Michael Tabb | Student Life

Members of Student Union vote on Wednesday evening.

The change, pending majority approval by SU Treasury and two-thirds of the student body, would cut six seats—four from the College of Arts & Sciences, one from the engineering school and one from the business school.

Senators J.R. Davis and Neel Desai sponsored the amendment. They stressed it would improve competition for SU Senate, making sure people who win seats genuinely want the job, and pressure senators to perform their work.

Three vice presidents of administration have failed to pass the amendment in the past several years. This is the first time it was sponsored by students outside of SU’s executive branch.

Junior Mamatha Challa, vice president of administration, said she was pleased that the amendment she proposed two weeks ago ultimately made it past its first hurdle.

“I’m really excited,” she said. “This is probably the first time it’s been proposed by the senators themselves, which was one of the strengths about it.”

The amendment to SU’s constitution needed two-thirds of the vote to pass. The final vote was 15-7 with 1 abstention; senators were holding bated breath as Speaker of the Senate Dan Robinson verified that the abstaining vote didn’t count against the measure.

Robinson said that while he tries to remain impartial, he was particularly pleased with the group’s discussion concerning the change.

“I think that we had a really productive dialogue in the body,” Robinson said. “I’m glad senators were able to put forth [the] initiative.”

While some senators voiced concern about the amendment ultimately discouraging students from running for SU Senate, numerous freshmen considering running for office said they approve of the legislation.

“I’m glad that they were able to get it through so that everyone can vote on it—this gives the entire school the opportunity to vote on how they are represented,” said freshman Hamilton Cook, from the School of Engineering & Applied Science.

Madhana Pandian, a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences, said the arguments in favor of the change transformed her initial doubts.

“When it was first introduced I had all negative thoughts, because the first thing that came to mind was that the increased competition would make it impossible for freshmen to get on Senate…but I really did side with the decision that was made at the end. The people on the pro side did a really good job of presenting their argument,” she said. “I also really enjoyed the open discussion on both sides.”

Speaker for the Treasury, junior Julian Nicks, said he does not envision the constitutional amendment being nearly as contentious when Treasury considers passing it next week.

“I don’t think it’ll be nearly as hot of a debate,” he said. “I don’t imagine it being even close to this much discussion.”

Treasury member Sean Janda, a sophomore, echoed his sentiments.

“I think that if Senate is going to pass it…it only affects their body, so I think Treasury should pass it as well,” he said.

One major issue in the election is jobs. Representative Carnahan voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says created and saved between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs through tax cuts and investment in projects, ranging from infrastructure to renewable energy. These projects create green jobs. Ed Martin, a Tea Party activist, argues for cutting taxes and reducing regulation on business, hoping that voters forget why regulations were made in the first place, even after financial crises caused by Republican deregulation cost America millions of jobs. He strongly opposed the Recovery Act and its $288 billion of tax cuts.

The differences between Congressman Carnahan and Ed Martin continue with environmental and energy policy. Representative Carnahan has pushed to create renewable energy and combat climate change, taking tax breaks from oil companies and giving them to alternative energy sources in order to create green jobs for Missouri and the rest of America. He voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which aims to limit emissions that cause climate change.

Martin denies the science behind climate change and refuses to do anything to move America toward renewable energy besides repealing energy subsidies, which fund a great deal of investment in clean technologies like solar and wind energy and opposes regulations on oil companies, even after the oil spill this summer cost America tens of thousands of jobs.

As different from Wash. U. as Martin is on energy, he gets farther away when it comes to social issues. Representative Carnahan supports life-saving stem cell research, while Martin does not. Martin recently said President Obama was “taking away Americans’ right to ‘find the Lord,’” while Representative Carnahan does not say insane comments to divide Americans in hopes of winning votes.

Their differences really shine through on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The two candidates were asked if they support the policy in a recent debate. Congressman Carnahan has stated his opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell” because that is what military leaders want, and we need talented people defending our country regardless of sexual orientation. Martin followed up the Congressman’s answer about defending our country by calling the effort to rid our country of “don’t ask, don’t tell” “social engineering by Nancy Pelosi and the far left,” a statement just as crazy as “don’t ask, don’t tell” is discriminatory.

When Wash. U. looks at candidates, the character of the people should matter just as much as their policy positions. Each candidate criticizes the other’s character in his political past. Martin has criticized Representative Carnahan, but his criticisms show more about himself than his opponent. Martin criticized Congressman Carnahan’s use of franking, a privilege Congress has that allows members to send mail to their constituents. Franking allows members of Congress to keep their constituency informed on what Congress has done and greatly contributes to increased transparency.

While Martin criticizes Carnahan for expensive transparency, Representative Carnahan has criticized Martin for expensive lack of transparency. His tenure as former Governor Blunt’s chief of staff was full of controversy, but he was finally fired for covering up some of the illegal political use of his office. Martin deleted e-mails and then fired the lawyer investigating his wrongdoings. Martin’s transgressions are so great that Representative Carnahan is not the only one criticizing Martin for his character flaws: The non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Martin one of their top 10 most corrupt candidates of 2010.

We have a choice. We can vote for a rational, thoughtful congressman who works to make our lives better by creating jobs, protecting the environment and representing our social views, or a corrupt, disgraced former chief of staff who would enjoy dividing Americans for his own benefit and preventing progress on energy. The choice is ours.

Sensing that they face an uphill battle, Washington University students and administrators have joined forces with local transit advocates. Together, they have poured thousands of dollars, several volunteers and hours of time into mobilization efforts in the final days before the election, whose outcome carries major implications for Metro, the region’s transit system.

“We’re not going to stop until the polls close at 7 p.m.,” said Liz Kramer, an administrative fellow who has spearheaded efforts to support Proposition A.

Students voted in overwhelming favor of November 2008’s unsuccessful Proposition M, and it has become clear that supporters of this year’s measure are banking their hopes in part on youth turnout. But turnout decreases sharply in off-year, non-November elections, especially among younger voters, and members of both sides acknowledge that every voter will count.

“I really want to encourage people not to take this for granted,” Chancellor Mark Wrighton said. “This is of vital importance to our community, and turning out to vote is critical.”

But Wrighton has been mindful of the turnout problem. “This is an April election,” he said. “There’s no political candidate with high visibility on the ballot.”

Proposition A would increase the St. Louis County sales tax by 0.5 percent and trigger a previously passed 0.25 percent tax increase in the city of St. Louis. Supporters say it would raise about $80 million per year to restore transit service that Metro cut on March 30, 2009, and support future light-rail expansion. If the measure fails, Metro says it would need to cut service to well below March 30, 2009, levels.

Opponents argue the tax would disproportionately harm lower-income families while benefiting a small number of people, and give hundreds of millions of tax dollars to an agency that has misspent public money.

“If 100 families benefit and 500 families can’t make their house payment next time, have we really done anything beneficial for the region?” said Gina Loudon, a leader of the St. Louis Tea Party.

The administration and student groups have devoted significantly more resources to Prop A efforts than they did to Prop M, which failed by three percentage points despite overwhelming student support. The University has donated $75,000 to the pro-Prop A campaign, versus $25,000 to the Prop M campaign, according to Rob Wild, the assistant to the chancellor.

Though the chancellor wrote e-mails to the school community in both campaigns, this time he has taken a highly visible role in St. Louis County. Wrighton has e-mailed thousands of alumni who live in St. Louis County to encourage them to vote for the measure, and has chaired the Advance St. Louis steering committee and spoken to the media.

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee has endorsed Proposition A, and its leadership sent an e-mail to Senate members encouraging them to vote “yes.”

In his March 22 e-mail to the school community, Wrighton urged students and faculty to turn out and vote in favor of the proposition. “Passage of Proposition A is critical to the overall vitality of the St. Louis area,” he wrote. Wrighton also appeared in a recent Citizens for Modern Transit commercial in which he says transit “carries 25,000 of my university students, faculty and staff.”

I write to you on the eve of a very important day for Washington University and the St. Louis region, and I write to ask for your support.

On Tuesday, April 6, registered voters in St. Louis County will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition A, a half-cent sales tax increase to support the operation and expansion of the Metro system. The tax will raise approximately $75 million annually, and the passage of the county tax will trigger an already-approved tax in the city of St. Louis. Passing Proposition A will secure needed revenue to restore service cuts, expand both bus and rail routes, and operate Call-A-Ride vans that are used by the disabled and elderly to access health care and other services. Without the additional revenue provided by the tax increase, public transit service will be cut by as much as 50 percent, and many workers will be left without access to their jobs.

Public transportation is vital to creating a strong, vibrant region, and it is critical to our future success at Washington University. Many of our employees count on MetroBus and MetroLink to get to and from work. Our students use public transportation not only to move between our campuses, but also to explore all the wonderful places in our city. Supporting public transportation in St. Louis means supporting the future excellence of Washington University.

Tomorrow, I plan to vote “yes” on Proposition A, and I hope those of you who are eligible to vote in St. Louis County will consider joining me in making an important statement about the future of public transportation in St. Louis. Together, we can take this important step forward for our University and our region.

Sincerely,
Mark S. Wrighton

Mark Wrighton is the chancellor of Washington University. He can be reached via e-mail at wrighton@wustl.edu.

For instance, the Metro trains are much more sustainable than cars or even buses. Even if 100 percent of the energy required to power them was coal-generated, the efficiency of electric motors means there would be fewer emissions than an equivalent amount of drivers, even if they carpooled.

The most vibrant and successful cities in the U.S. and worldwide have well-funded public transit systems. Virtually none of these systems make a profit, yet all have an indirect but very positive financial impact on their communities. Even traditionally auto-centric cities like Los Angeles are building subways and rail lines. Citizens for Better Transit (CBT), an anti-Prop A group, doesn’t want public money to be spent on this infrastructure yet has no issue with the tons of money spent on roads and highways by the government. American cities are so car-dominated in comparison to most global cities because taxes have funded so many pork highway projects, often at the expense of public transit. CBT argues against the alleged corruption in the Metro, but there is also plenty of that in highway funding, with contracts often going to the highest (and most-connected) bidder. The fact is that improvements on road infrastructure are never profitable either—tolls hardly pay for the maintenance of America’s roads—but I doubt CBT would argue against using taxes for that purpose. Metro can’t reach its full potential if we keep on underfunding it. The state of Missouri gives a woefully low percentage of its funds to public transportation compared to Illinois, which is already well below the national average on funding for transit. CBT may say it supports buses, but the fact is Metro would otherwise cut bus routes without Prop A, and many of our buses are on loan from the federal government. If they take those buses away, it takes years to reapply for them.

Light-rail systems have helped revitalize downtowns and created healthier inner cities in places like Salt Lake City, Newark and, I would argue, St. Louis. Though they aren’t a panacea to urban problems, they can help to spur development and attract residents, especially growing numbers of young professionals eager for a car-free lifestyle. The denser, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that light-rail stimulates are more successful over time than sprawled suburbs.

CBT’s leader, John Burns, once suggested that if we truly care about the plight of the poor who ride the Metro, then we should buy everyone who rides the Metro a car instead. Let’s say 50,000 people ride the Metro (it’s actually around 60,000 per day, but we can be conservative for the sake of argument). If we bought them used cars for $10,000 each (so they’re not clunkers), that’d be $500 million. This doesn’t take into account that the average lifespan of a car is roughly eight years or that the population of transit riders keeps growing. The Metro may have cost $464 million, but its maintenance costs are very low compared to the cost of buying cars for everyone in St. Louis. The New York transit system has some infrastructure that’s 100 years old. Many people also prefer not to have a car, even if they can afford it, since you don’t have to worry about being tired or inebriated on a train.

CBT says the poor don’t use or benefit from the Metro, but this is simply not true. If we assume a price of $10,000 for a car (from my friends’ experiences, ones cheaper than that break after about one or two years), plus rising gasoline and maintenance costs, Metro ticket prices and the sales tax seem a lot more reasonable.

I don’t appreciate how John Burns and CBT have characterized Wash. U. as an ivory tower of wealth. Many students are only here because of scholarships and can’t afford cars. I certainly can’t afford a car right now. A cut in MetroBus and train service would be devastating. The reason we pay less for U-Passes is because Wash. U. buys in bulk—there’s no conspiracy here. It is also certainly not selfish for Wash. U. to care about this matter, since 75 percent of our employees use the Metro. Metro detractors have called Prop A shameless, among other things, but somehow I think I’ll sleep very well after voting “yes.”

Kevin is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at kslin@artsci.wustl.edu.

Proposition M was proposed legislation that would fund Metro transportation through a half-cent sales tax increase in St. Louis County. Had Prop M passed, an estimated 80 million dollars would have been put into public transportation in the St. Louis area.

Unfortunately, we blew it—Prop M failed to pass in 2008. As a result, operating hours were shortened and stops were slashed, among other changes. As Wash. U. students, an overwhelming majority of us rely on public transportation in some way, shape or form throughout our student lives.

There is an upside, however—we have been given another shot at the proposition, now slightly modified and rebranded as Proposition A. While the name has changed, the bill’s soul remains intact: Prop A seeks to charge a half-cent sales tax to fund transit service expansion.

As students, we owe it not only to ourselves individually, but to other students and community members on campus that depend on public transportation for their daily needs, to make sure we vote for the measure in April.

But there is a catch: You must register by March 10 in order to be eligible to vote on the bill in April. Registration is as easy as making a trip to the Gephardt Institute on campus. Being proactive is crucial in ensuring eligibility. The more people who register, the better the chance that Proposition A will pass and the Wash. U. community and St. Louis community subsequently reap the benefits from a thriving public transportation system.

We can’t let this opportunity pass us by again—register as soon as possible.

Well, you can. All you have to do is vote “yes” for Proposition N on Tuesday, Nov. 3.

On the St. Louis County ballot this year is a measure called Proposition N that would restrict indoor smoking in the county.

Thirty-seven states have restrictions on indoor smoking; 24 of these are outright bans, including one in Illinois. Missouri, however, is far behind the curve. Our state has the lowest cigarette taxes in the nation and the third worst smoking rate in the nation. We have been graded as having an “F” by the American Lung Association.

In most states, bans happen progressively, starting at the local level. Here in St. Louis, the movement toward cleaner air for all is happening now. St. Louis County is the most populous county in the state of Missouri, so what we do is heard loudly in Jefferson City.

In the past few weeks, a number of scientific reports have given support to the health benefits of restricting indoor smoking. The most recent, by the Institute of Medicine (the health branch of the National Academies of Science), published Oct. 16, finds that there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke, and that even brief exposure can cause acute symptoms of lung and heart dysfunction. Another study published Sept. 21 from the University of California, San Francisco, found that in places where indoor smoking bans are passed, the rate of heart attacks drops 17 percent in the first year when compared to places without bans. This rate increases to a more than 36 percent drop over three years.

Opponents of this measure argue that it will reduce revenue for businesses with smoking customers. There is some controversy in public opinion on this topic, but the facts are clear that there is no effect on businesses. One particularly convincing study is from the University of Michigan. Their group reviewed 86 previous studies on the topic of smoking and business revenue and found that almost all high-quality studies done find no lasting economic impact of legislation eliminating indoor smoking. Think about this on a personal level: Would you be more likely to go watch the Cardinals play in a smoke-filled sports bar or a smoke-free one? Businesses will also gain revenue from the people that have been avoiding them due to their smoke-friendly policies.

Proposition N will eliminate indoor smoking in public workplaces, restaurants and more than 94 percent of establishments with liquor licenses in St. Louis County. It will go a long way toward improving the health of workers in these establishments and the health of the patrons of these businesses.

We need your help to make sure this important health measure passes! Any student interested in politics, or in the health and wellness of our area, should e-mail propn​stl@yahoo.com to get more information about upcoming events. You can also find out more by going to the Facebook site for “Citizens for a Smoke-Free County” or subscribing to the Twitter feed for “STLCleanAir.”

Last year, many of you registered to vote in St. Louis County in order to make a difference in the choice of our president. Please don’t let your civic responsibility stop there. Make a difference in the health and wellness of your fellow students and your community off campus. Vote “yes” on Proposition N on Nov. 3.

Martha is a Postdoctoral Research Scholar at the School of Medicine. She can be reached via e-mail at bhattacharyam@wusm.wustl.edu.

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.

The New Curriculum Review Committee (NCRC), chaired by Mark Rollins, professor of philosophy, recently completed its review of the proposed new curriculum. In order for the curriculum to go into effect, the proposed changes must be voted on by the ArtSci Council, which represents the Arts & Sciences student body.

In an e-mail sent to all Arts & Sciences students, the Council wrote that all students of the college can take a vote that evening following Rollins’ introduction of the proposed changes. A link to the NCRC’s final report, a document laying out the proposed changes to the curriculum, was also included in the e-mail.

According to Rollins, there are three main changes in the new curriculum: the elimination of the current cluster system, the combination of the Language & Arts (LA) distribution area and Culture & Diversity (CD) requirement into the Language and Culture (LC) distribution area and, finally, the expansion of Focus programs and small group experiences.

Replacing the clusters system will be the proposed Integrated Learning Model (ILM), which will treat primary and secondary majors, minors and freshman programs, such as Focus programs, as one way of achieving integrated study in Arts & Sciences. Students will be required to complete two forms of integrated study in addition to their major.

“When the cluster system was first implemented, the faculty had intended for it to be beneficial to the students,” Rollins said. “What we are working on now is making the curriculum more flexible for students with the Integrated Learning Model.”

Despite the complaints raised by many Arts & Sciences students about the current requirements of the Art

Sci curriculum, only nine students appeared to submit their votes on the proposed changes. All students present voted in favor of the proposed changes to the curriculum.

According to Rollins, the next two semesters will be used to prepare for the new curriculum’s implementation. The new curriculum will likely go into effect in the fall of 2010.

“The students who are already matriculated at that time will be grandfathered in [by the current curriculum requirements, not the new ones],” Rollins said.

During the ArtSci Council meeting, a few students addressed the issue of Arts & Sciences requirements being more cumbersome for current transfer students and asked how the issue would be attended to in the revised curriculum.

“There will be accommodations made [for transfer students],” Rollins said.

The overall expected impact of the proposed Arts & Sciences curriculum will include creating more natural ways to achieve integrated learning, having fewer types of requirements and offering more options for small group experiences.

The proposed changes also include the possibility of integrating Writing 1 with a freshman seminar.

“We currently and haven’t known the point of the Writing 1 course. We can’t come to a conclusion until professors can establish the purpose of the program,” Rollins said. “We are aware that people aren’t happy with the current Writing 1 program”

The Arts & Sciences faculty will vote on the revised curriculum on May 1.

Washington University students waited for up to three hours Tuesday to cast their ballots—many for the first time— and in contrast to past years, encountered few problems along the way.

While students voting in the Wohl Center stood in line for one hour to vote, voters at local churches and other locations often faced waits hours longer in the sun.

Freshman John Moynihan, a South 40 resident who went to the polls for the first time, expressed his sense of excitement in being able to vote.

“I actually did take a second to sit down and say, ‘Okay, I’m actually filling out ballot for the President of the United States’. I was glad to participate, finally,” Moyihan said.

Moynihan decided to vote in Missouri, primarily on account of what is happening in the state.

“I’m going to be living here for the next four years, so I looked more toward local issues, but [Missouri being] a swing state had something to do with it too,” he said.

Although many University students, who largely supported Sen. Barack Obama, voted as Missouri residents, others decided to vote in their home states.

Freshman Tyler Jackson, a Maryland resident, also voted as a Missouri resident in the Wohl Center. Like Moynihan, Jackson stated he voted in Missouri because he felt doing so would have more impact, as Missouri is a swing state.

Jackson did not express any dissatisfaction with the voting process.

“It was pretty easy, I didn’t have to wait long at all. I expected [waiting], but I can say I’m pleased,” Jackson said.

Although Friedman Lounge hosted only three electronic-voting machines, voting officials also made paper ballots available to student voters.

Junior Paul Cheh from Washington, D.C. said that although the voting process at Wohl generally ran smoothly, he and other student voters had to stand in line for well over an hour to cast their votes. Cheh observed about 200 people in line during the morning, even as early as 8 a.m.

“A lot of other people had the same idea to go pretty early,” he said. “It was about an hour and 15 minutes’ wait, and once you got into the polls it was pretty quick and painless.”

However, Cheh noted that voting officials may have been able to streamline the process.

“Some of the lines were a little confusing,” he said.

While students like Cheh voted as Missouri residents, others, such as junior and Maryland native Michelle Bernard, submitted absentee ballots for their home states.

Bernard, however, remained politically active on Election Day, volunteering for Democratic candidate for Missouri lieutenant governor Sam Page, who lost the race to Republican incumbent Peter Kinder.

“I didn’t really get the experience of going into the polling place, but it was fun and exciting. I think this entire election is one to remember for a lifetime,” Bernard said.

College Republican Josh Simpson, a Maryville, Missouri resident who voted absentee before Election Day, also volunteered. Simpson handed out literature for Kinder.

“It was crazy—college kids getting up at 6 a.m. to vote. And the rest of the day went pretty smoothly,” Simpson observed. “I think their voice [students’] is definitely going to be heard in this election, especially with our state in Missouri.”

While Bernard and Simpson volunteered for state candidates, Green Action member Peter Murrey, a sophomore, attempted to raise support for Propositions M and C. Proposition M, which proposed to raise funds for MetroLink, failed to pass; Proposition C, which proposed to support renewable energy sources, was approved.

Murrey, who voted at the Wohl Center, waited for one hour but found the process convenient, and was able to buy food from Bear’s Den.

“The line was very long, but it was worth it,” Murrey said. “We are going to get our voice heard, and politicians: You better be ready for it.”

In the evening, as ballots across the nation were being counted, students gathered in the Tisch Commons of the Danforth University Center to watch the results of the presidential election.

“Watching it in the DUC has been great,” said Student Union (SU) Vice President for Administration Jeff Nelson. “It’s good watching it with friends, seeing who our next president and vice president are going to be.”

Senior Yewande Alimi, SU vice president of finance, who also sat in the crowd in Tisch Commons watching the race, expressed exhilaration at seeing Sen. Barack Obama sweep the presidential race.

“This is amazing—Barack Obama is the President-Elect. The fact that, one, an African-American is the President-Elected of the United States of America, and two, that it wasn’t just black people that voted for him, and three, Barack Obama is the President of the United States,” she laughed.

Alimi added that the victory contains a personal element for her, in addition to being nationally significant.

“It’s an overwhelming amount of people saying they’re sick and tired of the crap that’s been happening. It’s time, and I think change is coming,” she said. “This is amazing to be a student, an African-American woman, to be someone who can vote in this election—this is amazing.”