Student Life Archives

On Monday night, the College Democrats sponsored a forum for representatives from different political parties on campus to discuss the timely issue of national security. At the well-attended and well-intentioned forum, members of Campus Greens, College Democrats, College Republicans, College Libertari-ans, and the Conservative Leadership Association met to debate the actions of the Bush administration.

However, attendees of the “debate” were likely surprised to hear that the position presented by the College Democrats Monday evening was fundamentally the same as the position presented by the Campus Greens. Perhaps, upon leaving the forum, liberal students who identify with Democrats were at ease, feeling aligned with their party’s seemingly liberal stance. As Greens, we were certainly happy to hear their words of solid agreement, and thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to participate. But let us be absolutely clear: the position voiced by the College Democrats is not the position of the Democratic Party. It seems that on our campus, the Democrats are confused. So too is their national representation.

Donkeys between two hay stacks

While Democrats have historically differed from Republicans in terms of domestic issues, such as reproductive rights and education, American politics since September 11 have given rise to a steady collapse of differences between the parties. In a frightened haste to avoid appearing unpatriotic, Democrats have begun to vote Republican. Indeed, the past year has not confirmed a movement of politicians to the center but a distinct movement to the right. A two-party system cannot adequately serve a representative democracy when it conforms to one ideology.

A perfect example of a supposed Democrat who, by her voting record of the past year, would clearly appear to be a Republican is Senator Jean Carnahan. On the WU campus, the College Democrats are a popular and well-funded student group. In St. Louis, this group used its numbers to provide Senator Carnahan with the endorsement and the labor to aid her campaign for re-election. If the representative of the College Democrats who spoke Monday night truly represents his group, why did that same group support a candidate whose position is so blatantly opposite of what College Dems believe? Monday night, the Democrats condemned the war in Afghanistan, the USA/PATRIOT Act, and the impending war in Iraq. Senator Carnahan, on the other hand, voted in favor of all these acts. By her voting record, she has expressed support for an unending and unsubstantiated war which has taken 3,959 civilian lives; a widespread suppression of civil liberties, which allows to government to wiretap without legal proceedings and classify individuals as terrorists on the basis of what books they take out of the public library; and an offensive war that will only serve to further destabilize the most volatile region of the world.

Right they are?

Senator Carnahan is not alone in her rush to the right, and her party’s turn is exactly why it suffered such a profound defeat in the midterm elections two weeks ago. Since September 11, Democrats have consistently failed to serve as a counterweight to Republican legislation-failing to build a strong enough, or any, coalition to block passage of the authorization of force in Afghanistan or Iraq or the eradication of civil liberties. In the Democratic Senate, only one Senator voted “no” on the USA/PATRIOT Act. Having clearly demonstrated that they have not learned their lesson from Election Day, House Democrats just last week allowed the Homeland Security Act to pass, with 87 Democrats voting “aye” to a 500-plus page bill that literally provides for post office boxes in Bermuda for companies wishing to avoid corporate taxes. It goes without saying that the Democratic Party has forgotten what it professes to stand for.

Voting rates in the United States represent less than half of the people living in this country and with good reason: for a liberal, there is no one to vote for. As Democrats have worked vigorously to move to the right, the left has worked vigorously to stop voting. However, not voting is the surest way to prohibit progressive change. Instead of turning away from the polls in disgust, liberals need a party to turn to. In the United States and at WU, the Green Party serves as the only major political party that supports both a protection of civil liberties at home and non-isolationist, yet non-patronizing, provision of humanitarian aid abroad.

When a democratic two-party system frighteningly collapses into an increasingly fascist one, it takes a progressive third party to represent the un-represented. In current American politics, the truly liberal position-the position articulately voiced by the College Democrats and the Campus Greens Monday night-is that of the Green Party.

“Life causes cancer,” goes a common crack. What’s worse, cell phones do, too. Or do they? The large number of studies suggesting that the invisible wavelets carrying our chatter may someday shut us up has yet to prevent many college students from using the phones. Anyway, these studies are usually inconclusive, and some are in dispute. No reason to give up the little Ericssons yet.

But cell phones are convenient, fun things-and condoms are not. The front page article in the last issue of Student Life (“Condom users are more depressed, study finds,” Nov. 19) has got to have pleased most guys. Men launch thousands of unilateral campaigns against the latex every day. Now, finally, a scientist was on their side.

Actually, unlike the article itself, the headline was a bit too zealous. The study purported to show that something in the semen makes women less depressed and also reduces their tendency to kill themselves. In fact, it showed neither. The verdicts were based almost entirely on correlation, which, as every statistics professor’s epitaph might as well read, does not imply causation. In the case of the effect of natural sex on suicide rate, the researchers couldn’t even demonstrate a good correlation. And they ignored several possible confounding variables, including what type of oral contraception the subjects used. Different types of pill either raise or lower women’s hormone levels (and therefore affect their mental state).

As if the parade of medical professionals criticizing the findings were not enough, Gordon Gallup, the head of the study, came out and told Salon.com that “these data are only suggestive … they’re hardly conclusive.” He later told the NYU student newspaper that he was not concerned with practical applications of his study-an amazing thing to say, considering that practical applications (whatever form they may take) were what made this study so appealing. Who to blame for the hoopla? The media, Gallup cheerily suggested, and then launched into a short lecture about the dangers of unprotected sex.

Now you’re telling us

So the findings are bunk-but you still have to pity the health educators at WU. They had just had a starlet of sorts and a former WU student, Cara Kahn, come and talk about overcoming depression. Student Life even splashed the story on the front page last Friday (the picture of Ms. Kahn and her rouged cheekbones didn’t hurt). And now, just four days later, another page-one headline made it seem that one of the health habits the Office of Health and Wellness is so busy promoting-putting on a condom-may actually be tied to depression in women.

And what if the study was not so flawed? Contradiction in research data is something the health educators have to deal with all the time. Take the drug they love to attack-Ecstasy. Barely a month after one study claimed that the active ingredient in E, MDMA, may lead to Parkinson’s disease, another study argued that it could be “the key to better treatments for the Parkinson’s disease,” according to an article in the New Scientist magazine. Parkinson’s is a neurological disorder that causes uncontrollable tremors in arms and legs, and hence, it is a real bogey for ravers. This column criticized the methodology used in the first study, and the second study, which could end up contradicting the first, might yet come under attack itself. Still, neither has been rebuked, and for now, both findings stand-Ecstasy could cause Parkinson’s, or it could help treat it. Or both.

The dilemma health advisors face is how much of this to tell the students. On the one hand, they can’t cite every study in the brochure-size literature they put out. Saying E could cause Parkinson’s-then adding that, alternatively, it could help treat it-does not make for a persuasive alarm. But presenting only one side to intelligent students would probably diminish the health educators’ credibility. Already, students have learned that E is not as bad as the media and their health counselors have portrayed it.

So the WU health and wellness folks have not launched a mass campaign on drug education at all. The reason for this, says Melissa Ruwitch, a coordinator, is that they won’t participate in any effort that implies that drug use can be safe. It’s hard to think of one which won’t imply that. Already, prospective freshmen see in substance-free dorms like Beaumont a tell-tale sign of how wet this campus really is. Further, for every drug-related fatality the health pamphlets present, students will recall countless sublime moments they’ve had or have heard of, that ended with no serious consequence-and will weigh the risks with a heavy doze of young optimism.

Health educators here would counsel students about drug use, sex and other fun stuff. But they won’t insult their intelligence. In her comments on the condom study, Stephanie Habif, a health educator, was careful not to sound preachy. In the end, it’s the female students who turned out to be sharpest critics of the findings. They could think for themselves just fine.

Focus groups do benefit WU

To the editor:

I am the lead researcher on the focus group study recently conducted on small crowds at Wash U sports events. I found your editorial criticizing the study misguided and misinformed.
First, you suggest that, by conducting the study, the university is “disparaging the low attendance of sporting events” while it should be “celebrating the high attendance at cultural events.” By acknowledging the former, you are in no way criticizing the successes of the latter.
Second, you indicate that with this research, “Shugoll may be looking for a problem that… is not severe as the administration might think it is.” Neither the university nor Shugoll Research suggested that there is a “problem.” Rather, we both looked at the issue of increasing sports attendance as an opportunity to positively impact student life.
Third, you suggest that the research will identify predictable reasons why students do not attend sports events at Wash U like “students consider themselves too busy.” Predictable, perhaps, but accurate, no. Students did not say the reason for lack of attendance was that they are too busy studying or doing other things. It might also surprise you to learn another finding of the study: most students would love to see sports play a more integral part in student life.
Fourth, you suggest that “the survey method itself was somewhat flawed” because the times the focus groups were held would “make it difficult to include the ‘involved’ students.” This is untrue. Students filled out a “screening questionnaire.” Only students who are “involved” in campus life at Wash U were allowed to participate in the focus groups.
Fifth, you say Wash U “could have enlisted many (campus) departments. to compile the data.” While student conducted surveys have many educational benefits, they cannot compare to having a professional, nationally known research company conduct the research. Further, Shugoll Research has conducted this type of research for many other universities, as well as professional sports teams and leagues, with great success.
Finally, as far as we know, no university department offered to conduct research on this topic for Wash U. Shugoll Research, acknowledged as one of the most charitable small to midsize businesses in the country, volunteered to conduct this study pro bono for the university. You indicate that Wash U should be embraced because its students care about academic achievement and community service. In the same spirit, shouldn’t you embrace, rather than criticize, the efforts of a professional research company that attempted to give something valuable back to the Wash U community at no cost?

Mark Shugoll, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer, Shugoll Research
Cara Con: marketing Effexor

To the editor:

When I read the article on Cara Kahn’s appearance to speak to students about the dangers of depression I was happy to see she was involved in such a well-intentioned endeavor. I decided to check out the Web site of the program to which the tour is part of. The Go On And Live (GOAL) program is “designed to help educate people about depression and recognize that the right treatment can assist them in overcoming depression, allowing them to rediscover the joys in their lives”.
As I was reviewing the site, I was surprised to find that a sponsor of the program was Wyeth Incorporat-ed. Wyeth is a giant in the pharmaceutical industry. It produces Effexor, the drug Cara takes and talked about on “The Real World,” and is one of the largest manufacturers of anti-depressants. I thought it incongruous that a pharmaceutical company which sells an anti-depressant would underwrite a college tour to “educate” students about the dangers of depression.
My concern is that this tour, which offers free depression screenings, may be a campaign to discover new customers. It is estimated that U.S. drug companies sold $12.2 billion in anti-depressants last year. That is big business. Cara said, “I wanted to do something remotely good for the community.” Well, don’t get fooled into believing that this is strictly a community service project of hers. She is being paid by Wyeth to be the spokeswoman for the 10-college tour. Although Wyeth and Cara have not disclosed how much she is being paid, I can imagine she’s being paid well. I’m sure that Wyeth wasn’t handing out samples and Effexor t-shirts. Wyeth and Cara will say that selling their drug is not the intention of the forum. I’m just a little wary of how influential this forum may be on students who have a lot of issues to deal with while in college.
The dangers of depression are serious and prevalent on college campuses. There is also a danger in convincing students that expensive anti-depressants are the solution to as Cara said, “fully enjoying life and college beyond depression.” These drugs can have severe side effects and should be used with other forms of treatment. The GOAL website states that approximately 1.5 million college students are experiencing depression in college. The goal of GOAL is to use this forum to bring out into the open the issue of depression in the growing market of college campuses. Cara Kahn is a well-known person on college campuses who has battled depression with the help of an anti-depressant drug. Is she a model of the young adult overcoming adversity, or is she a commercial?

Michael Kempf
Class of 2002
Robert Fisk is not anti-Semitic

To the editor:

Dr. Stephen Lefrak’s explicit association of the ideas of journalist Robert Fisk with Nazism fits in well with other inflammatory remarks Fisk daily receives in response to his columns in the British newspaper The Independent and which he recounted to a packed audience in Graham Chapel last week. To describe Fisk as an anti-Semite is far more than dismissive; it is libelous. As one of the students who had the privilege to hear Mr. Fisk and to eat lunch with him afterwards, I could not let pass such an inaccurate presentation without voicing my opposition. I am not alone in respecting Mr. Fisk’s courageous and experienced voice on the Middle East. Dr. Lefak fails to mention that after his lecture at Graham Chapel, Mr. Fisk received a standing ovation. Also, unlike most (and perhaps all) other lecturers who speak at the Assembly Series, Fisk was not paid for his speech because he refuses to accept money for speaking engagements. At least on that point I can console Professor Lefrak, since university funds were not used to bring to campus someone he falsely read as speaking a message of hate.

Jill Wooten
Graduate Student
Department of History

Fisk did not blame victims

To the editor:

Professor Stephen Lefrak (“Fisk blamed the victims,” Nov. 19) and I must have attended different talks by Robert Fisk. Fisk did not reduce the attacks of September 11 to a single cause, nor did he blame the victims of those attacks. He repeatedly referred to the attacks as a crime against humanity and went out of his way to condemn them. Rather, he encouraged us to think past the usual reductionism offered by Bernard Lewis or Stephen Huntington as to the inherent pathology of the ‘Arab mind,’ and to ask reasonably whether there are elements in United States’ foreign policy and in American and European journalism that might contribute both to anti-American sentiments abroad and to our own unwillingness to consider them dispassionately.
He did not ask us, as Professor Lefrak suggests, to blame the victims of the attacks, for surely those people did nothing to encourage them. He did ask us to examine how our government’s narrow focus on pursuing ‘national interests’ may have led it to support oppressive policies in the Middle East and elsewhere that encouraged anti-American sentiments. To do so is not to blame the victims, but to attempt to honor them by insuring that what happened to them may never happen again. To ask “why?” is not to forgive a criminal act, but to attempt to understand and perhaps eliminate the causes that may have led to the act.
Nor did Fisk offer an anti-Semitic explanation for 9/11. At the risk of stating the obvious (since it is obviously lost on Professor Lefrak), to question the policies of the Israeli government, or to question our government’s support of those policies, is not inherently anti-Semitic. To suggest otherwise is an affront to critical thinkers, Jewish and otherwise (and Israeli and otherwise), who have reasonably argued that Israeli policies of occupation, assassination, and military violence against civilians-and U.S. support for those policies-are fueling Islamic rage and providing recruits for fundamentalist violence. To repeat: to be critical of Israel is not necessarily to be an anti-Semite. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in the propagandistic hate-mongering that Professor Lefrak decries.
Finally, if Professor Lefrak wishes to invite speakers such as Bernard Lewis or Fouad Ajami to Washington University, he should do so. No one is stopping him.

Nicholas Sammond
Mellon Post-Doctoral Fellow

SL should endorse candidates

To the editor:

Student Life did a great disservice to itself and the WU community by failing to endorse candidates and issues on the Nov. 5 ballot. It’s the publication’s responsibility to voice its support so as to increase campus awareness about contenders and issues. While endorsements are often biased, many people rely on a credible publication to support a candidate or proposition that it, as an entity, feels will best represent its readership. Every item endorsement that I’ve read presents opposing sides of the issue at hand, and each candidate endorsements that I’ve seen states the pluses and minuses of every contender (including members of third parties). In each of these cases, the endorsing body logically arrives at a conclusion based on the reasons why this candidate or that proposition will best suit the community.
We live in a nation of opinions. If the paper doesn’t want to partake in political side-choosing, then it might as well cease printing an opinion page all together. In the past, Student Life columnists have tackled politically-driven issues such as homosexuality, civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy. If the editorial board comments on these topics, why does it stop short of dissecting the candidacies of those who will directly influence these issues? Opinionated columns are informational and essential, but the reality is that, long term, they accomplish little. The board should have expended its time, money, and paper supporting the candidates who actually have the ability to make a difference and the issues that will affect the WU community on a daily basis.
Voter turnout in America is at all-time low. Fewer than four people out of ten voted on Nov. 5. One of the contributors to this problem is that the public is uneducated. Endorsements might not be the best solution, but they are a move in the right direction, as readers are able to engage in an electoral crash course about candidates and issues. Reading an endorsement can prompt otherwise unmotivated people to vote, and while some argue one vote does not matter, I strongly disagree. Whether it be on the St. Louis county council, Capitol Hill, or even the high court of the United States (which may ultimately be affected by this month’s elections), one vote can make a staggering difference.
Our paper choked. We were hardly motivated to vote this month, and I find the fact appalling. Its intrinsic upon a respected publication, as a collection of news and opinion, to inform as to why one candidate over another is better qualified to meet the needs of its readers. Student Life did not fulfill this obligation, and the WU community suffered.

Aaron Gordon
Class of 2004
Arts and Sciences

Gay concerns misrepresented

To the editor:

Marla, while I appreciate your empathy for gay students on this campus, I must admit that nearly all of your op-ed in last Friday’s Student Life was embarrassingly flawed. Almost everything on which you based your claims was either attributed to the wrong people, egregiously misinterpreted, or vastly over-generalized.
You say “only the heterosexual community considered the [tossing of a giant inflatable penis at the Big Gay Picnic] abnormal and menacing,” and that this shamed “members of the gay community…in their attempt to express their sexuality in open, healthy ways.” First of all, many gay men found the inflatable penis thing very abnormal and menacing-abnormal because, hey, do people really go around tossing giant inflatable penises that often? And menacing because many of us worried that all gay men, not just those at the event, would have their image tarnished by such a perverse display. And do you really think that tossing a giant inflatable penis was an “open, healthy” way for gay guys to “celebrate their sexuality” and “express their strength and solidarity?” If a bunch of [straight] frat boys who were feeling sexually frustrated one day went into the quad and tossed around a giant inflatable vagina, would you describe their actions with similar praise?
Next, you compliment gays for “their commitment to educating the public about rape education [and] their volunteering efforts throughout the past year.” Wow, I educated the public about rape, and volunteered? I didn’t even know! My gay friends and I, none of whom participated in such activities, must have been sleepwalking at the time.
Next, you erroneously claim that, in the article about sex in campus bathrooms, Student Life portrayed the sexual behavior of gay men as “dangerous and dirty.” You also claim that SHCS spokeswoman Anita Brown “accuses many gay men of being rapists with AIDS” and that Student Life indirectly “accuses Spectrum of harboring rapists.” Way to misinterpret, Marla! What grade did you get in E-Comp, F minus? The root of your errors is that you didn’t make the distinction between some and all. Yeah, some gay guys have sex in public bathrooms. But just because Student Life and SHCS describe such acts as unsafe and dangerous [as such acts are], it doesn’t mean that they’re insulting all gay men.
With your op-ed piece, the opinion section of Student Life has reached a new low. While previous articles had served to intelligently explain and elucidate the topic of gays at Wash U, yours just made readers more likely to misinterpret and misunderstand it. You probably think that you’re a “straight ally,” but this tendency to rant and whine, to rashly accuse people of being “homophobic” without considering the context, just makes the situation worse for us. Thanks.

Chris Berresford
Class of 2002

Annabelle de St. Maurice

Yale University and Stanford University recently announced that they are ending their binding early-decision programs. These programs benefit schools more than students, and Washington University should end its program as well.

Binding early decision benefits colleges by allowing them to admit a number of students who are excited about going to that particular school and are not contemplating the merits of multiple universities. Students who apply early decision in the fall of their senior year of high school are obligated to attend that university if accepted.

It is unethical for the university to endorse a program which favors prospective students who come from backgrounds where parents and guidance counselors actively funnel them into early decision programs to increase their chances of admission. These students get an unfair advantage over other students who have to worry more about how much financial aid they will be receiving than their likelihood of getting in their first choice.

Nanette Tarbouni, WU director of admissions, said that WU stands by its early decision program. Most of the applications now sitting in South Brookings are from high school seniors who applied Early Decision I to WU. They will be notified of their admitted, wait-listed, or rejected status by Dec. 15. Often, students who apply early to their first choice, but are not admitted, use the Early Decision II option at WU. This option is also binding, but the deadline is January 1 for a Jan. 15 notification of admitted status. WU should end both Early Decision I and II programs.

As it stands now, the early-decision program is especially advantageous for a school such as WU, which suffers from a lower than desirable yield. (The “yield” is the percent of accepted students who matriculate.) Many of the students who apply to WU also apply to Ivy League universities, and when accepted, they go to New Haven or Providence instead of St. Louis.

According to a James Fallows of The Atlantic Monthly, WU is an example of a smaller private school-such as Brandeis, Connecticut College, Emory, Tufts, and Wesleyan-that uses the early decision option to “lock up their freshman class.”

Furthermore, a study done at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government found that applying early decision at a sample of 14 prestigious universities was equivalent to adding 100 points to one’s SAT score.

WU has many strategies for increasing the number of admitted students that choose to attend. Scholarship programs in all five undergraduate colleges lure high-achieving high school seniors. Binding early-decision programs do so, too. When WU accepts someone through the early-decision program, it can rest assured that its most recently admitted student is not going to run off to Harvard or Princeton.

Schools like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, which now offer non-binding early-admission programs, have much less incentive to offer a binding program. After all, these schools do not suffer from low yield. Harvard’s yield of admitted students that matriculate is 79 percent, leaps and bounds ahead of every other school in the nation, including WU.

Last December, Yale President Richard Levin sparked a national controversy when he decried the institution of early-decision. He can afford to put his money where his mouth is when criticizing binding early-decision programs. Yale does not need to worry about losing too many of its early-admitted students.

Can WU afford to end its early-decision programs? Regard-less of the potential drop in yield that could accompany abandoning binding early-decision, one thing remains clear: the program gives an unfair advantage to those students with more monetary resources. Only these students can apply to their top choice without worrying about the high cost of attending college.

Frequently, students choose not to apply early to college because they want to wait to hear from many schools so that they can weigh different financial aid packages. Students who apply early do not have that advantage. Though they can appeal for more aid, students admitted early too often have to take whatever financial package is given to them in December.

At WU and other universities, students admitted through early decision have peace of mind by winter break of their senior years. Those universities, too, have peace of mind because they knew that they have a large number of intelligent, motivated students as part of the next freshman class. Finally, the administrators have peace of mind because they know the early-decision programs make WU’s yield higher and raise WU in the national rankings.

Students without the resources to make an early-decision application practically are left waiting while privileged students know their status by December. WU must drop early-decision programs, which favor some students over others.