We know that for the many out-of-state students who plan to leave Missouri after their four years here, local politics may not seem personally relevant, especially when compared to the drama of a highly-charged presidential election. We ask these skeptics, however, to rethink their disregard.

What happens in Missouri this November will have important national repercussions, and we all can play a crucial role in affecting the outcome. We have therefore decided to use this space to describe Missouri’s current political outlook for you, in the hopes that you will use this information as a guide to participation.

Republican Sen. Kit Bond (Mo.) is retiring this year, and the campaign to replace him is one of the closest in the country. This election will likely be influential in determining which party controls the U.S. Senate come January, and it could come down to a few thousand votes. The contenders for this open seat are Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who has served in the House of Representatives for the past 14 years, and Democrat Robin Carnahan, who is Missouri’s current secretary of state.

Closer to home, incumbent U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-St. Louis) is up for re-election in the House of Representatives. In addition to being Robin Carnahan’s brother, Russ Carnahan is a Democrat who represents Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District, home to the vast majority of Washington University students. His Republican opponent is Ed Martin. While Carnahan won his last re-election by a comfortable margin, it is a swing district that could significantly affect control of the House in the event of a 1994-style political sweep.

The remainder of University students are represented by U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-St. Louis), a long-time incumbent who represents the city of St. Louis. His district is generally considered a safe seat.

These elected officials might come from Missouri, but they will ultimately be making decisions for the whole country. If you are registered in Missouri, we encourage you to vote in the midterm elections. If you are not yet registered anywhere, you have until Oct. 6 to register in the state of Missouri in time for the Nov. 2 election. The Gephardt Institute for Public Service, in Umrath Hall, has voter registration applications. Any University undergraduate student who is a U.S. citizen is eligible to vote in Missouri, no matter where his or her family resides.

Regardless of whether you vote here, we also urge you to volunteer for the candidate of your choice. Campaigns are always in need of help, and volunteering is not only a meaningful way to affect the election’s outcome, but it can also be a highly rewarding experience.

Whatever you choose to do, we hope that you will reignite the passion Washington University students displayed for the 2008 presidential campaigns in order to have a continuing say in the future of our nation.

A quick review of last year’s approved budget shows that the CS40 collected approximately $422,700 in income and incurred expenses totalling $421,440. That’s a lot of money, plain and simple. But where does it all go?

Consider Student Union, the governing body of the entire undergraduate community, with a budget of roughly $2.4 million. With this money, SU is expected to fund numerous activities and student groups. The largest campus activities, such as W.I.L.D., draw their funds directly from SU. In short, the student government has an enormous fiduciary responsibility to the campus community. We entrust them to manage such significant resources with the understanding that they provide detailed breakdowns of where the money goes.

This is not entirely the case with the Congress of the South 40. Like SU, CS40 represents a large contingent of students and manages a prodigious amount of money. However, CS40 has much less accountability, and at times, its spending seems to be superfluous beyond its mission. CS40’s mission statement asserts that it “…strive[s] to improve the lives of residents by providing a variety of ways for them to participate in their residential areas, play a leadership role on campus and get involved in the Wash. U. and St. Louis communities.” We are concerned that some of its expenses are excessive for the fulfillment of this worthy goal.

CS40’s budget for fiscal year 2010 includes significant perks for the five executive officers. Last year, each officer was paid a salary (as it’s called in the official budget) of $7,656.00—the yearly cost of a double room on the 40. These officers effectively get free housing or, should they wish to have a modern single room, significantly subsidized housing.

In addition, the budget contained $14,200.00 for a retreat, a worthwhile activity, but one that far exceeds the cost of a similar SU retreat, which is expected to cost $5,000 next year. There was also a “Business Manager” salary (for someone different from the group’s adviser) that cost another $22,836.00. The aforementioned totals $75,316. For a group led by five underclassmen and one adviser, spending 17.82 percent of the predominately student-funded budget on its leadership seems both excessive and out of line with its initial mission statement.

Other line items on the budget are simply too vague considering the sums of money being used on their behalf. For instance, a $14,000 lump sum for the “Finance Committee” seems excessive without a breakdown of where all of this money goes. To us, CS40’s budget seems opaque at best.

Perhaps most significantly, CS40’s allocated budget is determined not by its needs as a student group, but by the cost of housing. Rather than pay a flat fee every year, the amount students give to CS40 is calculated as a percentage of students’ room and board. We believe it may be time to reconsider this method. At the very least, CS40 must do a better job of justifying its continually-increasing revenue.

In its defense, the CS40 puts on a lot of good programming. WUStock and South 40 Week are great events. The Residential College Olympics attracts numerous Forty-dwellers to the swamp for merriment, food and friendly competition. Funding the various events of each residential college is essential to fostering close relationships amongst students in groups of dorms. Clearly, the problem is not that CS40 is doing a bad job with its programming.

The real issues that need to be considered are why CS40 has as much money as it does, why such a large portion seems to benefit only select members of the CS40 executive board, and why CS40’s financial reporting is not as detailed as that of other governing student bodies. For all of the money Wash. U. students have paid to the Congress of the South 40, its members owe it to the students to show that their funds are being used as well as they possibly can be used.

Whereas, on February 16, Student Union Treasury voted 7-6-1 for the DAC, failing to reach the needed two-thirds majority of members present for approval;

Whereas, the Treasury approved each individual component of the legislation but not the legislation as a whole;

Whereas, this episode shows that either Senate or Treasury misunderstood the legislation it was considering;

Whereas, students deserve to be involved in and informed of significant campus initiatives; and therefore be it

Resolved, that the student body is confused by or mostly unaware of the push for a DAC; and be it further

Resolved, that Senate and Treasury need to get on the same page; and be it further

Resolved, that SU has not sufficiently and widely publicized the plan for a DAC; and be it further

Resolved, that SU needs to explain clearly the purpose and responsibilities of the DAC; and be it further

Resolved, that SU should hold an open forum regarding the DAC to allow students to learn more and to provide feedback; and be it further

Resolved, that while the DAC may be a good idea, it must be more than a superficial SU initiative; and be it further

Resolved, that SU must demonstrate what the DAC will accomplish that current student groups cannot; and be it further

Resolved, that SU must demonstrate how the DAC will improve current diversity initiatives and increase diversity within the Wash. U. community.

Editorial Board
Student Life

Shirley Baker, dean of University Libraries, said it best: “Libraries are critical to the mission of a university. With a library you can pass on and create more knowledge.” We students probably don’t dwell on their importance, but the reality is that our libraries play intimate roles in our lives. Because of the libraries, we have a quiet place to study at 1 a.m.; because of them, we have access to dozens of research databases, ranging from the Encyclopedia of Human Rights to GenderWatch.

Like academic departments, the Wash. U. library system receives sizable funding from the University’s budget but also relies upon donations and endowments to expand and maintain collections. But the recession has meant less giving and more cuts. Last summer, the mathematics and biology libraries closed, and hours at the business library have been reduced. Also, five library staff jobs were eliminated in January, and all staff will be taking a one-week furlough, spread out over the course of the calendar year.

We understand the necessity of belt-tightening, but our libraries must remain as important to Wash. U.’s administration as they are to its students. So far, the University has done a commendable job in minimizing the impact of changes on students. According to Dean Baker, reducing hours at Olin Library is not under consideration, and as library materials become more widely available electronically, library administrators plan to convert spaces currently housing print materials into additional workrooms for students.

While we realize that the University’s costs are covered by different funds, it’s unsettling that the University thinks it is also important to provide fresh orchids in the DUC and memory foam mattresses to freshmen in traditional dorms. These measures certainly make Wash. U. more attractive to prospective students, but they nonetheless divert valuable funding from new book purchases or a journal subscriptions that, financially speaking, the library struggles to maintain. This frankly goes against our needs as students at such an academically demanding university.

Our libraries must remain a priority despite the current financial constraints. After four years at Wash. U., students probably will reflect more frequently upon late nights spent cramming in the library than upon the pretty flowers at lunchtime. University administrators should focus on maintaining our library system as a strong resource for its students.

Set the creative writing program free. Let it be its own department. There is evidence all around us that shows that students long for more creative writing experiences.

To be fair, Wash. U. has made strides recently to bring more creative writing to the students. The only creative writing courses on tracks used to be poetry and fiction writing, but the University has since added nonfiction and playwriting tracks to the mix. Additionally, specialized courses like Fiction Writing: the Short-Short, Sudden Fiction and Microfiction have satiated creative desire.

But groups like WU-SLam show that Wash. U. has not completely satisfied its students when it comes to creative writing. WU-SLam seems to be a statement that the University does not offer enough specialized opportunities to its students, and that the students took matters into their own hands in creating WU-SLam.

In January, the WU-SLam team brought its lyrical verse and love of squids to the Danforth University Center’s Tisch Commons for the Grand Slam, and, frankly, they rocked the house. Seating was so tight that the organizers had to send a live video feed of the event to the Fun Room, where patrons watched the action from beanbags and couches. WU-SLam kept the audience engaged the whole night.

What makes WU-SLam’s popularity even more impressive is that the squad of poets only formed in November 2008. That means that it took less than a year and a half for WU-SLam to propel itself to one of the most entertaining student groups on campus. Of course, the club’s popularity owes as much to the poets’ performances as it does to the student body’s tastes. Wash. U. students formed the club, and Wash. U. students embrace it.

The English department has jumped on this recent enthusiasm for writing, and will award prizes for student writings in prose, verse, critical essays and general excellence in academic writing. Until this year, there was no award for undergraduate fiction. After seeing the works of fiction that students produced in Fiction Writing 1, the Master of Fine Arts in Fiction Writing students took matters into their own hands and funded a new fiction award. These awards offer students a chance to have their writings honored, but is that enough?

Aaron Samuels, vice president of WU-SLam, said that the University needs to do more to encourage creative writing among the student body. He said there should be a creative writing department separate from the English department.

“Creative writing is different from composition literature or English literature,” Samuels said. “It has its own skills and requires its own studies.”

According to Marshall Klimasewiski, a professor in the English department, there has been talk within the English department about forming a new English major with a concentration in creative writing.

“It’s a complicated process to add a new major, so those discussions continue,” Klimasewiski said, “but I know that there is a great deal of interest in it among undergraduates, and that’s something the faculty recognizes and appreciates.”

Of course, the department would need more writing faculty to do this properly, and hiring will be difficult in this economic climate. Still, hopefully Wash. U. will act on the students’ desire for more creative writing someday soon.

Opened in 1976, the Rat was once a popular bar and grill, then the campus’ only drinking spot. Even as late as 2001 Student Life reported that attendance to nights at the Rat often exceeded 800 for a 310 person capacity space. Theme parties, televised sporting events, back to school nights and an actual bar made the Rat the destination for anyone unable to afford a taxi to the landing or unwilling to make the schlep out to the Loop. The Rat enjoyed 26 years of success only to be closed in 2002, plagued by waning student interest and a rash of underage drinking incidents. Its death forced the frats to pick up the slack. We perceive that many within the Wash. U. community would appreciate some other public places to drink on campus with their friends. We think the Rat’s time has come again.

Much has changed since 2002. Most who have memories of the Rat, good or bad, have graduated. If the University or Bon Appétit brought it back, it could apply the lessons it learned from the Rat’s previous failure to a brand new population.

More importantly, the administration has recently relaxed its sanctions of on- campus drinking. Wine and beer are readily available at all hours at Ibby’s, the Duc’s in-house restaurant. If the administration trusts us in this setting, is a campus bar such a stretch?

There are reasons, beyond the increased proximity to booze, to consider brining back the Rat. Since the closing of the Mallinckrodt Food Court, new food options on this campus have prompted long lines at Holmes Lounge and the University’s other popular eateries. With Hilltop’s closure this situation will only get worse. The Rat was a popular lunch location, and it would undoubtedly be again. Its centrality to the campus is another asset. We wager the school would see increased attendance at Graham Chapel and Edison Theater events. Students might also follow our sports more if they had a bar in which to watch them.

Many of our peer institutions allow on-campus bars, some of them to service student populations not known for sobriety. If Rice students can handle a bar, who says Wash. U. students can’t?

Elections, even wee collegiate ones, are a good thing. They force candidates to make clear promises to voters and, more importantly, legitimize the whole electoral process. They grant the elected a genuine mandate based on popular support from the student body. When students are not offered a choice of candidates, it becomes far too easy for the administration and for the student body to dismiss the concerns of SU merely as the grumblings of out of touch bureaucrats.

We are confident that some real races will happen this year, hopefully for every position on the ballot. But that doesn’t mean we can’t recommend that you, the average student, throw your hat in as well. This election doesn’t have to belong to SU veterans. We know that there are many students who are consistently dissatisfied with the actions (or lack thereof) of SU. Furthermore, many of these concerns are shared by large, organized groups of students like Green Action and those involved with Greek life. Why not run?

You don’t need to be a current member of SU, and even if you don’t win, forming your own slate is a great way to make sure that your particular concerns are heard and addressed. You will be able to capture the attention of the student body for at least as long as you campaign, as well as the attention of the other candidates running for office. And who knows, you might even win. Dreams are a lot easier to chase with $2.1 million to throw at them.

The New York Times decries this decision as a return to the age of the Robber Barons of the 1910s.  The Weekly Standard hails it as a decisive blow to the First Amendment. Obama has said he “can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” Now for a rather embarrassing question: Do you have any idea what it’s all about?  No?  Do you even know if you should?

On the latter point, even we aren’t sure. You, as a citizen, a college student and a human being, have next to no control over the Supreme Court at the best of times.  And judging by the way the court arrived at its decision, you might even have less control over it than everyone thought.

While the bravado of the justices’ baldly political decision isn’t unprecedented (see Bush v. Gore, 2000), the manner in which they heard the case was. In its first iteration, the issue of campaign finance reform didn’t feature in either argument.  The question was whether ads for a documentary made by Citizen’s United (a nonprofit group) counted as overtly political enough to be regulated under the BCRA. But in June of last year, the court ordered that the case be reargued under a broader framework. We’re judging intention here, but by our analysis the only reason for doing so seems to be political convenience; with the 2010 elections just months away, the conservative cadre on the court thought it better to have BCRA overturned sooner rather than later. Think of it as Simon asking an “Idol” contestant to forget her prepared audition and sing a song of his own choosing, because he knows Paula hates her too.

The resulting decision ruled that parts of the BCRA were themselves unconstitutional, a move that Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe says “signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court on an incremental and minimalist approach to Constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent.”  It’s that last part that has us worried. For as long we can remember, “adherence to precedent” was what made the Supreme Court cool.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens himself writes that “the path [the court] has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” And we agree. And either way, we think you should care.

Whatever you think of the rights of corporations under the First Amendment, to ask that the case be reargued to achieve a more politically urgent verdict (and beyond politics, we can’t understand why such a move would be necessary) is probably not a good idea. Unless you think John Marshall got off on the wrong foot back in Marbury v. Madison, 1803. But given that in the intervening centuries the Supreme Court became perhaps America’s most celebrated cultural export (until Ke$ha), it’s hard not to view this decision with dismay and cynicism. And we’ve got plenty of that to go around.

Design by Brittany Meyer | Student Life

The demonstration included students dressed up as Soviet guards or prisoners and a faux gulag made of two-by-fours and chicken wire. Participants played the Soviet national anthem and gave speeches against capitalism and Washington University, a “tool of the capitalists.” We found the gulag offensive on all counts, which was its aim in trying to show “the realities of socialism,” according to Dirk Doebler, president of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). The language in the speeches was irate but unclear, and we felt that the demonstration trivialized and misrepresented the actual human rights violations that took place at Soviet gulags.

But while YAL could have handled their message better, so could the University. YAL has the right to free speech on this campus, and the University must ensure that its communication about policies is crystal clear. Multiple University administrators used multiple reasons for telling the group to take down their structure, including an art installation policy, an amplified noise policy and, finally, the idea that the structure itself was not safe. But Doebler asserts that the group filled out paperwork beforehand, reserving the space in front of the Women’s Building for the protest. They checked the amplified-sound policy, as well as the banner and ad policies. After not finding any outdoor policies that restricted building—other than a regulation that applied specifically to Bowles Plaza—the group built their structure.

The official position of the administration, according to an e-mail sent out the day after the demonstration, is that the gulag was dismantled because of safety reasons and because the students had not alerted the administration that they were planning on a constructed installation. But the administrators did not approach the group until three hours into its demonstration. And if safety was the administration’s main concern, we have to ask why the University deemed it unsafe to construct the gulag and unsafe to keep it erected but nevertheless told the group to take down the gulag themselves instead of charging them and hiring professionals to dismantle it.

We understand that regulations regarding protests are necessary and advisable. We have no problem with rules regarding the safety of structures on campus—in fact, we appreciate the regulatory efforts that the University has made toward making ThurtenE construction safer. Our confusion stems from the University’s paradoxical concern over the students’ safety and the fact that a firm regulation was never invoked. Video shows a University official admitting that he cannot explain where to find the art installation policy. The administrator who shut down the demonstration is heard on camera saying that she does not have proof of an art installation regulation on her, but is willing to show the student in her office or send the policy via e-mail. Doebler asked that a copy of these regulations be e-mailed to him but, has not yet received a copy.

This is where the real problem lies: Students need easy access to policies that affect their lives on campus, especially those that could be potentially be interpreted to block their rights of free speech.

When asked if the students had a right to be there, one administrator answered, “We’ll see.” The existence of a right should not be contingent on the safety of the structure that seeks to manifest it, and students should have the right to demonstrate regardless of the political nature of their protest. If student demonstrations are to be governed by rules and regulations, these policies need to be easily accessible, and the University administration must be able and willing to explain them.