning they’re decreasing in real terms. Psychology grads’ salary only rose a paltry two percent in Fall 2004, and that’s after an steep drop in Winter 2004. That’s tough for many seniors, since psychology is one of Wash U’s most popular majors. Similarly troubling for many is that biology majors’ salaries barely increased in Fall 2004.

And it’s probably be easier to find a job than last year, with the economy expanding. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 110,000 new non-farm jobs were created in March, lowering the unemployment rate to 5.2 percent. Unemployment among whites is even lower, but the average hourly wage is up far less than inflation.

Perhaps the bigger news, though, is that women who enter the work force will – perhaps for the first time in history – be earning equal pay (if not more) for equal work.

The oft-cited statistic is that women earn 80 cents on a man’s dollar. But this statistic means the sum total of all women’s income is 80 percent of the sum total of all men’s income. That’s not a helpful statistic, since it doesn’t tell us how the average woman’s salary compares to the average man’s when differences in education, responsibility, hours worked, etc. are accounted for.

Before even adjusting for those factors, women earn 93 cents per dollar men earn among 16- to 24-year-olds, according to BLS. When accounting for education, experience, and years on the job, women as a whole earn 98 percent of what men do, according to economist June O’Neill, who headed the Congressional Budget Office.

The overarching explanation for the wage gap is that men are more willing to sacrifice their personal lives for their job, says Warren Farrell in his new book “Why Men Earn More.” Farrell was thrice elected to the board of the National Organization for Women.

High-risk jobs like firefighting, truck driving and logging are 95 percent male, while low-risk jobs like secretarial work and childcare are 95 percent female. Furthermore, men are much more willing to travel extensively for their employer, work overtime and take dull jobs with little interpersonal interaction. Employers, of course, have to pay a premium to get men to make these major sacrifices. Working 45 hours a week, for example, nets a surprising 44 percent more pay than just working 40 hours a week.

In some cases, Farrell writes, women have it much better in the work place. They’re 15 times as likely to be senior executives in major companies before 40. Among never-married, college-educated workers, men earn 85 cents on a woman’s dollar. Finally, as part-time workers, women earn 10 percent more than men.

The gender pay gap thus seems to be a product of lifestyle choices rather than sex discrimination, which is great news for women. College women now know how to earn more money, if they so choose. They can’t go back and change majors to science and business, but they can work longer hours, take hazardous jobs and perhaps do an unfulfilling or boring job if they want to move up a tax bracket.

As for men, there’s no reason for them to feel guilty about their fat paycheck, since it’s due to sacrificing their personal life, not deeply rooted male privilege.

However, I have to ask my peers who will be making those sacrifices: what good is money if you don’t have a life?

Compared to most students, campus workers have it bad. They earn wages that few students would be willing to accept, except perhaps as a summer or entry-level job. And the wages-$8 per hour, according to SWA estimates-are not enough to keep family breadwinners above the federal poverty line. Using the St. Louis aldermen’s figures, a living wage-the wage needed to keep a family above the poverty line-in St. Louis would be $9.79 per hour with full benefits.

But the concept of the poverty line is problematic. For example, the poverty line for a family of four is $19,350, according to 2005 statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That’s what the federal government says it annually costs a family of four to live in the continental U.S.

Given that the poverty line for a single person is $9,570, a Mexican migrant worker earning $19,350 sends roughly $10,000 per year back to his family in Mexico, or $833 per month. According to Mexican government statistics, only 11 percent of Mexicans earn $600 or more per month in their home country. So far from a living wage, SWA wants to make migrant workers economic elites in their home country.

That’s a good thing. I’m a big fan of redistributive justice (pejoratively known as “tax the rich, feed the poor”), and I especially believe in that on an international scale: Americans have a duty to help poor nations. But a living wage at Wash U will keep money in the country, rather than allowing it to go to developing nations. Compared with much of the developing world, America’s working class is wealthy, so a true commitment to helping the worst-off would mean helping the developing world, not the American working class.

SWA’s proposal will do the exact opposite of that by costing migrant workers their jobs at the University. The workers are here on H-2B visas, which are fairly difficult to get approved (only 66,000 are authorized per year). Among other requirements, an American employer can only hire migrants on H-2B visas if he cannot find Americans able and willing to do the work. That means he has to advertise the positions in local newspapers, talk to unions and have his failed efforts certified by the federal Department of Labor.

At current wage levels, no American wants the migrants’ jobs. If all service workers get living wages, you better believe Americans will take those jobs; $9.79 an hour plus full benefits is much better than Wal-Mart or other retail jobs. And since H-2B visas are only seasonal, when an American takes a migrant worker’s job, the migrant worker loses the ability to work in the U.S. for far more than he could earn in his native country.

Thus, the migrant’s family loses a great source of income, while working-class Americans benefit from higher wages. Living wage, then, is a transfer of wealth from the world’s worst-off to America’s working class, which is well off compared to developing nations.

Migrant workers at Wash U can’t afford a living wage, so SWA should be looking for other ways to improve their lives. First and foremost, migrants need help learning English so as to be employable in many American jobs. Also, subsidized wire transfers would help the workers send more money back to their struggling families. Third, the University could increase pay, but not so much that Americans want migrant workers’ jobs. Finally, providing them with legal assistance with immigration procedures would be truly helpful; our nationally renowned clinical program at the law school doesn’t have an immigration law clinic.

My parents fled anti-Semitism and economic despair in Argentina, virtually starting over from nothing in the U.S. The Holy Grail for my parents was not joining a union or getting a pay raise, but getting a green card. If SWA really wanted to help the worst-off at Wash U, they would push the University to sponsor migrant workers for permanent residency (it would be difficult, admittedly). That, and not a living wage, would be a huge boon to the Latino workers on campus.

The main reason I like the Student Worker Alliance so much, even as I’m unsure of my support of their platform, is that they have the chutzpah to raise hell.

Doing good on campus virtually always takes the form of raising awareness. There’s an awareness week for everything: sexual assault, Latin America, eating disorders, etc.

Raising awareness just isn’t enough. Positive change requires actively fighting. The number of times I’ve heard students and administrators say they’re “having conversations” to address such-and-such problem makes me want to puke.

By contrast, on top of the 24×7 sit-in in Admissions, two protestors climbed the north face of Busch Hall yesterday to hang a banner supporting living wage. Quite literally, they risked life and limb for something they cared about.

SWA’s been fighting for a while now. They’ve steadily escalated the intensity of their activism as the chancellor has repeatedly refused to give campus workers a living wage and other benefits. He rejected his own living wage taskforce’s recommendation to implement a living wage on campus.

Faced with the most powerful man on campus being obstinate, SWA activated the nuclear option of underdogs everywhere: shame.

SWA’s been on the rampage since shaming the University to review its Taco Bell contract because of Taco Bell’s unacceptable labor practices. The tactic has worked so well, in fact, that they got Student Union involved. Normally, SU is quite cozy with the administration (they love “having conversations”). With Taco Bell, SWA forced SU to actually find out what students wanted rather than cowing to the administration, leading to the impending departure of the chain.

And let’s not forget that in 2003, SWA leaked the fact that the University wanted to secretly deport some Nicaraguan workers to hide the University’s own shady dealings with the contractor that employed the Nicaraguans. SWA got concessions from the University because they shamed the University.

Activists or anyone who wants to advance the common good take note: the only way you make significant progress is by raising hell. “Having conversations” does little, as SWA has found time and time again. At best, you’ll get incremental improvements.

That’s why I see so few organizations on this campus as truly effective-they’re afraid to throw mud.

The Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg said that most adults’ moral code is merely avoiding social disapproval and seeking approval, or obeying the law. Forget commitments to human rights or other universal ethical principles, people are more motivated by shame and fear of breaking the rules.

This explains why SWA has been effective where others haven’t-SWA effectively employs shame, others don’t.

Such image-tarnishing tactics would be effective against SU, Greeks and other image-conscious groups and persons (which means pretty much anybody). If I had a dollar for every time somebody complained to me about negative press (even if completely accurate), I’d be retired by now.

Like SWA, Student Life understands that progress requires truthful mudslinging, because shame makes the world go forward. That’s why we expose shady SU dealings, Greek misconduct and the administration’s student-unfriendly policies: we want to be part of the solution to campus problems and injustices.

A cautionary tale: exposing the truth cuts both ways. When SWA started their sit-in, they were excited about the press being there. After the second day of being largely ignored by the University, though, they’re becoming irritable. They’ve kicked out reporters and invoked secrecy in meetings-in short, the signs of a group with something to hide.

(It’s ironic that in an act of civil disobedience, SWA seems to be using the police to keep undesirables out of Admissions. Apparently, the administration supports the policy, meaning that even as SWA fights the administration, protestors are hiding behind Wrighton’s aegis.)

And they have nothing to hide but frustration at their ineffectiveness. By ignoring them, the University is trying to embarrass SWA into discontent and ultimately, disbanding.

Student leaders should study this situation as a model for future action. SU can learn that cooperating with the administration isn’t always the most effective path; some truthful mudslinging might shake things up a bit. Greeks should start publicly shaming members that don’t uphold Greek ideals. And individuals can further progress by whistleblowing, calling attention to injustices.

Positive change starts with having the courage to raise hell.

To the reader: This article originally appeared in Student Life’s annual April Fools’ issue. Please don’t take anything in it as fact. We made it all up.

You know, it’s really a shame that Student Union is underappreciated on campus. SU does so much for the student body: its members work tirelessly for your benefit, scramble to find out what you think on the most minute of matters, and stand up against the administration when warranted.

As an example, Senate meetings often run over three hours because a couple Senators have taken it upon themselves to see that the proper parliamentary procedures are always followed. That’s a thankless job, but who else would protect the fundamental principles of self-government?

[Editor's Note: The remainder of Roman's ramblings have been cut for your benefit.]

Schiavo is brain-dead, though her heart beats on. If she’s alive, it’s only because of some misguided definition of “life” that strictly refers to the existence metabolic processes; the only reason she’s not “dead” yet is because Republican politicians in Florida and Washington change or try to change the law at every turn to keep her on life-support, as they did this past weekend.

A Florida judge made a factual determination that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and that she’d indicated she wouldn’t want to be left in such a state. He then ordered doctors to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube, and appellate courts affirmed his ruling. But Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called for and used a law specifically crafted (it was even called “Terri’s Law”) to make an end-run around the courts.

Various courts, from Florida trial courts to the Florida Supreme Court to federal courts, have ruled 20 times against Schiavo’s parents, who want to keep Terri alive. That’s not even counting the number of times appellate courts declined to review lower courts’ judgments.

On the eve of Schiavo’s release, congressional conservatives decided to prolong this painful battle. Congress invited the Schiavos to testify before Congress, granting them federal witness protection. That means that anybody who does anything to impede the Schiavos’ testimony breaks federal law. For complying with a Florida judge’s order, and for respecting Terri’s wishes, Schiavo’s doctors could face criminal penalties.

Congress also wants to give federal courts jurisdiction over Schiavo’s case. That’s like Congress telling the judiciary, “We didn’t like your decisions, so we’re going to legislate that another judge handle this case.”

The Florida judge handling the case for the last several years thankfully decided enough was enough. Ordering the life supported ended, he is letting Schiavo die with whatever shred of her dignity remains. Let’s hope Republican lawmakers keep whatever shred of respect they have for the rule of law intact.

I’m all for saving life wherever possible, but Schiavo is beyond hope. Her cerebral cortex, the part of her brain that controls conscious thinking, is literally gone. Terri Schiavo, the person, is dead. Keeping her organs alive isn’t keeping her alive. And even if she is alive by some perverted definition, the courts have found clear and convincing evidence that she would not want to live this way.

Schiavo’s condition, as determined by her doctors and the court’s own independent doctor, is hopeless. By refusing to pull the plug, conservatives aren’t supporting her right to life, they’re infringing on her right to die.

It’s galling that our Congress is willing to go into extended session to keep a heart beating, but didn’t think of doing the same to fix Social Security, protect Medicaid, fund medical research, balance the budget and deal with other pressing issues.

Schiavo’s case, coupled with party-line Republican stances on abortion and social welfare programs, reveals the contradictions in their so-called “pro-life” platform. While pro-lifers fight for fetal rights and nutrition for the already dead, those who are unquestionably alive and suffering are ignored.

Roughly a fifth of infants in the world today don’t get the cheap vaccines that would prevent debilitating or even deadly illnesses, like polio and measles, claims UNICEF. The medical journal Lancet estimated that causes 27,397 preventable deaths per day. The World Health Organization found that fully a third of humanity was malnourished in 2000.

Inexplicably, pro-lifers haven’t been on the forefront of efforts to vaccinate all children or end world hunger. Rather, they’re concerned about the nutrition of one brain-dead Florida woman. Seemingly, Schiavo has more of a right to life than the two billion malnourished people worldwide.

The “culture of life” that President Bush and other pro-lifers embrace, ironically, is limited to the unborn and the already dead. As the bumper sticker quips: Vote Democrat, because life doesn’t end at birth.

According to the free market, the value (to a student) of a nearly complete night of studying is $30. How did I arrive at this figure? Sophomore year, I was prescribed Ritalin, a mental stimulant, to counter the effects of some other medications I was on. The side effects were too unpleasant, and I ended up not using most of the bottle. Somebody found out I had leftovers, and soon a couple acquaintances offered me $30 per pill. I declined, of course, and threw the pills away.

Ritalin is often prescribed to help ADD/ADHD children concentrate on their work. Even for people without ADD/ADHD, it is a stimulant, making it easier to stay awake and concentrate.

The appeal to students is obvious: a dose of Ritalin can help you stay up all night studying, with reduced need for breaks to relax the mind. The people that asked me for Ritalin were studying for exams, and wanted an edge in their preparation. And rather than study regularly for that edge, they found it easier and more convenient to pop a stimulant for a couple nights before their exams.

They’re not alone. A study from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor found that three percent of the student body had illegally used Ritalin in the past year (2,250 students participated in the study). Men and women reported equal levels of use.

Based on my informal research, students are taking one of three types of study drugs. First, there are the methylphenidates: Ritalin and its stronger, longer-acting brother Concerta. They are similar in many ways to cocaine. Next, there’s Adderall, an amphetamine chemically related to crystal meth that has a high potential for addiction and abuse. Finally, we have Provigil, which is not a traditional stimulant; it promotes wakefulness and possibly boosts memory, but doesn’t aid concentration.

Generally speaking, I’m not so worried about the side effects of these drugs; if students want to take the risk, it’s their body. What really concerns me is the potential that Provigil, Concerta and Adderall will become one more advantage rich students have over poor students.

Performance enhancing drugs have long been part of college academic life. Caffeine has been around and consumed as a stimulant for centuries. For the really needy (i.e., medical students), there was speed.

The difference between the old guard and the new wave is efficacy, safety and cost. Caffeine and speed were two different trade-offs of efficacy and safety. Caffeine is relatively innocuous, but it’s not that potent. Speed, on the other hand, will make sure you’re up to finish that term paper, but it’s incredibly addictive and has serious adverse effects. And none of these drugs were that expensive or hard to find 30 years ago. Everybody had effective access to them.

The new drugs are both quite potent and relatively safe. They are FDA-approved both in terms of efficacy and safety, so odds are you’ll have a good experience. Granted, there are still side effects, but overall, there’s little disincentive to taking these drugs. Except cost. As I noted before, one Ritalin pill goes for $30 on campus, and I’d be surprised if Provigil or Adderall went for less.

Sure, if you have ADD or narcolepsy, you can get these drugs by prescription and have your insurance cover it, but in that case the drugs aren’t enhancing your performance, they’re just bringing you up to the norm. As performance enhancers, these drugs are strictly black or gray market, which explains their hefty price tag. For a rich kid, spending a few hundred dollars per semester on these drugs isn’t a problem. But I doubt the poorer among us can afford that.

Like test prep courses and private schools, Adderall and company will become one more way rich students get an edge over their peers. As drugs advance, there will be even fewer drawbacks to their use, further widening the gap. Those who want to keep up in the meritocracy will have to invest in chemically-enhancing his or her academic performance. It may be expensive, but you won’t be able to afford not to.

Naturally, the biggest beneficiaries of any arms race are the arms dealers. Had I not thrown that bottle of Ritalin away, I could have been $600 richer. And it would have been easy to convince my psychiatrist that I still needed the drugs, for a tidy profit of $900 a month, minus my $4 insurance co-pay.

For example, Residential Life refused to allow a transgender student to live with friends of his own gender, according to Spectrum Alliance President Kristen Chopra. The student in question was a biological female who identified as male, and wanted to live with other guys in sophomore housing.

Rob Wild, associate director of Residential Life, said legal concerns kept him from confirming the existence of such a case, though he said that Residential Life typically assigns housing based on biological sex. A transgender student wanting to live with others of the same gender would have to get an administrative assignment. To his credit, Wild said, “We’d be open to looking at that request.”

The problem isn’t confined to an individual, though. The problem is the policy, which Wash U is delaying formulating. Concerning implementing a transgender housing policy, Wild said that Residential Life was looking at what other schools, like MIT, are doing in this area. “We’ve been talking about this at Wash U for the last three years,” he said.

According to leaders in the sexual minority community, the campus as a whole is ill-equipped to handle GLBTQA issues. “Residential Life, Student Health Services, and Student Admissions don’t have enough support staff to field GLBT questions and that is not acceptable,” said Safe Zones Director Daria Pelech [Jan. 28, 2005].

Pelech insightfully pointed out that the problem starts before students even get to campus, with Admissions. Indeed, the Admissions Web site on campus life makes no mention of GLBTQA groups, though it covers “multicultural opportunities,” “the Greek experience,” “politics and social justice” and nearly every other type of student group. That’s not right, both in the sense of accurately portraying what groups exist on campus as well as the moral sense.

It’s also hard for sexual minorities to identify themselves as such. Rob Stolworthy, a former senior Forum editor, called coming out a “terrifying” experience. In a Nov. 8, 2002 column, Stolworthy, who is openly gay, said that open homosexuals are an “extremely narrow portion of the gay population at this school.” The difficulty of coming out makes closet homosexuals practice riskier sex, like “cruising” in campus bathrooms, said former Spectrum President Andrew Ross [Nov. 1, 2002]. These statements were part of an outcry from the GLBTQA community following the release of a survey that found that 20 percent of RAs believed homosexuality was a sin.

Chopra believes that coming out is still difficult, so we clearly haven’t made sufficient progress on GLBTQA issues in the last two years.

Now, the good news: responding to this crisis, the Student Union Senate urged the administration to investigate GLBTQA issues. The chancellor duly appointed such a task force, which is now looking into hiring a resource director for the GLBTQA groups on campus.

Reports from SU officials suggest the chancellor was receptive to this idea, which is encouraging. Wash U urgently needs that center and corresponding director to supplement the resources offered to GLBTQA students. Having a resource director will allow the GLBTQA community to preserve institutional knowledge despite constant turnover of students, much like ethnic minorities do with Lamara Warren, coordinator for multicultural student groups.

The solution to creating a more welcoming community for sexual minorities, though, truly begins with Admissions. For starters, they should admit to GLBTQA groups’ existence on campus. Furthermore, just as Admissions grants affirmative action to racial or ethnic minorities to enhance the quality of the student body by making it more diverse, so should they implement and publicize a policy to actively recruit GLBTQA students. Why not make it easy and have a self-identification check box, like some grad school apps? We need to send a message to prospective students that sexual minorities are more than tolerated on campus; they are valued for the different perspective they bring.

That’s what this debate is ultimately about-seeing sexual minorities as an asset to the campus, not as a looming Gordian knot. Rather than waiting for other universities to figure out that they are, indeed, an asset to diversity and then jumping on the bandwagon, Wash U should be a leader in embracing the GLBTQA community.

This isn’t a farfetched scenario. Hook-up culture on campus is based on alcohol, yet alcohol is one of the main reasons hooking up is so unsatisfying.

Proving that Shakespeare was a genius for the ages, he wrote, “It provokes the desire, but takes away the performance” on alcohol’s role in sex. I wish I’d read “Macbeth” in high school.

Alcohol is a depressant. After just two drinks-two drinks!-sexual dysfunction kicks in, according to the Center for Healthy Student Behaviors at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. For men, it’s harder to get and maintain an erection, and premature ejaculation becomes more likely. Women have their own problems, namely inadequate lubrication and decreased quality of orgasms.

And I’m not even talking about how difficult it is to actually have sex while drunk. Alcohol makes technique sloppy and dulls sensations, meaning you fumble around not satisfying your partner while getting no physical pleasure out of sex yourself.

It’s not surprising that alcohol and sex seem like a perfect match. Alcohol is liquid courage. By lowering inhibitions, it makes those people more willing to have sex. In fact, up to 70 percent of college students admitted to having sex primarily because they were inebriated, or having sex that they wouldn’t have had while sober, according to Facts on Tap, a Web site run by the American Council for Drug Education.

Aside from alcohol making sex just plain awful, it also makes sex much more dangerous. The College Alcohol Study from the Harvard School of Public Health found that 3.4 percent of college women were raped while intoxicated; 72 percent of college women who were raped were drunk at the time. All in all, 75 percent of all campus sexual assaults involved alcohol, according to Carol Bohmer and Andrea Parrot’s book “Sexual Assault on Campus: the Problem and the Solution.”

Does it get worse? You bet. Three-fifths of college women who acquired an STD report they were under the influence when their partners transmitted the infection. And one-fifth of students who otherwise practice safe sex have unprotected sex while drunk, says Facts on Tap.

But again, the scary statistics aren’t my primary concern. Rather, why do students ruin what otherwise could be a perfectly good lay by drinking? It’s sad that they’re too shy or prudish to be able to initiate and enjoy sex while sober. A hook-up scene that uses alcohol as an enabler certainly leads to more sex, but it’s bad sex. That’s what you get for mixing sex and alcohol: more bad sex.

And nobody wants more bad sex. We want more good (or great) sex, and even no sex is better than bad sex. So this Valentine’s Day, join me in demanding better sexual experiences. Make sure you and your partner stay away from the alcohol before you hit the sack. You’ll thank each other for it the next morning.

Dear Editor:

Re: “Boot the Bell,” [Jan. 31, 2005].

It is clear that the author, Jacob Gerber, did not present the facts in a fair light. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers has been demanding that Taco Bell force its suppliers to pay its workers an additional penny per pound of tomatoes picked. On May 20, 2004, Taco Bell, a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, issued an official press release in response to the boycott, stating, “Taco Bell actually is paying 11 cents more per pound of tomatoes today than it did when the CIW started its boycott against the company in 2000. The actual cost increase far exceeds the 1-cent per pound increase the CIW has sought for three years.”

The statistics from Mr. Gerber’s article are outdated, and in fact, Taco Bell has done much more to solve the issue. More information is available regarding Yum! Brand’s responses to the tomato issue at www.tacobell.com. It is imperative that students have all the facts from both sides when determining whether or not to retain Taco Bell on campus.

In addition, Gerber has grossly misrepresented the sentiments of Steve Hoffner (who ironically has not been responsible for Dining Services since December and is now executive vice president of Quadrangle Housing). In the meetings I had with Hoffner and Bon App‚tit, it was determined that there should be a large random survey in which students would have input on whether or not Taco Bell’s contract would be renewed, and rightly so.

Stating that Hoffner has “made it very clear that he has no concern for the Immokalee workers” is an outright lie. Dining Services supports the Student Worker Alliance’s campaign to improve working conditions for the Immokalee workers. However, it should be the students, paying thousands of dollars for food, who determine whether Taco Bell stays or goes based on their personal food preferences and accurate facts of the tomato issue.

If you have any input on the Taco Bell issue that you would like to share with the Food Committee, you can email food@su.wustl.edu.

-Jeff Zove,
Chair, Student Union Senate Food Committee

We’re not to blame for our privilege

Dear Editor:

Re: “Confessions of the private school graduate” [Feb. 2, 2005].

Daniel Milstein’s “privie guilt” is a softer way of labeling upper class-white-heterosexual-able-etc.-male guilt. I think it is important to remember that we, as individuals, are not responsible for the system, or the history of colonialism, or America, or our parents’ privileges and opportunities. Therefore, we should regard each other as individuals, not pillars of an institution.

Just as we should not judge people’s personalities based on their parents’ income, if we are comparatively privileged we should not feel burdened with guilt. You are no more responsible for your parents’ income than the next person, regardless of trust funds, new cars, private schools and so forth. Guilt doesn’t get anyone anywhere, and though it’s a logical response of emotion, it’s not the most logical conclusion to draw from the realities of life.

To move things forward, and in order to overcome the (not necessarily deserved) image of the entitled spoiled brat, those of us with privilege (which includes everyone at the University) must show through our actions a commitment to social justice and equality.

-Samantha White,
Class of 2007

What’s so important about an orgasm, anyway? As Stiritz noted, orgasms only total about 10 hours of your entire life. There are a million other things to do in life than come. Granted, sex is part of what it means to be human, but to elevate it to the importance Stiritz did does a disservice to the rest of our humanity. Is getting off really our most pressing concern?

Look, I’m not against sexual education, or teaching kids the facts of life. I haven’t the slightest problem with premarital sex, homosexual sex, group sex or any kind of sex between consenting adults, really. But we need to question equating frequency of orgasms and sexual experiences with quality of sex life.

Let me speak from personal experience. Having sex twice or three times a day didn’t make the sex better. It didn’t make me any happier than when I was having sex once a day. Having a steady partner didn’t make me happier than having several, and vice versa. In fact, as the frequency of having sex decreased, the quality of each sexual experience generally increased. Too much sex desensitized me, making it increasingly difficult to be satisfied.

This idea may seem counterintuitive, but it isn’t new. Jewish law, for example, mandates a two-week period every month where husband and wife don’t even touch to enhance the quality of the couple’s sex life, according to an article by Rabbi Manis Freidman on Chabad.org. Just think of how great the sex would be if you had two weeks to build up desire.

Strictly in terms of maximizing physical pleasure, then, we should limit sex, not multiply it like mating rabbits. Throwing mental pleasure or satisfaction into the mix tilts the scales even further. I’ve largely abstained from sex in the last year, and I’ve been quite happy for it. It’s such a psychological relief to not obsess over getting laid or getting off; I’ve been able to find better uses for my energy in my schoolwork, my hobbies and my friends. As a hedonist, I’m much better off with less sex.

Another point of Stiritz’s that troubled me was her call for more masturbation-self-love, as she called it. Our egos are big enough, thank you. We sure as heck don’t need more self-love on this campus and in this country. And if masturbation truly does provide a more powerful orgasm than intercourse for women, and if orgasm is our focus, then why have intercourse at all? Indeed, why have any sort of coupled sex? It would be more efficient and pleasurable to do it yourself.

Call me old-fashioned, but couple (or even group) sex is a necessary part of life. It’s not about emotional intimacy, because sex doesn’t need that. It’s not about physical pleasure, because you can get yourself off easily enough. Sex is about establishing a basic relationship of human reciprocity. In its most developed forms, that includes emotion, commitment and the like. But even in a one-night stand, the partners are pooling their respective talents for mutual benefit. I submit that unsatisfying sex is mainly the result of selfishness on the part of at least one of the partners, medical and psychological problems notwithstanding.

Do we need sex ed? Absolutely. Bring on the contraceptive literature, the human anatomy textbooks and Masters and Johnson. Get people comfortable with the idea and help them overcome the socially induced shame. But don’t treat sex as a value-free activity. If the value of sex is pleasure, then be honest and comprehensive in the utility calculations. And if the value of sex is human contact, then maybe we should encourage more orgasms, but only those caused by partners.