Student Life Archives

When Mary Sansalone was first named the dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, no one could have predicted that her tenure would be swamped with controversy. Indeed, everyone upon her arrival applauded her selection. She was a highly respected professional who had previously worked at Cornell University and New York University, and she now held a prominent leadership position within a field that was historically underrepresented by women.

Yet no one could have also foreseen that fewer than two years after she accepted the position, she would announce her decision to step down at the end of this school year. But after beginning her tenure by introducing a series of sweeping changes designed to modernize the engineering school, this is exactly what Sansalone has done. It is a testament to her influence that she was able to accomplish so much in such a short span of time, but complaints and petitions from students, faculty and alumni over her managerial style and alleged lack of communication with other groups dogged her for the majority of her tenure.

The hallmark of Dean Sansalone’s tenure, her “Plan for Excellence” initiative, sought to expand and modernize the engineering school with an aggressive list of changes. The Department of Civil Engineering with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering were slated to merge together to create the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Structural Engineering. Three new engineering buildings covering 500,000 square feet of space would be constructed. The undergraduate aerospace engineering major would be eliminated in part because of recommendations from industry experts that an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering followed by a Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering would provide a better route for professional training in the field. Several research initiatives would be funded which focused on applying engineering techniques to solving problems in poverty, energy, health care and the environment. A host of new faculty would be hired to strengthen the resources of every engineering department and decrease the student-to-faculty ratio. And Writing 1, the introductory English composition course taught to every student in the College of Arts & Sciences, would become a graduation requirement for all engineering students. We supported the “Plan for Excellence” immediately after it was announced, and we continue to believe that it contains the right measures for further growth within the engineering school.

Though some members within the School of Engineering disagreed with certain aspects of Dean Sansalone’s plan, few would argue that it was not ambitious. And perhaps this is part of the reason why her tenure encountered so much resistance. Her plans to trim department budgets and eliminate adjunct faculty positions without fully communicating her intentions alienated many of the school’s faculty members, and culminated in a petition calling for her removal; 29 tenured engineering professors signed this petition and another 14 tenured professors verbally supported it. Similar failures to communicate with students also led to widespread opposition to her policies. A resolution passed by the General Body of the Engineering Student Council proposed changes to fix perceived deficiencies in the engineering school. Among them, the resolution pointed out a failure to communicate among students, faculty and the administration as a result of “a lack of mutual trust and respect,” a series of program and personnel cuts which had damaged the engineering school’s reputation, and a series of changes to faculty, curriculum and degree programs which had led to “the academic careers and professional training of students…[being] jeopardized.” And finally, an alumni petition that called for the Board of Trustees to intervene in the Sansalone controversy and stated, “I plan to withhold any financial contributions to the University until action is taken,” garnered 422 signatures. It should be noted that the Chancellor did not act on the faculty petition after a review of the charges by an independent faculty panel, yet Sansalone’s resignation was announced shortly after the alumni petition was delivered to the Board of Trustees.

Clearly there were very heated disagreements over the direction that Dean Sansalone has taken the engineering school. But what has struck us the most about this controversy has been the divisive tone surrounding the entire debate. The resolution passed by the General Body of the Engineering Student Council, which highlighted “a lack of mutual trust and respect” in the engineering school, was an all too common indication that many people felt the dialogue between parties within the school was either spurious or nonexistent. Hopefully this will change.

And with the search on for a new dean for the engineering school soon to be underway, the opportunity for change now exists. But let’s remember that Dean Sansalone’s work is unfinished. The new dean will be just as focused as Sansalone was on ensuring the future of the engineering school. And part of this process will necessarily involve making the difficult decision of determining whether the school should continue on with the “Plan for Excellence” along with Sansalone’s other policies or whether they should be altered. Whoever assumes this role, one of his or her first tasks should be to mend the many relationships with students and faculty that this controversy damaged. Additionally, we hope that students and faculty will both have meaningful input into the future of the engineering school. If the end of this controversy has taught us one thing, it’s that while the controversy itself may have lost its figurehead, many of the issues it touched upon have yet to be completely resolved.

Since Super Tuesday earlier this month, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has been slipping. Since Super Tuesday, Barack Obama has won 11 straight Democratic contests and has overtaken her in national polls.

This campaign, which remains ongoing, will be studied for decades. Much of the study will focus on the difficulties that Hillary Clinton has faced in the campaign after being the presumed Democratic nominee until the first contest in Iowa. (In the sprit of fairness, I am a Barack Obama supporter and have been throughout his campaign, though I do not feel that my personal preferences cloud my ability to view the campaign process objectively). With that said, I believe there are several important factors that have contributed to Hillary Clinton’s recent losing streak.

As overused of a claim it has become, Democratic voters’ desire for change has been a primary factor in Clinton’s losses. When I speak of “change” I do not mean the optimistic, lofty and often unspecified change that Obama’s campaign promises; I am simply referring to different leadership in Washington. At the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, it will be a full 20 years of Bush and Clinton in the White House-and 28 if George H. W. Bush’s time as Vice President under Ronald Reagan is counted. This year, voters are weary of extending that streak to 32 or possibly 36 years.

Former President Clinton’s actions on the campaign trail on behalf of his wife-mocking Barack Obama, admonishing the media, making comments with racial undertones and yelling at members of the crowds at rallies-have only served to help solidify voters’ skepticism. Furthermore, the relentless and bitter attacks on Hillary Clinton made during the numerous Republican debates only helped remind voters of the extreme partisanship that ruled politics during her husband’s administration and has remained through George W. Bush’s. Though Democratic voters see the 1990s as favorable and prosperous for the country, in 2008 they are looking to escape that bitter partisanship of the past and present. A major factor in Hillary’s loss in support has simply been frustration amongst voters. As time as gone on, more and more voters are expressing their desire for new leaders in the White House.

Another (perhaps equally) important factor in Hillary’s losses has been reluctance among Democratic male voters to vote for a female candidate. While the gender gap in her support has been widely reported on, the reasons behind it have not been properly explored. That many men either outright refuse or feel discomfort in voting for a woman for president at this point in our history is a shame, but it is a fact. Some of this is a conscious refusal that can only be explained by pure sexism.

However, much, if not most, of this reluctance is subconscious. This is the factor that is often overlooked in the analysis of this race. Many men feel an immediate dislike for a powerful and strong woman like Hillary Clinton who is not satisfied with the gender roles of the past. They view her ability to put up a tough fight as either intimidating or simply unlikable. They perceive her strong self-defense (e.g. responding to the Obama campaign mailers in Ohio) as whining and complaining and her attacks on her opponents as pettiness. Should a male candidate make these same attacks and remarks, they would most certainly be viewed differently. This is unfortunate but true. It is a real explanation of her lack of support among men in the United States and has been a hurdle which she has had much trouble overcoming.

Finally and pretty obviously, Barack Obama himself has been a major factor in her loss of support among voters and superdelegates. The simple fact that Barack Obama is her opponent in this race has made her campaign much more challenging. Despite their near congruence on the issues, many voters see Obama as the answer to their problem with the continued leadership in Washington. Obama, in many ways, is the antithesis of Hillary Clinton in that he is a brand new face in Washington, without a long history of controversies and partisanship. He is also exciting voters; for the first time in awhile, American voters are becoming optimistic and enthused about politics. In recent weeks, Hillary Clinton has attempted to win votes by criticizing and even mocking that optimism-a tough task that is only one of a series of poor political choices during her campaign.

Perhaps she missed her best chance to serve as president in 2004. Four years ago, many voters were wishing that they could have their vote in the 2000 election back and were looking for a third Clinton term. They couldn’t find satisfaction in the completely unspectacular John Kerry. The country was extraordinarily partisan with no desire to bridge any divides and George W. Bush won reelection. Hillary Clinton may have had a much better shot in 2004; there was no Barack Obama in the race and voters were looking for a redo election. This year, though, voters are not looking for a redo; they are looking for something brand new. Hillary Clinton may be four years too late.

However, I am a firm believer in Yogi Berra’s classic statement that, “It ain’t over ’till it’s over.” This campaign is not over, despite the media’s premature coronation of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for the general election in November. The factors for her losses of late are not overwhelming and can easily be overcome. With a win in Texas, Ohio, or both next week, she can again become the frontrunner in the race. Obama has been facing a recent backlash to his support, with many criticizing his campaign and his supporters. He may have peaked too early in the race, and it support could lessen.

This contest is a lot closer than many would like to believe, but either way it goes, its study should keep us all busy for a long time.

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

If Americans were asked to pick one company that embodies “the future,” Apple Corporation would no doubt be a popular choice. With its products, its brave media delivery services and its polished aesthetic, Apple simply feels like it is the company of tomorrow.

While detractors may view this as a triumph of Apple’s public relations department rather than its research and development arm, even the most ardent Microsoft Vista fanatic must admit some credit is due. Or rather they would, if such a person existed. So when Apple announced the Macbook Air, its first foray into the super-slim laptop market, many were impressed but few were surprised as yet another forward-thinking Apple product looked ready to push the world a little closer to the next age. It sent the tech-media, still breathless with iPhone frenzy, into an appreciable fervor.

The dust has since cleared, and the Macbook Air has emerged as something of an anomaly. Most see the Air to be nothing more than an impractical plaything for those with too much money to spend. While it’s svelte design is indeed striking, many have cited its opulent price (upwards of $1800 for the basic model), non-existent Ethernet port (you can adapt its single USB port), and downright dismaying lack of an internal optical drive as deal breakers. Of these grievances, the third flaw seems to be the greatest source of derision. Without a way to play CDs or DVDs (its much touted “remote-drive” system, which allows the Air to wirelessly enslave another computer’s optical drive, supports neither), the Air barely approaches the level of practicality found in much thicker computers (an external drive is offered, but it plugs into that same lonely USB port that the Ethernet adapter employs). So it is either the world’s thinnest computer or the world’s thickest PDA.

With typical aplomb, Apple has marketed these weaknesses as strengths. The Air is a great buy when compared with its competitors. And in this Wi-Fi decade, an Ethernet port is an unnecessary hole. So far, we buy it. But with the decision to excise the optical disc (granted, most experts believe this technology is long past its heyday), Apple sends a much more controversial message: like the floppy disc before it, the optical disc is on the way out. Welcome to Steve Jobs’ “disc-less” tomorrow.

Before you scoff, consider this: try to remember the last disc you put in a Macintosh laptop that wasn’t a DVD. Now consider the success of Apple’s foray into video, with its TV and movie rentals, conveniently rolled out at around the same time as the Air. This has made iTunes the premier alternative to both DVD and CD. Don’t believe me? Consider who killed Sony’s Walkman. After all, the CD didn’t look really dead until Apple provided the masses with an easy-to-use MP3 player whose ubiquitous white earbuds now stand testament to its almost total dominance of music culture. And finally consider that the HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray war, which once promised to be a globe-consuming, million dollar conflict, has already crowned a winner, as Toshiba cuts its losses and leaves the field to Sony. While it is very possible that the market could never have supported both formats, it is equally possible that the dominion of the DVD (Blu-Ray or otherwise) is shrinking. The time may be right. If one company can ensure the DVD’s demise, fear the one that bears the bitten fruit.

To be sure, Apple’s competitors would have to follow where the Air leads, which is not a given. Even after the iPhone single-handedly remade the handset market in it’s own image, companies that see the logic in a business model built around nifty handsets may balk before completely opting out of disc-drives. A touch screen is a risky addition, but a disc-less machine is a downright leap of faith. In any case it will probably be a few years before bandwidth becomes cheap enough, and wireless widespread enough for the Internet to be a truly practical alternative to plastic plates. Apple itself has hardly made a dogma of “disclessness,” as all its other machines remain strictly optically integrated. But I loathe to relegate the Macbook Air to mere boutique item, if only out of sheer awe of Steve Jobs’ depthless innovative chutzpah. Call it a hunch, but I’m guessing the disc-less age is a whole lot closer than we think.

Charlie is a freshman in Arts & Sciences and a staff columnist. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Scott Bressler

A day late and a dollar short, but I still have something to say about the Alberto Gonzales visit-and backlash-last week.

Let’s start with the basics: I am very liberal, am an ardent critic of basically everything about the Bush administration and have never at any time supported the war in Iraq or the use of torture and/or indefinite detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo. I am not, and have never been, a supporter in any kind of the Republican Party generally or Alberto Gonzales personally; in fact, watching the Congressional investigation over the summer along with the rest of the world, I thought he was kind of a joke.

That said, I was genuinely impressed with Judge Gonzales last week, not only with the way he handled himself given how ridiculously unpopular he has become, but more so with his willingness to engage in debate with his critics. I was one of the twenty-some students to attend the Q&A session “for critics and skeptics” before the speech, and I have to tell you, the play that session got here in Student Life and by word-of-mouth on campus was, frankly, wrong. Perhaps the Judge did not answer questions as politically as we may have liked; perhaps he did not give in to the borderline-antagonistic pressure some of my peers tried to exert on him; but that’s not to say that he didn’t answer candidly and frankly. He answered legally.

When asked about the constitutionality of some of the policies in the PATRIOT Act, policies that he personally lobbied Congress to renew, the former Attorney General answered (and I paraphrase), “That law was passed because Congress feels that those tools are the best way to fight the war on terror, and any questions regarding constitutionality can and should be brought before the Supreme Court.”

When asked why the Bush administration has chosen to classify detainees as “enemy combatants” rather than “prisoners of war” given that it has declared a “war” on terror, he answered with the legal definition of “prisoner of war,” a definition with criteria that detainees, not being associated with any legitimate state, simply do not meet. He further stipulated that the difference in label has not stopped the government from treating prisoners humanely.

A student then went for the obvious follow-up, asking “What about waterboarding?” and proposing that CIA and Justice Department officials engaging in and/or supporting waterboarding should have to be water-boarded themselves. To this Hon. Gonzales answered, “What a lot of people don’t understand is that that’s already happening, there are military and Justice Department officials who have voluntarily undergone the procedure.”

It was then pointed out that one Justice Department official who was waterboarded concluded and announced publicly his opinion that water-boarding is torture, to which the Judge responded, “If he did, he didn’t say it to me, and he should have.”

Fault me for na’veté if you want and say what you want about the speech itself (which, I’ll be the first to admit, was highly partisan and, in parts, highly fallacious), but I didn’t see anything partisan, immoral or evasive in the way Hon. Gonzales answered our questions. His answers were ideological, certainly, but they were framed with respect to the role and the responsibilities of a White House counsel and/or a U.S. Attorney General. He didn’t offer moral judgments or admissions that policies are fundamentally “wrong,” but why would he? He wasn’t responsible for designing policies or casting moral judgment, he was responsible for casting legal judgment. Every question, without fail, found a well-developed and well-articulated legal answer.

Anyone who went in looking for vindication, looking for a disgraced politician to admit that he was morally misguided and that the Democrats have had it right all along, walked away disappointed.

But, honestly, anyone who went in with that kind of an attitude would have walked away with the same opinion either way, so then what’s the point? Alberto Gonzales was brought to campus to inspire political discourse, because he is a controversial former public official. (Note: PUBLIC official, not political official; PUBLIC figure, not political figure.) And to the extent that he came here, to the extent that he volunteered himself to defend his actions as the Attorney General, with respect to the obligations and responsibilities of that office, I think he did a pretty good job.

I don’t agree with any of his political opinions and I probably never will, but at least I can respect the office.

Sara is a junior in Arts & Sciences and a staff columnist. She can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Dear Editor:

In response to last Monday’s staff editorial, “Class councils need more work,” the Junior Class Council has chosen to spend its funds wisely by taking much time to research, organize and execute our events. We have been working since the beginning of the year with the Career Center and the Junior Jumpstart committee to plan a successful event in the spring. We have also organized “Junior Java” and have completed the design for class T-shirts which will be available at the Junior Java event.

We believe that the class shirts and Junior Java events will help promote class unity while also providing the class with opportunities to learn more about their options after they complete their undergraduate education.

-David Ross
President of the Junior Class Council

Last Thursday, the Sophomore Honorary put on a lecture given by Wash. U. Architecture Professor Bob Hansman. Bob has been working at Wash. U. since 1990 and started an organization called City Faces in the early 1990s that is almost completely funded by the campus event “Mr. Wash. U.” The organization works out of a former food pantry in the Clinton-Peabody projects on 14th street in downtown St. Louis and gives young children an opportunity to get out of their homes and off the streets to enjoy inspirational company provided by Bob, Wash. U. students and past members of City Faces while working on self-portraits and other art projects. Bob’s speech was one of the most intense rhetorical roller coasters I have ever been on in my life. Armed simply with two slide projectors and his own unbelievable life experiences, in two hours he opened my eyes to the harsh reality of the world outside of the Wash. U. bubble.

In a whirlwind of life stories that focus on almost 40 children, Bob communicates the urgency of racial and social issues in the city of St. Louis. After explaining the founding of the organization, which was created in an attempt to purge himself from guilt for leaving behind the rapidly decaying area of St. Louis known as “McRee-Town,” Bob took on the challenge to start a summer art program for the children facing the torrential adversity of living in the projects. As each slide clicked, more young faces were introduced and pieces of their amazing art showed unbelievable talent. However, midway through the presentation, almost like a based-on-a-true-story Hollywood heartstring-tugger, everything came crashing down. Soon each click of the projector showed another child who was dead because of illness or violence. A life spent behind bars due to grand theft auto, assault, drug dealing or worse; the stakes rose higher and higher. Painful anecdotes about how these children, living 10 miles away from the most wealthy institution in the state of Missouri, cannot afford to eat everyday; how they are selling drugs on the streets before puberty; and how this one man has done everything but martyred himself in order to try and help these children.

Finally, the second to last slide showed a piece of art done by a nine-year-old who came into City Faces. At the bottom of the paper was her face, with a line splitting the page in two. On the left side her face was colored in with a purple crayon to show tears running down her face. Above her head were dilapidated buildings, guns firing and a man dying on the street with blood pouring out of his chest; the caption read: “This is life for us now.” On the right side of the picture, her face was colored brown with a smile, the sun radiating above her head and a young girl jumping rope; the caption read: “This is what we want but don’t know how to make it that way.”

With his final click, the slides switched. On the left side was a picture of the 14th street projects; on the right side was a picture of Brookings Hall here at Wash. U. A gasp slipped my lips and, I’m not exaggerating, my breathing stopped. Pictures say a thousand words-this picture showed my whole life. Enjoying the jumprope sunshine of my privileged life, perpetuated by my attendance here at Wash. U.–I, like almost every Wash. U. student, has never known what life is like on the left side of that picture. The least I can do is try and give back through bettering myself, educating myself on the real issues and sharing that knowledge with others.

From my count, there were about 55 people in Graham Chapel to hear the talk. It is easy to say we are too busy, or we are too hungover, or we are too disinterested to attend a lecture about the truth of St. Louis, or do other activities to actively give back to the community. But the reality is that St. Louis is a part of our lives; it is a part of our institution. It is part of the official name of our school and it is a part of the school’s identity whether the administrators, the faculty, or we, the students, like it or not. It is hard to remove ourselves from our comfort zone; it is terrifying and painful. But that does not mean it is not worth the risk. One learns the most whenever he or she is uncomfortable. This is a lesson that time has taught me again and again. I do not write this editorial to criticize. College is four years of soul searching and transience buffered by $40,000 dollars of tuition-I understand that. But if we are really here to better educate ourselves, there is an amazing opportunity that cannot be quantified by credits, or GPA, or standardized test scores. It is the environment that surrounds us; it is the city of St. Louis. I encourage everyone who reads this to speak to faculty members, other students, campus workers, and owners and employees of local businesses to try and better understand the city that, whether or not we like it, we are a part of, and is a part of us.

Michael is a senior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].