But let’s read the fine print. What he actually said was that he thinks gays should be able to get married, but not that they have the right to get married. It may seem like a trivial distinction, but not when you consider that U.S. democracy runs on federalism, and Obama still supports the concept of states deciding on their own. That may sound good conceptually speaking, but how about when a state like North Carolina actually bans same-sex marriage (not to mention other forms of gay partnerships, such as civil unions) as it did yesterday? Does the president back that? As gay activist Dan Savage puts it, “The president supports same-sex marriage while also supporting the right of states to ban the same-sex marriages that he supports.” In a brilliant political maneuver, Obama gets a huge pat on the back from the left and can, when he needs to in the campaign, retreat behind the “states’ rights” argument — the star witness for historical inequality in this country.

Equality should not be a state issue kind of like how slavery should not, and now is not, a state issue. You know what would have been a more courageous endorsement? Something like, “I believe the equal protection clause of the constitution guarantees all people the same rights. That includes same-sex marriage.” As it stands now, Obama does not publicly think North Carolina’s new amendment is unconstitutional. He just personally thinks gays should be able to get married. That doesn’t really heal the wounds of many devastated North Carolinians today.

Throughout his career, the president’s position on gay marriage has “evolved” in a convenient manner. Is it any surprise that his “endorsement” of marriage equality should be any less politically convenient? His words were no accident. This is his personal opinion. Yes, I’m overjoyed just like everyone else, but somehow the whole thing just didn’t feel nearly as gutsy as I had hoped.

I don’t mean to diminish what should be a happy occasion. It’s not everyday that a sitting U.S. president even personally endorses same-sex marriage. It’s only today actually. There is no denying that this is a step in the right direction, but it isn’t even close to the last step. I believe the president will eventually further evolve on his states’ rights opinion because I don’t think he even believes it (just like I don’t think he was ever really opposed to gay marriage in the first place).

Here is the president’s opportunity to use his bully pulpit in positively advancing the discourse over same-sex marriage. It’s my hope that this is the start of something real — something that can eventually become bona fide policy action — and not some politically calculated culmination of his own personal evolution.

In the UK, the country I’ve called home for the past few months, we’ve now officially entered an unexpected double-dip recession. Like Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron inherited a huge debt. However, the British pound is much more vulnerable than the dollar, and the Tories decided to institute swift austerity measures for fear of becoming the next Greece. Instead of stimulating the economy to create some momentum, Britain has begun to feel the sting of untimely austerity. So where is the market confidence that austerity was supposed to inspire?

WUPRadio’s resident European, Johan Olofsson, pens this:

If we chose to ignore austerity because it is uncomfortable and unpopular, it will result in Armageddon. Obama is going to have a tough time pitching austerity as self-defeating, especially since the US hasn’t participated in any form of austerity yet – ignoring the Simpson-Bowles Commission – [and] frankly Romney’s plan isn’t much better.

Armageddon? Really? With austerity on the ropes, conservatives can only rely on hyperbole to shove their policies down our throats. Actually, President Obama should not have a hard time pitching austerity as self-defeating because — well — it is. Fiscal retrenchment now would squash long-term revenue at a time we need it most. What’s the deal with austerity apologists? When did decades of economic theory go out the window in favor of an imaginary concept brewed by biases of the elite? As they say here in England, it beggars belief.

Here’s the pro-austerity version of the European story: Squandering politicians brought on massive budget deficits that triggered a crisis. The truth is, that only occurred in Greece. It’s an awkward fact for austerians that Spain and Ireland were running surpluses when the crisis began. What went wrong there? Let’s take Spain as an example. Leading up to the crisis, Spain saw a huge housing boom that was financed by large private banks. Sound familiar? This wasn’t about imprudent government spending, but rather the introduction of private capital. In 2007, Spain’s net debt was 27% of their GDP — compare that with 50% in the now externally hawkish Germany. It may seem easy to condemn spendthrift Spain for their troubles, but I’d sooner blame private German banks for engendering a dangerous housing bubble without recourse.

With French President Nicolas Sarkozy struggling against an anti-austerity opponent, the Dutch government crumbling over austerity proposals, and the British double-dip recession, one would think that President Obama is poised for a convincing reelection mantra. He can say:

Recovery from a financial crisis is nuanced and slow. While Europeans have exacerbated their problems through premature austerity, our stimulus helped and we made some necessary cuts too. We’re on the road to recovery.

If only Americans actually paid attention to Europe. Unfortunately, politics is not that simple. The irony is if European austerity sparks a mega-disaster, Obama will pay for it in November. If the Romney austerians have their way, we’ll pay for it too.

For more on politics and beyond, follow me on Twitter.

Click me!

Over the past few months, the media has been abuzz with fears, threats, and uncertainties regarding the Iranian nuclear program. Nuclear technology was first introduced to Iran by the United States in the 1960s, and today Iran retains the right to a peaceful nuclear program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Suspicions surrounding the Iranian nuclear program were thrown into the limelight after the publication of a November, 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, which suggested possible military dimensions to the Iranian program. The international response to the possibility of an Iran with weapons of mass destruction was immediate and persistent. Bloggers made predictions of nuclear Armageddon, politicians imposed sanctions and discussed draconian measures, and the salivating media catered to and fostered public misconceptions and prejudices. The Iranian nuclear “crisis” continues to make headlines, and the conversation about how best to address the situation has proven both polarizing and contentious.

Ambassador Mousavian served as Iranian Ambassador to Germany in the 1990s and spokesman for Iran’s team in nuclear negotiations with the European Union and IAEA from 2003 to 2005.

In response to the controversy surrounding the Iranian nuclear program, the Iranian Culture Society and Global Zero, a student chapter of the international disarmament organization, brought Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian to campus on April 4th. Ambassador Mousavian served as Iranian Ambassador to Germany in the 1990s and spokesman for Iran’s team in nuclear negotiations with the European Union and IAEA from 2003 to 2005. He is currently a Visiting Scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

During his interview with WUPR, the ambassador spoke candidly about his views on everything from reasonable concessions Iran should make in negotiations and the national pride surrounding Iran’s nuclear program to the reasons the Iranian government is so suspicious of inspectors. He also addressed the Israeli threat of a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and spoke about the ways in which a long history of sanctions has shaped Iran’s development towards military self-sufficiency.

WUPR: You maintain that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. When one reads the news these days, though, the headlines address not whether Iran’s nuclear program has military dimensions but rather how the global community can deal with a rogue Iran bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Do you believe that the current situation is being misrepresented by the media, and, if so, what information do you wish the average American understood?

Amb. Mousavian: I am convinced there is no nuclear weapons dimension to the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian nuclear program is 99% political issue and 1% technical issue. There is consensus between the US, Israel, and even Europeans that: First, Iran doesn’t have a nuclear bomb; Second, Iran has not decided to make nuclear bomb; and Third, even if Iran decides to make a nuclear bomb today, it would take some years. These three issues are a matter of consensus between politicians, security, and intelligence services of the US, Israel, Europeans, and all Western countries.

The issue which has been discussed actually came out after the IAEA November, 2011 Report about possible military dimensions [to the Iranian nuclear program]. The questions or the ambiguities are not related to the current program, but are about Iranian intentions [regarding] programs in the mid 1980s, early 1990s. It is about past activities, not current activities. What [IAEA Director General] Amano, successor of ElBaradei, raised in the 2011 IAEA report [about possible military dimensions to the Iranian nuclear program]…was nothing new, nothing new. It was more just for political propaganda. All experts world-wide wrote that there was nothing new: it was the old issues. I believe, having been either directly or indirectly working on this file for ten years, talking with the IAEA, Europeans, and Westerners, that if there were a political compromise between Iran and the US, the file in Vienna would be closed within a week. This is just a political issue.

WUPR: What do you think was the political motivation behind the release of the report?

Amb. Mousavian: Look…In 1960s, 1970s when Shah was in Iran, although Shah was a brutal dictator with no democracy and no human rights, he was a US ally, and so the US proposed that Iran be a nuclear country. The proposal was presented in the 1960s in the Atoms for Peace Program.

WUPR: And is this after or before the Non-Proliferation Treaty [of 1967]?

Amb. Mousavian: Even before. Then, the US proposed for Iran to have 23 nuclear power plants by the year 2000. After Non-Proliferation Treaty, in 1976 the Gerald Ford issued a directive for Iran to have a full nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment. In 1967, Americans made the first Iranian nuclear sites: Tehran research rectors. And it was completely clear for all that the Shah was after a nuclear bomb. There is a 1974 report from CIA to the President (Nixon, at the time) that says if the Shah were alive in mid 1980s, Iran would have a nuclear bomb. Therefore, not only was there no objection [to Iran becoming a nuclear weapon state], but it was the proposal of the US for Iran to be a nuclear country, [and the use provided] all facilities: nuclear power plant, research, enrichment—everything.

The day Iran revolted against its dictator, the US alliance was removed, and after hostage taking problem (American embassy diplomats were taken as hostages in 1980), hostilities mounted extremely between Iran and the US. And then we had the Iran-Iraq war, and the US was supportive of the aggressor, Saddam Hussein. After this period, you see objections on the part of the US to Iran having nuclear technology. When Iran had a king, the US ally, it was permitted to have everything with the full support of the US. That’s why I believe the issue is completely political. Also, countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel have strategic relationships with the US even though they are not member of the NPT. But even they possess nuclear bombs. Iran is a member of the NPT and does not posses nuclear weapons. Can you compare? This is a political issue.

WUPR: Do you think that Iran will stay a member of the NPT for a long time?

Amb. Mousavian: Yes.

WUPR: What concessions is the Iranian government prepared to make in negotiations? And do you think that complete transparency is a feasible goal?

Amb. Mousavian: I believe the concession Iran should and would make is the face-saving solution: 100% transparency and an open fuel cycle with the maximum level of cooperation with the IAEA and with all commitments, and [a promise] that Iran in the future [would] not divert its nuclear capability towards nuclear weapons and would not become a nuclear weapons state. They would make all of these concessions if the legitimate rights of Iran [to nuclear power] were recognized under the NPT… and if sanctions were lifted and the nuclear file normalized by the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA.

WUPR: I know that in the past Iran was presented with the option of shipping its uranium overseas to be enriched, but declined the offer. Is that something it would consider again under any circumstances?

Amb. Mousavian: Iran never considered such a proposal. [You are referring to] a proposal made the first time by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Kislyak in 2004, when I visited Russia. In a meeting in Moscow, he told me that the Russia was prepared to receive Iranian production of UF₄ UF₆ (precursors of usable uranium), do the enrichment in Russia, and then sell you it back to Iran. This proposal was rejected because this was exactly the same plan to deprive Iran from enrichment. Even the Russians were not prepared to have a joint venture on Russian soil with Iran. They said that they would not make such a joint venture with Iran; they would make a trading company with Iran. And this trading company would buy Iranian UF₆ and sell back enriched uranium. And Russians said that there should not be enrichment activities in Iran. We immediately rejected this, even under President Khatami (known as a relative moderate). And then under Ahmedinejad, Larjani also rejected [this proposal], because Iran will not forgo its nuclear rights at any price.

WUPR: Just as a matter of principal?

Amb. Mousavian: It is a matter of principle: this is the right of Iran under the NPT. It is a matter of consensus. It is a matter of national pride. Also, there are a lot of logical implications of this know-how for the country in other sectors like medicine and agriculture; this has huge implications in other parts of economy and technology. While Iran had an enrichment consortium with France to have its uranium enriched on French soil in the 1970s, right after the revolution, France declined to continue the cooperation. Therefore, Iran can no longer trust enrichment to other countries, because any day they decide, they can cut it.

WUPR: Is the nuclear program a great source of pride for the average Iranian citizen?

Amb. Mousavian: Yes. 95% of Iranians support nuclear technology. 55% oppose nuclear bombs. 35% support nuclear bombs. But 78% support for Iran to have the maximum level of transparency with no limitation in order to maintain the rights of the nation.

WUPR: Since you assert that Iran’s program is purely peaceful, how can you explain the Iranian government’s actions to restrict IAEA access to some sites, and why does the government prohibit its nuclear scientists from being interviewed by IAEA officials?

Amb. Mousavian: It’s because, first of all, the IAEA is asking Iran is to implement additional protocol. They want more inspection, more access. Throughout time, from 2003 to 2005, we implemented additional protocol, we implemented Subsidiary Arrangement Code 3.1, and we even suspended enrichment. And Europeans were not capable to deliver their commitments to recognize our rights and normalize relations. And that’s why Iran decided to stop further access beyond the normal access the IAEA has in many countries. And the second issue is more cooperation and more access leads to more assassinations of scientists and more leaking of Iranian information about military and nuclear activities to foreign media by the IAEA, which should be responsible to keep everything secret for IAEA members.

And in the end, while the US and Israelis are always talking about a military strike, Iran is extremely suspicious that when they [IAEA inspectors] are talking about access to everywhere, they don’t mean the nuclear issue but they want to collect info about the location and capability of the military in order to provide the US and Israelis with good information to attack Iran. That’s why they are very careful, and very suspicious about these types of inspections. And this is the reason I believe we need a broad package on nuclear issues and on Iran-US relations.

WUPR: Do you think that the Israeli threat to attack is credible? If so, what would the ramifications be for the US, Iran, and Israel?

Amb. Mousavian: Ramifications would be catastrophic. Already, US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was disaster for US, costing trillions of dollars. After 10 years, they really have failed. They are forced to leave Iraq and Afghanistan while the security is far beyond worse than the period before the Americans invaded: no economy, no security, no stability, nothing. In ten years, the lives of thousands of Americans, trillions of dollars, and 200,000 civilians in the region have died. They are leaving while the Taliban is there. The security situation is a disaster. Already they have failed. But if they invade Iran or attack Iran, the consequences would be tenfold. You cannot compare the potential of Iran to Afghanistan or Iraq.

And I believe it would be the real threat for the existence of Israel if they attacked Iran. Whether this is credible or not, I think Netanyahu from the beginning was going to make a credible threat in order to convince USA, the UK, and the EU to go for crippling sanctions of oil and central bank. And he knew without credible threats for nuclear strike, they would not compel Europeans and Americans to go for such sanctions. This is my general understanding.And the other issue, policy, is that of Netanyahu is going to divert national public opinion from the real issue of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The third is to keep Iran as primary threat of region, while Iran doesn’t have nuclear bomb and Israel has a nuclear bomb. And the fourth is its [Netanyahu government’s] own failure regarding social and economic activities inside Israel. They have an election [approaching], and Netanyahu will divert Israeli public opinion from dysfunctionality [sic] he has had and from the big social and economic problems in Israel. How can he divert the domestic public opinion? Iran is the best victim. I think these are the main reasons [behind his threat]. Israel knows they cannot attack—they are too smart to attack Iran.

WUPR: Iran is one of the most heavily sanctioned nations in the world. Over its development, how has this impacted Iran’s role in global politics? And do you think these sanctions, today and in the past, have been effective and justified?

Amb. Mousavian: There have definitely been a lot of negative ramifications for the Iranian economy. But at the same time, there are some positive ramifications, because sanctions forced Iran to become self-sufficient. Actually, today, Iran is the most self-sufficient, powerful, and capable country in the production of conventional military weapons. No one in the region is like Iran. We are building and producing tanks, airplanes, artillery—everything. The reason behind this is the sanctions during the war. Because Iran was sanctioned, it was not able to get the tanks from the US, Europe, or Russia. So Iran made them.

Sanctions and pressures made today’s Iran capable (emphasis added) of nuclear and conventional arms. Besides chemical and biological weapons, Iran today has the capability to make a nuclear bomb, chemical weapon, or biological weapon if it so decided. But, because this is not Iran’s policy, Iran is not after weapons of mass destruction. The Iranian missile power today makes the world afraid. The reason they’re frightened is a result of the sanctions imposed during the war. And therefore, sanctions have dual ramifications. One negative, of course, for Iran’s economy and for the quality of life of its people and financial transactions and foreign investment. And the positive side [to sanctions is that they] make the nation capable to resist, to be independent, and to be self-sufficient.

WUPR: Do you think the fact that Iran is so strong in conventional weaponry is a compelling reason that it would never develop a nuclear weapon?

Amb.  Mousvain: [Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons because without them it is the most powerful nation in the region. The Iran-Iraq War] proved to the region and the international community the power of nation that could resist the whole world for 8 years. And they didn’t give up one inch of their land. This is really a great nation: thousands of years of civilization, very powerful ideology. That’s why I believe Iran is already the most powerful nation in the region. And the US needs to finally compromise with Iran on the issues and disputes that they have. Iranians need to seek together to compromise. Iran is a regional power, and the US is an international power. As a key regional power and a key international power, they need to compromise. Otherwise the region will not be able to have security and stability. If the two key powers are going to confront each other, the consequences will felt on a regional scale.

"Rape" is one of the most charged words in the modern English language.

During our years at Washington University, we have listened to many of our friends describe instances of sexual assault that they have experienced at the hands of other Washington University students. Frequently, these cases are not clear-cut—one person may not intend to violate the other person; one or both of the individuals have been drinking; a verbal refusal at one point is followed by silence at a later time; physical and verbal cues seem to contradict each other; or the consent of one party is ambiguous in any number of other ways. The pervasiveness of “acquaintance rape” and the ambiguity of “consent” on our campus motivated us to investigate sexual assault at Washington University.

Lies, Damn Lies, and (Absent) Statistics?

The information we found was illuminating, but only after a lengthy and roundabout search. The data on sexual assault on our campus is limited, difficult to locate or gathered non-rigorously. The disappointing lack of statistics coupled with the absence of a sexual assault prevention coordinator on campus (until 2010) suggests that our community could afford to take this issue more seriously.

Moreover, many of the statistics that we did find on sexual assault at Washington University and on college campuses generally were inconsistent and confusing—using different terms, reaching different conclusions, and conducted in different years. The one statistic that remains unchallenged is that students on university campuses are at higher risk for sexual assault than their non-college peers. To illustrate the wide divergence in statistics, consider the following studies. A 2004 survey by the Washington University Committee on Sexual Assault, now called the Advisory Committee on Sexual Violence and Prevention, revealed that approximately one in five women and one in ten men have suffered rape or attempted rape by the time they left Washington University. In 2007, a survey of our student body conducted by the American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment found that 3.5% of women had suffered penetration or attempted penetration against their will over the past 12 months. And using a representative sample of more than 1000 female students nationally, some form of “unwanted sex” was experienced by over 50% of those questioned. Yet the widely reported national statistic for rape and attempted rape on college campuses is 15% and 12% respectively—or collectively one in four. The lack of consistent data is telling; it further confirms the ambiguity of cases of sexual assault on college campuses.

Redefining Categories of Sexual Assault

The issue of consent, and more specifically the ambiguity of consent, rests at the heart of these statistical puzzles—and the term plays a starring role in both Washington University’s and the state of Missouri’s definition of sexual assault. Put simply, if one party does not (or cannot) consent, a rights violation has occurred. Given the lack of precision in the above statistics and the inability of our current categorization to capture the nuances of sexual assault, we need an expanded vocabulary to describe instances of sexual assault that captures shades of consent. With this expanded set of terms, we can better understand ambiguous cases that may involve alcohol, an absence of a “yes” but a lack of a “no,” or a “no” without a physical rebuff.

In the spirit of obtaining a more finely tuned language set to describe acts of sexual assault, it is worth considering legal definitions of acts that result in death in order to introduce more precise definitions of sexual assault. In order to prove first-degree murder in a court of law, a prosecuting attorney must demonstrate the “premeditated intentional killing of another.” Manslaughter (or, depending on the state, involuntary manslaughter) is the unintentional, unpremeditated killing of another (e.g. inadvertently hitting someone with a car). Consequently, the two charges carry different penalties. In the case of manslaughter, we would never deny or discount the fact that a person is dead; the end state is the same as that of first-degree murder. Yet our society and courts recognize that intentionality matters and that punishment should be sensitive to this difference.

Although the murder-manslaughter analogy to sexual assault is far from perfect, when a sexual violation has been perpetrated unintentionally and without premeditation (perhaps as a result of the ambiguous consent of one of the parties), we should consider redefining its label. We should not ignore or belittle the violation in question. The consequence—a person has been violated—is the same regardless of the intention. But in certain cases we need not cast the perpetrator as an evil character, one who viciously violates others. And we need not label actors with the stigmatized term “rapist” or “victims” in all cases. A sexual assault equivalent of manslaughter—for instance “negligent sexual misconduct”—may be more fitting in particular instances on the Washington University campus.

This expanded vocabulary could have a variety of positive effects on campus, in addition to being beneficial in its increased precision. The first positive effect could be to increase the percentage of reported sexual assaults. In 2009, five rapes were reported at Washington University, down from seven rapes reported the year before. These numbers are in sharp tension with the often-cited national statistic of 15% mentioned above and even the Washington University statistic of 3.5% (which amounts to approximately 120 women out of an undergraduate population of 3,500 women). Since most college cases involve acquaintances rather than strangers, the decision to report a sexual assault would often require accusing friends or, at the very least, someone who will continue to be in your immediate campus environment. With the addition of “negligent sexual misconduct” as a possible category of sexual assault, people may be more likely to admit to themselves and to others that a sexual assault has occurred. Put simply, students may be more likely to report the incident.

The second positive effect would be that our discourse on sexual assault can stop dividing women and men immediately on the question of whether rape has actually occurred. You might remember your discussion after “The Date” during freshmen orientation. This absolute dichotomy – “rape” or “not rape”—works to the detriment of any productive engagement with the issue or with specific cases on campus. Therefore, if a less stigmatized category is introduced, men may be less inclined to instinctively become defensive.

Examining Culture and Sexual Pressures

In addition to reclassifying the categories of sexual assault, we also need to understand how cultural norms create an environment that allows for so much miscommunication concerning sexual assault. In other words, asking “why” is just as important as carefully categorizing and responding to an existing phenomenon.

Sexual assault deals with a violation of the normal conventions of sexual behavior. How do our expectations of what constitutes normal sexual behavior for men and women lead to such a toxic and stagnant discussion of finding the person at fault? Women are expected to be sexy, but not too sexy. They are expected to strike the perfect balance between “virgin” and “whore,” between mother and temptress. After all, women gain much of their social power from making use of their sexuality. The most popular girls in high school are often the ones who focus the most on their appearance and best use their looks to communicate status and power. Yet cross the forbidden line of too many boys or too little clothing, and a girl is instantly disrespected as loose or a slut. As Jackson Katz writes in It Takes a Village to Rape a Woman, “Young women [are] caught in this Catch-22 – where social validation comes from sexuality but the more sexual you act, the more you may be blamed –…[and they] are constantly negotiating an impossible balance, constantly concerned that admiration may change to contempt.”

At all college campuses, including Wash U, fraternities often bring the perfect storm of alcohol and a sexually competitive and charged environment to lead to mistakes.

While we may like to hold on to the comforting notion that things are different on our campus, they are not. You may do well on tests and participate in class, but you will still have to concern yourself with how low your dress should be on weekends. Imagine that you choose one night to wear that dress with the revealing décolletage. Now consider the 1995 study that reveals that, when faced with a scenario of sexual assault (between a man and a woman) and an accompanying photo of the woman dressed provocatively, respondents are more likely to judge the woman as responsible and the man’s actions as justified. When sexual assault occurs, women are often seen as “being a tease” or “asking for it.”  And yet women are looked down upon for dressing too modestly.

Women face these complicated pressures when deciding whether to report sexual assault—and for men the situation is still more difficult. Why do we not talk about male victims of rape?  As previously mentioned, in 2004 the Washington University Advisory Committee on Sexual Violence and Prevention found that one in ten men were survivors of rape or attempted rape. Yet on the rare occasions that this subject surfaces in discussion, we primarily limit it to a location clearly demarcated as outside the realm of normal society: prison. Men in prison are raped because they have no other choice; they cannot fight back. From this mindset springs the idea that outside such toxic environments, men should be able to fight back and defend themselves. According to Katherine Baker, “All rapes, in part, are about sex and masculinity and domination. But some…are predominantly about sex, some…are predominantly about masculinity, and some…are predominantly about domination.” Since men are supposed to be dominant and since sexual assault is fundamentally about powerlessness, the idea of being of a victim often leads to intense self-loathing, guilt, and shame. The social role of a “real man” is also often homophobic. Both gay and straight men are sexually assaulted, yet both are reluctant to report incidents because of the implicit connection society makes between sexual assault and sexual orientation.

A Way To Move Forward

If someone is accused of “negligent sexual misconduct,” perhaps the best solution is to require the accused and the accuser to meet separately with a professional counselor. Without diminishing the severity of the situation, this method would provide a more appropriate response to ambiguous cases of sexual assault than legal action. Of course, depending on the circumstances, the counselor may determine that the case is rape and report it to the authorities. Dealt with in-house and with discretion, this less punitive means to address certain cases of sexual assault could allow women and men to be less silent on the issue. We do not have all the answers, and our suggestions for Washington University are far from exhaustive. While you may disagree with our prescriptions, the status quo is unacceptable.

When pitted against its eastern Ivy League cousins, Midwestern Washington University carries a natural chip on its shoulder. Founded 217 years after Harvard, Washington University could never become an “establishment” institution capable of pumping out senators and cabinet secretaries with an alarmingly high frequency. Former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford, Washington University’s most well known political alumnus, rose to national prominence on the coattails of fellow Missourian President Harry Truman. Their eastern counterparts viewed both with derision for their simple Midwestern roots.

Even when compared to its two Midwestern rivals, Northwestern and the University of Chicago, Washington University is dwarfed in political stature. The University of Chicago Economics Department played a key role in Ronald Reagan’s presidency with Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman serving on the Council of Economic Advisors. “The Chicago School” of economics also gained its fair share of notoriety for its role in advising Augusto Pinochet, the longtime derechista dictator of Chile. Northwestern can currently claim Attorney General Eric Holder as an esteemed law school graduate; and President Obama spent years teaching at University of Chicago Law School.

Still, Washington University is at the very least the academic behemoth in Missouri politics. Former Missouri senators John Danforth and Jim Talent both have roots on campus (though Danforth never attended as a student). Missouri political clout grows on the walls here, with names like Crow (a former senator), Danforth, and Gephardt (a former House Minority Leader) adorning buildings across campus. But compared to institutions producing US presidents, these names are small potatoes. While famous alumni comprise only a part of a university’s political reputation, Washington University still lags behind in a highly visible arena.

Somewhat incongruously, U.S. News and World Report consistently ranks our political science highly among political science departments nationally. The story here is in the details. Though the department holds the quite respectable rank of 15^th for American politics, they shoot up the list to 7^th for political methodology. Mirroring its other strengths, Washington University finds its political prowess in the scientific analysis of politics more than its execution.  Analysis rarely makes headlines, even if it provides the backbone of a story.

Washington University’s climb in the national rankings has been rapid, and many on campus hope the ultimate summit remains in the distance. In many ways, Washington University stands out as the Brazil of American academia. Overcoming the tumultuous decades of the sixties and seventies [think of the burning of the ROTC building and the destruction of the sociology department], Brazil has capitalized on particular drivers of growth [think of the university’s love affair with Biomedical Engineering] to assume a role as one of the top developing nations [universities] in the world. Brazil shrugs off many of the political pressures considered by European nations and the US, preferring to let commerce dictate foreign policy.

While eastern universities often serve as staging grounds for major political and ideological battles, Washington University remains focused on reputation growth and the hard sciences, putting off political affairs for future generations. We seem to have flipped the words of John Adams: “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.”

With increased admissions selectivity, a growing endowment, and wider name recognition, Washington University will gradually develop as a politically conscious and active institution. The eastern establishment has faded, and the well-heeled men from New York and Boston no longer have exclusive control over the pipeline to Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. Washington University will have its cabinet secretaries—just as soon as it has its engineers.

All of us will agree that this defines segregation.

Washington University has a self-segregation problem. The problem does not lie with the communities centered around certain identities, but with the criticism and labeling of such groups as “self-segregating.” This term takes the word “segregation,” which is inextricably linked to a century of legalized oppression and applies it to individuals who find value in hanging out together. Segregation is what my father experienced when he grew up in a racially stratified Charleston, West Virginia, where he was denied access to “white only” movie theaters, skating rinks, and amusement parks. It is a word with such heavy and specific historical meaning that it should be used only with the greatest care and precision.

“Self-segregation” implies that minorities have returned to such a period of injustice, only this time that they have brought it upon themselves. It calls up images of entrenched barriers, implying that identity-based groups create tension by fostering a segregated environment. The term fails to acknowledge the value of identity-based communities, suppresses open dialogue, and creates social tension within the broader university community.

Identity-based groups bring benefits to their members, who are often affected by the continuing existence of racism and discrimination in the United States. Acts of racism happen regularly, with recent incidents occurring close to home. In 2009, six black Washington University students were denied entry into Mother’s Bar in Chicago, and in 2010, cotton balls were placed in front of the Black Culture Center at Mizzou.

In addition to these explicit actions, discrimination also manifests in subtler ways. Microaggressions are common acts of implicit racism, such as when a person locks his car doors as a black man walks by, or when a mixed person is asked, “What are you?” These experiences are frequent and over time can lead to psychological distress and feelings of disenfranchisement. Such incidents, among others, often cause minorities to share a set of similar experiences.

At Washington University, I found a home in the mixed community, where I could talk to friends about handling the “what are you” question or responding to jokes that challenge my mixed identity. The mixed community provided me with a safe space to talk about my experiences. While Mixed as a student group welcomes anyone who wishes to attend meetings, sometimes I deliberately seek out multiracial friends to talk to. I find they have more of a basis to understand many of my experiences, some of which I simply could not explain well to a non-mixed friend. I owe much of my self-esteem and healthy development at Washington University to its mixed community.

Are we so quick to label this segregation, as well?

In addition to experiences, people of the same identity might also choose to associate on the basis of common interests, beliefs, or practices. Slavery and segregation created minority communities that developed their own customs when they were legally excluded from mainstream society. Thanks to an incredibly strong group identity, the black community fought for and achieved legal equality in the 1950s and 1960s. These united efforts helped minorities develop strong cultural connections through struggle. The common attitudes and practices that developed in minority communities under systemic oppression deserve to be protected through minority associations.

Common traits and experiences are at the foundation of strong groups: they help build trust, understanding, and meaningful relationships. All groups at Washington University—not just identity-based groups—have these characteristics. In fact, they are at the core of why people associate at all.

If identity-based groups have the same qualities as other groups, then the concern with those groups must be with their effect on the university community. Only if identity-based groups in particular increased social tension in our community would there be cause to single them out.

In my experience, however, tension typically does not result from the existence of groups but from a lack of communication between them. Every student belongs to a number of groups that help make the Washington University experience special. The key to maintaining a healthy campus climate is for groups to value and understand one another. Understanding is a process that requires all parties—students and student groups—to listen and actively engage in dialogue.

By putting some demographic groups on the defensive, terms like “self-segregation” impede progress toward a more open and productive dialogue. Eliminating that phrase from our student body’s vocabulary would signify a collective change in attitude, from passive misunderstanding to active engagement.

Universities are peculiar organizations. A student’s relationship to a university can take multiple forms; but fundamentally, we, as students, are its customers. On paper, we pay to prepare for the rest of our lives, but anyone who has had a work-study job or a research assistantship will tell you that students are also the university’s employees. Perhaps most importantly, the university and its students are expected to make each other look good. By going out and making an impact in the world, we give the university a good name: the same good name we use to further the reach of our impact. In short, it’s complicated. What, then, can students expect the university to consider when hiring professors for tenure or tenure-track positions?

Washington University is a research university. In order to get tenure, a professor must also be a high-quality researcher, which means different things in different fields. Usually, it means publishing journal articles and, ideally, books. In the natural sciences, a professor directs a lab and mentors graduate students. Teaching, while not wholly irrelevant, is arguably the least of the major criteria. In short, a research university cares more that a professor can further a body of knowledge than impart it. Professors that primarily teach are usually called lecturers and receive both less pay and job security.

The previous argument implies a trade-off between good teaching and good research abilities. Yet, professors can be both brilliant academics and good communicators in a classroom. (This writer has certainly had plenty of professors who are both.) However, the system as it is structured is not intentionally designed to train teachers. Doctoral candidates are expected to perform research for their entire program, usually around five years, while taking a certain credit requirement. Along the way, they act as teaching assistants for two or three courses. This is hardly adequate preparation for facing a lecture hall with eighty students. The way tenure is structured means that teaching—especially for undergraduate classes—is almost an afterthought.

This means that the good professors in the classroom are the ones who want to be good, or are naturally gifted. They do not have to be, nor are they trained to be.

Many students have expressed their dissatisfaction with this tenure process. Teaching, they argue, should be given more weight than it is now. After all, the returns of engaging, effective teaching are enormous. Not only are we more focused in a classroom, we learn more, and we may find what we love to do because of an inspiring professor. Moreover, tuition is not cheap, and for the amount one pays for a Washington University education, a student would be justified in asking for the best classroom experience on offer.

Crow Hall Physics Department, October 1, 1954

Why We Really Go To Washington University:

Economists, like Michael Spence in his seminal 1973 paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, have extensively studied the impact of education on a person’s wage. The assumptions at play are that a liberal arts education is a good thing, but not as important as getting a good job. While it’s clear that a higher education level (up until a point) means a higher income, it’s not clear why. One theory frequently cited is that education imparts skill sets that workers use. Another is called signal theory, which argues that what we actually learn at college isn’t important: it’s important that we were at college, because it signals to an employer that we mean business. While both are no doubt feasible theories, the latter is more relevant to Washington University. The actual material that we learn isn’t too different from what a student at another university would learn. And the fact that we pay so much more is a function of the importance of name brand.

This is a generalization. The liberal arts education provided by Washington University may not be found elsewhere. However, getting a job often outweighs the liberal arts approach for most students. The basis for this is anecdotal, but the number of students who complain about the cluster system, and take easy classes to ‘get the requirement out of the way’ is suggestive.

Unfortunately, therefore, we overestimate the importance of professors; Washington University students are capable of succeeding in most courses without a brilliant instructor. A good textbook, help sessions, and practice are usually enough. We don’t primarily enroll in university to learn from a professor. Many of us are here to tell employers, graduate schools, and investors that we are worth hiring.

Crow Machine Shop, pre-1955

What Research Does

By hiring professors who are brilliant in their field and constantly publishing, the university furthers its name. When this happens, it attracts the best and brightest students, research funding, and more professors. The university grows in stature and size, and even helps to create a fertile environment for local job growth. This has been Washington University’s story; and in its eyes, its duty to its students has been fulfilled.

The ultimate question boils down to determining what a university’s obligation to its students is. Ideally, we would have the best minds and the most engaging professors. Unfortunately, that may be asking for too much; but between furthering the body of knowledge in academic disciplines and giving us its reputation, Washington University is doing plenty.

Without its emphasis on research, the university wouldn’t begin to approach its current endowment value of $5.35 billion. The university’s recent push towards the biomedical sciences has left students in other disciplines feeling a little hard done. While an underfunded department isn’t ideal, the departments that do well offer a compelling template. Until recently, the Biomedical Engineering department had two of the most cited chemists in the country. With an army of graduate students, and a publication or two every year, they convinced investors that money spent on their department was money well spent.

Arguably, Washington University needs to work just a little harder than most peer universities to attract the best talent. While St. Louis is a richly storied city, it sometimes struggles to retain researchers who would rather live in Chicago, New York, or in California’s Bay Area. To that end, nothing keeps the best minds like the promise of funding, and nothing procures funding like rewarding the best minds.

In the end, the winners are the students. Signaling aside, students have the opportunity to engage with the best in the business. Many students even perform research under their guidance. Even if none of this were the case, however, having a Washington University education on one’s resume counts for a lot more when the university consistently supports the world’s brightest academics.

Any further disagreement with the University’s way of appointing tenure boils down to disagreements over what the university’s obligation to its students is. Ideally, we would have the best minds and the most engaging professors in the classroom. In order to get that, however, American research universities teaching requirements need an overhaul. Unfortunately, this may be a pipe dream. Personally, I’ll take having a class with an academic celebrity as a pretty good consolation prize.

Illustration by Kate Cohen

I have always been drawn towards Eliot Hall and I frequently study there. The building’s lack of Wi-Fi prevents me from engaging in any of the innumerable cyber amusements that impede productivity. Its drafty rooms keep me from dozing off.

Perhaps my draw to the building is similar to Guy de Maupassant’s attraction to the Eiffel Tower. The French writer dined in the tower’s restaurant every day because it was the only place in Paris where he could avoid catching a glimpse of the one thousand foot structure.

To put it bluntly, I find Eliot Hall ugly. It is for this reason, however, that I refuse to join the chorus of students rejoicing in the University’s announcement that it will bulldoze the building this summer.

More Iron Curtain than Ivory Tower, the building was constructed in 1974 and reflects the ideals of Brutalism, a modernist architectural style noted for its concrete exoskeletons. Eliot sticks out amongst the neo-gothic buildings that dot the University’s Danforth Campus. Its incongruence certainly played a factor in the University’s decision to demolish it.

Wash U is very particular about and protective of its brand, as evidenced by its recent legal skirmishes with student bloggers over the utilization of various permutations of “Washington University.” Their self-consciousness extends to the architecture of campus.

The built environment is representative of how we as humans conceive of and value space. It is an exercise in expression, but also in instruction. The buildings around us significantly shape the way we think. The University is quite aware that its campus generates impressions in those who visit.

Like any good marketer, the University capitalizes upon nearly every opportunity to shape the minds, subliminally or consciously, of its customers.

Most of the Danforth Campus reflects the collegiate gothic architecture of the original Brookings Quadrangle. Buildings are constructed in a kind of reverse Botox: architectural wrinkles such as arches, grotesques, gargoyles, and spires are added to invoke the setting of an “elite” college campus we are so accustomed to seeing in the movies. Images of Oxford and Cambridge, tweed jackets with padded elbows, and heavy books flood our consciousness when we walk through the Danforth Campus.

The bell chime recordings at Graham Chapel are the University’s form of collegiate gothic Muzak: every fifteen minutes, students and visitors alike are lulled with yet another reminder that they are, in fact, on an elite institution’s campus.

Other architectural facets contribute to the University’s marketing narrative. Simon Hall is designed in a Prairie School style that captures the innovative spirit of the American frontier—and also, the University suggests, that of its business students.

The narrative works. A perusal of Washington University’s page on College Confidential, a college admissions forum, reveals that, for many prospective students, the school’s picturesque campus seems as much of a reason to attend as its rigorous academics. We become intoxicated with the buildings, which gleam like supermarket displays, waiting to be purchased.

Nothing is inherently wrong with the visceral attraction to campus aesthetics. It is what we see when we first visit a school. Unlike an academic department’s quality, the architecture of a campus is so apparent, so real.

Problems arise, however, when the authenticity is manufactured, when form does not mean function. What I mean by this is illustrated by the University’s expressed intention to erect a fence in the North Side residential area along Forest Park Parkway. In a November 17 Student Life article, Brian Newman, project manager for the installation, presented aesthetics as one of the reasons to construct the fence: “This is the first part of our campus [people] see when they come in from the airport. We want to present an attractive face to visitors, and this is an easy way we can do that.”

I have heard of very few walls described as “attractive.” Why is aesthetic appeal so important for this wall? It is, as Newman states, just as much for the visitors as it is for the safety of residents. It is off-campus locations, and not the North Side, that have been the source of safety concerns in the past few years. A gate that is accessible with a University ID will do nothing to stop students from crossing in the middle of the street. Regardless, the image of safety must be sold to potential customers.

We see other conflicts between form and function in the University’s recent addition to its collection of collegiate gothic buildings. Unlike the stone frames of Brookings Quadrangle, buildings such as Seigle Hall and Green Hall are built of reinforced concrete covered with only a thin veneer of granite and limestone. Their similitude with their gothic forefathers only goes skin-deep. One could interpret such a structure, gothic on the outside and steel on the inside, as representative of the power dynamic of Wash U: industrialists wearing academicians’ cloaks.

The point of my argument is not to brew conspiracy theories or deride the corporate influence on universities. Industry support for our university provides exceptional opportunities for students.  My question is rather how much we challenge the marketing ploys that the University presents to us and our future schoolmates. Do we look beyond the appearances? Do we accept without question the college experience that the University sells us or do we actively create our own?

A college environment is a unique place where students can shed social norms and challenge status quos. The most important lessons we learn here are not those that please us. Rather, it is in the ideas which cause us discomfort—and even upset us—that we find opportunities for growth.

As college students, we overcome the temptation to ignore complicating evidence in our papers. We refuse to caricature our ideas or other people. We learn to grapple with contradiction. Do we do the same with our campus environment?

The Danforth campus will soon erase the building that confounds our convenient notions of a college experience. Should we really be so pleased?