I have crystallized the moment that I was sitting on the couch taking in the NBC Nightly News story on the implications of AIDS on children in sub-Saharan Africa. I asked myself that apathetic question, “Why should I care?” However, I was fortunate enough to find the information that provided me with the means to combat this query. It is clear that we are now witnessing one of the most exciting periods in the campaign against HIV.

While HIV does not discriminate, it has a history of impacting marginalized populations. AIDS was first officially recognized in 1981 in the U.S., and in the context of fear and homophobia, the illness soon became known as G.R.I.D., Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, and often described as gay cancer. Since then, the epidemic in this country has shifted. It now disproportionately affects poorer and marginalized communities and people of color, particularly African Americans. This disease has come to affect individuals of all colors, sexual identities and walks of life.

HIV is an epidemic of global proportions and has direct relevance to our generation. Globally, young people ages 15-24 represent 45 percent of all new HIV infections. In the United States alone, the number of our peers, individuals under age 24, living with HIV amounts to 46,000. Taking all of these individuals and transporting them to St. Louis, you would have enough people to fill the Cardinals’ Busch Stadium to capacity.

However, the direct impact of AIDS on our generation is not solely due to the malevolent effects of the virus. This World AIDS Day signals the beginning of one of the most exciting time periods in HIV and AIDS awareness.

Last month, President Barack Obama lifted a 22-year-old ban on people living with HIV entering our country. This ban had prevented any major AIDS conference from taking place within our borders, due to the restrictions imposed against people living with HIV serving as delegates. However, the AIDS 2012 conference is taking place in Washington, D.C. this next summer and is expected to convene more than 20,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries.

Directly applicable to the excitement surrounding HIV awareness is the outcome of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study that was published this last summer. This international research effort found that providing antiretroviral therapy, the medical treatment for HIV, reduced risk of transmitting HIV to another person by 96 percent. This effort, in conjunction with other policies recently outlined by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, provides us with the most realistic opportunity yet to end the global HIV epidemic.

I’m not asking you to drop your commitments. I don’t want you forget about medical/law/graduate school to become an AIDS activist. However, I do want you to realize that HIV is a real, pressing issue. This is one of the most important health issues of our generation and we have the opportunity to live through an exciting time that will hopefully change the course of this epidemic forever. I challenge you to be a part of history by taking action.

Taking action really isn’t that hard or time consuming. It takes different forms for different people. The first step for me was to educate myself on the issue. Education is a painless investment that would exponentially increase our generation’s ability to affect change. The biggest enemy of social action is apathy. The beauty of apathy is that it can be readily addressed, easily dismissed and expeditiously remedied. The end of the HIV epidemic is in sight for the first time since the epidemic’s onset. I ask you all to take the time to learn more about the epidemic so that you have a succinct answer when you’re confronted with the question, “Why should I care?”

Tej Azad is a junior in Arts & Sciences.

It was during the spring of my freshman year that an incident of anti-Semitism broke through the Wash. U. bubble and hit my freshman-year roommate. Worse still, it came from a student who lived in our very dorm. This was something that I could not fathom and could not stand for. Working with University officials, I created the Student Diversity Initiative, now known as Connect 4, to address problems like these.

In the spring of 2009, the issue of socio-economic diversity began to be addressed on our campus. At the time, Wash. U. was ranked 25th of the 25 top schools in U.S. News & World Report when it came to socio-economic diversity. Again, I could not believe that we, as a community of engaged citizens who were actively trying to better our world, would ignore our moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate right here within our own University. When I was asked to help lead the new efforts of improving socio-economic diversity through the founding of a new student group, WU/FUSED (Washington University for Undergraduate Socio-Economic Diversity), I knew that turning my back was not an option.

And of course, this year, during our Senior Class Trip to Chicago, the class went to the now internationally infamous Mother’s Bar, and after almost 200 students were let in, the first six African-American students trying to enter were denied at the door. We could not allow racism and bigotry to go unanswered, and the response that our class showed the nation was beyond exemplary.

While I have had a Wash. U. career filled with activism, this has been in no way different than many of my peers in the Class of 2010. Whether it be protesting the new U-City “zero-tolerance policy” or doing flash mobs for environmentalism, whether you look at issues of poverty or of poetry, and whether you agree with proponents of gay marriage or are a fan of Karl Rove, it has been our class, the Class of 2010, that has made this campus as lively, as engaged and as active as it has been over the past few years.

We have learned a lot from this University, but know that this University has learned a lot from us. We have taught the classes above and below us how to pursue their passions and get others to care as well. We have taught the administration that decisions can and should be made together, as a partnership to benefit the community, not bilaterally, in secrecy or without student input. We have taught the nation that under our generation’s leadership, hate will no longer be tolerated, and justice will no longer be synonymous with financial gain.

Indeed, we as a class have much to be proud of. But we must be mindful that this is just our beginning. This has all been a practice run. Now is the time for us to do what we’ve been doing on a much larger scale. It is time for us to be active in following our passions, for us to be diplomatic in getting what we want, and for us to be resolute in defending our morals.

We are now leaving the leadership positions that we have worked our way up to in the “fake world” that is Washington University to start working our way up to leadership positions in the “real world” that is our broader society. And whether you find that your calling in life is the same as it has been or you find that what you want to pursue is something completely different, never forget your experiences here. Never forget the activism, the passion or the pursuit of justice. Because as we work our way up to becoming the leaders of the “real world,” it is up to us to keep this fight that we have started here going. It is up to us to keep pressing for the change we wish to see in the world, and it is up to each and every one of us to ensure that The Right Side of History, Mother’s Bar, Environmentalism, U/FUSED, flash mobs and all of the other incredible things that we have done over the past few years are not just going to have taught and forever changed this wonderful “fake world” of ours.

Fernando can be reached via e-mail at fcutz@wustl.edu
Let the real fight begin!

Our typically complacent campus has become, excuse the exaggeration, a hotbed of student activism in response to several controversies surrounding student profiling and fraternity formals. While we haven’t quite seen the chain dancing in front of the DUC that Proposition A brought about, students are buzzing, and angry op-eds are being written. What better way to spend the last weeks of school than in a blaze of furious anarchy?

Personally, I’m most irritated by the Daily Beast’s gall to rank us as the thirteenth most stressful school in the country. Seriously? Next time you decide to put us behind noted party schools like MIT and Carnegie Mellon, check your damn facts. I think we’re top five, easily. I’m stressing about our stress level! That’s got to warrant a rise in the rankings.

Individual grievances aside, I know a problem when I see one. Given our stress level, now ranked and codified by the Daily Beast, it is understandable why the student body is agitated. The recent comments on the news article covering the off-campus arrest show that there appears to be a general sentiment that Wash. U. is losing its fun factor. The amount of work that Wash. U. students do mandates an outlet for stress. The question at this point in the university’s existence is, where in the world is that outlet going to come from? I fear that, in a school increasingly concerned with its outward perception, these outlets—limited in their existence already—will continue to disappear. Happy students are productive students, and right now, there are a lot of unhappy students.

University City is a veritable warzone. Frat row faces a multitude of regulations. The easiest place to party is a freshman dorm…that doesn’t seem right. Who knows what students will be able to do for W.I.L.D., as recent years have established a trend that pre-concert festivities tend to be held off campus in University City.

I’m not hesitant to say that Wash. U. can be a fairly stifling place to be a college student. By no means do I mean to say that this school is a bad place to be a student. In fact, I think Wash. U. excels in many categories; however, I do believe that students care deeply about fun and freedom. I think the recent student unrest exemplifies that fact. I’m not advocating for 1968 Columbia University-style riots, in which President Grayson Kirk’s office was occupied. That would be simply ridiculous. On the other hand, so is the idea that students should have no place to enjoy themselves. I see two consequences: An entire student body with a Xanax prescription, or…a student body with the highest arrest rate in the country. Note to readers: Take my hyperbole with a grain of salt. I’ll be imagining myself sitting in Chancellor Wrighton’s office. 1968-style.

Charlie is a Sophomore in Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at chlow@wustl.edu

After being denied entry, a black student changed jeans with a white friend, who was smaller and wore the jeans even more loosely; the white student then successfully gained access to the nightclub. This quick-thinking and foolproof experiment demonstrates that the incident had an entirely racist motivation.

The next morning, hundreds of students protested down the block from the nightclub in front of their hotel. While some criticized the short duration of the protest or its location, the Senior Class Council members who organized the protest were told they could not protest in front of the nightclub without a permit, and a permit could not be obtained overnight. Additionally, students were constrained by the necessary departure of the buses returning to St. Louis. Given the circumstances, we commend this unified and quickly-organized display of student activism.

In an e-mail to the student body, Senior Class President Fernando Cutz announced a town hall forum next Monday to discuss the incident, and also indicated the Senior Class Council’s intention to work with the NAACP and Chicago-area colleges to organize a protest. We strongly support these actions, encourage students to attend the forum and commend student leaders for taking this initiative.

Because of the blatant racism of the situation, we urge the Chicago community to not let this incident be forgotten. A sizable portion of Wash. U. students are from the Chicago area, and we encourage students and their friends to refuse to patronize Mother’s Nightclub. Furthermore, each class council should inform the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and the Black Consumer Business Bureau of the incident and their intention to boycott this nightclub.

Finally, we take this opportunity to formally call upon organizations such as the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce to condemn Mother’s Nightclub. The business members of the Chamber of Commerce are hurt by the perception of racism in Chicago, and we compel them to denounce this recent instance of intolerance.

It was touching, on Sunday, to observe the way a community unites behind its leaders and the standards it knows to be right. In addition to the protests, many students commented on the article detailing the incident in Student Life or posted it as their Facebook status.

We find it ironic that the members of the Senior Class Council who planned the trip were among those excluded from the nightclub, demonstrating the senselessness of the racist attitudes exhibited. Hearing that well-regarded student leaders like Regis Murayi and Iboro Umani were turned away from a nightclub seems other-worldly.

But it is precisely because this incident seems other-worldly that we must not forget about it. In our world —the safe and diverse world of Wash. U.—the concept of turning someone away because of the color of their skin is blatantly wrong. This incident serves to remind us that there is a larger world outside of the insular Wash. U. community, one in which even black student leaders are subject to prejudice, one for which the operating principle is not tolerance but discrimination. We must take this event as a signal of our charge in fighting the currents of prejudice. It is our duty to recognize the undercurrents of social racism and fight against them; it is, moreover, our responsibility to fight politically against Mother’s Nightclub. We must ensure that an institution that rests judgment on the race of its would-be patrons is one that cannot continue its practices.

The past few years, Student Union elections have not been competitive because too few students have run to make the elections challenging. Competitive elections force debate about how student government can improve Washington University and create a different type of accountability.

Additionally, competitive elections give students a chance to consider how Student Union (SU) ought to approach campus issues and which issues are most urgent. Most importantly, competitive elections are the only way for the student body to give SU feedback about what changes students would like to see.

SU has a significant impact on the University, and running for Senate is an important way to contribute. Like Treasury, Senate must approve SU’s budget of more than $2 million. Senate also has the ability to speak for students on issues that are important.

When SU drafts resolutions, the University pays attention. SU’s resolutions have helped push the University to take steps to offer mixed-gender housing and have given student groups and faculty a mandate to stand on while arguing for a sexual assault prevention coordinator. SU’s voice has a real effect on University policy.

A vibrant student government radically transforms a campus. SU will be the strongest, most representative voice if students have the ability through competitive elections to choose between different voices and push representatives to reach out to students. Senators should have to run for election based on their values and ideas for personal projects as well as their past record and the changes they have brought or failed to bring to campus. Competitive elections allow students to judge the quality of service that their current representatives have given and allow students to give SU a mandate either to change or to continue its current policies.

Running for SU Senate is an important way to serve the University community, because when you run for office, you place your voice into a campus dialogue. New voices lead to improved ideas for how to better the University and give students a way to make their own voices heard.

Recently, SU Senate elections have not caused much discussion, which means we have not had an opportunity to consider multiple ideas for what student government ought to pursue. Election packets are due on Monday. Pick one up, fill it out and run for office today. Running for Student Union Senate is one of the most important ways you can work to improve our University.

There is a certain danger in taking Dennis’s advice to the extreme. While he claims we are “burnt out on rah-rah-burn-thingsdown,” I think people are still adopting that rhetoric in place of the more necessary one, to which Dennis is also opposed: compromise.

I understand that Dennis probably wrote against “compromise” in the sense of tolerating what is unjust for the purpose of keeping the peace, but I think in such a stratified society, compromise is the only means to solution. Sure, Bon Appétit probably made a compromise in sacrificing calories for a time when they decided to keep that fried chicken. Under a compromise, however, perhaps they could use oil lower in trans fat or chicken fingers that are more substantial in nutrition. There is always the speedy option of soup or a pre-packaged salad, and Bear Mart is abundant in choices. I may have abused Dennis’s example, but, given Bon Appétit’s firmly established monopoly of our meal plans, activism and not radicalism is the necessary approach. Fill out the comment cards; e-mail dining services, and take incessant action.

I don’t mean to single out or attack Dennis here, but I am going to branch off of his examples to assert that our political system is indeed stuck in the rut he mentions. There are those screaming for radical change without actually doing anything about it, but I fear that they crave radicalism for the sake of being radical! Radicalism is cool, hip and appealing (just like Dennis) but lacks the substance necessary to solve problems.

“Radical” mindsets are what have so harshly stratified the party-oriented leadership of our nation into two different worldviews, and the majority of Americans do not perfectly fit just one of them. Imagine if, just like the old days, the president and vice president were from different parties. John McCain and Barack Obama in office together would start out as something of a disaster. They wouldn’t agree on much, but once they admitted that there are some serious problems to address, they would stop attacking each other to enhance their own glory and start compromising to fix these problems. McCain would agree to set a finite plan to leave Iraq while Obama cut down on some of his huge spending initiatives. They both feel strongly on the environment and would devote time and attention to clean energy initiatives. As for some of the more controversial issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights? Leave them up to the states. Why have we settled for polarized factions? America is about so much more than red vs. blue. However strange it may sound, I stand strongly in favor of a purple America.

Those of you who feel very strongly that extreme change in the form of liberal reform is the only option are likely disagreeing with me right now. Please, though, remember that there are other people out there who are just as frustrated as you are but have different ideas about how to change things. Don’t be that child left kicking and screaming in the corner, but instead be the one that wipes away his tears and announces that he is ready to have a “big kid” conversation.

We thought that, as students with definite opinions, it was incumbent upon us to make ourselves heard. Of course, the method chosen was certainly provocative—in a joking exchange, the idea that “Sarah Palin offends our vaginas” came up as a protest against her positions on various women’s issues, and found its way to a handmade sign that said “Palin is offensive to my vagina.” As the sign stood in stark contrast to the others displayed around campus, it garnered immediate media attention and received a great deal of support from many of the students who saw it.

We decided to take the sign over to the MSNBC live broadcast of “Hardball with Chris Matthews” for the 11 p.m. show (having been there earlier), and once there we took our position between signs reading “Obama/Biden” and “Sarah Palin is hot.” Just as the cameras began to roll, a man in a button-down shirt and headset confronted us and said, “This one needs to be taken down. It’s inappropriate,” slapping at it as he spoke. He was right. It was offensive, but next to other signs with potentially offensive messages, such as one reading “Obama Bin Laden,” it didn’t seem to stand out too significantly.

After we retreated, two other girls took the sign and attempted to hold it up, but he told them the same—it’s inappropriate. They asked why they were being asked to take it down; he replied that they were on “private property” and that he could have “been a hard-ass” and had them removed if they resisted.

They didn’t resist, and we went home, not knowing on what authority he dismissed us.

It wasn’t an earth-shattering moment at the vice presidential debate, but some aspects of the situation do merit consideration.

First, the offensiveness of the sign. Yes, it was provocative and somewhat juvenile; we could have simply said “Palin doesn’t support women’s issues” or something to that effect. But it seemed catchy, it added humor and we weren’t attempting to do anything actively threatening or destructive. Had we merely written “Palin offends me,” the sign most likely could have stayed up. But the “inappropriateness” lay in the word “vagina” more than in the actual message, vitriolic as it may have been. Without launching into a heavy political debate, it’s still saddening that the use of this word continues to create discomfort and that its discussion continues to be limited by the strictures of political correctness.

Second, our treatment as participants and students should be considered. The man who confronted us didn’t offer any proof of authority or any self-evident reasons for his insistence that we remove the sign; he dismissed and threatened us with removal as if we were simply children who didn’t understand. We were taken aback because we feel that Washington University encourages us to express our opinions and that our voices are respected here. We were on campus, participating in an event that was promoted campus-wide, having been reassured that this was a safe place to express ourselves, even in a provocative or otherwise non-traditional manner. Censorship was the last thing we expected.

Part of our upset, too, included the observation that our sign was working. People reacted, paid attention and many offered smiles and words of support; the media followed its creation and display across campus, reporters reacted with surprise and interest. Yes, the expression used was juvenile, but it still made its point. Although this is hardly a harrowing tale of censorship and blatant prejudice, it still underscores continuing issues with implicitly taboo words as well as acceptable political expression in our society.

The day of the debate was the most exciting day I’ve had at Wash. U., and it looked like many students agreed with me. I heard friends throughout the day say, “I wish it was debate day every day!” and “This is even better than W.I.L.D.!”

As someone who has been involved in politics throughout my college career, it was refreshing to see so much passion and energy from the entire student body. I was shocked to see so many students awake before the sun came up to attend “The Early Show” filming in Holmes Lounge. Wash. U. students proved that they care deeply about supporting a whole range of issues, be it a particular candidate/party, the environment, women’s rights, the democratic process or bringing comedy into the seriousness that is politics.

The day after the debate, I walked around campus, and I felt a little sad. The debate brought so much excitement, and then it was all over, and things were back to normal, business as usual. I want to believe that the political energy brought by the debate will not disappear with the camera crews. I hope that people will keep showing their support for their causes and engaging in constructive political dialogue.

Watching the debate in the DUC (or any of the other viewing sites), it made little difference that the debate was taking place five minutes away instead of 500 miles away. But watching it as a large group, surrounded by other students engaged in the political process, made it much more exciting than sitting through an hour and a half of political talk would otherwise be.

There’s no reason why we shouldn’t continue to have debate-watching parties in the DUC for the next two presidential debates and later for the State of the Union and other important political moments.

So many of you wore buttons and held signs supporting your choice ticket, but that’s not what’s going to determine who becomes the next president of the United States. To affect that outcome, you need to do more. You need to register voters. You need to make phone calls and knock on doors for the candidate(s) you believe in. You need to write letters to the editors of local newspapers expressing your opinions. You need to attend political events and speakers more than one day a year. And, of course, you need to vote.

What made the debate so exciting for me was not taking a picture with Chris Matthews or glimpsing at Biden in his motorcade or being interviewed by the media (although certainly, that was all exciting), but rather seeing the Wash. U. student body so politically charged. Disappointed as I was to not make it into the debate hall, a far greater disappointment would be to see that enthusiasm fizzle out without translating into action.

Sophie Cohen
Class of 2009

We would like to congratulate the administration and the student body for making the debate such a success. More than 400 students were able to attend the debates, nearly three times as many as had been allowed to attend debates in the past. For students who did not receive tickets, the University arranged for other ways to be involved on campus, including providing a large viewing screen in the Danforth University Center where students could watch the debate together. The skillful handling of logistics by the University allowed most students who wished to participate in the debate a real opportunity to do so.

The students, to their credit, did not take these opportunities for granted. Students of all political persuasions took to the campus to advocate their beliefs in a way that was serious, passionate and respectful. The president of Student Union, Brittany Perez, gave a thoughtful and eloquent speech at the start of a debate that was seen by millions of viewers. Overall, the University and the student body were well represented.

However, students should not regard their conduct during the debate as a unique response to a one-time event. With two more presidential debates and nearly one month remaining before the election in November, the dedication and engagement of students will become more, not less, important in the following weeks. Students should do all they can to avoid slipping back into the old habits of schoolwork and studying to the exclusion of national awareness.

Students should continue to familiarize themselves with candidates, to follow the events of the financial crisis and the war in Iraq and to educate themselves on the ballot initiatives they will have a chance to influence in November. There may not be cameras around campus anymore, but that is no reason not to continue public assembly for education and discussion of the important issues that will soon be decided upon.

Students were a class act during the debate. But let’s make this engagement a habit, not an exception.

Two prominent campus political groups, the College Democrats and College Republicans, both utilized the extensive media and interest group activity on campus by making sure that they involved as much of the student body in the day’s events as possible.

“I don’t think any one moment was a highlight. The day was a highlight for campus,” junior Ben Guthorn, president of College Democrats, said. “There was so much going on on campus. [The College Democrats’] main goal was to get people involved in the things already happening. We couldn’t provide anything more exciting than [MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”] shooting on campus.”

Charis Fischer, president of the College Republicans, was able to enter the media filing center—or Spin Alley—where national media and political personalities gathered during the debate.

Fischer said that that experience complemented the opportunities afforded to her group members, with news channels canvassing the campus with their cameras and microphones.

“For me personally, [the day’s highlight] was being inside the debate and Spin Alley,” Fischer said. “For the group, it was being in the national spotlight.”

Neither the College Democrats nor the College Republicans have any desire to rest on their laurels now that the debate has passed. According to Guthorn, the Democrats intend to continue their political efforts past Thursday and up through Election Day on Nov. 4, with an emphasis on activism this week.

“Our focus has always been leading up to Oct. 8, the voter registration deadline for every student on campus,” Guthorn said. “We have registered probably most all of the students on the South 40. We need to make a really strong push for the off-campus students and off-campus dorms.”

Past the registration deadline, the Democrats will focus on informing voters and coordinating with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign base in Missouri, which Guthorn said is eager to work with Washington University students.

“We’re going to need to have a conversation with [Obama’s] campaign,” he said. “We’ll be canvassing and phone banking, speaking about the time leading up to Election Day. We’re going to use as many volunteers as we can take to help Wash. U. become knowledgeable about [Obama] and help persuade voters between now and Nov. 4.”

For the Republicans, the goal is similar. While Fischer recognizes the group’s smaller presence on campus, she said that the College Republicans’ activity on debate day helped show her what needs to be done between now and the election.

“I think it was clear that we were outnumbered [on Thursday], but it is energizing for the election because we know we have an uphill battle,” Fischer said. “It inspired us to keep plugging along and spread our message.”

In wanting to harness last week’s political energy, both groups will work with Student Union (SU) and will run programs on a campus whose normal level of activism is lower than it was leading up to the debate.

Both group leaders said that they want to see SU’s role limited to funding events, as they do not want the student political body expressing views on national issues.

“[SU] Treasury should be funding election events,” Fischer said. “Since it’s an election year they should focus on that. I think they’re doing a good job.”

Jeff Nelson, SU vice president of administration, agreed with the groups’ assessment of SU’s role and said that SU has been fulfilling its mission of supporting activities while remaining non-partisan.

“SU does not take positions on national political issues,” he said. “We do try to actively fund studs on campus that want to advocate for certain beliefs. We don’t fund these groups to campaign, but we do fund those groups to raise awareness of certain issues.”

Given the funding, Guthorn believes that the campus atmosphere will be more conducive to election activity than in past years due to the race’s importance.

“People realize that this is the deciding election for their lifetime,” he said. “Whoever wins the 2008 election, the policies decided in the next four years will grievously affect the remainder of their lives. I think students understand how monumental the 2008 presidential election is, more than 2000 and more than 2004.”

Although Fischer agrees that the campus is more active than usual, she added that there is still work to be done.

“I was surprised there weren’t more students around Chris Matthews,” Fischer said. “There are a lot of people who could be more informed than they are.”

Although the campus may be pulsating with political energy, both Guthorn and Fischer are skeptical of the possibility of substantial bipartisan programming in the future.

“I imagine if we win they won’t want to [program together], and if they win we won’t want to,” Fischer said. “We’re not going to rule it out, but due to the hostility of their group toward us, it doesn’t look likely.”

Reporting by Ben Sales and John Scott. Written by Ben Sales, David Song and Kat Zhao.