The seniors have helped to imbue the campus with an unprecedented level of excitement on issues ranging from race to environmental sustainability. As they diverge on their own separate paths, we can only hope that the seniors carry this passion and commitment into their future communities. The University should rightfully send the seniors off in proper fashion with a Commencement speaker who will inspire students to incorporate the voice they were easily able to express in a university setting in the “real world.”

This year’s Commencement speaker, Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy for the Obama administration, is a choice that reflects the character of the class of 2010. He was definitely not on any students’ shortlists for Commencement speaker yet is an expert on an issue that will challenge and define the generation of graduates. During a time when energy-related issues are paramount, his message has the potential to be especially relevant.

He may not be the household name we hope for each year, but at this point it’s really hard to complain about the choice. In 2008, Commencement speaker Chris Matthews delivered a political message that didn’t resonate with the student body. Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teacher for America and the 2009 Commencement speaker, represented a more promising choice since the core mission of her program embodies the ability of young people to impel change in this world. However, she delivered a lackluster speech that failed to engage a significant portion of the graduating class that either disagreed with the purpose of her program or whose interests lay elsewhere.

Chu is a Nobel Prize winner and throughout his career, he has worked to find alternative energy choices. He has the power and influence to change the direction of energy use in our country. He is also a St. Louis native whose father taught at Washington University. We hope that his speech reflects the knowledge of the community that he clearly has.

Chu is not without his controversy, however. On Wednesday, hours before the University’s announcement, President Obama delivered a speech proposing oil and natural gas drilling in the southeast coastline of the Atlantic, eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska. Though the sensitive coastline north of New Jersey as well as Alaska’ Bristol Bay will continue to be closed to drilling, this is the first time the other areas have been opened, and the news goes against the wishes of Obama’s environmentally conscious supporters and likely much of the student body.

We hope Chu avoids delivering a speech that turns his back on his academic roots in favor of the rhetoric of the Obama administration’s new plan. If Chu focuses his speech on energy issues facing this generation and does not make it just a political stump speech, it could leave a resounding sound in Brookings Quad. The open-minded approach he has taken on energy issues throughout his career has the potential to reach all students, no matter their interests.

So, Class of 2010, go into this Commencement with an open mind, because Chu just may be able to deliver that message that will stay with us long after graduation, just as a Commencement speech should. And while he is no Jon Stewart, we at least get a Nobel Laureate who is respectable enough to have been a guest on the Daily Show.

We hang words like these on colorful posters and post them on our Facebook profiles, and as they become cliché, we forget to evaluate the effectiveness of our activism. We accept even the most miniscule and irrelevant of actions—recycling a piece of paper, for instance—as serious steps toward societal change rather than enforce more rigorous standards of responsibility.

Deciding to change the world is easy; figuring out how is nearly impossible. As I consider my future career path, this question has become particularly important to me. I want my time and efforts to be effective, and I am unsure how to make them so. Are political campaigns effective vehicles for change? Is direct participation in politics even necessary for change? Does sharing my opinions with whoever cares to read them count as activism?

As students, it is easy to fall into one of two traps: Either we think we can accomplish anything, or we think we can accomplish nothing. Neither the extreme idealism nor cynicism satisfies me. I think student activism can be effective, but I want to see results. I do not accept the nihilistic view of our potential, but I also do not I think all forms of activism are created equal.

It is within this context that I find myself stunned and deeply impressed that the Mothers bar incident has received national media coverage. While I had strong initial doubts about the efficacy of the student protest organized that weekend, it is now clear that Wash. U. students are on the path toward actually changing the behavior of Mothers bar. The goal is not yet accomplished, but the progress is genuinely inspiring.

Protests, press releases, lawsuits and formal complaints are not a typical part of the daily Wash. U. experience. Political activism is too often limited to voting every four years or waving a sign when the Commission on Presidential Debates comes to town. I am therefore glad to see Wash. U. students focusing their response to this incident on results-oriented change.

Our task is far from complete in eradicating racism from our country and our community, and unfortunately the occasional forum or eloquent dialogue, while perhaps helpful, is an insufficient means of change. Instead we must confront acts of discrimination head on.

I have yet to discover the perfect formula for effective activism. The Mothers bar incident is a reminder, however, that we cannot allow our uncertainties to prevent us from acting against injustice. We owe it to ourselves and our world to take action, real action, to confront the problems that we know must change.

The initial (albeit incomplete) success of the Wash. U. response to this incident is proof that students do have a voice and can make a difference. At the same time, it reminds us that activism must be focused and strategic. It cannot be just a suboptimally timed protest; it must involve our fullest talents and capabilities.

As Wash. U. students, we can contribute a great deal to the fight for social justice. So far, the response to the Mothers bar incident is a pretty good model for how to proceed.

Ten students have resigned from Student Union so far this year. Given the relatively small number of students who hold positions of leadership within Student Union, this number is staggering. When Vice President of Administration Trevor Mattea announced his resignation last week, he explicitly cited frustrations with the operation and structure of Student Union as part of the impetus behind his decision.

We believe that the large number of resignations and Mattea’s recent public criticism provide a massive opportunity for Student Union to make changes where necessary. SU needs to assess what it sees as its purposes, and hold itself accountable in pursuit.

SU’s motto for the 2009-2010 school year was to “Renew Student Activism.” But student activism is, in fact, being renewed on this campus, as evidenced by student support for the Right Side of History, and the student-organized protest and subsequent activism regarding the Mothers Bar discrimination incident.

However, these instances of student activism did not stem from SU initiatives, and the renewal of student activism on platforms separate from those launched by student government suggests that the problem at hand is not that students on this campus are apathetic, but rather, that the student government is not effectively engaged with the student body. This disconnect is further demonstrated by the resignations, which show that many of the leaders elected to the governing body are also not engaged with the SU.

SU executives, senators and Treasury representatives expend countless hours working to better the experience of the undergraduate community at Wash. U. It’s important that these hours are not wasted. SU spends much of its time and resources enforcing tradition instead of connecting with the students it represents, which oftentimes results in self-serving formalities and buzzwords instead of organic connections to the student body. Recent programming such as the tailgating initiative has good intentions, but SU needs to recognize that the success of its programmatic initiatives relies on genuine connections with students, not administrative rhetoric and coordination.

After re-evaluating SU’s purposes and submitting its processes to an evaluation of efficiency, members of SU need to take strides to promote effective communication with students. In the appropriate context, the benefits of such communication would be twofold, ensuring both that the student body engages with SU initiatives and that SU continues to stay well informed about student preferences and campus happenings.

The Senate elections next Wednesday and Thursday present an opportunity for much-needed fresh voices to be heard in our student government. We encourage new Senate candidates to enter SU aware of the necessity of enhancing SU’s relevance and ensuring that the $2.1 million SU budget goes toward genuinely improving this campus.

It is easy to blame student apathy for the apparent disconnect between SU and the student body. But the recent instances of student activism demonstrate that our student body is active, engaged and willing to unite behind shared beliefs. SU must re-examine its priorities and the way its members use their time if it is to make student government relevant to its constituents.

Senior David Dresner doesn’t want his children to have parents who are second-class citizens.

Over the next two years, Dresner hopes to jump-start a national movement by applying new strategies to gain equal rights for the LGBT community.

Dresner’s journey as a gay rights activist started just seven weeks ago when he was approached by Brian Elliot—the older brother of 2008 Washington University alum Marc Elliot—to join him in a project called “The Right Side of History.”

Senior David Dresner works with sophomore Michael Weiss in his mission, entitled “The Right Side of History,” which strives to launch the gay rights movement into the mainstream and eventually to pass legislation guaranteeing the LGBT community equal status. (Sam Guzik | Student Life)

Dresner and Elliot—both openly gay men—hope that The Right Side of History will reshape the status quo of the LGBT movement by using straight youth to garner mainstream interest and propel the movement into the national political sphere.

Equal rights in 26 months

The Right Side of History’s 26-month goal is to pass legislation akin to the 1964 Civil Rights Act that would ultimately afford the LGBT community equal rights in the United States.

The idea to engage straight people in the struggle for gay rights came to Elliot after he read a Columbia University study conducted in every state. The study showed that at least 75 percent of each state supported equal legal rights—a figure much larger than Elliot had anticipated.

Despite this widespread support, however, 29 states do not have laws on record prohibiting employers from terminating employment based on sexual orientation. Additionally, 13,000 people have been discharged from the military in violation of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” for admitting their homosexuality.

“The second takeaway of the study was [that] the young folks overwhelmingly support the most controversial issues,” Elliot said. “Young people were the vanguards of the civil rights movement. This is their generation’s turn to hold our country to its own ideals. It’s not fine for laws to treat people differently.”

Straight support

Dresner said it mathematically makes sense to place a large emphasis on targeting straight people since straight people make up between 90 and 95 percent of the population.

“My efforts right now really need to be focused on the larger 95 percent of the people, and if I’m going to really demonstrate and get the show of force that I’m looking for, I need to go for the harder demographic first,” Dresner said.

Dresner said he believed that gays in the United States would achieve equal rights within 30 years time. But when Elliot said he could fast-forward these results to the year 2011, Dresner knew he wanted to take part in this movement.

Facing Congress

Every year since 1994, Congress has attempted to prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual identity and orientation as well as disability through the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. That bill has consistently failed to garner enough support to pass both houses of Congress.

Senior David Dresner (second from left) leads a meeting of students involved with nascent organization fighting for gay rights; the movement, known as The Right Side of History, hopes to see sweeping gay rights legislation passed nationally in the next two years. Also pictured are, from left to right, are sophomore Jeremy Cramer Gibbs, sophomore Michael Weiss, junior David Klein, junior David Dobbs and Gregory Hogan, regional director of the Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity. (Sam Guzik | Student Life)

If passed in its entirety, the proposed bill, The Civil Rights Act of 2011 with Religious Exemptions, would be more expansive than the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The 2011 Civil Rights Act would prohibit job discrimination and afford LGBT Americans the same federal rights of citizenship that are afforded to heterosexual Americans.

The ‘Theory of Change’

Elliot and Dresner hope to tackle this ambitious goal by following the “Theory of Change”—a model developed by the movement that aims to empower youth and engage millions to make change and demand equality.

By doing so, Elliot and followers of the movement hope to pervade American culture and make the issue of gay rights a prominent one–one on the minds of national legislators.

“We’re hoping to engage millions of youth across the country,” Dresner said. “We’re trying to charge straight youth in an autonomous action.”

Powerful support

A professional group, dubbed “Creative Geniuses,” has been formed for The Right Side of History in New York and Washington, D.C. A leading executives from consulting firms are already on board and they said they have spoken with several strategists responsible for the Obama campaign’s success.

Dresner and Elliot are currently seeking to expand the group.

A band of brothers

Dresner is launching the campaign at Wash. U., and he found his first supporters in his fraternity house—Sigma Phi Epsilon (SigEp). His brothers have provided assistance to the movement at the University.

“At SigEp, there are a lot of people who want to get involved and help out,” said junior Lionel Johnnes, a member of SigEp. “The challenge will be branching out and stepping outside of the Wash. U. bubble and spreading to the majority of the population.”

While the support has already spread beyond SigEp on campus, Dresner said he hopes to use the fraternity as a platform from which to reach other college campuses.

With more than 13,000 current members, Sig. Ep. is the largest fraternity in the nation in terms of current members, and Dresner has plans to visit SigEp chapters through the country to garner support.

A group of approximately 25 Wash. U. students has been meeting each Saturday to discuss strategies for spreading the group’s message and expanding the movement.

The right approach?

Although Dresner said he has received overwhelming support for his campaign on campus, The Right Side of History’s tactic to primarily engage straight people represents a controversial stance within the gay rights movement.

In the past, the gay rights movement has traditionally been led by members of the LGBT community.

Junior Ayla Karamustafa, an advocate for LGBTQIA rights, said that while she respects Dresner and his team, she believes the movement disregards the history of the LGBT movement and excludes many people who have devoted their entire lives to the cause.

“Our movement centers on gaining rights for individuals of various sexual orientations and gender identities of all racial backgrounds; to take away those identities or to refuse—at the very least—to acknowledge them renders the entire thing senseless,” Karamustafa said.

Senior Laura Lane-Steele, president of Pride Alliance, said her group agrees with the intention and goals of the Right Side of History but will be working toward the goal of equality in different ways.

“Obviously everyone on Pride is going to have a different opinion on this movement and the issues surrounding it,” Lane-Steele said. “Pride and the Right Side of History have different strategies in achieving goals for LGBT people.”

The ultimate goal

Dresner said he expects challenges along the way but will continue to garner support until he gets the American youth on the right side of history.

“I think a lot of people at Wash. U. care about this issue,” Dresner said. “People can’t believe these types of inequities exist in this country. Wash. U. can be the start of a civil rights movement.”

With additional reporting by Kate Gaertner

Thank God.

I live for the banter, for the dissent and dissension, as much as the next political buff. I love the formal debates on the same scale as the earnest conversations in line at Whispers. I cherish the site of College Democrats and College Republicans flyers hanging side by side like proud flags on every vertical surface on campus. Politics is an omnipresent force at this school: from the classroom to the dorm room, from the New York Times to Student Life, we are a community of diverse political ideas in the midst of one of the great American swing states. Is there any better place to engage?

If, reading this, you find yourself worrying that you may not fit in with this level of political fervor, simply ask yourself these questions. Did you spend Fall 2008 frenetically working for the Obama or McCain campaigns?  Did you recently vote in your first local election? Have you done community service or raised awareness for a cause? Have you stood up for something you believe in? Have you embraced this country as your home, be it temporarily or permanently?

You, my friend, are interested in politics. It is the force that drives your world, that has the power to make your passions into actions. So speak up and join up! Wash. U. is resplendent with College Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians all dying to make you a card-carrying member. If you’re not interested in partisanship, join Green Action or Students for Choice, volunteer with the Campus Y, run for Student Union office, or participate in any of the millions of student groups that pledge their time toward political and community action.

As you begin your career here at Wash. U., you will find yourself besieged from all sides by your fellow students waving brightly colored fliers and extolling the virtues of Group X and Club Y; offering the various seductions of pizza and candy and free pens to draw you like so many moths to the flame. At the same time, your advisers, deans, parents, residential advisors, and various well-meaning others will encourage you to pace yourself and not over-schedule your first semester. Eventually, you’re going to figure out where you fit between these extremes of activity and inactivity. My only advice for you as you embark on your time at this university is that you find something that has meaning for you: don’t shy away from engagement, from speaking out about your passions. Whether you care to admit it or not, you are interested in politics – embrace it, engage with it, and you won’t regret it.