Archive for February, 2006

Student Life names Kliff 2006-2007 editor in chief

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | Kristin McGrath

Junior Sarah Kliff has been named editor in chief of Student Life for the 2006-2007 school year, announced the newspaper’s publisher, Washington University Student Media, Inc., at its annual banquet Friday night.

Kliff, who served as senior news editor last semester, is currently studying abroad at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

“I’m really, really excited,” said Kliff. “I look forward to returning to campus, and [Student Life] is one of the main reasons for that. I’ve loved being involved in Student Life for the past three years, and I’m excited to be involved next year.”

Being in Scotland for the rest of the semester will present unique challenges for Kliff when the transition to next year’s staff occurs at the beginning of April. The first editor in chief to be chosen while abroad, Kliff plans to work closely with current staff members up to and during the transition and has set up a phone number with a St. Louis area code to increase her ability to quickly address the staff’s questions and concerns. She also hopes to return to St. Louis over the summer if her finances and commitments allow it.

As editor in chief, Kliff will be responsible for hiring next year’s staff, overseeing the newspaper’s production and making the final decisions about the paper’s content before it is printed.

WUSMI’s Board of Directors interviewed Kliff via a conference call before making its final decision. Factored into that decision were the results of a staff interview and vote that had taken place two weeks earlier.

Student Life’s current editor in chief, senior Margaret Bauer, is confident that the board made the correct choice.

“I feel good about it,” said Bauer. “It seems like the staff is very much behind her and very enthusiastic. [Sarah is] so on top of everything. She’ll do a fantastic job, I have no doubt about it.”

“A main part of my application was about making Student Life a very accessible publication to its readership,” said Kliff. “That involves making sure that we have clear and well-reported articles, as well as making sure that our readers have a clear understanding of what we do. Also, there’s the redesigning of our Web site to make us easier to access by anyone.”

Kliff looks forward to returning to both Student Life and to campus in the fall.

“I miss the staff and just hanging out in basement of Women’s Building working at the paper,” said Kliff. “I also miss the students. Wash. U. has a very unique student body that you can’t find just anywhere.”

SU reaches out to students via WUTV ‘Fireless Chats’

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | Ben Sales

As part of its recent initiative to reach out to students, Student Union has launched a television show where its executives debate issues and discuss upcoming events.

The program, “SU Fireless Chat at 11-ish,” airs on WUTV every Monday night around 11 p.m. During the show, Student Union (SU) executives and members discuss issues facing the student body and take calls from students who want to air their grievances with the student government.

After airing two episodes, WUTV General Manager Jonah Sobol thinks the show is a success.

“Considering that we have only done two episodes, the show has done fantastic so far,” said Sobol, who produces “Fireless Chat.” “It has done exactly what it set out to do.”

SU President David Ader said he appreciates the connection that the show creates between SU and its constituents.

“We like it because it gives us a chance to have that direct link to the students,” said Ader, who has appeared in both episodes. “It is one more way of reaching out to students and letting them know what is going on in SU.”

Sobol seconded Ader’s comments, and said that he sees students taking advantage of the resource that the new program offers.

“[WUTV is] always looking for ways to be a forum for campus discussion,” said Sobol. “We have gotten a lot of feedback. People are calling in with serious concerns and questions that they have.”

The show might also help students who feel cut off from the inner workings of SU become more familiar with the organization.

“[The show] is a way for the student body that is disconnected from SU, that does not necessarily know what is going on, to access [SU],” said Sobol. “It is a way for them to come together and talk about what is on their minds.”

In addition to being a discussion forum, the show functions as a time during which SU can inform the student body about happenings on campus. This past week, in addition to debating the recent tuition increase and fielding questions about the funding controversy regarding Jonathan Kozol, the SU executives invited Todd Schiller, the chairman of the Engineering Council’s EnWeek, to talk about upcoming events.

“We want to mix it up,” said Ader. “It all depends on the issue that we are doing. Depending on what we are talking about, it may warrant bringing someone in.”

“There are a couple of people that will be on every time,” said Ader. “It helps us put a face on SU. It is not just an e-mail in your inbox. It is actually people talking about the issues, which we think is important.”

Ader added that the show is just one more step in SU’s recent effort to involve more students in its workings.

SU recently restarted the “Personal Senators Program,” and, according to Ader, has begun sending out the general “SUpdate” e-mails with more regularity.

“We really want to step it up,” said Ader. “We like [the program] because it gives us a chance to show the complexity of the issues. A lot of students wonder what is really going on.”

On WUTV’s end, Sobol said that the station would like to see more outreach as well.

“It is a fantastic idea,” he said. “We could do a show similar to the ‘SU Fireless Chat,’ but with [Washington University’s] administration, so that the administration could see what the students would want.”

While the show does facilitate serious discussion, both Ader and Sobol want to retain a comfortable atmosphere within the debate.

“We like the conversation,” said Ader. “It is tough to get up there and talk about serious issues for a half hour. Hopefully we can still talk about the substance and have the students relate to us.”

Said Sobol, “While it is a forum between SU and the students, it is still a TV show.”

But both Sobol and Ader agree that they have not finished improving the program and plan to see it change as time goes on.

“It is definitely a work in progress,” said Ader. “We are hoping to let it evolve and get some feedback from viewers so we can tweak it and make it as good as possible.”

WU alumnus set to compete on ‘The Apprentice’

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | Helen Rhee

Washington University graduate Michael Laungani will compete against 18 contestants to become Donald Trump’s next “Apprentice” in the fifth season of the hit NBC show, which premieres tonight at 8 p.m.

Laungani is not the first Washington University alumnus to appear on this type of show. Last year, David Karandish appeared on Martha Stewart’s version of “The Apprentice.”

Laungani could not be reached for comment, although he is currently listed as a mergers and acquisitions consultant for one of the largest professional companies in the nation.

NBC’s Web site notes that Michael is a 29-year-old from Manhattan. He graduated from the United Nations International School (UNIS) in New York City, where he studied economics and three languages.

After earning a bachelor’s of science degree in business administration from Washington University, where he majored in finance and marketing, Laungani worked as a financial and operational management consultant for Arthur Andersen Business Consulting in Chicago, which provides business consulting to Fortune 500 companies.

Mahendra R. Gupta, dean of the John M. Olin School of Business, remarked that he was very pleased that Olin’s talent is being recognized through the show.

Deborah F. Booker, associate dean and director of external relations at Olin, was involved in organizing the casting call for “The Apprentice” in February 2005 and noted that Luangani’s appearance will be good publicity for the school.

“I was involved when they came on campus,” said Booker. “I think students were interested and excited being involved in the whole process. I think in that respect it was really good for the school and the show felt that this was a good place for them to come and look for candidates. I think that was a positive thing.”

Judson Clark, president of Washington University’s chapter of Beta Theta Pi, Laungani’s fraternity, is looking forward to seeing his fraternity brother appear on the show.

“We are very proud of our brother,” said Clark. “I am not surprised that he is on the show. But it is always a welcome surprise, especially when someone you know is in the national spotlight. We are proud to see one of our founding fathers on ‘The Apprentice.’ We [Beta] are here through what he did as an undergraduate. We owe him a lot. We are very glad to see him through the show.”

According to the Beta Theta Pi Alumni Chair Spencer Toder, Laungani was one of the original two students responsible for restoring Beta Theta Pi fraternity at the University after it had been suspended. His name is listed as Arinash M. Laungani on the Beta alumni list, although on “The Apprentice” Web site he is simply listed as Michael.

Protest at ‘ex-gay’ conference brings out students, community

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | Austen Faggen and Kristin McGrath
Dan Daranciang

Protesters had been standing in the cold for nearly nine hours when a man in a massive, red, glitter-covered Mardi Gras hat drove by. Slowing down in front of the First Evangelical Free Church, where the demonstrators were stationed, he gave them a piece of his mind before driving on.

“Hey,” said one protester. “Was that guy in a red-sequined hat calling us queer?”

Moments like these were the highlights of “Love Needs No Cure,” the peaceful protest that took place on Saturday, when Focus on the Family held its traveling “Love Won Out” conference in the suburbs of west St. Louis County. The all-day conference focused on Exodus, an organization that promotes therapy as a cure for homosexuality.

Coming from 28 states, 1,780 attendees made this conference the largest of the 37 held so far in the U.S., according to the event’s organizers. Families, ministers and gay people both averse to and immersed in the therapy process came from as far as Hawaii to hear testimonies of former gays and a speech by Bill Maier, a psychologist and Focus on Family’s vice president.

Roadside Rally

While the conference attendees were inside, protesters braved cold temperatures and the wind, which one protester dubbed the “real gay basher” as it ripped his sign in half.

For St. Louis resident Steve Houldsworth, who helped with security during the protest, standing in the cold starting at 5:45 a.m. was worth it, given the importance of the protesters’ message.

“I believe that the statements being made in the conference about medical and scientific evidence that homosexuality is a disease are false,” said Houldsworth. “I’m standing for truth in the face of that lie. Homosexuality is a variation of normal and not a disease.”

Nearby, Adam Rosen was representing Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), a national organization that provides support and education for families and friends of gays and lesbians. His sign, he explained, carried “one of the most defiant” messages: “Be who U R – there are no exceptions to God’s love.”

“I think this is what this whole misunderstanding is all about,” said Rosen about his sign. “It’s interesting to see the different mind-states that people are in as they’re driving by. This sign seemed to get a lot of attention. People [driving by] have been more supportive than I’d imagined or assumed, gauging by the honking.”

Most of the drivers on Carman Road that day seemed to be supportive of the protesters and their signs bearing rainbow-colored messages like “God made me Gay!” and “You can’t cure what God created!” When the driver of a Harley Davidson motorcycle wearing an American Flag bandana saluted the protesters, the crowd erupted in cheers.

Some of the conference attendees were also supportive of the protesters even though they didn’t agree with their message, providing coffee and sandwiches to the protesters who had arrived before the church doors opened at 7 a.m.

Others, however, were more vocal about their disapproval of the protest. Protester Rob Morgan recalled a particularly memorable encounter that had taken place at 7:30 that morning.

“This woman slowed down in her car,” said Morgan. “And it was really interesting. She started repeating, ‘God bless you, God bless you, God bless you.’ And then she started talking in tongues.”

Leading a chant of “Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Homophobia’s got to go!” were 16-year-old Danny Blake and his friends from Parkway West High School.

Interacting with some of the youths who may have been at the conference against their will was an experience Blake found memorable.

“The greatest part was when [the conference attendees] were going out to lunch, and this guy who was in the church came out and joined us,” said Blake. “This one kid, his mom had offered him steak and beer if he went [to the conference]. It’s a good feeling that not everyone in there is following what they’re preaching.”

Mackenzie Holt, a 10-year-old, was proud to represent her generation at the protest, holding a sign that read “Gay Parents Rock!”

“I just want to tell everyone that it’s okay to be gay,” said Holt. “They don’t have to change who they are.no one should judge a book by it’s cover, should they?”

Mackenzie’s mother, Stacy Holt, had debated whether or not to bring Mackenzie and her other daughter, four-year-old Meghan, to the protest.

“I struggled a little bit at first,” said Holt. “I took the time to get online and research Exodus. What really concerned me was…that the suicide rate of youths who go through these programs is really high, because they don’t have the support they need. So I thought it was really important for my kids to see this.”

Despite the excitement in the usually quiet neighborhood that day, police on the scene reported no problems.

“It’s been peaceful,” said Officer Josh Niewoehner of the City of Manchester Police Department. “A few people [in the neighborhood] have asked what’s going on. [Their responses] go both ways. Some think it’s okay, others might be a little bit angry about the noise. But in general, there haven’t been too many complaints.”

The Wash. U. caravan arrives

At 4:30, the arrival of two buses carrying Washington University students energized the crowd. Other protesters rushed to hand signs to students who hadn’t brought their own.

“Flame on!” junior Jacob Till shouted as cars driving by honked in support. “I yell that at people randomly,” he explained.

“I’m really disturbed,” said freshman Julia Baskin. “I really only see this stuff on TV. I’ve never actually looked someone in the eye who is intolerant like this.And yeah, I’m a little afraid of what [the convention attendees] are thinking of me.”

Sophomore Rachel Tepper imagined that “[the conference attendees] probably think that we are misguided,” because they “are very passionate about what they believe.”

But many students wouldn’t let their adversaries’ passion weaken their own enthusiasm.

“We need to get the word out that it’s okay to be gay,” said freshman Shana Zaia. “Don’t let these people change you!”

Zaia was impressed by the protest’s peaceful and respectful tone.

“There’s no shouting, no egging,” said Zaia. “It seems like they really respect us.”

Senior Ryan Mackin had not planned on attending the protest. But after seeing buses on the South 40, he couldn’t resist boarding himself.

“I like protests,” said Mackin. “I just like that it’s a whole group coming together and shedding a positive light on a negative matter. I have friends who have come out, and I think it’s really important to support that. If I were in their position, I’d expect the same thing from people.”

Before being bussed to the church, some of the participants had attended a teach-in at Ursa’s, which featured a dialogue led by Washington University psychologists about the dangers of gay therapy as well as discussions about effective methods of peaceful protests.

Junior Tom Giarla, co-president of Pride Alliance, said that the event was a success and drew about 50 attendees.

“[The teach-in] was great,” said Giarla. “It was really informative and really important, because I don’t think people our age know much about the ex-gay movement.and I think [the protest is] a good way to show that Wash. U. is engaged in the community.”

The church doors open

At 5:15, the end of the conference brought the attendees back into contact with the protesters, who continued chanting as cars drove off.

As she left the church, Suzie Crowdus was still inspired by the conference’s speakers.

“I love every bit of it. It was very encouraging,” said Crowdus. “I was energized by it. I learned that people need Christ.”

Jason Jordan of Fulton, Mo., was shocked by the statistics presented at the conference.

“The statistics on the suicide rate in the gay and lesbian community were troubling,” said Jordan. “We need to love and respect them and give the message of Christ to them.”

Charles Finley of Glen Ellyn, IL, appreciated the research behind the conference.

“I would say the conference gave a very balanced approach,” said Finley. “I appreciated the openness. People were able to ask any kind of question. It was good to learn ways to help others get a healthy view of relationships and family.”

Maureen Jordan, who got her master’s degree in social work from Washington University in 2000, disagreed that the conference presented valid research.

“The use of statistics was very poor, but that’s what I’d expect from a Love Won Out conference,” said Jordan. “They don’t know what’s good research and that’s the problem. What they present is not the truth, but they present it as scientific truth. But it’s not what research shows, and it can’t stand up to scientific rigor.”

For Daniel Squires of Kansas City, the conference was especially meaningful. He regards himself as formerly gay and is working to change through the therapy provided by organizations like Exodus.

“[The conference] was amazing to me coming from the gay community,” said Squires. “There’s a small group of gay people trying to change. It’s encouraging. It was a good experience. The inspiration [to change] was already there, and this gave me the inspiration to stick to it.”

Randy Shuler, pastor of a southern Baptist church, Chesterfield Community Church, attended the convention.

“There was no hatred there,” said Shuler. “I was very impressed with the tone and the compassion.”

One of the objectives of the conference series is to educate about the gay and lesbian lifestyle, Shuler explained.

“If we don’t agree with the lifestyle that’s one thing, but it’s another to say that you don’t understand it. For those that are coming out of the lifestyle, for parents, for everyone, it’s awful confusing.”

Although Shuler acknowledged that the protesters are “passionate about their cause,” he guessed that many are uninformed.

“Many of them are there because someone told them to be there, and [they] don’t really understand what it is they’re pushing,” said Shuler. “You can just tell there wasn’t much thought that went into [the signs].”

When asked how he would confront one of the homosexual protesters, Shuler was unsure.

“I guess I’d ask them how they’re doing,” said Shuler. “Is [the homosexual lifestyle] working for them?.If they think it’s working for them at the moment, I’m not the one to talk to them. But there are a lot people that are ready to leave what they’ve gotten themselves into. The conference was very good about saying if you’re ready, if you want more information.then we can help.”

Shuler, who said he has “seen Christ liberate people from a lot of different things,” made clear that the process is “very complex.”

“You don’t just pray one prayer and leave it all behind,” said Shuler. “It’s a journey.Christ is the answer – it sounds like such a clich‚, but it’s the truth. Christ is alive.”

Love Needs No Cure: A peaceful protest

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | David Hartstein
Dan Daranciang

In protest of the protesters

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | Bill Maas

The protest against the ex-gay therapy group Exodus (discussed in the “Students to protest ‘gay therapy’ group” article on Friday) brings up some interesting points about the true objective of the protesters. I do admit that I’m not an expert on the Exodus group and their dealings, so I decided to do some research. Upon looking at their Web site, I immediately saw what the protesters hated so much.

The label “Focus on The Family” probably scares most of these people on campus. They are a Christian conservative group that Dr. James Dobson created out of concern for the evolution (not in the good sense) of the typical American family. From talking to some of my more liberal friends, they think that this protest is not aimed at the ex-gay therapy group, but is rather a protest against conservative Christianity in general.

My problem is this: why are you protesting a therapy group that people go to by choice? There is obviously some reason (either religious or secular) for these people to attend these seminars and then also go into counseling later. They are paying these groups for help with their lives. They feel as if something is wrong or needs to be changed in their life. And with it being a Christian organization, I am assuming that most of the people that attend these functions do not like living in the lifestyle of sin that they have chosen (whether they realize this consciously or unconsciously is an entirely different story). They feel something must be changed in their life (their homosexual lifestyle) and choose to attend these conferences out of their own free will.

The people that run these conferences are also very educated, yet most likely they are religiously motivated. My main concern for this protest is the disregard to truthfully claim what they are protesting. Some of the protesters said the conference harms the public’s view of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. How does a conference trying to confer some people’s opinions that homosexuality is a choice harm the public’s view? For a long time in the United States, the commonly accepted view was that homosexuality was a choice and was some sort of mental disorder. Now, I’m not going to start preaching against gays with the Holy Bible as my reference (as much as you’d love to hear it), but as much as it is your right to have your own beliefs, why not let Christians spread their own beliefs among others who wish to hear it? This is their right as much as it is your right to claim Christians are ignorant bigots.

The protesters also reveal some inherent problems in their intolerance of “bigotry.” It always seems that people like the protesters want tolerance of everything except when it comes to a conservative Christian standpoint. While they have the right to protest this group, why choose to infringe upon the rights of others wishing to speak within their own community? Yes, they may advertise to the gay and lesbian community at large, but are you forced to go to these functions? Of course not! Why hinder the functions of people who are truly looking for a way to help their brothers and sisters in faith? I hope that these protesters sit down and think about what exactly they are protesting. Maybe then they will realize how different some people are, as much as they hate to accept it.

Bill is a junior in Arts & Sciences.

Editorial cartoon

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | Dmitri Jackson
Dan Daranciang

The Sex Issue suits students

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | hannah draper

David Bauman’s Friday editorial was correct: the Sex Issue two weeks ago was crass, juvenile and titillating for the sake of titillation. He points out a number of facts about sex-related diseases and issues, ranging from AIDS to abortion to antibiotic-resistant strains of illnesses that have been busily plowing their way through human populations for centuries. These things could and should have been mentioned in the Sex Issue, perhaps under the title “The Downside of Getting Laid.” He goes on to say that our “well-respected” university and student body should demand better from its primary source of campus news. (We’ll exclude The Record from this discussion; somehow, i can’t see oral sex being discussed shoulder-to-shoulder with articles touting the research of professors the undergraduate body has neither seen nor cared about.) The Sex Issue, he charges, did students a serious disservice in treating sex so frivolously. And in many ways, the paper, along with the readers, did indeed focus on the lighter side of sex. Who really remembers anything from “Wives to Be Before a Degree?” other than the title, if that?

But.

If the Sex Issue neglected the serious side of sex, then surely Bauman ignores an even larger issue: we’re in college. This is a nebulous time between the longing for and the fear of freedom, obvious dependency (living with our parents and obeying their rules) and frightening independence (how we’re going to feed ourselves after graduation). Our idealistic guidance counselors in high school told us that college was a place to try new things and to discover who we really are. Our four-year advisers told us to try a course outside our major just for fun. Our freshman floormates astounded their parents by dropping their carefully laid academic plans in favor of English literature or fashion design or any major that includes the word “studies” in its title (I did it, too). College is supposed to be different, for lack of a better word.

Now, I’m not saying we came to college so we could join orgies and fetish clubs. In fact, I would wager that most students here didn’t come here for the swingin’ party scene and the epic sports rivalries played out every year on ESPN, but chose Washington University for its academic prowess. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean that the student body gave up its sense of humor – or fun – upon matriculation.

The Sex Issue had explicit articles and suggestive photos. We couldn’t get away with that in high school; I can personally testify to the wrath of administrators when things get into yearbooks that aren’t supposed to be mentioned in public. We sure as hell won’t be able to pull this kind of paper off in the crappy newsletters our future employers will circulate bimonthly. We are in a four-year window of time when we are allowed – even expected – to say things and to write articles that we will regret later in life. Undergraduates live in a four-year limbo between childhood and true adulthood. It’s to be expected that we do things that demonstrate this mixture: mature students work industriously to stay afloat in classes, but their immature side comes out every now and then to giggle at a few sex jokes. Is this so wrong?

So, Mr. Bauman, I am sincerely sorry that you were so affronted by the Sex Issue. You don’t entirely fit into the concept of college as I’ve presented it; I’m not sure where graduate students fall in the childhood-limbo-adulthood spectrum, although the fact that many of the graduate students I know were just as entertained by the titillation as their younger cohorts seems to indicate that you as a group might feasibly be included in our limbo.

Let our parents wag their fingers at us for our indiscretion. We’re not the only university with concerned parents; my roommate’s mother found out about our version of Sex Week in an article that initially addressed Yale’s activities in considerable detail, leaving her to wonder what in God’s name was happening in St. Louis that her daughter hadn’t told her about.

Let future employers ask us uncomfortable questions about the pictures, articles and blogs that can be discovered long after the fact through the miracles of Google. But please, let us giggle away childishly in peace when someone says “penis.”

We will have adulthood forced upon us soon enough when we are handed a diploma and a bill for all of the debt we’ve racked up in the past four years, so I intend to enjoy my ill-defined place in the maturity spectrum while I still can.

hannah is a junior in Arts & Sciences.

Shuttle system puts students at risk

Monday, February 27th, 2006 | Jeff Stepp

People at Washington University are generally trustworthy. We all carry around our IDs, but no one ever stops us on campus and says, “Hey, can you prove you go here?” I would have a hard time living in a place like this if I were constantly asked to show my identification. Yet there is one place where I’m perfectly happy to deal with the inconvenience: our shuttle system. Unfortunately, that inconvenience rarely occurs, putting students in potential danger.

Technically, all persons boarding a University shuttle must show proper University ID, contractor ID or shuttle pass. The shuttle system, according to the Parking and Transportation Web site, is a closed one, open only to students, faculty, staff and contracted employees, with alumni and guests of University members permitted via a special pass. To get on the shuttle you need to prove that you are affiliated with the University. I have never once been asked for my ID, however, and as I rode the shuttle last week to investigate, no one else I saw was asked either.

Most of the people getting on the shuttle looked like students. A few even had their IDs ready, though the drivers checked none of them. An elderly woman boarded without ID – the driver said she was an alumna – but I knew the alum the driver was talking about and this wasn’t her. The ride that day was uneventful, as I’m sure it usually is. Like I said, people at our University are generally trustworthy.

There are people both within and outside our community, however, who are not trustworthy. I’ve had several friends mugged at gunpoint this year and have read stories about others. These incidents all occurred while people were walking to their homes, close to the University. The shuttle system transports students further from the University than walking could take them, putting the students at further risk. Incidents are not likely to happen on the shuttle itself, where the perpetrator would have a difficult time escaping. But once the shuttle has dropped you off, you’re on your own. What about criminals using the shuttle as a way to get access to students, or as a getaway?

If you don’t check IDs, how can you be sure someone is who they say they are? Lots of people look like students or faculty who aren’t. Generally, if you’re between the ages of, say, 17 and 70, you could pull off either role. I don’t know the exact number of 17-to-70-year-olds in our community, but I’m guessing it’s a pretty large number.

If the University claims that they want the shuttle system to be safe, they should actually make it so. They have all these signs and notices about an ID being required, but in my experience, these postings are nothing more than a waste of ink if they’re not actually enforced. What about when the MetroLink opens in a few months? No doubt the shuttle will stop there. And with the increased crime that MetroLink will bring, how will we make sure our students are safe?

There are a few ways to resolve, or at least improve upon the state of this issue. First, mandate that all drivers check IDs – check them, not glance at them – and have an enforcement policy that provides escalating penalties for those that don’t. Also, define the driver’s right to remove or refuse entry to anyone on the system should he or she be unable to prove their University affiliation. Another option would be to go to a swipe-card system popular on major bus systems across the country.

I was unable to reach Transportation Services to get a comment on these issues. From my personal experience and shared stories of others, however, there is clearly a problem with our ID checking policy. Transportation Services needs to examine what’s going on here and work to do something about it, because while 99 percent of the time everything might be fine, that remaining one percent is not worth the risk.

Jeff is a senior in Arts & Sciences.

No U.S. hockey miracles in Torino

Friday, February 24th, 2006 | Scott Kaufman-Ross

Feb. 22, 1980 is considered one of the most important dates in sports history. It was on that date that the world witnessed a true sports miracle. The United States Olympic hockey team, comprised of college students from Boston University and the University of Minnesota, stunned the heavily favored Soviets in Lake Placid and eventually won the gold medal. For America it was not just about hockey, but about so much more in a time when relations with the USSR were “on-ice” at best.

Feb. 22, 2006. The United States Olympic hockey team, comprised of the best American professional hockey players around, lost in the first round of the Quarterfinals. The USA managed to compile a horrific 1-4-1 mark in the 2006 Olympic games, including a 3-3 tie to the high flying Latvia squad, and the sole win came against Kazakhstan, another perennial hockey power.

Note the sarcasm in describing these teams as “high-flying” and “perennial.” They’re putrid.

Although no one thought a gold medal was possible from the Americans, some expectations of success still lingered after the team earned a silver medal in 2002. The team disappointed in a way no one could have imagined, leaving many Americans wondering how this could happen.

The first place to look is the American roster, and wonder if Atlanta Thrashers’ GM Don Waddell was really the right man to run Team USA. The next place to look is the goaltender. Team USA carried three goalies: Robert Esche, John Graham and Rick DiPietro. Using the goals against average (GAA) as the best barometer to measure goalies, these American goalies’ ranks in the NHL are 30, 14 and 35, respectively.

Rick DiPietro ranks 35th in the NHL in GAA, and yet he is the starting guy between the pipes for the majority of the tournament?

Before you look to grill Waddell, however, you have to ask yourself, “Who else is there?” The only American in the top 30 in GAA not on the roster is Ryan Miller of Buffalo, who has only played 29 games this season and 47 in his entire NHL career.

Looking at offensive players, we can use points as the barometer to measure production. The highest American point scorer, Brian Rolston, ranks 16th in the NHL in total points. The next highest is Brian Gionta, who is tied for 28th overall in points scored. So perhaps the issue is not the poor selection of players, but rather poor American players.

Is it possible that Americans, in general, are just not quality hockey players?

As a nation with a rich and proud sports heritage, it is difficult to accept the fact that we might not excel at everything. Although Latino and Asian talent is rising, and is often superior, there is still a great crop of American baseball players. Americans still comprise most of the NFL and NBA, although foreign basketball players are becoming more commonplace. Americans have always enjoyed success in golf – see Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson – and in tennis, with play from Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras. That leaves hockey as the only major sport played in America that truly lacks an American dominance.

The failure of the U.S. hockey team may have pointed out the real reason NHL teams struggle to fill their arenas. Low attendance at NHL games in many cities caused a lot of teams to lose money in the past few years, prompting last year’s lockout. Perhaps the reason Americans don’t love hockey is because they just aren’t any good at hockey. Perhaps Americans cannot love a game in which they fail to excel and dominate other countries.

Notwithstanding the deeper meaning behind hockey’s American popularity, the country will hope for the best when the 2010 Olympic games in Vancouver come around. Yet perhaps the expectations will be a bit lower that time around, as reality sets in concerning the quality of American hockey. This year’s poor team supports this theory, and makes the 2002 silver medal feat even more impressive. Furthermore, it confirms that the 1980 victory over the red “CCCP” jerseys was, in fact, a miracle.