Alyssa GregoryThe Sophomore Class Council’s April newsletter, which arrived in mailboxes a week ago, revealed itself to be a misogynistic and grotesque flier that shocked many members of the sophomore class, as well as the Washington University community at large. Publication of this newsletter is inexcusable. Those responsible for its creation and distribution should not continue to be a part of our student government.
The highly inappropriate publication featured a column of sex questions entitled “Bare Thoughts.” Highlighting everything from penis size to women’s periods, the column also advised an anal sex eager man to “grab some K-Y jelly, turn her around, and SURPRISE!” Other offensive material included a joke about females smelling like fish and a method to tell if a woman “swallows” based on her choice of restaurants. The newsletter also included the recipe for a honeydew margarita “Drink of the Week,” despite the fact that most sophomores are not of legal drinking age.
The Class Council knew it was publishing inappropriate material, as evidenced by it not explicitly saying which liquors are needed to make the margarita and labeling the product of the recipe a “non-alcoholic liquid.” Thus, WU students essentially paid to hear the Sophomore Class Council encourage students to drink while underage. References to unsolicited anal sex were also inappropriate and tasteless, as they encouraged uninvited sexual actions. The Sophomore Class Council deliberately used their position to promote illegal and immoral behavior.
Recently, the sophomore class re-elected its current representatives to serve as next year’s Junior Class Council. We doubt that, in light of this newsletter, current sophomores feel comfortable having their current Class Council officers continue to represent them in SU next year. SU President-elect Michelle Miller should do her part to obtain the Sophomore Class Council’s resignation. Allowing them to stay in SU would be at worst condoning their behavior and at best reducing the accountability of elected representatives.
Class newsletters are SU-funded and should serve informational purposes. In this most basic regard, the sophomore newsletter failed because many students did not receive a copy in their mailboxes. Furthermore, April’s newsletter contained information that need not be specifically conveyed by the Sophomore Class Council. The included calendar of upcoming theatrical and musical events, for example, is not specifically pertinent to Sophomore Class business. Neither are the plethora of sexist jokes and sleazy pick-up lines. The 2003-2004 Housing Information, which might have been pertinent, arrived past the date where many sophomores needed to engage in the housing process. The Sophomore Class officers simply made an ineffectual attempt to actually produce a newsletter that would be informative to their constituents.
Readers of Student Life may make the comparison between the offensive newsletter and last week’s issue of Student Libel, Student Life’s annual and obviously satirical April Fools’ publication, which also offended some of its readers. There are qualitative differences, however, between the sophomore newsletter and Student Libel. The title of the latter publication immediately suggests that it should not be taken literally, that it is not even intended to be serious. In contrast, the Sophomore newsletter is supposed to be a serious and official communiqu‚. Furthermore, the newsletter is paid for by SU, which means students pay for it. Student Life, and by extension Libel, is an independent publication. Finally, the Class Council’s actions and speech, particularly in their capacity as officers, carry normative weight because they were elected to represent the Sophomore Class. Student Life’s content, though, does not represent any larger body. Opinions published in it are solely representative of the respective authors and the staff editorial represents the consensus of the Student Life editorial board.
Jordan Friedman, President of the Sophomore Class, could not say specifically who produced the offensive content for the newsletter. Apparently, each officer wrote a different portion of it. The fact that there are so many irrelevant and offensive portions of this newsletter thus speaks poorly of every member of the Council. Furthermore, Friedman admitted to not having reviewed the newsletter due to time constraints. The inappropriate content was not subtle; any cursory read of the newsletter would have called attention to its offensiveness.
Friedman did issue a short email apology to the Class of 2005 saying that he and the rest of the council had learned from their mistakes. Although the apology is a positive step, the Sophomore Class Council still should be sharply rebuked for their negligent and highly insensitive behavior. Until they can prove they are capable leaders who are willing to put time and thought into their actions, each should gracefully resign.