Michelle Nahmad | Student Life

While I agree with the premise that keeping up with international events to whatever extent you are able is important, I find the general characterization of the student body as “apathetic” to be an oversimplification. Granted, most of us are neither avid readers of The New York Times nor watchers of CNN. However, I would say a majority of students have some idea of what’s going on, and there are quite a few very politically and internationally aware students on campus.

Controversy n’ Coffee hosted an event specifically about the crises in the Middle East on Tuesday. Plenty of students are involved in political organizations on campus. We have a ton of International and Area Studies majors. Even students who aren’t affiliated with any of those organizations or majors generally have a much greater knowledge of world events than the average American. I don’t think the problem is necessarily that Wash. U. students are all apathetic, although I am sure there are students who care more about the Jersey Shore than Mr. Gadhafi. All in all, there is very little Wash. U. students can do apart from following the events in the news and then arguing about it, except for maybe raising money for relief efforts after the violence has died down. What are we supposed to do? Grab our AK-47s and take off for Tripoli? Let’s face it, it’s much more difficult to get emotionally and intellectually invested in events taking place thousands of miles away when you have an orgo exam tomorrow.

My real question is, why don’t we focus on changes we can effect on our home turf? I know poverty and inadequate educational opportunities are not as sexy as revolutions or anything else involving guns. The existence of three Die Hard sequels proves that principle many times over. Still, there are substantive ways that any Wash. U. student can make a difference in the St. Louis community. Volunteer with Campus Y, or tutor kids through Each One Teach One. Take a few hours to volunteer at a soup kitchen. Venture out into the city every so often (getting trashed and going to the Mardi Gras parade does not count). Figure out what you can do personally to better the community.

St. Louis was recently named the most dangerous city in the U.S. If that’s not a crisis, I don’t know what is. Yes, take an interest in world affairs. Watch CNN or Fox News. But also take an interest in what’s going on in St. Louis.

Associate Director of Cornerstone Harvey Fields speaks at Thursday’s discussion about socioeconomic diversity. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Amid a relaxed atmosphere, Controversy N’ Coffee and WU/FUSED hosted a multicultural panel on the topic of socioeconomic diversity to a group of nearly forty students Thursday evening.

The panel was composed of John Berg, Vice Chancellor of Admissions; Pam Hansen, Associate Vice Chancellor for Alumni & Development Programs; Harvey Fields, Assistant Director of Academic Programs, Center for Advanced Learning and senior Cristina Woodhouse, president of the Association of Latin American Students (ALAS) and TRiO.

The panel introduced the subject with a discussion of the University’s Pell Grant awards, leading into a larger conversation on socioeconomic diversity.

The University ranks lowest among the top 25 universities as a recipient of Pell Grants. This statistic is problematic and discourages many potential students from applying, some students said.

“A lot of my peers did not apply to Wash. U. because of upfront costs,” Woodhouse said.

The administration also acknowledged that many students do not apply due to tuition rates.

“People feel as though this is an expensive institution,” Henson said. “Overcoming that perception can be very challenging.”

Berg noted that the University’s low rank is due in part to the specificity of Pell Grant stipulations.

“Federal guidelines are very strict on who is eligible for a Pell Grant…If you fall literally one penny from the amount, you are not eligible,” he said. “We help many families that fall just above the Pell Grant guidelines to afford Washington University.”

Associate Vice Chancellor for Admissions John Berg speaks at Thursday’s discussion. The panel was hosted by student group Controversy N’ Coffee. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Moreover, according to Berg, only 8 percent of students who are eligible for Pell Grants apply to top tier universities.

Panelists said socioeconomic diversity is a crucial topic for the University to address.

“We want to be at a university that is diverse in every sense of the word—that’s why we work [at WU],” Berg said.

While students said they feel that the University is multiculturally diverse, most said they believe the University is lacking not only socioeconomic diversity but also awareness on the issues related to it.

“I think that compared to multicultural diversity and other initiatives, I don’t think that [socioeconomic diversity] is given the attention that it deserves, and I think it’s one of those often overlooked factors,” said sophomore Kellie Moore, internal vice president of CNC.

Students also expressed concern that opportunities for financial support are not well publicized, and few said they are aware of available financial help.

“Even though there have been initiatives toward promoting [opportunities], there’s always room for improvement, and we should definitely make more of an effort to promote awareness to our students of the financial resources available to them,” said sophomore Mariana Oliver, president of CNC and panel moderator.

Students in attendance said they were less than satisfied with the panel discussion.

“It was an informative session, but I felt like there was so much pre-decided conversation,” sophomore Baltazar Benavides said. “There wasn’t enough peppering back and forth between students and panelists, so some topics students wanted to hear weren’t even addressed. It was helpful overall, but I would have liked it if we could have gone into greater depth on a few issues.”

Freshman Jaclyn French agreed that the discussion did not delve far enough into the issue.

“I think that it could have gone a little bit deeper,” French said. “I think that a lot of the panelists were agreeing with each other and didn’t get to the meat of the issue, but it was definitely a good start.”

French emphasized the value of having a discussion about socioeconomic diversity on campus.

“At this caliber of university where there are a good deal of rich students, I think [socioeconomic diversity is] something that can easily be overlooked, and I think that it’s something there can be a stigma about,” she said. “I know that Wash. U. has a little bit of a stereotype of being a country club, so while there is a range of students, I think it could be more visible.”

In light of your open letter to Professor Peter Benson (Oct. 2), we feel that it is necessary to state the position of Controversy n’ Coffee, as a student group dedicated to fostering dialogue in the Wash. U. community.

The purpose of Controversy n’ Coffee is to bring students, faculty and community leaders together to discuss pressing social and political issues. We select panelists with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints in order to expose students to multiple perspectives and opinions on these critical issues. Our panelists graciously make time to participate in our events and interact with students at a level that is often not possible in the classroom, and each contributes valid opinions and a vast amount of knowledge from his or her area of expertise.

Students are, of course, invited and encouraged to express their own opinions; the controversial component of our events effectively facilitates meaningful discussion. The issue at hand is not the voicing of a contradictory opinion, but rather the manner in which it was done. We strive to create a respectful environment conducive to intellectual conversation rather than offensive retaliation against conflicting viewpoints. The latter seems to show a lack of concern for the respectful protocol we expect when dissenting opinions are voiced.

Our event last Thursday, which focused on the smoking ban at Wash. U., raised various important points regarding the ethics of an institution dictating an individual’s right to smoke on campus. This, being one of the event’s main points of controversy, generated a spirited discussion that persisted beyond the event itself and continued for another hour with students and panelists expressing their views in a more informal setting. We are always pleased to see our audience leave our events stimulated to debate these issues and develop their own opinions.

One of the main topics discussed after the event was precisely the problem with the conception of Washington University as a parent to its students. Indeed, Washington University provides, first and foremost, the service of education; and as adults, students should in no way expect the University to “raise us, care for us, love us, comfort us, protect us and support us in endeavors.” It would be a true challenge to find an administrator or faculty member who believes in the University’s duty to serve the role of a parent. In the discussion that followed the event, it was expressed that—just like any law-enforcing institution—a university can and should be able to enforce policies, particularly when they are consistent with the broader policy changes that are occurring not only on a national but also international level. The principal view that was expressed in opposition to this claim did not focus on the simple question of whether the University is supposed to act like a parent. Rather, it was focused on the rights of mature adults to make individual decisions and to have input on important policies that will affect campus life.

We hope that our response has been thorough and that it is understood that the point of our events is to stimulate thoughtful conversation. As anyone who has attended our events and stayed for the discussions that follow will attest, the way that conversation turns into anything fruitful or productive is through dialogue rather than aggressive retaliation.

In a recent forum concerning the coming change in tobacco policy hosted by Controversy ’N’ Coffee on Thursday, Sept. 24, I had the pleasure of hearing your perspective alongside those of two other University professors. In presenting your position, you made the claim that the University served as the “parent” of attending students. You went on to state that in order to fulfill this parental role, the University should take a stronger role in regulating the individual health decisions of each student. I was most disheartened by this comment, and I regret to inform you that the assertion is inaccurate, misguided and evil.  You went on to refer to smokers as “diseased,” but the real disease here is not my pastime, but rather your ideology, which lowers every student in this University to the state of a peon incapable of making his own decisions correctly. Unfortunately, not even an army of Purell dispensers can erase this diseased worldview from existence. I advise that you take a lesson in the basic economic concept of a voluntary exchange prior to making such claims about our status.

Washington University is an institution that provides a service: education. Because it would be inefficient for me to teach myself, I am willing to compensate the University in exchange for this service. In doing so, the University and I both acknowledged that we have rights and that we must provide an equal value to one another when entering this contract. As a free adult, it would be irrational for me to consent to such an arrangement that would transform me into the University’s minion.

To support your claim that the University should take an active role in our personal health decisions, you cited the doctrine of in loco parentis. Because universities primarily consist of adults over the age of 18, this doctrine is irrelevant and rarely applied as law. The necessity of in loco parentis for a middle school teacher simply is not present for a university dealing with a mature student population, especially in the case of Washington University students, who were selected from among the brightest in the nation.

It must be recognized that we, the students of Washington University, already have parents. In most cases, they raised us, cared for us, loved us, comforted us, protected us and supported us in our endeavors. For these reasons, they are given a special claim on our lives and a voice in the decisions we make for ourselves. The University, on the other hand, provided none of these aforementioned aids in our childhood. To state that the University is on the same level as these individuals who dedicated their lives to improving ours is insulting to parents everywhere and demeans the critical service which they provide to the development of our society.

I remind you, Professor Benson, that we children are your customers. Many of us work very hard to provide you with a platform on which you can advocate our regulation. You are most fortunate that you are employed by a university, for in any other firm, blatantly insulting the competency of your customers often leads to summary dismissal.

We come to Washington University as adults. We make our own decisions. We determine our own values. We work to achieve our own goals as we see fit. We are not the children of the University that we voluntarily pay for a service. We are not pawns in your vision for a perfect society.

You should be ashamed of reducing every student in this community to the status of a helpless child. You should be ashamed of bastardizing the solemn relation of each person to his true parents. And I believe that you should apologize for this insulting comment if you wish to remain, in the eyes of your students, a professor of good standing and high moral character.

In liberty,
Philip Christofanelli

Philip is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at pchristofanelli@hotmail.com.

The discussion, which drew enough students to fill the conference room in the Danforth University Center, featured Peter Benson, assistant professor of anthropology; Stephen LeFrak, pulmonologist and professor in the School of Medicine; and Doug Luke, professor in the Brown School of Social Work. The discussion was titled “Jumping on the ‘Ban’ Wagon: A Panel Discussion on Smoking Bans.”

Carson Smith, a University alumnus who works for the Center of Tobacco Policy Research with the Brown School, moderated the first part of the discussion. Following this portion of the discussion, the panel addressed specific student questions.

According to LeFrak, diseases associated with secondhand smoke are most often seen among those who work in the hospitality industry, such as waitresses and bartenders.

LeFrak said he believes the implementation of the tobacco ban probably will not prevent any chronic illnesses among University students.

“In terms of thinking about cardiovascular disease and cancer—particularly lung cancer—[contracting a disease from secondhand smoke] requires long exposures at high doses for long periods of time,” LeFrak said.

Benson shared his view that the University has other health concerns in mind, too, in enacting the ban.

“Secondhand smoke harms others, but the federal government has classified nicotine dependence as a disorder in its own right,” Benson said. “Wash. U. may therefore be justified in trying to create conditions to limit smoking.”

Studies consistently show that smoking bans lead to a 30 percent reduction in smoking rates in a community, according to Benson.

“Smoke-free legislation is one of the best ways to bring about that kind of dramatic result in people who stop smoking,” he said.

Benson argued that even though the University is an institution with diverse students who make different choices, the ability to smoke on campus is not a necessary component of a college atmosphere.

“While the rule may seem to betray the image of the college campus as a place where social norms can be challenged, it is not evident that tobacco use needs to be a part of an open-minded intellectual and social environment,” he said.

Students attending Controversy N’ Coffee praised the event for what it had to offer.

“The smoking ban is a great topic to discuss. All the professors were really wonderful speakers and had really great opinions,” sophomore Greg Schwartz said. “I thought it was a great experience.”

While the tobacco ban discussion was the first Controversy N’ Coffee event this year, the student group behind the event has been around for almost a year and a half.

Controversy N’ Coffee coordinator Allison Pearson, a junior, said the discussions really took off at the beginning of last year.

“We went to the activities fair last fall and just said, ‘Hey, we’ll give it a shot [and] see if anyone’s interested in joining us,’” Pearson said. “We were a brand new group. No one had ever heard of us.”

The group seeks to generate discussions between students, faculty and staff on various topics of interest. In the past, Controversy N’ Coffee has hosted talks about educational inequality, the national drinking age and the state of the economy.

For last spring’s discussion on gay marriage, around 130 students showed up.

Although the group is still relatively new to campus, it is attracting a larger crowd with each discussion.

“Our group is growing, our events are growing, and we’re getting better at what we do,” Pearson said.

Its name? Controversy N’ Coffee.

This group, which meets weekly, holds panels once a month on political topics with professors, administrators and community members who specialize in the subject of the month.

The goal of the group is to help educate students and create a forum for them and their professors to discuss issues.

“We thought that there wasn’t enough opportunity to hear professors speak outside of the classroom. We wanted to have an opportunity for students to get to hear them speak outside of the classroom setting where they’re bound by this curriculum,” said sophomore Eliana Wilk, the external vice president of Controversy N’ Coffee (CnC).

This mentality encouraged the club’s leaders to create CnC, which began last year but has become a weekly club this semester.

“There was a group of people that saw this campus as having really great professors, really great faculty, that do a lot of good research and are very passionate,” sophomore Thomas Hernandez, the president of CnC, said. “But rarely do students get to interact with those people on a regular basis outside of the regular classroom setting. We wanted to create something that people could identify as bringing together diverse faculty, so they can talk about what they’re passionate about.”

The setup of the forums encourages such an interaction. Typically, there is a 20-minute discussion amongst the panelists that outlines and introduces the topic, then a 40-minute back-and-forth between panelists and attendants in response.

Panelists are then requested to stay another half hour to talk, mingle and drink coffee with students and other attendees in what the group hopes will be a low-key atmosphere.

Members of CnC pick the topics they will discuss each month, and then the rest of the group votes to decide which topic will be the next discussed.

“We do have sort of a political focus because we discuss issues that are politically relevant,” Wilk said.

Upcoming topics include alcohol on campus, gay marriage, fair trade and arts in education. The next forum, about alcohol on campus, will be held on Jan. 27.

The group is looking to cosponsor events in the future with other student groups. Last year’s forum on education, for example, was planned with Each One Teach One and had a turnout of about 100 people and a member of the St. Louis Board of Education on the panel.

“For every [forum in the future,] we’re going to try to work together not only to increase our visibility, but to avoid doing the same thing,” Hernandez said.

Despite the political charge of the group, the members of CnC hope not to push an agenda but to expose people to ideas.

“We want that dialogue, and we want it to be on our terms to be the neutral third party, not for us to dictate what people believe,” Hernandez said.

Club members submit all of the questions to the panel and a moderator coordinates the ensuing debates. Students can get closer to the panelists after the formal discussion. Last year one student was so inspired by a professor that he ended up getting an internship with the professor.

The executive board has been pleased with the group’s progress but wants to increase involvement.

“The more events that we do, the more people are going to know who we are and that what gets the group going having more recognition and having more people attend our events,” Wilk said. “I’m very happy with the events themselves. We’ve had successful panels. The goal is to get the word out there and keep doing what we’re doing.”

//