Tuesday’s primary served no real purpose. The Republican National Committee (RNC) decided last year that only a few states could have primaries before March 6 or lose half their delegates in the convention. As a result, Missouri, which traditionally holds its primary in February, was negatively affected by this decision. There will be a Missouri Caucus in March, where the delegates for the state are formally allocated, but people still voted today. Registered voters took their time to declare who they wanted to be the Republican presidential candidate, and it cost the taxpayers of Missouri seven million dollars.

While millions of dollars wasted is bad enough, the inability of the Missouri legislature to solve an easy calendar issue draws negative attention to the failures of our state government. The state had a problem with an easy solution, but could not pass a bill to change the Republican primary date – even with a GOP controlled legislature and a two-year time frame. In fact, one Republican state senator described the situation to ABC as “the dumbest thing I’ve seen in my time in the legislature.”

Most Wash. U. students undoubtedly saw a Facebook status, tweet, or heard a comment about how Missouri citizens were foolish to endorse Santorum. However, in the rush to talk about how ridiculous a candidate Santorum is, we have missed a two larger points: Santorum’s primary victory will not give him any practical advantage in the larger Republican race, and because of a outrageous error by the government of the state where (like it or not) we live, we will endure another costly election. By the time we reach the caucus that counts, Santorum may no longer be a candidate.

The remaining, meaningful, Republican primaries will allow voters plenty of opportunities to discuss the extreme views and personalities of the likes of Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. But the discussion the Missouri primary should spark a discussion of another kind, one about the accountability of our state officials. When a political body is responsible for the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars, state residents and voters can’t turn a blind eye to how it’s done. The next time our friends and classmates want to discuss the stupidity of Missouri voters for endorsing Santorum, we should remind them that some of the same voters are responsible for electing an incapable state legislature.

We believe that this decision is ultimately going to be a good thing for the University, even if some students will be left out because of the change. According to Dirk Killen, associate dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, the change occurred in order to “better reflect the current student achievement,” because Wash. U. students have been steadily achieving more.

The University’s School of Engineering & Applied Science and John M. Olin School of Business changed their GPA requirements several years ago. In this case, the College of Arts & Sciences is simply trying to catch up to the rest of the University. The goal was to make the honor of Dean’s List that was something that should be strived for and would be difficult to achieve. We recognize that it will be hard for students whose GPAs will leave them off the list. However, as Wash. U. improves and its students achieve higher grades, we must change the level of achievement needed for honors in order to more accurately reflect exactly what designates excelling at a school at which the majority of students already do well.

Moreover, the school did not change the Latin honors requirements for most current students, so students that were hoping to get Latin honors with a GPA of 3.5 will not be affected by the change. Only the classes of 2015 and beyond will need a GPA of 3.6 in order to receive Latin honors.

We think this policy is going to make Wash. U. more widely recognized as a place of high academic achievement where in order to be considered among the elite of the institution you need to perform at a level that would normally be considered above and beyond.

This decision was made with the best interests of the institution in mind. The new Dean’s List requirements will incentivize students to do even better, so they can get the honor of being on Dean’s List.

Wash. U. is a place at which students constantly strive to do better and to improve themselves. We should expect nothing less of the institution. The school is constantly trying to make itself a place that can attract new talented students from across the globe. Making the Dean’s List requirements more stringent is a way for the University to do just that.

Last year, USA Today reported on a Guttmacher Institute study that found “at least four in ten pregnancies in every state were unwanted or mistimed.” With unwanted or “mistimed” pregnancy come both personal difficulties and larger social problems. While abstinence may be 100 percent effective, it is unrealistic to assume that celibacy or childrearing are the only viable lifestyle options. Slowing the rate of unwanted children would take pressure off of the state as well as individuals. The focus should be on non-judgmental, preventative measures. Moral conviction is admirable. However, women should not have to choose between safe sex and the possibility of unwanted pregnancy based on where they work. Providing an exception for religiously affiliated organizations would adversely affect millions of women.

The current plan follows recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government. According to a 2010 Hart research poll, 71 percent of voting Americans support insurance plans covering no-cost birth control, hardly a minority. This statistic included 77 percent of voting Catholic women, a demographic that would have been affected by an exception for religiously affiliated schools and hospitals. Individuals may choose to use birth control or not; it is a highly private decision and should remain as such. Though some politicians, such as presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, argue the new rule is “an attack on Christianity,” it is in fact nothing of the sort. The goal is to provide for millions of women who would otherwise have to choose between access to birth control and other necessities. It’s a program to protect women’s health, pure and simple. Furthermore, the new rule provides that churches and other places of worship still have the power to opt out based on moral objection.

Personal responsibility, coupled with options, is a winning combination. No-cost birth control, without exception, is one of the most proactive possible ways to prevent unwanted or ill-timed pregnancy. Here at Wash. U., we are fortunate to have access to oral contraceptives, as well as emergency contraception in the form of Plan B, through Student Health Services. No matter what your personal convictions, wide access to free birth control above all encourages health and personal wellness. We hope this commitment to women’s health continues, for the benefit of women and men alike.

A strong slate of speakers can excite the student body in ways that few other events can: For those who attended, none can forget when, in 2008, Karl Rove lost his cool and started yelling at a student who challenged him on his policies during the Bush administration. The problem is that there just haven’t been enough big speakers in the past couple of years that have had an effect on the campus climate in the way that Gore would have had.

Students at other schools can boast of how the Dalai Lama or Sandra Day O’Connor or Bill Nye the Science Guy dropped by to have a chat. And this is not to say that there’s been a complete dearth of speakers on campus—we’ve greatly enjoyed the likes of Jimmy Wales, Harry Shum, and Soledad O’Brien and others, and we eagerly wait for John Legend with great anticipation (if he doesn’t cancel on us first). But how sad is it that the (non-)speaker that has most agitated campus recently has been Bristol Palin?

Student Union should take another look at their big speakers appeal process—a process they revamped not too long ago to encourage exactly the type of speakers that have been cancelling—and institute some changes.

First, maybe it’s time to return to the first-come, first-serve system for awarding allocations. Undoubtedly, there was unfairness in that process—as there would be with any allocation process—but there was less uncertainty as well. Under the current allocation procedures, student groups are pressured to prepare speakers that might not come for another six or seven months. Meanwhile, during the allocation process, a student group’s opportunity to bring a speaker is intricately tied to the appeals of an unrelated student groups’.

Under the first-come, first-serve system, a group is incentivized to appeal for speakers early, but should a speaker cancel, there’s more flexibility within the system to deal with abrupt changes. And perhaps the best validation for the return of the old system is the lack of cancellations and the quality of speakers.

The current process has now left over $120,000 that could have been allocated to student groups. While student groups this semester will leap at the chance to get their fair share of the $120,000, there’s now the sense that appeals for miscellaneous expenses are now being thrown together in a hurried manner just because Daddy SU has some spare change in his pocket. And it’s just too late in the year to appeal for another costly speaker, yet other groups were denied their speaker appeals (as well as other costs, which admittedly come out of other funds).

As it stands, the current way of allocating speaker money, and then having cancellations, corrupts the student activities fund and is a waste of time and money that will take years to spend.

From Friday, Jan. 20, through Sunday, Jan. 22, the sophomores participated in a design charrette organized by Kyna Leski, head of the Department of Architecture at the Rhode Island School of Design. Even though the project was not graded, all sophomores who were not out of town were required to participate, with the incentive of a $1000 cash reward to be divided among the winning team.

According to one student, the Sam Fox sophomores were notified on Wednesday, Jan. 18—just two days before the assignment was given—that this event was taking place; another student who was gone this past weekend was entirely unaware that the competition actually took place. The groups were divided and the challenge itself presented at 4 p.m. on Friday, and judging was set at 3 p.m. on Sunday.

We understand that this is the first time a project of this type was mandatory for students and that there is a learning curve for all pilot programs. However, the sheer magnitude of complaints from sophomore art and architecture students indicates that there is much room for growth and improvement.

First of all, a different time should have been chosen. Spring semester of sophomore year is the time art school students study abroad, and about one third of sophomore art students were in Florence, Italy, at the time of the competition.

Second, more time should have been given for the actual project. Students were instructed to get an object with a double curvature, “create a second skin on [the] object” out of Vaseline, gesso, paint brushes, rubber cement, paper, masking tape, white glue and tracing paper that is strong yet removable, cut lines in the skin such that it can be laid flat in a single piece, and recreate the skin in a larger pattern out of white industrial felt; this is quite the challenge to complete in only 47 hours.

Third, having art and architecture students work together, although a commendable idea that should foster a stronger relationship between the two schools, only added to the pressure of the time constraint. Students had not only to learn about each other quickly, but also to learn how to work with each other quickly in order to properly utilize each individual’s strengths for the group.

To make matters worse, several studio labs were not available for use because monitor schedules had not yet been finalized for the spring 2012 semester, restricting students to what methods could and could not be used and, for students in other years, limited the time they could work on projects.

Finally, there were no given criteria for judging the projects. According to the same student, different judges were looking for different features in the projects, and these features were never made clear. The end result was an arbitrary judging process that boiled down to what projects appealed to the most individuals.

Student Life recommends that in the future, the Sam Fox School model this competition after the Olin Business School’s case competitions, where students are divided into groups and given prompts well in advance. This would allow for a reasonable time frame for students to complete the project, instead of piling it on top of the demands of a typical student’s schedule and consuming an entire weekend.

The whole experience would benefit from stronger organization and communication between all parties involved. The exercise has the potential to be very useful for all participants with some structural changes that gave students more time to work and a clearer idea of what is expected of them.

The original report came from Onward State, Pennsylvania State University’s independent student news blog, which tweeted the erroneous information. CBS Sports picked up the report, followed by other news organizations such as the Guardian and the New Jersey Star-Ledger. This mistake is an example of a news industry that, in its drive to provide constant 24-hour breaking news, has moved away from shoe-leather journalism and independent reporting to a dependence on other news sources in an attempt to beat others to the punch.

We understand how difficult it can be to draw in readers and provide accurate news coverage on important events before anyone else. However, good reporting has the basic tenet that stories and sources need to be factual, and relying on other news sources just isn’t good enough.

The news media has been having trouble figuring out the way that it is going to incorporate new media, especially as the newspaper format becomes more and more outdated.

Almost every newspaper has a corresponding Twitter account, and many columnists blog, tweet or do both. Even news networks like CNN have started to replace the “man on the street” quote with a quote pulled from Twitter, where it is impossible to confirm a person’s true identity.

It is difficult to compete with all the other news information sites out in the world, but when push comes to shove, the main draw of institutions such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal is their accuracy.

Being first is important, but being correct is essential. When an incorrect news story is reported, readers will leave for more accurate information.

The current form of journalism, with its focus on impartiality and accuracy, with multiple knowledgeable sources that can give information, has only been around for about 70 years. Yes, the way news is reported is going to have to change over the next decade, as more and more people get Internet access, and as more and more possible sources of information pop up. But dedication to accurate reporting cannot change.

We can’t assume that every single tweet and every single blog post is entirely accurate. Yes, you might not be there first if you focus on accuracy, but we believe that in reporting, it is essential to be correct as often as possible.

This will require news organizations to become much faster with traditional reporting if they want to compete, but ultimately an organization will be rewarded for its focus on accuracy. Readers want to know that they are finding out the truth. No matter how many breaking news alerts there are, we will stop listening if it turns out that they are all false.

Erin Humphries | Student Life

Many major companies, including Google, American Express, Facebook, Zynga and Wikipedia, to name a few, believe that these bills would curb their profits and keep the Internet from being a place of free exchange and communication. They are entirely right. Sites like YouTube and Facebook would be open to litigation for videos posted by their users. Google would be forced to remove “blacklisted” sites from its search registry, even though the requirements for blacklisting sites are arbitrary and unfair.

By going dark, these sites attempted to make the American public aware of an issue that is incredibly important. These bills could radically change the way the Internet operates for everyday users (How many of us use Google, Facebook or Wikipedia on a daily basis?)

Until now, the companies have done everything they could to make sure that these bills don’t pass. In November, Google, Facebook, Mozilla, Yahoo, Twitter, eBay, AOL, LinkedIn and Zynga sent a letter to Congress urging it to find a better alternative than these bills to stop online piracy.

These sites going dark is not an issue of companies trying to blackmail Congress into doing what the companies want. Websites have not threatened to permanently take themselves offline in order to deprive the American public of the services they offer, and they never will, because they are corporations, and the money they stand to lose by taking themselves offline is immense.

Yesterday was entirely about media coverage, and it worked. The New York Times featured stories about the blackouts on its front page, both online and in print. CNN and FOXNews also had stories on the front of their Web pages. Millions of Americans are now at least aware of the potential issues with these bills and just how detrimental they can be.

But these companies can only do so much. Ultimately, when the Senate begins voting on Jan. 24th, it will not be up to Google and Facebook to decide what passes. They have shown us the problem, exposed it to the world; it is up to the rest of the American public to stop Congress from doing something harmful.

We don’t know what congressmen think this legislation will accomplish, but with the amount of support it has received, we think they are not really thinking about the consequences. It is up to us to let Congress know that we don’t approve of these bills and to let them know that they could really destroy the freedom of the Internet.

Al Gore
He owes us one. And since he “can’t come” in the spring, he should speak at commencement, this time without Student Union paying close to $100,000. Beyond that, he is still the political face of environmentalism, and has probably done more to teach us about the dangers the planet is facing than just about any other person ever. His message is one that should definitely continue to be spread, and we would love to have him here, if only to inspire us to keep trying to make the world a greener place.

Aaron Sorkin
The creator of shows like “The West Wing” and movies like “The American President” and “The Social Network” is great not just because we love everything he does, but also because he has the capability to speak to our generation in a way that only few can. Sorkin is a committed liberal with a knack for brining the left-wing politics many Wash. U. students believe in to the mainstream. Besides, he dramatized the creation of Facebook, that special social engine on which we each waste more than 12 hours a day. That alone puts him up in our book.

Brian Williams
Brian Williams has the capacity to be serious in his hat as a journalist or funny in his hat as a guest on the Daily Show. His show, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, consistently blows other news programs out of the water in terms of ratings. He is arguably the most well-recognized newscaster in the United States today, and we would love to hear his perspective on journalism in the 21st century.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf
This woman is awesome. She’s an inspiration to women, and people everywhere. The first female president of Liberia, she rules by acting like a mom to all her people. They call her Ma, and she has no problem chewing them out. She has been labeled as one of the best presidents in the world, and is considered to be one of the best in Liberia’s history. As a winner of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, we would be honored to have her speak to us.

Amy Poehler as Leslie Knope
We don’t particularly care about Amy Poehler, even though she is awesome. A comedian might not be the best choice for commencement speaker. But that comedian’s alter ego? Hell yes. Leslie Knope, from the stellar show Parks and Recreation, would be a great person to give us a little advice going forward. She is smart, dedicated, hard-working, believes in what she is doing and never ever gives up. If anyone could teach rising seniors about the world in the last few minutes of college, Leslie Knope is it. Even if she isn’t technically “real,” we will get the best we can.

Bruce Springstein
BRUUUUCE!!! Even though he is not known for his speaking ability, and hardly ever gives on-air interviews, we don’t really need him to speak all that much. What we want is his music, and its ability to touch the heart and soul of every American. We believe that Bruce’s music speaks to just about every generation, and in tough times like these, the Boss is just the remedy graduating seniors need.

While we commend this change and the future similar legislation, we wish that other St. Louis County municipalities had similar ordinances. Clayton is just the third municipality, joining Olivette and University City, out of the 90 in St. Louis County to prohibit this type of discrimination.

We also recognize that this anti-discrimination ordinance is simply covering up a larger problem of discrimination: the lack of marriage equality.

St. Louis County needs to be more proactive in protecting its citizens from abuse, even if they are a part of the population that Missouri on the whole has trouble recognizing.

Although Missouri voters decided in 2004 to amend the state constitution to bar same-sex marriages, that does not mean that people should face job discrimination or be denied benefits because of their sexual orientation.

In this regard, more municipalities, or even the state, need to pass the same sort of anti-discrimination laws to ensure Missouri citizens are protected.

Marriage equality is obviously a very contentious issue in the United States—only this summer New York, a very liberal state, passed a law legalizing gay marriage.

It is because of Missouri’s unwillingness to accept gay couples that anti-discrimination laws such as the ones in Clayton, University City and Olivette are even necessary.

Such laws should not be necessary. There should be no need to protect people who are only trying to live and work in peace, who attempt to pass their benefits to their partners.

In 2009, Dennis Engelhard, a police officer in Jefferson City, was killed in a car accident. He left behind his family, a son and a partner. Were his partner Kelly Glossip married to Officer Engelhard, he would be entitled to death benefits— benefits he does not receive because Missouri does not recognize gay couples.

It should be a given that people aren’t discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. If someone is subject to discrimination, they should receive recompense without question, and the person who committed the intolerant action should be punished. Someone who serves his community, like Officer Engelhard, should be allowed to share his benefits with his family. His is just one exemplar of an unfair law treating gay couples as inferior to heterosexual couples.

Until statewide recognition of same-sex marriage occurs, we commend Clayton, University City and Olivette for recognizing gay couples and doing their best to make them equal, given Missouri’s unfortunate marriage laws. We urge other St. Louis County municipalities to do the same in the meantime. The more places that have these anti-discrimination laws and same-sex partner registries, the better.