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.

The ACLU’s lawsuit revolves around the key issue with these assassinations: the CIA killed American citizens without due process of law. Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed last September in Yemen by an unmanned drone strike without any sort of trial or protection of the constitutional rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the CIA has even denied the existence of the program that orchestrated the drone strike. Now obviously these men were terrorists; their actions were wrong and should not be condoned. But they were also American citizens, and if we truly believe in American civil liberties, we have to believe that regardless of your crimes, you have the right to a trial by jury, and the right to not be assassinated by your government.

The fact that Obama Administration and the CIA have refused to officially acknowledge this assassination or their legal justification for the killing of American citizens while simultaneously touting it as a major victory in the war on terror is pure hypocrisy and terrifying from the perspective of anyone even vaguely concerned with protection of American civil liberties.

Details of the assassinations have been both leaked to press and revealed during on-the-record interviews with White House officials, including the president. Essentially, the CIA selected al-Awlaki as a potential target for a top-secret killing program. Then, in April of last year, President Barack Obama approved his placement on this list of eligible targets for this program. Al-Awlaki was the first American citizen to be placed on such a list.

One key detail that remained entirely absent from these triumphant reports and interviews was the legal justification the Obama administration had used for allowing the CIA to kill an American citizen. Citizens are supposed to be protected against government abuse, not murdered.

Immediately following the triumphant announcement of the killing by Obama himself during a White House press conference, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the CIA, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice asking for basic information regarding the killings of al-Awlaki and Khan as well as the administration’s legal justification for this action. They have received no response.

Even more disturbing, the CIA has denied even the existence of its targeted killing program, claiming that it “could neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records” relating the ACLU’s request. Even scarier, Khan was not even on the list of terrorists eligible for targeted killing. He was simply another American citizen, who happened to be a terrorist and also happened to be sitting next to al-Awlaki when he was assassinated. If this doesn’t scare you, it should.

The CIA is denying knowledge of a program that has successfully assassinated American citizens without due process of law or constitutional protections afforded to Americans. The implications of this are frightening.

We are now living in a world where the president of the United States of America can allow a covert government agency to kill American citizens, people born and raised in this country, entirely outside of the judicial system or any due process of law, and then pretend it never officially happened.

Sure, this time they were terrorists, but the precedent is now there. A legal precedent exists which gives the United States government the ability to kill its own citizens without any legal recourse, without a trial by jury, and without any requirement to defend their actions in court.

Godiva Reisenbichler | Student Life

Although I agree with the Komen foundation’s decision to retract its original position, it remains apparent that the issue is—contrary to the PR statement—highly political. Out of about 2,000 organizations that Komen supports financially, Planned Parenthood was the only one affected by the new rule. This makes it nearly impossible not to assume that the changes were made with Planned Parenthood in mind.

It’s no secret that Planned Parenthood, a highly visible organization that provides health care, education and advocacy for women, garners national attention from anti-abortion activists who latch onto its abortion services and ignore its other programs. These critics often completely disregard the fact that abortions comprise a mere three percent of Planned Parenthood’s expenditures and the fact that federal funding can’t be used for abortions anyway. Susan G. Komen for the Cure folded under this ongoing political controversy associated with Planned Parenthood, seemingly disregarding the enormous value of its services for low-income families.

Komen’s decision to repeal the defunding lies in the deluge of public backlash, most notably on forums such as Facebook and Twitter. In the three days following the initial Komen announcement, Planned Parenthood raised nearly three million dollars and gained 10,000 new Facebook supporters. In contrast, Komen’s Facebook page was bombarded with heated comments, many of which suggested alternative cancer foundations to which one could donate. On my own newsfeed, friends posted and re-posted articles bashing the decision. This issue definitely struck a chord in liberal-minded college students across the country, many of whom rely on Planned Parenthood’s service.

Much of the criticism against Komen’s actions point to Karen Handel, who was appointed as its senior vice president in April 2011. Handel, Georgia’s former secretary of state, has publically stated that her staunch anti-abortion beliefs make her unable to support the mission of Planned Parenthood. She has since resigned, but I see the attacks on Handel as an oversimplification of the issue. No one person—even with the title of VP and with a strong personal vendetta—could have single-handedly spearheaded this de-funding process. Rather, the actions represent a miscalculated effort by Komen to mollify groups and individuals who hated the group’s ties to Planned Parenthood and posed significant threats to Komen’s fundraising.

This controversy reflects the politicization of our society as a whole. Komen’s national headquarters made a mistake, but they are rapidly attempting to fix this. Will the organization as a whole ever admit that significant political rifts between anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights advocates fueled their initial reasoning? Probably not. Regardless, the foundation responded to the public’s outcry swiftly and, I think, appropriately. Judging by the huge influx in donations to Planned Parenthood, and the decreased funding and support for Komen in this same short period, Susan G. Komen for the Cure will need quite a bit of time to repair the damage and rebuild its reputation. Hopefully the foundation will focus in the future on curing cancer and not succumb to partisan issues like abortion.

So what’s going on? I used to consider myself lucky that I had a way to stay connected to the multitude of people I’ve met over my lifetime. I can search Facebook by “Current City” to find friends in a new place, or check up on what a friend did last weekend through events and photos. The amount of personal information we have access to is literally overwhelming; there’s no way to absorb every story that comes across our Facebook news feed or Twitter. Photos, tweets, check-ins, pins and likes are now standard pieces of information about a person you may have only met once or twice.

Generation “F” stands for Generation “Friend,” which reflects the changing definition of the word in the context of how our social networks define it. In some ways it is a deceptive trick that facilitates more use of social websites. For us, the individual user, their loose interpretation of the word is changing how we interact with the people around us. You may be friends with someone on Facebook, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you say hi to them in Whispers. Brashears’ study doesn’t conclusively explain why our number of close friends is decreasing, but I’d like to propose one possible explanation.

The amount of access to personal information we have on acquaintances has raised the bar on who can now be considered a “close friend.” Personal information that had been previously shared face-to-face, such as photographs (on paper), details about a relationship, travel plans and even mutual interests, are now completely accessible to the online community. Life events that our parents only share with their close friends are now on a public Timeline, resulting in less ways for our generation to connect deeply with each other. We simply have fewer things to discuss.

I respect people who decide to deactivate their Facebook profiles, but I could never be one of them. I don’t necessarily believe that the answer to establishing true close friendships in the traditional sense is to swear off social media altogether. Rather, our generation must come to appreciate the value in meaningful face-to-face interactions; a facial expression or gesture that needs no explanation or the ability for someone to instantly tell when you’re not feeling 100 percent is more valuable than ever before. Social media should complement our interactions, rather than supplement them, and while I don’t see this happening as often for those of us who remember using pay phones, I worry about the babies playing with iPads. It’s only a matter of time before they learn how to download the Facebook application.

I have been ashamed of my alma mater since it gave an honorary degree to Phyllis Shafley, whose hatred of women’s rights [and gays] brings disgrace to a liberal arts university.

I therefore propose that to achieve a balanced viewpoint to the honorary degree process that Washington University bestow Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood an honorary doctorate.

Beth Kline Mann
BA’60, MA ‘66

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.

Hanna Xu | Student Life

The most important issue to address is that Student Union privileges cultural groups over other student groups. This is patently false, as a quick examination of Student Union Treasury allocations reveals. LNYF was only given $2,950 for the fall semester, the African Students Association, $1,672, the Korean International Student Society, $1,350, Jewish Student Union was awarded $7,550 , the Muslim Students Association, $6,057, and the Korean Students Association, $5,054. Although as one critic pointed out, many of these numbers are far higher than other groups will see for years, other groups receive far more.

Desire to promote diversity on campus may be a factor here (although if it is, is that so offensive?), but the greater reason is that Student Union provides larger sums for groups that, through events, invite the participation of the greater student body. EnCouncil, for example, was allocated $13,825 for the fall semester, the vast majority of which went not to insular, engineer-specific events but rather to Vertigo: a massive, University-defining party. Lunar New Year Festival filled Edison Theatre. And if groups do spend a lot of their money on themselves, we must keep in mind that they serve a significant section of the Wash. U. community; there are roughly as many Asians as there are engineers. By contrast, how many people participate in or are affected by the Outing Club ($876) or the Belegarth Medieval Combat Society ($416)?

To criticize Lunar New Year Festival’s spending suggests something more than a disagreement with how the money was spent. If such were the case, nearly every group on campus could be lambasted. Some groups receive funding from multiple sources, others spend thousands of dollars on food. Others are allocated thousands of dollars to make money which does not go to covering expenses. I do not take issue with groups that do this, but to focus specifically on Lunar New Year Festival, particularly when attacks are given phrases like “It’s a show by Asians for Asians,” one wonders about the objectivity of its detractors.

Ultimately, though, $5,500 is a paltry amount. Student Union’s total revenues for this year came to $2,484,907.43, and even that is a pittance compared to Wash. U.’s endowment. To take issue with the allocation of .22 percent of SU’s budget is ridiculous. It is more fair to use the financing of Lunar New Year Festival to point out a greater misuse of Treasury funds, but even that alleged misuse—that Student Union favors cultural groups—is imagined. Student Union gives money to student groups based on how many students will be affected by them. EnCouncil and Architecture School Council received $13,825—mainly for Vertigo—and $29,295— mainly for Bauhaus—respectively. Lunar New Year Festival received significantly less for an event that was, proportionately smaller. To attack LNYF or Student Union is unreasonable, and perhaps indicates deeper issues with the presence of cultural groups, rather than any preferences by Student Union.

I don’t need to point out that this is a gross violation of First Amendment rights, the filming of a congressional hearing for a documentary clearly being subject to the freedom of the press. In addition, access to the hearing itself was certainly not restricted, as it was freely watchable over the Internet. So why, exactly, was this filmmaker arrested?

Most disturbingly, this could represent the partisan fiat of the committee chair. Mr. Fox is widely known to be an environmental activist who opposes Rep. Harris and most of the Republican Party’s views regarding fracking, energy exploration and environmental issues. His expulsion could be a dire warning of the shift of political action in this country, in which officials abuse their position to silence their opponents and those with whom they disagree. According to an aide, removing a person from the committee chambers is at the discretion of the committee chair, a dubious excuse given that the committee hearing was essentially already public information, and that the committee chair could have simply asked for the camera to be removed or turned off rather than having Mr. Fox arrested.

“Fracking” is, a highly contentious issue, seen as a possibly lucrative new stream of revenue by oil companies and horribly polluting by environmental organizations. In such controversies, dissemination of information is critical, since it allows the public to know and understand the risks—in this case, to safe drinking water—posed by such a procedure. The very fact that an environmental critic was removed from the hearing smacks of corporate favoritism on the part of the committee chair. As Rep. Jerry Nadler told the Huffington Post, “I have served in the House of Representatives since 1992, and I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. In all that time, I cannot recall a chair of any committee or subcommittee having ever ordered the removal of a person who was filming a committee proceeding and not being disruptive.” According to other representatives quoted in the same article, registrations barring cameras do exist, but do not call for the arrest of the journalist, only the confiscation and depowering of the camera. Indeed, the purpose of such rules is not political censorship, but to allow such hearings to take place without disruption.

The arrest of Mr. Fox sets a dangerous precedent of political censorship, in which a reasonably powerful politician can attempt to prevent the dissemination of information at a public hearing to those with whom they disagree. No matter where you stand on this issue, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, this is a clear violation of numerous Supreme Court rulings regarding political censorship, and therefore of the First Amendment itself. One can only hope that this does not represent a worrying trend for the future.

While believing it must wipe our butts and tuck us into bed every night, Congress expects a tremendous amount of trust from the American people. The same institution that dictates what we can put into our bodies, whom we can marry, how we can conduct business, and how schools are run expects citizens to believe they won’t abuse power. The irony would be humorous if Congress didn’t try to run our daily lives. In an ideal situation, Congress would affect the day-to-day aspects of Americans about as much as the winner of a football game.

Rather than cutting aid to the poor or raising taxes, Congress should continue stockpiling regulations over their public offices; spending cuts would be an added bonus. Legislators don’t need pensions, should receive smaller salaries, can cut back on their staff, and should be term-limited. Members of the Tea Party and Occupy movements would both rejoice.

These are not ideas that would dramatically reduce the debt or solve major problems such as healthcare, foreign policy or the economy; they would merely signal that Congress is getting out of the way and allowing Americans to choose their own paths in life. In an election year, controversial legislation will be minimal as both sides attempt to gain momentum heading into November. Finding common ground in reducing the power of an overreaching federal government would be the bipartisanship Americans crave.