Student Life Archives

About a week ago, Student Life reported on an incident in which racial discrimination was alleged in the handling of a noise disturbance violation conducted by several University City Police Department officers.

According to witnesses, WU senior Imani Cheers, who was celebrating her 22nd birthday, was informed around 1am that there were police officers outside her apartment. After being greeted by Cheers and a roommate outside of the building, two UCPD officers followed her into the apartment through her front door. They immediately instructed Cheer’s friends that the party was over and ordered them to leave, even as Cheers and her roommate insisted that they would turn the music off and keep the overall volume down. According to witnesses, the first of these officers appeared calm in comparison to the second, who was described as confrontational and aggressive. Students asking for this officer’s name and badge number were rebuffed and told, “My name is Sir.” Meanwhile, a third officer entered the apartment from the back entrance, unannounced and without permission, and also began to instruct people to leave.

Without warning, the belligerent officer suddenly grabbed Cheers, turned her around and placed her in handcuffs in front of her stunned visitors. According to students present, when alarmed guests asked what was going on, the officer informed them that he was not placing Cheer’s under arrest; rather, this was the only way to clear out the apartment. Once the apartment was cleared, the officer removed the cuffs and all three left the premises. No tickets were issued and no one was arrested.

Many students left the party understandably upset and frustrated by the night’s events and eager to know just what had gone wrong to cause the situation to spiral out of control. To further address student concerns, the Association of Black Students convened a panel involving 2 University City police officers, a WUPD officer, and a professor from WU Law School, the following week. The forum was apparently designed to not only provide more answers for its general body, but also to allow for a rare dialogue between the WUPD and UCPD communities. Although the UCPD representatives (not surprisingly) denied that Cheer’s race or college-student status played a role in this situation, they did reveal more interesting tidbits of information, like the University City City Council early this fall apparently gave a ‘mandate’ for the PD to crack down on noise violations, according to one officer.

When asked about the protocol that UCPD officers are expected to follow during any conflict, the officers stopped well short of acknowledging any wrongdoing on the part of their peers, but did offer their own interpretation of how they personally would apply this protocol. For example, according to protocol, they would not enter someone’s home unannounced. And again, according to protocol, they personally identify themselves to people when asked. And, according to protocol, they personally would never handcuff anyone unless that person was being placed under arrest.

Even though the officers at the ABS forum were careful to not implicate their peers, their interpretation of similar hypothetical situations implies that a number of UCPD officers must not interpret protocol in the same way, to put things nicely. And I’m sure that information about this protocol and varying interpretations of it may come as news to many WU students and University City residents who have had officers come into their homes without permission, and refused to ID themselves. Regardless of the alleged racial dynamic to the Cheers’ incident, many students have had issues and concerns regarding the conduct of the UCPD.

It is not unusual for tensions to exist between city residents and the college student communities that live in their neighborhoods. The concentrated student presence forces families to cope with noise and parking, and other issues exacerbated by college students, issues that affect their quality of life, ability to raise families, and the value of their property. On the flip side, students in these communities struggle to socialize, live their lives, and simply just do those things that students do in college and no place else. A struggle for equilibrium ensues, one, which at times pits the interests of city resident’s fight against student preferences. And right now it appears that students have been left with the short end of the stick.

A few months ago, Student Life issued a plea for a dialogue between these competing interests, in an effort to reach common ground. I am unsure if such a dialogue has ensued, but feel that recent incidents highlight a need for one now more than ever. Of course these community tensions exist, and UCPD is in the often-awkward position of resolving these tensions. However, it is unacceptable for officers to violate protocol in any situation, and obscene to have it done repeatedly. Assuming abuses sometimes occur, it is unfortunate that they continues because students are ill informed as to what their rights are.

The WU student-St. Louis Community relationship is an issue that is difficult to keep salient since students often move off campus and by the time they learn to deal with things they’re ready to graduate. However it is an issue that continues to resurface because students continue to move off campus, and face the brunt of policy developed by the city in response to previous residents. Perhaps a forum needs to be convened in which these incidents can be discussed, where the surrounding community can outline its expectations and student residents can learn what behavior is reasonable and acceptable, and what is and is not routine police behavior. Otherwise, this is condemned to be an issue that will only continue to resurface with each incoming class.

“As members of the Washington University community, we start from the assumption that each of us will act responsibly,” said Joel Anderson, Ph.D., assistant dean in the College of Arts & Sciences, assistant professor of philosophy and co-chair of the Committee on Alcohol. “This is in keeping with the University’s tradition of tolerance, respect for individual liberty and high expectations. But when people do not act responsibly, it is the duty of the community to re-establish those community standards.”

This quote, taken from an article written by David Moessner titled “Committee issues report on alcohol,” appeared in the March 12th, 2000 issue of the Washington University Record. This quote reflects what was, at the time, one of the most progressive thinking alcohol policies found on a university campus in the United States. I am very ashamed that after spending less than one year here at Washington University, my fellow classmates and I have so disappointed the school that they no longer believe that their school enrolls responsible adults and, instead, enrolls children who still need to have their hands held. We have obviously proven to be the bane of the existence of both the University Judicial Committee and, indirectly, the Admissions Committee. Shame on them for letting us in. Obviously, the freshman class has committed heinous crimes against nature and the only remedy is to make Washington University an effectively dry campus. While I cannot, off the top of my head, remember any of these alcohol related mass murders or binge drinking deaths, I can rest assured that they must have happened, or have they?

The February 8, 2002 edition of Student Life informed us that in order to better ensure the safety of students in a responsible atmosphere, the Washington University Committee on Alcohol (WUCA) feels that they must start actively prosecuting minors who are observed to be in possession of any type of alcohol anywhere on campus, whether it be in an open or closed container, on the quad or in their room.

These proposed changes reflect an attitude that has been quite apparent since the anti-climactic WILD of Fall 2001. The restrictions placed upon personal alcoholic beverages, combined with the notable absence of the kegs were the shots fired over the bow of the student’s ship of state, signaling the oncoming onslaught against our freedoms and liberties as autonomous, free thinking, responsible individuals. Make no mistake about it. Washington University has gathered each and every one of us up and has hung us out to dry.

When presenting the proposed changes to Vice-Chancellor James McLeod, the WUCA rationalized their position with five separate paragraphs, each one supposedly addressing a unique problem caused solely by the current alcohol policy. Were any of the problems caused by anything else, such as personal behavior or ingrained subjective more? I assume that the WUCA would have taken steps to address those extenuating circumstances, but seeing as the only changes they want to make involve increased restrictions and prosecution, I am under the full impression that they feel that this is the only change that needs to be made.

A study done by the Harvard School of Public Health comparing students at “dry” campuses to those of “wet” campuses, showed that “among drinkers, students at ban schools engaged in as much extreme drinking as drinkers at schools that do not ban alcohol and experienced the same rate of alcohol-related problems.” These results only further prove the well-established fact that societal pressures do little if anything to fundamentally change ingrained behavioral characteristics. Instead, more careful pains are taken to ensure that in the future, this type of behavior remains undiscovered and, therefore, less likely to result in punishment.

One of the most disturbing results of this response to the negative stimulus of punishment is the adverse health affects associated with binge drinking. The very type of people that this new policy is supposed to help will be, in fact, the ones who will suffer most from it. If you are currently a binge drinker, you will, more than likely, continue to binge drink after the new policy change goes into effect. The only behavior modification that you will make is to hide your behavior from those who have the authority to punish said behavior. It would be quite ironic if the very policy that was intended to serve as a remedy to our much touted high-risk drinking problem instead only increases the problems.

The recent actions of the committee misguidedly places more emphasis on enforcing stricter alcohol policies, rather than on prevention programs such as counseling to those who need it or other ways of addressing the behavior and not the material being abused.

Spring break is only a few days away and people are planning the finishing touches of what they hope will be a memorable getaway. And if you still do not have plans by now, I take it that you will be going home to visit your parents or choosing to spend your days here in St. Louis. I hate to break it to you though, if you stay in St. Louis, your spring break may be filled with cold weather and lots of rain, and current forecasts do not have temperatures going back up to a high of 53 degrees Ferenheit (still not all that hot) until next Sunday or Monday. Talk about a spring break, try winter break part deux. I, on the other hand, cannot wait for a week’s respite from this city and the university and will heading down to Mexico for fun and frolic in the sun.

Every spring since by freshman year, however, I have complained that Washington University’s spring break is too early in the calendar year. And while I commend the administration for wanting to give us a spring break that literally divides the semester in two, it would be even more appreciated to have our spring break align with the majority of other universities across the country. Not only will this ensure that I will not be in Cancun by myself (a gross exaggeration, I know) sippin’ on a margarita, but also, and perhaps more importantly, I would be able to share spring break with friends I have attending other universities.

I have heard from a couple of people, including some administrators, that the academic calendar was so early this year, with the first day of classes on January 4th, because of a Jewish holiday, Shavuot, that occurs on May 17-18, the weekend that would have been commencement exercises. Estimates predicted that approximately 10% of the graduating population and their families would not be able to attend the commencement exercises.

While this year might be chalked up as an atypical year, WU has consistently had comparatively earlier spring breaks than most other universities. I can recall the spring of 1999, when the Friday beginning spring break was on February 26th!! While I am not privy to all of the details that go into the calendar planning decisions nor have I served on the university academic calendar planning committee, things like having a spring break beginning in February seem a little ridiculous to me.

The timing of spring break is not the only calendar scheduling with which I have issue. I also find fall break, or rather fall day, to be a pretty worthless break. It’s really more of a tease than anything else. For one, business school students already routinely have Fridays off and for the general student body population, having only a day off does not allow students to plan for trips outside of town. At the very least, fall break should be two weekdays long, probably a Thursday/Friday since the university tries to balance the number of Monday/Wednesday/Friday classes with the Tuesday/Thursday classes.

Reading week period as it stands right now extends from Monday to Wednesday for most undergraduate divisions. If you happen to be an engineer, however, reading week is scaled down to only the Tuesday and Wednesday. With an undeniably intense final exam schedule and some students having two or more finals scheduled for the same day, reading week needs to be just that, a week.

Exam week can be extremely hectic and by and large, students would complain that they do not have enough time to prepare for comprehensive finals in a matter of a day or two. A longer reading week might illicit more procrastination but students who use their time constructively would greatly welcome the extra time to get a little more studying done.

Given that the university has to make sure that we have enough total days of classes, I am even willing to sacrifice coming to school in the middle rather than the latter part of August and be able to get more days off during the middle of the semester when the going gets really tough.

Perry Dougherty, Beth Leonhardt, Jay Newman, and Andy Kennedy
“We are going to Cuba with Professor Joe “Pepe” Schraibmen. We are going to sunbath on Varadero Beach, check out the clubs, theater, music, and arts of his Pepe’s old stomping ground. ”

Nick Adams, Class of 2002
“I would take Professor Canfield to a nude beach in the south of Spain to research the anthropological significance of nudism in Latino culture. ”

Orin Gershon, Class of 2004
“I would take Omar from Bear’s Den and my Japanese 103 professor Itomitsu to New Orleans. Omar because he always does me right on the grill, and Professor Itomitsu so that we can order shots in Japanese. Sake-Bombs Baby!”

Tim Williamson, Class of 2002
“I would take Professor Will Smith from my ‘Oceans and Atmosphere’ class to Miami to get jiggy with it.”

The unthinking rhetoric of self-love
To the Editor:

The opinion pages here often contain evidence of a dangerous tendency, that of emotion without thought. Take the opinion piece on the 22nd telling me to love my body. As with most such exhortations, it is lacking in thoughtful qualification. Am I supposed to love everything about my body?

Am I supposed to love my allergy to cats, an animal I greatly enjoy? Am I supposed to love my allergy to bee stings, which could kill me? According to the opinion, I am supposed to try to be satisfied with my body. However, I’m not. I don’t like the fact that I can count my ribs by looking in the mirror. The unthinking rhetoric of self-love overlooks the fact that dissatisfaction is a survival tactic when one is dissatisfied with ill-health. A slogan such as “love your body” is rallying emotion without thought, and that is a dangerous thing.

That opinion was not an isolated incident. That very same day there was an opinion pointing out that the US government has lied about various things during the drug war. Fact: The government has lied. Emotion: The drug war is based solely upon lies. Missing thought: Just because some statements are false does not mean that they all are. If you will not believe the politicians, will you believe the clinical studies? If you will believe neither the politicians nor the scientists, who will you believe?

It seems that, by rousing our anger at having been lied to and our resultant cynicism, the opinion was bypassing the thought which must accompany important matters. I could go on and provide more examples, but I think that my point is understood even if it isn’t agreed with. Emotion without thought can be every bit as dangerous as thought without emotion.

Please, think before you speak.

M. Alan Thomas II
English & Creative Writing
Class of 2004

Using scripture to distort truth
To the Editor:

This is a response to Mr. Stahler’s Opinion piece in last Friday’s edition. I think he brings up several points in his satirical piece that are worth noting. I would have to agree with him when he encourages those “who are confused over issues of morality, simply thumb through its pages and locate the appropriate passages.” If you disagree with how someone quotes scripture or uses it in a way to support their preconceived notion, then look for yourself.

I would also have to suggest that you look at passages in context in order to apprecaite their true meaning. I take God’s word very literally because I do not want to have to face Him on the Day of Judgement and tell Him that I thought He really did not mean those things He said. I feel that Mr. Stahler distorts the truth by lifting quotes to prove a point of his. I agree that homosexuality is a sin because of the verse in Leviticus that he quotes (Lev. 18:22). However, I do not believe that “God Hates Fags,” as some religious fundamentalists have proclaimed. God has nothing but love and compassion for homosexuals, as well as liars, murderers, adulterers, etc. In fact, He loves the whole world despite the fact that we all are sinners.

Mr. Stahler lifts a quote from Hosea to “prove” that God is a “rabid abortionist.” If you were to read the rest of Hosea you would see God’s love for His people Israel and His desire for them to return to Him. I believe this applies to all God’s creation, Jew and Gentile alike. But our sin separates us from God. The central message of the Bible is God’s love for all of us. He loves us so much he put the sins of the world upon his Son, Jesus the Messiah, so that all we must do is follow Him and we are forgiven.

Mr. Stahler, that may be a literalist approach to the Bible, but then again it is the Word of God. If anyone disagrees with me, check the scriptures for yourself.

Jonathan Buchanan
Arts and Sciences
Class of 2002

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a non-profit organization committed to “academic freedom, excellence and accountability at America’s colleges and universities” has recently undergone both praise and criticism for their recent report following September 11, Defending Civilization: How our universities are failing America and what can be done about it. The report outlines what ACTA calls “Un-American” activities on university campuses nationwide, both by students and by faculty, citing instances here at WU. Further, ACTA seeks to implement the eradication of such sentiment through its influential donations of over $3.4 billion annually.

The organization, headed by Senator Joeseph Lieberman and Lynne Cheney among others, is acting in direct contradiction to its own mission statement, and students, alumni, and those in charge of capital campaigns here at WU should neither fund nor accept funds from ACTA as well as, in part, accept ACTA’s overarching challenge: do not believe everything you read about the war.

The Bush administration recently created the Office of Strategic Information, a small but well-financed Pentagon office designed to bolster public support overseas for America’s war on terrorism, particularly in Islamic countries. One of OSI’s tactics thus far has been dropping leaflets and broadcasting pro-America messages into Afghanistan while it was still under Taliban rule. Headed by Brig. Gen. Simon P. Warden, OSI has admitted that one of its tactics of bolstering support is “misinformation,” the practice of sending false news releaeses to foreign presses and sending phony email forwards at home and abroad espousing rhotoric supportive of the war or point out negative aspects of “unfriendly governments.”

ACTA, the US government, and closed-minded professors nationwide all embody the sub-war on terrorism: the information war. While one person’s intentions behind misleading another regarding the war may be personal ideology and another’s may be reelection, either way it is imperitive that students show resilliency to propaganda. Being passionate about the war is perfectly acceptable, so long as the proper research is done to combat close-minded propagandists found in the Pentagon, in the classroom, and behind multi-million dollar donations to universities seeking to change curriculum.

The university as a whole should undertake this challenge against mis-information as well. Colleges have long stood as bastions of progressive thought, where intellectuals and researches challenge norms and purported facts. If our own government has admitted to not being the source of the truth about what’s going on in Afghanistan, then it is the responsibility of the university, even undergraduate students, to be skeptical of rheotric, either in support or against the war on terrorism.

Sources: http://www.goacta.org
The New York Times 02.24.2002

ACTA cited examples of unacceptable, un-American activity on college campuses

“The United States would have done the right thing [by not going to war]: responding as a responsible member of the international community rather than as a vigilante gunslinger in the old West, riding out to capture the bad guys and bring them back dead or alive.”
Faculty forum on alternatives to war,
Washington University in St. Louis.
“There is a terrible and understandable desire to find and punish whoever was responsible for this. But as we think about it, it’s very important for Americans to think about our own history, what we did in World War II to Japanese citizens by interning them.”
Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School,
Princeton University.
“What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!”
Chant at Harvard rally,
Sept. 20, 2001.
“An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.”
Student sign at Harvard rally,
Sept. 20, 2001.
Percentage of the American public who feel that we should take military action even if casualties occur: 82%.
Percentage of Harvard students who feel the same: 82%
JFK School of Government Survey

Home of ACTA: www.goacta.org