Student Life Archives

Recently, WU Solidarity for Israel (WSI) has been circulating a petition. It reads, “We, the undersigned, members of the Washington University community, support Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, and we promote the continuation of the strong US-Israel relationship.”

The purpose of this petition is straightforward: it is meant to reaffirm that a Jewish state has a right to exist and that the U.S. should maintain close ties with Israel. The biased, anti-Israel media and a general ignorance about Israel and the situation there has made people afraid of making commitment to that country. I hope that this fear does not deter people from signing WSI’s petition. By signing this petition, members of the WU community support democracy and the right of the Jewish people to live in their own land.

The main reason that there is so much controversy surrounding Israel’s right to exist is because it involves the Jewish people. It involves the same Jewish people who, over the generations, lived as sub-citizens and were scapegoated by their host countries. Although this anti-Semitism is more latent now, it has instead manifested itself in the form of anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is another means of bringing Jews back to their accepted status of victim in their host countries.

Martin Luther King, Jr. clearly explains the relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in his “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend.” He writes, “Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them… And what is anti-Zionism? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.”

While we are constantly questioning Israel’s right to exist, the statehoods of Argentina, Germany, or even Iraq are inherently understood. As King suggests, we question Israel’s right to exist because it is equivalent to the Jewish people’s right to exist.

Although much anti-Zionism in the United States is a result of anti-Semitism, it also stems directly from the anti-Israeli media that portrays Israel as the big bad giant. Across the nation, newspapers and magazines write articles and print photos that are biased against Israel. For example, the Chicago Tribune consistently prints photographs that depict Israel as aggressive and violent. Unfortunately, people do not question the veracity of this type of depiction or attempt to learn about the situation the photo represents. It is no wonder that too many U.S. citizens feel that the existence of a state of Israel is a threat. The truth is that Israel is not a threat. We should not be afraid to support Israel.

By supporting Israel we are supporting democracy. In a sea of oppressive governments, Israel stands as the only democracy in the Middle East. This common value of democracy, among others, has allied us with Israel since its statehood in 1948. It should continue to do so. By maintaining a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, the United States does not necessarily need to condone and support all of the actions taken by Israel. For example, President Bush has denounced various Israeli military action throughout the past two years of conflict. Nonetheless, the U.S.-Israel relationship must exist. While we still remain allies with other democracies, with whose policies we do not always agree, we are constantly questioning our relationship with Israel. There should be no question here. We must continue it.

Now, we have the opportunity to voice our support for both the existence of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. This opportunity is WSI’s petition.

In certain circles, it’s actually become cool to be out of college and jobless. Sure, everybody wants to rule the world, but to say, “I’m unemployed” has a certain cache that “I work as an administrative assistant” doesn’t.

The reason why it is cool to be unemployed stems from a few factors. One, you didn’t look for jobs while you were in college; two, you didn’t get any job offers; and three, you’re just not willing to settle for a position as busboy at your local deli. Your parents are probably paying for your food and rent, so you really don’t have any motivation to seek employment, and you feel that you’re entitled to a year or two away from brainwork.

Let’s face it: it’s cool to be lazy, and if you’re not lazy, the job market is still terrible, so it doesn’t matter. It’s not cool to look for a job while you’re in school. And it’s cool not to have a job when you’re out of school… at least for a while. I’ve looked into this, and I’ve found that the only problem is that you cannot start getting unemployment checks until after you’ve been employed for a while. It’s like a Catch-22. If you have a job out of college, it’s either because you actually sent out your resumes early in your last semester, or because your dad got you a job. Your peers see both avenues as lame. So, if you want to be cool, don’t look for a job-ever. Just sit in your apartment, play Sims, and order in Chinese food.

Jobs are so uncool. If you have a job, that means you’re, like, old or something. You might as well start listening to Phil Collins and drinking decaffeinated coffee from International House. Su, Su, Sudia…you catch my drift. So what can you do? How about grad school? You can just go to a university where all of the undergrads will think you’re lame for not having found an incredible career path straight out of college that you wanted to stick to forever. You could go abroad and do the whole backpacking across Europe thing and get hit on by tons of Greek and Spanish men in techno clubs and drink black coffee all day, Malibu and Fanta all night.

But why look beyond the confines of your own apartment? You can order DVDs online and begin to explore the cinematic world while eating Orville whatever 97 percent fat-free popcorn. You can read Cosmo and Maxim, while playing Quake, or even Wario. The list goes on and on. But don’t take my word for it-talk to recently unemployed WU students. In fact, there really should be a panel of them to speak at an Assembly Series. In addition to the Career Center, we should have an “Unemployed Center,” because unemployed is what a lot of recent WU grads are right now.

The Unemployed Center could have daily group sessions where unemployed grads get together and discuss how to find free refreshments around town, the best way to approach your parents about sending you money, and computer hacking. Instead of holding an “Etiquette Dinner,” they could hold an “Etiquette for Continuous Snacking.” Also, you could have the chance to network with other unemployed WU graduates. The business cards would look a little different, since they would be made of mainly napkins (maybe with sweet and sour sauce stains) and the backs of receipts. Why not just embrace unemployment?

The sarcastic tone of this column is meant to convey that something needs to be done about the fact that WU students who have worked their butts off for the duration of their education are not finding jobs in their fields of interest. Here’s one suggestion that could contribute to remedying the situation: in addition to looking for jobs, people can start being their own bosses and embark on some sort of individual projects, or entrepreneurship in conjunction with other graduates-it’s good for us, and it will help create more jobs. It would be even better if there were a board created by WU of people who were willing to invest in recently graduated WU students. There would be a careful process in which they filter the feasible ideas from the absolutely ludicrous ones that are obviously jokes (like most of this column), so there would be very little risk factor. That way, instead of playing Minesweeper all day, we could be designing the inner workings of the next great video game for future generations.

All of my adoring fans out there, and those “haters” who christened me “that porn guy,” will probably remember the prediction I made at the beginning of the year in my column about online file sharing. The restrictions on it prevented me from finding digital companionship (read: porn) and I was pretty lonely.

I predicted that the odds of me finding female companionship before Christ-mas/Hanukah/Kwanzaa vacation were about the same as my hometown heroes, the Kansas City Chiefs, have of making the Super Bowl. As of today, the Chiefs are 6-6 and are ranked last in the AFC West. Well, I can only wish I had 50-50 luck with the fine fine ladies here.

As we all know, dating at WU is practically non-existent. Most people here consider themselves too busy to invest time in a relationship with another person. I consider Thanksgiving the two-minute warning of the fall semester, and I decided that I needed to kick it up a notch and find a girl. When I need advice, I always turn to Student Life because it’s cool like that. I picked up a copy and saw an article on online dating. (“Students shy away from online dating,” Nov. 22). When I read what freshman Ethan Arpi said, I knew that I was gonna score. “If someone can’t get a date normally, it seems to me they will go online to get one.” Good advice from a true pimp.

When I got back to my crib, I poured myself some Remy Martin XO, put on some Easy E, and started lookin’ for a shorty. The first place I checked out was www.match.com. I clicked the buttons indicating that I was a “male,” looking for a “female” aged 18-22, near the zip code 63105. I made sure I checked the “Photos Only” box so I could get a good look at my future honey because postage stamp size photos really give people a good idea of how hot you are.

Shakespeare once said: “O! learn to read what silent love hath writ.” I wonder what he would say in response to the following topic sentences that I ran across. These are 100 percent real, not even in my worst drunken stupor-of which there have been many-could I have written this whack:

“if you like ghetto im your girl”

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, when used as an adjective, “ghetto” means “something that resembles the restriction or isolation of a city ghetto.” I guess if you are dirty, scary, and dangerous to enter at night, you could call yourself “ghetto.” I think I’ll pass.

“thick lil mama from da stl”

F. Scott Fitzgerald said that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” While trying to comprehend a “thick,” “little” person, I blew a fuse and decided to get a beer and watch “The Simpsons.” I quickly recovered.

“Good Woman Looking”

I think it’s my duty as an abuser of the English language to offer this girl some advice. Just by switching the order of the words and, therefore, not really lying, she could become a “Good Looking Woman.” I’m sure she’d get a lot more favorable responses.

“Psych Student wants to Shrink Your…”

I’m a little bit intrigued, but my little bit is a lot scared. (Don’t worry, ladies, it’s actually quite large, but if I had written that the pun wouldn’t have worked).

“Id Rather Be a Lesbian :)”

My favorite one.

“*** ArE U THaT SPeciAL SoMeOnE THat…”

That what? That can fix your keyboard? I’ve got a friend who is big into computers and could probably help you, but unless you’re an animated Japanese cartoon character in a sailor’s outfit, he probably wouldn’t be interested in you.

After about an hour of pretty much the same stuff, I became quite depressed. Thank God I hadn’t bet on myself in Vegas, though winning a bet that you’re a dork isn’t as comforting as I had thought. Not to worry, loyal readers: I just received an e-mail informing me that Russian women want to meet me. Kick ass.

Why do police officers in University City treat students so unfairly? Being from the east coast, I thought cops couldn’t get any more unreasonable; evidently I was wrong. A recent encounter a friend of mine had with the fuzz made me quiver with powerlessness.

On Oct. 26, he had a few people over-by no means a party. No blaring music was playing on that Saturday night: just some 21 year-olds exercising their God-given right to enjoy a few cold ones. Approximately 20 people were in attendance. The police showed up, and instructed everyone to leave due to noise complaints. I had no problem with leaving: it was getting a bit late and the night was winding down anyway.

Yet Jesse Blanner, the tenant of the apartment, did. He started trying to reason with the police officer, asking why they entered the apartment without permission. After some exchange of words (notably the officer’s “What the fuck you gonna do about it,” according to Jesse) the police left and the problem seemed resolved.

But the policeman was evidently left unsatisfied with his position of power in the proceedings. Some 30 minutes later, after the “party” was completely extinguished, a group of police revisited the building apparently with the sole intention of teaching a punk student a lesson. Jesse’s apartment is on the third floor of the building, which the police had obviously forgotten as they walked uninvited into the apartment below. Opening up bedroom doors in this seemingly abandoned apartment (behind the second one stood a completely naked Tricia Fessler), the police demanded to know where Jesse was.

After learning that Jesse lived upstairs, the police knocked and demanded he come out. They promptly put him in handcuffs, claiming that someone made another complaint about the noise. Jesse maintains that after asking if he was being arrested and why he hadn’t been read his rights, one officer mentioned he hadn’t asked Jesse any questions, and therefore didn’t need to read him “shit.” This is not standard operating procedure for a well-trained, professional police force.

Jesse was brought to jail, at which point he was finally told why he was being arrested. It is clear there were no more noise complaints, as the police had entered a completely empty apartment searching for Jesse. The charge brought against him was disturbing the peace, and he was held in jail for approximately two hours.

How is this possible, you ask?

As students, we have no political pull. We have little disposable income, are temporary residents, and are therefore powerless in the eyes of the community, and subsequently in the eyes of the police. School isn’t reality. In reality everyone is held to the same standards. By no means am I claiming reality is fair, but perhaps this view of school as a fantasy world leads to our apathetic and helpless attitude, which the police are able to capitalize upon.

I explained this story to a friend, whose response was that of indifference. “We do lots of illegal stuff, and the cops leave us alone most of the time. Why should we get all upset over one pissed-off cop?” I encourage readers not to take this point of view, which propagates an air of laziness to the community. Jesse has been in contact with the American Civil Liberty Union, in conjunction with similar cases drawn against the U City Police Department. He is drawing a line in the sand and not allowing himself to become another listless victim.

Does this sort of problem happen often? Though I don’t expect to go out and wake up in a cell, I do recognize that I will have to deal with the police each and every weekend night. In the area between campus and the loop, I believe, WUPD drive around looking for parties. When they find one, they call U-City cops, who come to break them up. I have seen this happen. Why this tension? Why are parties constantly broken up when nobody is even complaining? And why are the WU students constantly at the crux of the conflict?

The police force of U-City faces a conflict of interests every weekend. While attempting to protect and serve one group of people, they are ostracizing another. We as “temporary” members of the community must recognize that people do sleep during prime party hours. But when nobody complains, what gives anyone the right to stop a gathering? There must be a happy medium, where the treatment described earlier holds no place. WU students: stand up for yourselves. Learn and know your rights. You too can get arrested for insulting someone’s ego.

You would think people like to talk about themselves. Yet for many applicants to colleges or graduate schools, writing a personal essay is the most painful part of the process. Colleges know this, and they feel it is beneficial for the applicants to sit down and write one. In fact, in the long run it may be harmful, unless the question is phrased carefully. Some questions lead applicants to construct a restrictive theory of their own lives and generalize their identity.

In theory, the personal statement has been an enlightened addition to the application process. It keeps opening doors for students who are bright and eager to attend college but who, for one reason or another, had not done well in high school. Colleges spend notable resources, particularly in terms of their faculties’ time, to give these students the chance to sell themselves in personal statements. Of course, colleges benefit, too: essays may help distinguish a zealous grade-grubber from a truly thoughtful applicant and complement the sometimes misleading (and biased, some say) standardized exams. They may also do just what so many college applications say they want them to do: “help us learn more about you.” But more often than not, they won’t.

I’m x, you’re y

Colleges are quite right to think that the application form, transcripts and even letters of recommendation ultimately give them a shallow picture of candidates. So admission officers ask for something more personal in an essay. Instead of gaining a deeper understanding of the person, however, certain essay questions invite a cause-and-effect analysis that, like some overarching theory long since sent into history’s dustbin, traces the applicant’s totality as a person to one predominant factor. It sidelines a thousand little accidents, coincidences and intentions in favor of a few fat generalizations. For admission officers, it makes applicants, each a bundle of surprises and contradictions, easier to classify and judge.

Forced to present themselves in 500 to 1,000 words, many students pick one quality or experience and then generalize their whole identity in its terms. It seems essays that ask student to contemplate their cultural background, or to muse on some hardship they had faced, would be especially prone to broad, abstract, and often tenuous conclusions. For example, students often talk about their race as if it had been a major force in their lives. With all the other things going on, such a simplifying theory is suspect. Even when such students are right, however-for instance, if they grew up as the only Russian in an all-American neighborhood and feel that this has left them with some unique sense of themselves or others-writing a short, simple essay would lead them to hang on to this cultural curiosity as if it were important to their future lives. In fact, it will likely impede a broader understanding of who they are.

To its credit, WU, in its freshman application, does not explicitly solicit such responses. For the main essay, it asks about a creative work the student found significant, or an ethical dilemma he or she has faced. The only bad question comes in the section devoted to short answers. “Choose three adjectives to describe yourself,” it asks. Like a fairy-tale magical incantation, then: one, two, three and poof! you’ve got a person.

Back in high school, a class peer wrote a college application essay that focused on her great-grandfather’s death in the Holocaust. The starvation and cold that the old man had experienced 50 years ago, she wrote, made her angry at injustices accorded to Jews throughout time, and sensitive to her own “precarious” burden as a Jewish woman.

Sympathy is one thing. But it’s hard to see how this girl, born into soft disposable diapers, raised in luxury, with the prick of dentist’s needle of Novocain the most acute physical discomfort she’s ever had, could interpret the suffering she never experienced of people she never knew as a topic sentence to her own life and sense of herself.

But then, she did have to have a topic sentence of some sort. Heather Dubrow, an English professor at University of Wisconsin, noted something interest in the Chronicle of Higher Education recently. In some of her students’ papers, she wrote, the thesis tends to adumbrate the book. The students grasp the argument before they know the material well and then, later in the reading, simply ignore whatever does not fit the thesis. They pick “a single, narrowly defined point about the text,” often a stark, obvious or uncompromising one. The thesis ruins an insightful understanding of the text.

Some personal statements, in essence, ask students to pick a thesis to their lives, and then write a short essay on it. The danger is that the applicants might latch on to a superficial detail, then proceed to see the world largely in reference to this detail. This would make them more shallow people-the last thing colleges want.