Although our University is and has been an image-conscious institution, we believe that any changes in the operating budget should prioritize internal well-being above public image. With this in mind, we believe that budget cuts can be made in programs that seek to attract prospective students—for example, programs that fly international prospectives to St. Louis to visit Wash. U., and—as the chancellor has suggested—in mailings to prospective students.

In line with prioritizing internal well-being above external image, we believe that “image” costs—such as landscaping—can be reduced, and we encourage the administration to make cuts in spending on food and drinks at University events.

We believe that reductions in the University’s internal costs should emphasize an environmentally friendly stance, and we commend the chancellor for keeping environmental incentives in mind when presenting his plan of reducing costs. The University should encourage professors to find alternative ways of formatting readings so that students can read them online without printing. Moreover, professors can be encouraged to accept papers by e-mail instead of in print, reducing both paper waste and printing expenses.

Finally, we feel that the current financial situation merits a consideration of the cost-effectiveness of student groups. We believe that the leaders of Student Union (SU), whose funding increases incrementally with tuition each year, should be encouraged to meet with financial experts within the University to help reduce their operating costs and see where their budget can be cut for futures years. There is no current incentive for the operating costs of student activities to be reduced, and we feel that it is imperative that the University encourage frugality as an end in itself.

Although it is tempting to dismiss the chancellor’s remarks as suggestions that will not impact the state of our well-being as university students, Wrighton implied explicitly in his address that, since 62 percent of Wash. U.’s operating costs come from faculty salaries, would not see their normal pay increases for the next few years. In line with an emphasis on internal well-being, we, as students, ought to take it upon ourselves to ensure that the quality of our education does not suffer from the reduction in the University’s endowment. Because the quality of our education depends directly on the quality of our professors, it is imperative that we, as students who have been encouraged to engage in a larger discussion about the University’s operating budget, attempt to avoid faculty discontent. We should, therefore, encourage cuts that do not affect faculty pay. As members of a community that values the quality of its professors, we should speak up and request that cuts in SU funding, in image costs and in wasteful internal spending come before any adjustment to professors’ salaries.

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.

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.