Inlander:  You’ve made your decision to step down in your presidential role this year. How does that feel for you?

Wow, you know, that’s a really interesting question because going through the process of making the decision was a little bit emotional. You know, I think it felt sorta bittersweet when I was making the decision. When Bonnie and I were talking about and thinking about, it was a hard decision to make. There were reasons for both stepping away and for staying.
Monday night I communicated with the board of trustees and on Tuesday we announced it. Since then, I haven’t had time to feel anything. It’s just created a lot of unplanned communication. I’ve got a couple hundred e-mails. It’s great.

These are people you love, and these are people that made it look like, you know, I was doing probably a better job than I was because they’re great people. The students at whitworth — you were a student here, you know — there’s just some wonderful people, so many wonderful students. You cant’ just say that’s nice and then move on. I’ve been spending a lot of time responding in the last few days.

The question “how do I feel,” will be a more relevant question in May than it is now. Right now, I feel like: “I’ve got a lot of work to do.”

In January, you told me “I don’t have any plans at this point to leave Whitworth.  I’m pretty much just trying to do a good job every day and see what happens,” I’m wondering, what’s changed since then?

We had been very intentional about suspending discussion — Bonnie and I — had been very intentional about resisting making an intentional decision about this. We had just operated every day as though we would be here indefinitely. And then in the Spring that’s when we decided we have to start thinking about this. Because we need to put ourselves in the position so we can decide by the fall. Because what I didn’t want to do is get into October, November and then set down and say, “all right I really have to think this through, and reach a decision that this was my last year because puts the board of trustees in the tight spot.”

The rhythm of the academic year forced us in the spring to start really thinking about it carefully.

We thought about it over the summer. I met with the chair and board chair in July. I told them there was a possibility this would be the last year and that I would be thinking and I would be praying about it,but wouldn’t make a decision until a couple weeks into school and they were okay with that.

Inlander: You said that there were some reasons for you to stay and reasons for you to step down. What were those reasons?

The reasons for staying that were probably the most compelling were the affection I have for the people of  Whitworth, students faculty staff, alumni, trustees, and the fulfillment I get from being in a place that so closely reflects my deepest values.

On the other side of the balance sheet were things such as the awareness it really would be in Whitworth’s best interest to have a president that could serve from 2010 to 2015. That’s our five year strategic plan. We know what we need to get done. It’s going to be rigorous. We need somebody who can be here in the presidency for the entire period.

And I didn’t think that would work for me. That would have brought me into almost my 30th year as college president. 2015 would have been my 29th year being a college president. It’s my 17th year here, but it is my 24th year as a college president. There are certain parts of the job that begins to wear you down. The travel starts to wear you down. The time away from your family starts to wear you down. A very circumscribed schedule where you don’t have much freedom of movement begins to wear you down. I didn’t think it would be healthy for me to go 29 years in that type of situation.

I really believe that it’s only in the most exceptional of cases that an institution benefits from a really long term presidents. Colleges and universities benefit from long-term presidencies up to a point, but when you hit that point, your contribution curve begins to flatten. I am who I am. I have the skills I have. I can do what I can do, But I’ve been doing that now, for 16 years, and those things have become a part of Whitworth. Just imagine what a boost it will be for the university when a person comes in with new  ideas, new skills, and new energies, new relationships. As a presidency my responsibility is to do what is best for Whitworth. And I am not exempt from consideration in deciding what’s best for Whitworth. I really believe that this is what’s best for Whitworth.

In a fall 2007 trustee meeting, you speculated that possibly Whitworth had changed to where you weren’t the right president for Whitworth at that time? Is that accurate?

There was that tone. It was a little bit speculative. I think what I said: Whitworth had reached a point where the skills that I brought to the campus in 1993, and were needed in 1993, are not the same skills that are needed in the next period. So, I can adapt. I do everything that needs to be done, but I have put the accent mark in the different place than where the next president should put the accent mark.

Of course, that raises the question. Where do you feel you put the accent mark?

From my standpoint, almost every decision I made and virtually all the resources Whitworth has attracted…Most of the decisions I’ve made, and most of the resources that  have attracted since my arrival have been a result of my commitment to do everything I can possibly do to make this a great place to attend college. You say, well of course. But basically what I’m saying is I’ve really focused hard on enrollment and retention. In my opinion the best way to have strong enrollment and retention and admissions is to try to create campus culture that your students are saying, “Wow, this is a great place. I love it. I’m learning a lot here.” I really worked hard on that. I did a lot of fundraising, we put up quite a a few buildings — it’s not like I didn’t do those things.

But now we’re a in a very strong position in terms of enrollment and retention. Some of the things I’ve done and the habits I’ve had that contributed to that are different than what we need to really focus on resource development. That’s where I think the next accent mark needs to be placed. If you look at 2010-2015 strategic plan, you’re going to say, all right, they’re going to be really focusing on strengthening the resources of the university.

What does that mean?

Funding for the science building, performing arts center, building the endowment, expanding the annual fund. A lot of that is related to fundraising. I’ve done a lot of that, I’ve enjoyed that. I don’t consider myself as much a fundraising president as much I do a student president or a campus culture president.

Some students I talked to were thinking as your presidency moved on you were spending less time on campus and more time fundraising? Is that accurate?

Yeah, the job just sort of demands it. I don’t know I was spending a lot less time with the students, I do know I was spending more time fundraising. You get stretched pretty thin. I think that a student who said that would probably be comparing me with me, and not with another university president. If you were to compare me with a Gonzaga president, it would have felt like I was not doing as much fundraising, and I was on campus a lot more. He was great at that, and that’s what he did.

Why does the college president need to be in the role of fundraising? Why can’t you just hire somebody who does fundraising all the time?

We do have people that’s all they do. But when you’re looking at investing a couple million dollars for example, you want to have confidence the university is moving in a direction that will protect your investment. For example: right after I made the announcement I called Christina Hixson to talk to her about my decision, to explain to her how I’ve come to the position and assure her it Whitworth was in a strong position, it was on track , and her investment was in a great shape.

Whitworth especially with the new science building and obviously the endowment taking a hit with the recession, there’s a fair amount of debt right now. Do you see Whitworth ever coming out of debt? Or is that something like the country, that we just have to live with?

In relative terms Whitworth does not have a lot of debt for a private university of our size. If we issue bonds for covering part of the cost of the science building, then we’ll be in a position that’s in a position more consistent with other colleges and university. Which is a position of indebtedness. So I think that what’s happened at many schools, and Whitworth will be included in that institutions have recognized they sit on pretty large asset bases that can be leveraged in ways to serve the students more effectively that if they were to make all purchases and construct all buildings on a debt free policy. In some senses what you’re doing is leveraging your asset base and spreading the cost. So for example, when we went out and raised the money to do the HUB.

We went out we raised $12 million to do the HUB. During that period we took the money that came to the university, we raised money we did everything we possibly could and built the HUB. There were students that voted for doing that. And frankly they didn’t benefit, even though we were busy investing ourselves raising funds for the HUB. So in some senses what you do by the strategic use of debt is you spread the cost so that  students for the life of the building or the life on the investment participate in funding it.

When have you been most proud of Whitworth?

Well, in some ways this related to the time of year it is, and to my values and those sorts of things but I’ve been most proud of Whitworth when I’ve been in contact and conversation with alumni who are making profound contributions to the world, and trace the development of their values to their time at Whitworth. That’s really what it’s about. Our whole reason of being is to put people like you in a position to make the world a better place. So when

I see Whitworth alumni, particularly the ones where I was involved in their educations. When I see them out there as teachers, as attorneys, as ministers, and all these different capacities, and you can see those Whitworth values it just makes me feel great. And in a more on campus sort of way you feel pretty good about a community day. How can you not. Students come back from giving 3 or 4000 hours of community work to our community and that makes you proud. When you feel your mission is being accomplished, those are moments when you feel food.

When have you been most disappointed?

I think the way I would answer that is I’ve disappointed when there have been times where — whether its been faculty and faculty, or faculty and administration or students with administration or students with students, I’ve probably been most disappointed when there has been contentiousness without conversation.

We try so hard to build a culture of access, a culture of transparency, a culture of conversation. So when we are really at loggerheads after conversation, after coming together, after thinking it good. That’s when it gets dialectal! That’s always going to be good. That’s Hegel’s dialectic. The thesis bangs into the antithesis and you get the synthesis. When there hasn’t been the conversation, there’s not going to be a synthesis, to be real Hegelian about it. Inlander readers understand Hagel.

Through the last two decades, numerous controversial issues have ignited the campus —pornography, censorship, homosexuality, racism, scandalous “Mock Rock” lipsyncing performances, What would you tell a future college president to do when handling those?

I think I would advise a new college president is to enter into it. The worst thing you can do is to try to eliminate the conversation or discourage the dissent. It’s not easy, but if we have a spirit of honesty and graciousness we can enter into those things and be problem-solvers rather than fighters. Those have been sometimes great moments for Whitworth. I don’t look back the times when there’ve been controversial issues that have been times of distraction or times of defeat for goodness sakes. That’s what we do. That’s what’s supposed to happen on a college campus.

Any specifics where there has been a controversy and something good has come out of it?

There’s probably been good and bad come out of all those things. Some of the racial problems we’ve had I think have sometimes resulted in progress. We’ve had tough problems on campus where eventually people come together and find out how hurtful we can be to each other. We’ve had situations where students were victims of racial profiling and we invited the police chief on campus to talk about it. I think those sorts of things can be positive.
The homosexuality issue is always going to be challenging because we’re dealing with different sets of assumptions, but the discussions we’ve had have helped people understand each other’s points of view and not each other. There’s alwaysa mixture. There’ve been some things haven’t been so good. But I think there’s been a lot of issues on campus.

The internet filter’s one of those where something good’s come out of something bad. We spent a year discussing it. We all learned a lot and reached a decision that the filters were sophisticated enough that we could still do the academic intellectual work we need to do but make it harder for students to access some of the life-depleting time-depleting material on the internet. That was an interesting one, the neat thing about that is it was student-driven. I had six students in here from BJ, saying we think you don’t know what’s going on. I probably do, but I’m probably in denial.

Over the years, have you seen the campus become more conservative, liberal or stayed the same?

I think the way I would respond to that, I feel the campus has become more tolerant — and I don’t think that means more liberal or less conservative — I’d like to think we’re more comfortable with a big standard deviation. Which is to say it’s okay for people to have points of view that are far left or far right.

Having said all that, I think during my time here, when you think about it — I was here for all of the Clinton presidency and all of the Bush presidency. Now, during that period I think the country tilted to the right. From 1993, you know, to 2008. And so what I think happened on college and university campuses were not terribly different from what happened to the country. That was there was a subtle and sometimes not so subtle shift to the right.

What’s been the toughest decision you’ve made?

I’ll give you two. One general and one specific. What has been most challenging has been the pressure from various directions for Whitworth to take positions on issues. It was always my belief Whitworth would be most effective in accomplishing its mission in resisting taking particular positions on issues, but rather working with our students to help them understand their position, helping them to understand their issues. That pressure has been with me since my arrival .The board of trustees were great for the way they would present me with their suggestions on that. Sometimes alumni were a little less subtle.

Specifically, the toughest decision for me was the move from college to university.

From what I understand you were opposed at first and then you changed your mind?

I changed my mind, more thoroughly than I changed my heart on that.  Look outside! You went here. This is a college. It feels like a college. I love everything about that feel and that sound.  I never wanted to be a president of a big university — had opportunities to do that, never interested. Just the romance of the word “college” I loved.

But it became clear to me, that the nomenclature in higher education had shifted in such a way that in the 80’s when some colleges were becoming universities, I would protest and say that’s pretentious, that’s misleading. In the mid 2000s when we had all the programs that a university has, and all the characteristics of a university we started being the ones that were misleading. Whitman is a college. They have the characteristics of a college. Whitworth is a university.  It has the characteristics of a university.

That was pretty interesting. Over my twenty plus years as college president, that shift took place. So I became a college president in 1986 in Indiana that’s where I wanted to be, on a college campus. That was hard for me to say, okay, we’re a university.

That vote was close.

It was close. But one of the cool things about this board of trustees, we made the vote it was so close. The first thing out of one of the trustee’s mouth was “I move that we give this a decision unanimous support.” And there was unanimous assent. I was pretty proud of Whitworth at that moment.

What are some of the other things you’ve changed your mind about?

Well, I guess the biggest one I’ve changed my mind about is the way in which we leverage our assets.

I was financially very conservative. I believe that served us well. I think that because I was so conservative financially that we may have missed some opportunities, and so I feel I’m much more open-minded now and analytical.  

What do you think your greatest success has been?

I’ve read a lot of e-mails lately… Clearly the biggest success, has just been what’s happened in the lives of our students. It’s just gratifying to hear from alumni whose lives were affected at Whitworth. Sometimes they will identify something I did that had an influence on their lives. To talk about buildings or status or athletic conquest, it just all pales in comparison to the students whose lives reflect your highest hopes to your institution.

What do you think your greatest failure has been?

This may sound kinda strange to you. I think that I’ve failed to be more aggressive, when I could have been more aggressive. I’ll just say that generally. I haven’t said this to anybody else in talking about why now.
About two years ago I told the cabinet that I found myself seeing my work in the institution and my role a little more cautiously when I was a 36-year-old college president.

I think my general failure would come under the category of ‘Missed opportunities because I wasn’t aggressive enough.’ It’s hard to be more specific that.

I was just a little slow, for example on leveraging assets. There may have been programs that we could have instituted that could have positioned us better for right now. I really believed, and I am still am comfortable with this: There are a lot of things in higher education where you don’t want to be in the cutting edge. There’s so much risk on the cutting edge. I never felt Whitworth had the kind of resource base where we can be a high risk institution.

Personally, people who know me know I am pretty aggressive. In providing leadership for Whitworth, I felt we needed to err on the side of caution. It’s just sort of when I look back, geez I’m not disappointed when I reflect on my time here, I feel great. But I ask myself, could we have done more? Could I have done more? Could I have been more effective? Did I drag my feet where I should have been sprinting? I’m more likely to ask myself those questions than, oh, I can’t believe we did this, we never should have have done that.

The way I would say it, is I probably made more sins of omission that commission

What if anything have you and the board of trustees disagreed on?
Well, probably most memorable disagreement on the board was in borrowing — It was my recommendation we use debt financing for a building, it was our board chair’s recommendation that we not use debt financing. Everybody knew how much Chuck Boppell and I admired each other and supported each other. And Chuck and I stood at a board meeting, I told him why I thought debt financing was the right thing to do, and he told me how he felt it was not the right thing to do.

That was a pretty interesting conversation. The board was not of one mind. The board agreed to do the debt financing, they agreed to the debt financing, but they structured the bonds so they were more front loaded than a normal schedule would be. Because they were basically say, you want this, were going to do the lion’s share of paying it down while you’re here. That was funny, I had recommended a different payment schedule than Chuck, he was recommending we not do debt. Then when we made that decision, he was recommending a different payment schedule than me, and we did his.

You have a reputation for not only remembering student names, but remembering details about them. What was your secret?

It’s kinda interesting to me. As I’ve heard from alumni over the past three days, I was surprised how many details I did remember, and how many names I did remember. I’d love to believe that I don’t have any different apparatus than the next person. I do know that I think it’s very important for me to know the students. I care very much about the students. I think that students recognize that. I hope they do, because I really do. I think it’s easy to remember things when you really care about the people than if you don’t. Plus, I’m going to go out of the way, that if somebody does something well — which you did — I’m going to find a way to tell you. Once I’ve done that, then we’ve got a relationship. You’re not just another student walking around campus. You’re a student who came up with a very clever and effective program, if that makes sense to you.

Enrollment has grown sixty percent while you’ve been here. Has remembering student’s names become more difficult?

Yeah, yeah, plus I don’t have as many brain cells. The older you get the worse your memory gets.

One of the things you’ve talked about is the institution’s “cultural sustainability.” What does Whitworth have to do to maintain “Whitworth.”

I think that some of it can be done through the commitment culturally to engagement with the students. I’d like to think Whitworth does education through relationships. I like to think that when a student like you comes to Whitworth there’s a real good chance you’re going to leave having been influenced by the relationships you have rather than just the content you’ve learned. So I’d think you have to keep yourself committed to that culture of engagement and being intentional and relational. That’s probably more important than the number of students. Having said that, the bigger you get the more challenging that becomes.

Do you feel there’s a limit to how big Whitworth can get and maintain its feel?

I think Whitworth could add another 3 or 400 students and preserve the culture. Beyond that it starts to get challenging.

At the beginning of Mary Poppins, the kids listed qualities that the perfect nanny would have. What’s your list of quality for a perfect president.
I think that there different presidents for different season. The ideal president for the next season will be one who is deeply engaged with the campus in the way that protects the campus culture. But it will also be the person who has strong abilities and skills in resource development. The sine qua non is a commitment to the mission, so I assume that.

Whitworth’s mission is “An Education of the Mind and Heart.” What does “Education of the Heart mean?

When you look at the problems of our world, it really takes some clever thinking. Let’s look at national health care. If we’re going to reduce the number of citizens who are without health care, that’s going to take some very clever thinking. That’s going to take a brilliant solution. Those solutions are going to be the product of great thinking. We are not going to see the number of people without health care recede just by wanting it to recede. We’re not going to do our best problem solving if we don’t have the heart for people that don’t have health care. So I hope Whitworth graduates not only the ability to solve the problems, I hope they have the heart to solve that problem.

How do you teach “heart?”

Maybe the best way to save that is that heart is more caught than taught. If we show you heart, if our professors our transparent about their values, if I embody that, if the people of Whitworth, if the faculty staff in Whitworth give an example of heart, then hopefully our students will catch that. I think that most people feel that there’s a cause effect relationship between heart and action…  I think under normal circumstances there is. I think under normal circumstances there is. If you care deeply about proclaiming Christ’s gospel, if you care deeply about a social issue, you’ll act. I also believe if we can involve our students in acting, they will begin to care more deeply about those issues. There’s a circularity in the relationship between the heart and our actions. One of the ways we influence the heart is to put our students in a position where they’re exercising their heart, where they’re doing service. I think that shoots for the heart.  

Do you expect Whitworth look internally for a president? Or is that all the domain for the board of trustees?

Here’s what I except. I expect the board of trustees to ask me the question you asked me. And that’s it trustees generally feel the biggest job is hiring a good president and working with that president to help him or her be effective. This is what trustees do.

Do you know how open the search process will be?

That’s a very tricky kind of situation, because I hope that people have felt my commitment to transparency, but with search process, transparency cuts both ways. It’s great for the community, but there’s lot of candidates out there who cannot be involved in search that was open. I was one of those candidates. I explained to the search firm that contacted me, I explained, I can’t be involved in a search where an institution brings two or three candidates to the campus and then decides which one. The only kind of search I can be involved in is one where, I’m the candidate. Until the point where it becomes public.

If they say well, our community wants to know who the finalists are, my response would be I totally understand, but I can’t be a candidate. It compromises my leadership where I am. I was president of another college. They don’t want me out there looking for new presidencies all the time.

If you visit Whitworth 10 years from now, what do you expect to see?

This is going to be interesting. We’ve got Pirate Night tonight. I haven’t stood in front of anybody since Tuesday.

I might tell this tonight, you can tell me your opinion on this. I was on the men’s basketball team on the University of Iowa in the early 1970s. It wasn’t a very good team. I was a benchwarmer. In 1991 somehow they made it to the NCAA tournament. They were there last year, they’ve gone back since then. I love now being able to say I was on that team. I played on that team. It wasn’t the same team, I could have played on that team now in a million years.

So here’s what I’m hoping for in 10 years. I’m going to see Whitworth so far beyond where I could have taken it. I’m going say, “I was president of that school!”

I think Whitworth is going to soar. I think that the community underestimates how great it’s going to be to have a new president, and new vision, new leadership. And it’s got so much going for it, that I think in 10 years, it’s going to be fabulous.

What do you see as the institution’s strengths?

A wonderful mission. I’ll probably have to make a distinction between mission and identity or distinctive. Our mission doesn’t look all that different from other Christian colleges and universities. But our distinctive is: We’re a community of scholars that attempts to be faithful to Christ in what we do and how we think in all of these ways. But at the same time we’re a community of Christian scholars that is open, is curious and is not afraid to deal with challenging ideas. I think that’s such a strength. And then I would say, we’ve got a great location, we’ve got a beautiful campus, we’ve got just a great faculty. The students that choose Whitworth just amaze me. I think it’s a strong institution.

What aspects of weakness do you see?

Well, we’ve gone to a different league academically, and we need the resources to be able to play in that league.

I would say the biggest weakness we have right now would be in that our, in a couple areas, science and the performing arts being the two primary ones, we need to catch up. And we will. Our scientists and our performing arts majors don’t have the facilities they need. And we’re going to fix that. One of the neat things is, I’ll stay involved after I step out of the presidency, in working on attracting funds for those. If you’re in one place for 17 years, you make a lot of good relationships and friends. And I think they’ll be useful.

Anything else you want to add before I let you go?

This has just been for me, I can’t imagine being a place that has been more fulfilling, where I feel more sort of this is where I belong.

I guess to sum it up. No matter what else I do, Whitworth will always be my life work.

You’ll blow off the dust, you may look around a bit. You’ll see past controversies, past rants. Some of them may still resonate, others will likely seem quaint and humorous, like when we talked about these things called “Saga Trays.”

But the Forum doesn’t have to be over. It doesn’t have to be something of the past.

You have the power. You have the ability to revive the forum once again. You have the ability to begin to use this as an uncensored megaphone to the Whitworth student body. Or to just complain about Core 350. If you would like to be a writer on the Forum, if you would like to revive this husk of a website e-mail me at danieltwalters [ a t  ] gmail.com.

Unfortunately, a recently passed state law (RCW 19.27.500) requiring automatic sprinklers in all “nightclubs” (any place with a dance floor larger than 350 square feet) has the potential to force the Empyrean to shut down.

The Empyrean, founded two years ago by sisters Chrisy and Michelle Riddle as a personal commitment to community service, has been one of Spokane’s greatest friends to independent artists, poets, and bored students.

Installing a new sprinkler system would cost more than $20,000, which is money the owners do not have.

“It will basically shut us down,” Co-Owner of the Empyrean Chrisy Riddle said.

[...]

The sisters don’t make any money here, but they rely on their day jobs for income. They say this is their community service.

“I always had this dream about owning a coffee shop that would be also a center for the arts,” Riddle said.

She may have to wake up from the dream this winter, when a new law will require any business with a performing or dancing area that has an area 350 square feet or more, to have automatic sprinklers installed.

“Unless some miracle happens, or the law changes, or somehow we find the money we need, our plan is that we may have to close on November 30,” Riddle said.

[News coverage: http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=10667473]

The Empyrean’s closure would truly be a great loss to the community. Unfortunately, it sounds as though the amount of money in question is essentially insurmountable without what Riddle calls a “miracle.

So here’s a thought: Whitworth’s students have the capacity to make that miracle happen. $20,000 across, say, 2,000 students starts to look pretty affordable pretty fast. I’m not intimately familiar with ASWU bylaws and financial regulations (especially as an ex-student), but it seems to me that a few motivated campaigners could get a benefit concert going on-campus. With sufficient impassioned advertising, a $10-30 ticket price over the course of one or two concerts could make a serious dent in solving the Empyrean’s problem.

What sorts of creative solutions do you folks have?

But perhaps the most interesting change is that the South Warren Basement will go from being full of girls to being full of guys.

Big deal, you say. A simple gender swap, you say. Nothing major, you say.

Ah, but that’s only because you don’t know your Whitworth History.

The South Warren Basement was all-male once before.

The year, was 1984.

And the South Warren Basement was famous. Check that– they we’re more than famous. Infamous, if you will.

The halls were full of guys of the wild and crazy persuasion. They were unsavory, unhinged, and downright untamable.

The South Warren Basement was a whirling dervish of id. It was a non-too-subtle speakeasy on a campus under strict prohibition. It was the seedy underbelly bubbling under the verdant and placid grass of Whitworth College.

Nationally, the mid-80s were the peak of binge drinking, of alcohol poisoning, and, most likely, of porcelain hugging.

The people of the South Warren Basement would drink, yes. And when they were caught — which they often were — they would counter by vandalizing their own hall — and then drinking some more.

This is the hall you’ve seen in a million college movies, the hall that would send the crusty old dean skyward-bellowing and fist-shaking like clockwork.

And like those college movies, an ultimatum was issued. Forget double, triple, secret probations. If there were any more hiijinks — ie, drunken debauchery — the hall would be shut down.

And when the hiijinks inevitably continued, and the hiijinks were inevitably discovered, the Basement Dwellars couldn’t pull off a last-ditch talent show/charity event/stirring speech to make everything all-better again.

In the middle of the year, with a sudden swift hand — the dudes of South Warren Basement were evicted. Every last one of them.

And they were replaced with young women. The thinking was, I suppose, that they would be more prim, more proper, more well-behaved.

Here’s the story from the Whitworthian:

Cellar Dweller’s evicted for “attitude.”

Chris Vogel

Citing a “non-constructive attitude,” Student Life evicted the residents of Warren basement, effective Feb. 3.

According to Dayna Coleman, director of housing, “Excessive vandalism and constant possession of alcohol led to the final decision on the floor.”

“From the beginning of the year, the basement residents were committing vandalism,” elaborated Coleman, who also serves as Warren Head Resident along with her husband, Pat.

“The drinking was also out of hand,” said Coleman. “That, no doubt, probably led to a great deal of the vandalism.”

In an effort to stop the vandalism and drinking, the Colemans, along with basement Resident Advisor Tim Veldhuizen, held a floor meeting near Thanksgiving.

“Up until this time,” Coleman said, “Tim was constantly writing up vandalism damages. Something had to be done.”

“The general attitude of the guys at the meeting was, ‘We’ll police ourselves. We’ll watch the vandalism, and take care of the beer,’ ” said Coleman.

“Vandalism did seem to be reduced,” said Veldhuizen, “but the drinking was still going on.”

“This,” Coleman said, “left no choice but to have another meeting and make the alternatives clear.”

“At the second floor meeting, right before fall finals, the ‘alternatives’ were given,” said Coleman. “We said, “It’s a joke. If you guys can’t stop drinking, we’re going to have to close the floor.”

Coleman continued, “We really made it clear — one more contract, and you’re gone.”

“All through finals, there was no problem. We thought the guys had finally stopped with the games.”

“Everything was seeming to go smoothly,” said Coleman. Near the end of Jan Term, however, Veldhuizen confronted and contracted six individuals for beer drinking.

“No one denied anything,” said Coleman, “and the first comment was ‘The drinking has been going on all Jan Term. Why are you just getting around to busting us now?’ ”

“That,” said Coleman, “was the last straw.” Following a meeting involving the residents and Student Life, a memo was sent out announcing the eviction of the residents.

The wording of the memo itself has caused some controversy. The memo stated, “The basement residents are on behavioral probation,’ and any further contracts could jeopardize their enrollment at Whitworth.”

After substantial response had been made by the residents, Student Life issued another memo, rewording the earlier memo so behavioral probation,” read “behavioral contract.”

“We felt bad about the earlier unfortunate choice of words,” said Julie Anderton, vice president for Student Life. “The reason we felt that we had to make the provision was to safeguard against any retaliatory action.”

Greg Hamann, director of Residence Life, agreed with Anderton on the need for the precaution.

“We’ve always had problems with the basement,” said Hamann. “When we caught them, they would tear the place up.”

“We really want to see the best in all the guys, to see them as individuals,” added Anderton. “I hope we put that across in the second memo, making up for the first one.”

Some of the people involved are apparently not so forgiving of Student Life.

“The whole idea behind the memo has made the guys upset,” said Veldhuizen. “The idea saying ‘one more slip-up, and you’re gone’ isn’t sitting to well with some of the guys.”

Former basement resident John Davisson agreed, “For them to say I’ll be kicked out for any mistake, no matter how small, is just ridiculous.”

“I can’t believe I’d be kicked out of college for something like being caught on a fire escape,” said Ron Kincaid, another displaced resident. “It even says we’d be kicked for that.”

Former resident Alan Cizik believes “the second memo didn’t help at all.

“It was supposed to be an apology, to my understanding,” he said, “but it doesn’t say anything to the effect.”

“It really made me mad,” said Kincaid. “Now, we really want people to know what happened to us.”

“The beginning of the semester was bad,” Kincaid said. “But we really stopped the vandalism, especially considering how bad it was.”

“The suddenness of the eviction also left some residents with problems.

Anderton beleives, “The semester break was a better time for the guys to move than in the middle of the term.

The move, said Davisson, hurt him the first part of the term academically.

“The incident isn’t over yet,” said Veldhuizen. “They’re (the resident) are going to be in quite a shock when they get the vandalism charges.”

An administrative source, who declined to be named, said, “The residents collectively will be facing a minimum charge of $350, with much more to come.”

Hamann said he feels “pretty comfortable” with the outcome of the eviction.

“It was a decision that the South Warren Basement made for themselves on closing down,” he said. “Now it’s over. All Student Life is saying, “It’s out of our hands, it’s over, and let’s move on.”

With South Warren Basement becoming an all-male hall again, it’s anyone’s guess what will happen.

The atmosphere of a hall, of course, is mostly an expression of the population within.  Yet, there are ways that the hall itself exerts inflence. The location, the size of the hall, the size of the rooms, the quality of furnishing, the insitutional memory, the hall’s past reputation, its interaction with other halls and other dorms– these all can shape and tweak the nature of community.

So too, can administration. While on the Whitworthian, I wanted to research an expose titled “Is Dorm Rivalry Dead?” about how the Mac-BJ rivalry was intentionally squashed, and how the “wild and crazy” Baldwin Jenkins was intentionally extinguished.

Now, I think getting drunk and vandalizing things is pretty stupid.

And coming into Whitworth, I would have thought the wild and crazy nature of BJ would be simply another reason to roll my eyes. This was an ACADEMIC institution, thought I, not a place for frivolity and horseplay.

Yet, after a few years, my mind changed. The unhinged nature of Baldwin Jenkins at its craziest was not just a matter of fun, a matter of creating memories, it was a matter of keeping the Whitworth status-quo off-balance. It’s a matter of injecting a little chaos.

A good college campus, as I’ve said, is a gyroscope spinning perfectly between order and chaos. Too much chaos and you lose the rote learning as it  becomes too difficult to complete assignments and memorize Core 150 buzzphrases. Too much order, however, and the place becomes starched, stodgy, conventional. Creativity, innovation -evaporates. People still debate, they still question, but they do so in predictable tired ways. The passion isn’t there.

Higher Education should be a free-wheeling simulation of the challenges of real life. The hard work, the dutiful march — yeah, those are important. But learning how to defy  trends, to make noise, to blow minds, to surprise — those are perhaps even more crucial.

So please, South Warren Basement. Be crazy. Break rules. Get in trouble. But not in a tired RA-Finds-a-Miller-Lite-Can sort of way. Be crazy in a nobody’s-ever-done-that sort of way. Do things that make the college-movie dean shake his fist, without taking a single swig of booze. Distribute perfectly clean underground newsletters that don’t come from the official Channels. Put up posters for unsponsored events. Hold techno dance parties. Get in trouble for things that aren’t ever mentioned in the Student Handbook.

Make people say, “Wow. South Warren Basement. Those were some wild and crazy guys.

Disrupt community, please, but don’t vomit all over it.

Now we make history again. Whitworth now has a club called “Open Conversation: Gay-Straight Association.” It’s the first Whitworth club to have “Gay-Straight” in the title, and the closest we’ve come to a Gay-Straight Alliance.

Why did I seek to change the name? This past year, I often had people coming up to me, wondering what our club was about. “Open Conversation? What? Is it a speech club?” Or, “Whose orientation? Is it about sex?” I wanted a name with more clarity, while still being a club that would foster discussion.

Of course, it took many years for us to even get as far as “Open Conversation: Orientation.” Mandi Curtain and Erika Prins told me many stories of their talks with various administrators, and their unsuccessful attempts to charter a club for LGBT students and their allies.

Previous attempts included “Open Conversation: GLBTQ&A.” Failed because it was still not inclusive enough.

So this past year I picked up where Erika and Mandi left off. After several conversations with Kathy Storm, we agreed on the new title.

The name is a compromise – many of the administrators felt it necessary for “Open Conversation” to remain in the title, while understanding that the purpose of the club and its inclusiveness is more apparent with the new name.

My first choice was to just have our club called “Gay-Straight Alliance,” and ideally be affiliated with the National Movement. I understand, though, why this can’t happen at Whitworth – at least not yet. The neutrality stance that Whitworth has chosen prevents it from endorsing “advocacy groups,” and as Kathy put it, “You don’t have to look far into the GSA website to find its political agenda. And that’s good – it should have one. But Whitworth can’t share in its mission.” (Not exact quote)

I can definitely appreciate the position that Whitworth and its administrators are in. A lot of faculty and admins want to be supportive because they don’t agree with the traditional or conservative interpretation of certain Bible verses. And the neutral stance is good in this sense – it allows them to work in a place where they don’t have to say “it’s a sin!” Other universities that have official negative stances wouldn’t be a good home for these allies.

Of course, I’d like to see Whitworth go further. I’d like the supportive faculty to be more vocal. I’d like to see more students show up to GSA events. I’d like to see Whitworth hire openly gay faculty.

Still, having a club where we can at least abbreviate it as “GSA” and not be lying is nice. Progress is being made. And who knows what the future will be like? Just yesterday, New Hampshire became the sixth state to offer marriage equality.

I’m often reminded of the words of the brilliant director of the Whitworth Choir, Marc Hafso: “It’s not a matter of if gays and lesbians receive full acceptance, but when.”

Here’s hoping, Marc. One step at a time.

Positivity I disagree with the very first premise of Core 350: that we live in a broken world. So in the first 5 minutes of class, I – and I’m not the only one – felt disconnected. Is the world imperfect? Sure – but not because it was once good and then broke. It’s because we live in a world of challenges and we constantly strive to make it a better and better place. Fallenness, sinfulness, Armageddon? These are delusions from an atheistic/naturalistic perspective. As college students and recent grads, we can be optimistic. There’s plenty of time for pessimism when we’re old.

Responsibility No one is guiding your life. There is no ultimate place in the cosmic storyline, no fate, no one holding your hand and helping you make the right decisions. It’s scary at first. But instead of wondering “What is someone else’s purpose for me?” you get to ask “What will lead me to a fulfilling life? What am I passionate about?”

Avoiding Distasteful People With the exception of a few bad historical characters, the worst atheists are people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. What’s wrong with them? They are wickedly smart and they can be insulting to religious people. Well whoop-dee-do! Compared with some of the unsavory religious people out there – Bush, Cheney, Bin Laden – those guys aren’t such bad company. It’s much easier to criticize the “God Hates Fags” church when you’re actually on the other side of the fence, and that can be an appealing  and morally soothing perspective.

Moral Sense Ever feel bad about people being punished for “crimes” that don’t have any victims? Like homosexuality? Or not hearing the gospel? All the questions that begin with “How could God-” are easily answered from an atheistic perspective. All the atheist has to figure out is “What on earth is morality, and where does ethics come from?” And sure, that can be challenging. But rather than thinking of what we need to do to please a watchful deity in the sky, we think about how to make the world a better place. All we humans have is each other, and the world is a tough place. If we figure out a way to get along we have the best chance to succeed. Oftentimes, religious dogma is no help at all.

No Dogma or Rituals All the Creeds and This-We-Believes go away. No more reconciling ancient manuscripts with scientific understanding. No more arguments about which sects truly understand which sacraments the best. No more praying to the right saint. Nothing binds an atheist to a particular, unified set of beliefs. Nothing tears them apart and causes strife over interpretations or practices. Isn’t that nice?

A Lot of Tough Questions Start to Make Sense Why does the human eye have a blind spot? A vestigial tail? Why the billions of years of cosmic evolution leading up to the infinitesimal existence of the human species? Advances in neuroscience and psychology provide so many answers to so many questions. And that is not to say that atheism does not create its own difficult questions, but, generally speaking, the explanations all occur within the realm of the natural world. It makes everything seem less complex – at least to someone who holds that perspective, like me.

That’s all I can think of at this point. Anyone have any to add?

It’s a very common line at Whitworth. It’s graced countless opinion columns, each time pretending to be a shocking statement.

But it’s something that’s happened time and time again to Whitworth Student after Whitworth student. Some, to be clear, have gone the other way — actually becoming religious in college.

But most of the movement among students seems to be away from the religion referred to in their brochures.

Personally, I survived Whitworth with my religion intact (and, maybe, ultimately stronger.) . Still, my question is: How does Whitworth, a Christian university, end up creating so many non-Christians?

After processing for some time, I believe these are many of the factors. Naturally, I can’t — and won’t — speak for your individual experience. But this is something, I think, worth exploring.

College, where the parents aren’t.

College is a time of solidifying your own identity. Of separating oneself from your old life, your old church, your old parents, and, sometimes, your old beliefs.

So it isn’t surprising that college — even Jerry Fallwell’s Liberty College in all likelihood — leads to a certain percentage rejecting the philosophy they started with.

So much of the Christianity people come to Whitworth armed with is the flannelgraph kind. Fuzzy. Simple. And able to fall off under the slightest breeze.

The parental protection is gone in college. You’re out of the womb and the umbilical cord’s been cut. Instead, you’re in a world of questions, bright and scary.

Whitworth, to its credit, tends to encourage those questions.

But people begin to run into knotty questions about their religion, without having the theological underpinnings or confidence to answer them.

Questions like:

How could an all-powerful loving God allow the epic amount of suffering on earth? Did God create evil? How could God send Joe, my non-christian neighbor who’s a pretty decent guy, go to hell? Did Muslims forced to say they’d converted to Christianity in the Crusades go to heaven? Do people who’ve never even heard of Jesus get automatically sent to hell? Why did God require Genocide in the Old Testament? If the Bible’s completely true, how come some elements seem to contradict eachother (Jesus’s last words, the number of witnesses to the empty tomb, etc)?  If God wants people to believe in him, why doesn’t he just regularly appear in a pillar of fire? Who created God? If God knows who’s going to go to heaven and whose going to go hell, then isn’t that the same as him automatically choosing who goes to hell, before the people are even born? How come Genesis seems to be regularly contradicted by scientific discovery ? Why were Christians so often in opposition to scientific progress? Why have so many wars been waged in the name of Christianity? Does the concept of the “Trinity” make, like, any sense at all? If God answers prayer, why haven’t any of my prayers ever been answered?

Some of these questions, to be fair, are based on theological misinterpretation. But not all of them have satisfactory answers. So it isn’t surprising that people will find at least one of answer totally unacceptable.

Of course, there are similar questions to atheism. Questions like: If there isn’t any God isn’t everything bound by cause and effect? If everything’s bound by cause and effect can there be any free will? If there isn’t any free will is morality — and indeed, philosophy, a sham? Why would anything matter? What’s the first cause that set off all the effects? What caused that cause? How about that cause? What set up the underpinning rules of the universe? How can  *consciousness*– that weird sensation that there’s a YOU are inside your body –work if there’s no other realm but the physical? How does consciousness come? What does *unexistance* feel like when you die? Why do so many smart people believe in religion? If there’s no free will and no God and nothing beyond cells and dirt and energy, can there be any purpose? Can “nothing but  matter” matter?

But for some those aren’t as troubling. Eventually,the human mind decides one makes more sense than the other.

So there’s a larger question: Why is the college mind more apt to find the set of Christianity criticisms more persuasive than those toward Atheism? In my analysis, it’s because Christianity makes a horrific imposition: It asks you to simply believe, to trust, to have faith.

Faith: The bane of the college mind.

There’s a point where all the reason, all the intellect, all the test-tubes, and history books and logical proofs are insufficient. There’s a point where the waters of pure reason lap at the shore of the Unknown. And slightly beyond that, the shores of the Can’t-Know.

Ah, but for the university-mind “can’t-know” is a very ugly idea.

After several years of college a certain arrogance — an intellectual swagger — develops. You know all about all kinds of things.Who’s to say you CAN’T know it all? Who’s to say that you have to “trust” in anything other than your own knowledge.

And faith, why, that’s tantamount to admitting ignorance. It’s trusting in the immeasurable, the  intangible, the unknowable.

Faith requires a pretty substantial amount of intellectual humility. It says, I can’t know for sure, but that doesn’t mean I can’t believe.

To the people who reject such faith, it’s unsurprising that you often see their lip subtly curl back in the slightest sneer. It’s the same sort of contempt any person holds for their previous beliefs.

Ah yes, there was a time when I believed in God. Of course, there was a time I believed in the Easter bunny and Sewer monsters and Frodo Baggins as well, hahaha. But I’m an Adult now.

In the intellectual culture we’re asked to abandon belief for the search for truth. In many cases that’s good — it encourages more truth seeking. But it’s also fallacious to believe that reality itself ends at the shores of the “can’t-know.” And while the criticism against atheism are easier to ignore — atheism, after all, has a sexy intellectual sheen — it’s important to once again be reminded that atheism requires its own sort of faith to fill in the blanks. Well-worn territory, I know.

Whitworth is full of Christians. The bad kind.

Sometimes, rejecting Christianity is less about the doctrine itself as much as the people professing to profess that doctrine.

There’s a certain belief that because Whitworth has a large portion of Christians, Whitworth itself is a cardboard stand-in for the religion. Of course, that’s a problem, because Whitworth also happened to have quite a few jerks.

Coming from a relatively poor high school, and having a fabulous time, Whitworth was a bit shocking for my sheltered self. Cruelty! Sniping! Gossiping! Pettiness!

Many people I’ve talked to, unsurprisingly, blame Christianity.

I believe that’s a mistake.  The people who were doing the sniping and backbiting were not people that had religion as the dominant force of their life. The nicest, sweetest people at Whitworth did. But that’s just my experience.

Oddly enough, Whitworth, to my view, is both too nice (reticent to really get down and dirty exploring unpopular ideas) and too mean (the gossip-mongering above.) So why?

My theory is money. At least at the high school level, I firmly believe that the richer the school is, the more people tend to be shrews and jerks, prone to mockery and social-heirarchy. There are two reasons for this: Rich kids have more time to worry about their social heirarchy, and their parents got where they are because of their status. It’s why Gossip Girl is set in the Upper East Side of New York, and not in The Wire’s inner-city Baltimore.

Whitworth has a decent mix of rich and poor, but also has so much emphasis on social interaction, that it’s inevitable people will be bashing eachother along the way.

The result? An almost effortless hypocrisy.

But I never believed you can judge a belief system by the people who claim to believe it. Checking “Christian” on a census box is hardly enough to be transformative.

Yet, I’ve known several people for who Christianity was amazingly transformative, people to who The Light was indeed a guiding light.

Many people who chucked away Christianity, I believe, never really met the good examples.

Punctured expectations.

With college being a crucial point of life-change, people carry a series of hopes and expectations. Disappointment, unsurprisingly, is inevitable. I think many Christians, having found that they haven’t received the answers-to-prayer or the deep-personal-fulfillment they’ve been promised on the Christianity brochure , are willing to abandoned the whole thing all together. For many, I guess, they figure if it hasn’t happened by college, it won’t happen at all . Now, I think those promises are aspects of a faulty theology, but in America it’s a common one. Very understandable.

Who has time for Christianity at Whitworth anyway?

Of course, the most common way of rejecting religion doesn’t come at the culmination of a philosophical journey.

Most don’t comb through dusty tombs, pull their hair, and grapple with the very “is” of the universe.

For most, it’s not a Eureka moment. For most, their religion dies bit by bit, dribble by trickle, without ever realizing it’s gone.

Christianity, trickily enough, isn’t a religion that can be measured. God, we’re often reminded, doesn’t tally church attendance. He doesn’t use a stopwatch to keep time of your prayer. Even grand-total-of-sins isn’t something God uses to judge one Christian over the other, we’re told. A sinner is a sinner, no matter how small.

There’s no Holy-Meter to measure who’s the best Christian. Christianity doesn’t seem to have quantifiable measurable goals.

That makes it all the easier to slip-slide away, without even realizing it. For many at Whitworth, swarmed with the hubbub of the HUB — clubs, classes, causes — religion is lost in the hustle and shuffle.

Other religions are happy to take their place: Savedarfurism.  Sustainabilityanity. Frisbeeology.

Consider the Whitworth Small Group. Packed-to-the-brim with excited first-semester youngsters, and then, one by one, the group gets smaller and smaller until it’s just a husk of a disullisioned small group leader– if that.

I think something similar happens to many Whitworth students. Their religious beliefs fade away. And, in a way, I respect those who wrestle with the theological weight of Christianity and find it wanting, far more.

At least they have the courage to to fly their beliefs high, instead of letting them slowly drown under a rising tide of the trivial and inane.

From now on, any feedback should go in this thread. Put feedback in other threads, and it, most likely will be deleted or moved.

Thank you. And you can look forward to the forum continuing to thrive next year.

-Daniel

In the year since I was graduated, I have learned about a trillion times as much about the real world as I learned at Whitworth. So here are three basic tips I’m going to assume they didn’t teach you well enough.

1. Don’t be afraid to ask (for help, for knowledge…)

People will generally like you more if they get to do you a favor. So, ask the career center, professors; counselors. This is self-explanatory, but I didn’t take full advantage of this excellent resource when I was at Whitworth.

Ask your friends: Make it common knowledge on Facebook that you’re looking for a particular kind of work. If your friends, their families, and their families’ connections don’t know anybody looking to hire someone like you, I’ll be surprised. Just don’t beg pathetically or anything.

Ask professionals: Request an interview with a local person who has the job you wish you had. How did they get there? What surprised them along the way? Is it really lonely at the top?

2. Know your strengths: (technology, integrity…)

You are part of Generation Y, and people have assumptions about you.

Some are negative: They think you are not loyal to companies (statistically speaking, you may work 11-14 jobs in your life) and you prefer to ask what your company can do for you; not what you can do for your company.

Some are positive, so know your strengths: They assume you are more tech-savvy than they are (after all, you’ve spent 20,000 hours online already). You can bring new ideas. No more ‘business as usual.’ Stress that you are an ethical person. That is hugely important. These days it’s actually becoming cool to be ethical. So keep your copy of Boondock Saints hidden away.

Don’t believe me about the negative assumptions? Peruse some contributions to Brazen Careerist, the top career site for people our age.

3. Social media is incredibly important to understand. (facebook, twitter, LinkedIn, youtube, flickr, feedburner/google reader…)

Facebook has made recent changes that allow businesses to connect and interact with their fans/followers/potential customers. If you can think of a creative way to make that work for your company, you are a valuable asset.

Twitter is a site you probably don’t understand. If you’re like Daniel Walters and any of a myriad of other people who don’t ‘get it’ yet, don’t feel bad. I can return and write a quick twitter guide, discuss in the comments, or have a facebook conversation about it. I’m happy to advise.

LinkedIn: If you don’t have a professional page on this site (basically an online resume) you’re on a ride into the fail-zone. Get on it!

RSS reader: Check out Feedburner or if you have a Google account, Google Reader. Subscribe to CNN or BBC news, Mashable, The Onion, all your friends’ blogs, Google Alerts for your name etc. The list goes on!

I currently have 49 feeds in my Google Reader. I’d never take the time to visit each site, but with an RSS reader I know any time something new is posted. Then I can read a quick summary and decide whether I want to read the whole thing.

Network, network, network. Join a professional association, find meet ups and events. Stay connected with your college friends. Do these things, O graduate, and leave a comment about how you’re preparing for Life Beyond. Fellow alums – what advice would you add? Did I miss anything?

“Ladies and gentlemen, I’m here to speak with you about a real problem in today’s world. It causes orphans to starve to death. It causes pretty girls to cry in front of crowds. It causes pretty guys to buy loose shorts because they are afraid to show off the proof of God that is evident in that subtle curve where backbone and pelvis fuse.

It causes those who write well to try and tone it down so they won’t annoy others.  It causes those who speak well to speak quietly. It causes those gifted with good ears to shout before they listen. It causes guys who shower with the bathroom window flung wide to throw rocks at girls in frosted glass skirts.

It causes throwing rocks.”

At this point the figure stops and stares intensely at the audience. The voice is low.

“It created rocks. 

In such a world, as a far greater questioner than I postulated, was there not possibly a need, somewhere, sometime, then, for rocks to be thrown?

Perhaps.”

At this point the figure stops. The audience realizes that their eyes have adjusted. The speaker is female.

“And yet I cannot help but disagree.

For I remember being innocent. I remember when rocks were fossils. I remember when sticks were something to carry and not something to stab other people with. I remember crying and getting over it as soon as I was apologized to. I remember not understanding the concept of grudges.

Sadly, all good things much come to an end, in this world. Mustn’t they? For the Age of Reason began, for me, then: a time dominated by Logos.

And I excelled. And I ignored my Ethos.

For in the age of Reason, Ethos is not only discounted, she is mocked. And thus is born her sister.

Pathos.

The logistician’s least favorite way of arguing, and the dramatist’s least favorite way of pulling strings.

And yet I am afraid it is to Her that I must appeal.”

The audience realizes that the small figure can see them, then – but they do not know what gives them this impression. It is unnerving. She paces. She paces with the haunting determination of something dead.

“Forum Community, I cannot and I shall not stand for the kind of ignorance that I have heard expressed here and elsewhere.

Good for you, Whitworth. You went shoeless to raise awareness. You sold cacti to raise awareness. And T-shirts. You sold so many things this year it was dizzying. 

But there were rocks thrown, too.

I shan’t bring up the most obvious one, nor make the victim a bloody shirt to base my revolution on. No, my people, les Miserables, tried that a time ago. We learned. Never again.

Instead I have another.

As Jack S. Lewis asked, why are there rocks? Perhaps The Great I AM saw in His infinite wisdom that there would be need of things hard enough to smash skulls with.

And then Cain acted against his brother. And the world shuddered. And the course of history changed. And the coming of The Christos was delayed.

How long, my sisters and brothers?

How long before we put down our rocks…and pick up our crosses?”

The lights rise abruptly. It is a girl with wild hair and a cap pulled down over her eyes. She wears large sunglasses and keeps her head pointed at the floor. Still she paces. She paces. She trips. She falls.

The audience hears the sharp intake of breath and a cry. Barely discernable.

She waits.

They do not move.

She rises. She paces. She turns her back on them. She laughs to herself.

“It’s not like I honestly expected you to come and help me up. After all, you are just an audience.”

Whitworth Community.

This stone is on your doorstep. Will you let it in? Or will it have to pick the locks and enter by force?

The world was not meant to be so broken.

And it will not remain so within the reach of my arm.

Will you join me?”

Lights out. Curtain falls. Lights up. Audience exits.

Silence.

A whole new swath of you are graduating.

Use the comment section below to write an obituary of your college career. Talk about what you loved and what you didn’t. Talk about your successes and your regrets. Talk about the RealLife Afterlife, and whether you’re excited or apprehensive.

It’s that implied question of criticism that permeates academia: the question of how important identity and experience are when we are judging our surroundings.

Can I talk about black issues if I’m white? Can I talk about gay issues if I’m straight? Can I talk about the AARP if I’m twenty-three? Can an old pretentious guy like A.O. Scott judge a movie like “Space Chimps,” if he’s *clearly* not the intended audience?

A large part of this goes back the notion of identity. To many in academia, ‘Identity’ — a few pieces of census data — are the most important part about who you are.

If I’m black, my entire life is consumed with my blackness. If I’m gay, my entire essence is gay. Not only that, but it immediately makes me an unassailable expert on these topics…right?

This is the same type of thinking that leads a person who took a two-week trip to South America to believe he or she automatically knows more about how to solve South American problems than a person who’s been deeply studying the issues for years, but has never shelled out the $400 for a round trip ticket to go.

Experience, in this mindset, trumps everything.

To me, such thinking shuts down debate. It’s a matter of Ethos trumping Logos - “Why should I have to explain myself to you. I just KNOW. I am, after all, an expert.”

There are several fallacies inherent in that thinking.

First is the notion that there’s a complete unity of experience within a certain demographic. To do so ignores the fact that we’re not just the part of one demographic.

We’re a part of multiple ones: wealth, class, religion, race, gender, philosophy, region, entertainment exposure.

Second is the fallacy that experience always leads to equal conclusions.

People with the exact same experiences can often come to multiple conclusions. I can find Whitworthian women who found The Vagina Monologues compelling, and some who find it pretentious and silly, and still others who find it horrifying…but there’s a bigger philosophical aspect here.

The notion that our beliefs, our actions, and our creed are our everything is the sum total of nature and nurture. We are the effect of a cause. The world is the stimulus, and we are the mindless response.

From a purely naturalist perspective, that’s the only way to look at the world. Of course, with this philosophy there’s no such thing as morality. With no such thing as “choice” we can no more blame a serial killer for serial killing than we can blame a rock from falling when dropped. It’s the result of immutable scientific laws. (Of course, so is our outrage)

I however believe in free will, which by its very nature is an unscientific, downright magical belief. It’s a belief that we can, somehow, defy the laws of cause and affect. That we can come to conclusion ourselves.

Thus, I believe that we can break free of the philosophy of our surroundings and experience. We are not lashed to the mast of our identity.

Otherwise, of course, the whole effort of seeking knowledge and truth is utterly pointless.

And even if our identities make up the majority of who we are, unique the perspective we bring to an argument is just as valuable. I bring a dude’s perspective to judging the Vagina Monologues. Sure, I’m not Ensler’s intended audience, but what makes my perspective any less valuable, or even correct, because of the inherent fact that I’m male?

I don’t have personal experience with many of the issues involved, but because of that, I can analyze in a different way. Personal experience can taint and bias one’s perspective – as well as crystallize it.

The “You wouldn’t know – you wouldn’t understand-” belief is a common one – no, an understandable one. But that doesn’t mean you should stop trying to teach me or help me understand. And I’ll help you understand my perspective as well.

That, not the competition to whose backstory is more pertinent to the topic, is more important. Where we should go and who you should become is always more important to talk about than who you are or where you’ve been.

With that said, I’d like to make a request.

When you comment, please, please, PLEASE:

1) Avoid emoticons of any kind. If you need a winky face or a saaaaad face or a tongue face or some weird Japanese cat face to communicate nuance, you aren’t a very good writer.

It’s okay if you’re not a great writer (you should still comment) but you’ll never get better by relying on Mr. Emoticon to do your tone for you.

The problem with emoticons is that they look like crap. Look at David Brooks’ blog at the New York Times. Not a single winking face in sight.

2) Use capital letters at key times. For example, the word “I” should always be capitalized. I don’t care how low your self esteem is. Also, the beginning of sentences should be capitalized. The more you know!

3) If you link, link to something relevant.  Not just a Wikipedia page explaining what “government” means.

Look, I make a lot of typos. I leave out words. I capitalize the wrong ones.

But, the thing is, I at least make a semblance of effort to follow basic grammar.

No, I don’t care if you split your infinitives, or splice your commas, or dangle a participle or two or five.

But please: don’t make your comments look like something your Twitter account crapped out.

Would you like me to share it?

Cool! Me too!

It’s to take a stab at what you want to say, without worrying how people will recieve it.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a good or a bad stab – you can parry, you can thrust.  You can flourish, you can strike.  The important part is that you’re stabbing.  You’ve gotta stab with all your worth, with whatever you’ve got in your possession. 

If you’ve gotta use the awkward lance of Rhetorical Analysis, so be it.  Don’t try and wield it like the sharp edged sword of satire; that just leaves mangled and bent phrases on the wayside.  And yes, you’ll have your favorites.  Perhaps you enjoy the nunchucks of comedy, or the scalpel of piercing wit. 

Me?  I love the trident of extended metaphors.  Obviously.

But the most important part is to take a stab. 

And strike true, my friends.  You can parry, you can thrust.  You can flourish, you can chop.  The important part is that you’re stabbing.  But swing with your beliefs, not those of others.  Swing with your own might. 

Because only you understand your feelings, and only with them can you back up your points. 

It’s the passion that adds power to each stroke of the keys and swing of the sword.  It’s the passion that gives rise to inertia, and inertia is your friend.   It’s more than your friend. 

Not quite your lover, more of a literary “FWB”.  You want to cuddle it, support it, make sure it stays as long as possible.  Because, without inertia giving you the writer’s breakfast in bed, the rest will be a long and arduous struggle.  Inertia’s younger sister can also be used in a pinch.  In fact, when Inertia’s gone, she’s all you’ve got.  Yes, that perky 10 year old, Persistence.  The one that says “You got an idea yet?  You got an idea yet?  Come on, keep on trying!” over and over and over until her nasally voice grates on your very soul, trying your pa…

Well – You know what I mean, don’t you, Forum community?  

Trust me when I say inertia is always a better choice.

So now you’re done. 

You’re ready to write Shakespeare, right? 

No.

This is how to converse with friends, argue a point, chat with that pretty girl.  It’s not so much writing as it is how to weave words.

The biggest problem is not what to say, it’s how to start.  It’s working up the courage, gulping down the fear, throwing asde the doubt, and hanging on for dear life as you ride the roller coaster called Life.

George F. Whitworth, when he first established the college back in 1890,  envisioned a college where students would “honor God, follow Christ, and serve humanity”. By endorsing and condoning such an inherently anti-Christian and perverse play such as The Vagina Monologues on campus, the administration has violated, at the very least, the first two objectives of George Whitworth’s vision.

With its glorification of fornication and perversity, manifested in subject matter such as a dominatrix pridefully going on about the merits of her work, as well as its heaping doses of crude shock value (exemplified in the skit where the performers chant notable slang – sometimes ouright obscene words – for the vagina), it doesn’t surprise me that this performance was just barely allowed to be performed on university grounds [criticism of The V. Monologues from a colonial, heterosexual perspective can be found here].

Moreover, the fact that it managed to slide past the same people who thought the title “Free Beer” was an unacceptable name for an art show in which no alcohol was served, further proves that this university is beginning to compromise on its original message.

The very concept of The Vagina Monologues, with its focus on the female genitalia as the pinnacle of worth and pride among women, represents a naturalist and materialistic view of the female persuasion, which stands in contrast to the Judeo-Christian view of women, whose bodies belong not to them, nor their lovers, but to God, who warns against the misuse of His gifts*.

Men, in The Vagina Monologues, are shown primarily as hypersexual simpletons, (such as in “Because He Liked to Look At It”, in which a man stares infatuated for hours at a woman’s mid section after just meeting her at the grocery store), and sadistic savages (nearly every other story involving men).

Women (the play implies), are totally incapable of abuse, as can be seen in  the case of”The Little Cootchie Snorcher That Could”, in which a woman fondly recalls being drugged and rape at the age of thirteen by a woman in her twenties. Although the Whitworth presentation changed the last few words, in the original script, the woman narrator ends with “If it was rape, it was good rape.”

Now, this critique is not, in the least, meant as a personal slant against those participating in the play. I’m all too aware that the actors, like those of every respectable performance, poured their time and labor into not only raising awareness of domestic violence, but making the show entertaining to all. Rather, this critique is meant primarily as an assault on the immoral content and anti-Christian attitude of the play in question.

If Whitworth still wants to call itself anything more than nominally Christian, it will have to play a more active role in keeping watch against, as well as actively banning, subversive performances on campus.  With more prestige as the university grows, there will be an ever present temptation to be more open to “alternative views“, much like other once religious colleges have, selling their souls so that they might attract more students – and not tick off the PC police!

Although non-Christian views and ideas should not necessarily be shut completely out of the the picture, blatantly vulgar and ideologically flawed plays – such as The Vagina Monologues - should not be endorsed by a university that prides itself on solid Christian values. Especially not a play that arguably condones sexual deviance, much less assault.

*1st Corinthians 6:13: “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body [NKJ].”

I don’t mean the silly squabbles about what to do once you finally decide to hang out Friday night, or whether that one movie really did deserve to win the Oscar for “Best Picture”. 

No, I’m talking about a REAL disagreement.  Raised voices, maybe some tears, and a cooling period will occur before both the parties involved can talk to each other in a civil manner again.To be honest, it’s always a little frightening the first time it happens – at least for me.  I seem to have a secret hope, no matter how many times it’s proven wrong, that with this person, we won’t disagree.  Or, if we do, we’ll settle it quickly and it won’t stretch out into an actual fight.  Of course, it never happens, or, if it does, I realize that the friendship has become shallow.  Not having dared to risk it on the rocks of talking about anything important, or showing enough of myself that things turn serious, my friend and I no longer connect. 

It seems that, the closer I get to someone, the more inevitable it is that we will eventually fight, and fight quite badly. There is something that touches both of us deeply enough that it is worth risking the friendship to speak of.

I don’t mean that there is a conscious decision – a realization that what happens next is going to drive all parties involved to fury.  I just mean that things happen when people get really close.  Bad things. 

Someone will say something uncalled for. The other person says something equally awful back.  And before we know it, we’ve just had a fight that could sever me from the other person forever.  If both of us hold a grudge, the bitterness will grow.  And that’s when the choice comes.  Is this person worth enough to me to work through this fight, and become better friends because of it?  Am I going to allow simple, stupid human nature to prevent me from getting to know someone who, really, is one of the most awesome people I have ever met? 

Hopefully, the answer is no.  Any good friendship has scars.  Any relationship worth holding on to isn’t pretty.  But the point of scars is not to show pain, it is to show healing. 

There was once a wound, yes. 

But it’s better now. 

WE’RE better now.

I have to admit that, when I was first told about the incident, I couldn’t even formulate a reaction. See, I’m so naive when it comes to acts of hatred. The way he phrased it was that one of his friends “was gay-bashed last night” near campus. To be honest, I didn’t know what that meant. Someone dissed on his friend because of his sexual orientation? That’s an awful thing in itself–and I don’t mean to trivialize that–but it didn’t even cross my mind that maybe his friend had been physically assaulted. I think I just sat there with a dumb stare until he went on: “Yeah, he got his nose broken.” Even then all I could muster was a dumbfounded “oh my gosh.” Then the conversation moved on. For all I expressed, I might as well not have cared.

 I know there are stages for processing events like this. My first was obviously lack of understanding. Later, the lack of understanding turned angry. I’m a philosophy student; I like to think that the world fits into this orderly pattern. My mind doesn’t know what to do with such an obvious non-sequitur as “x is gay, so I will hurt x.” That doesn’t fit anywhere in this little Core 250 worldview of mine. Maybe that’s why people haven’t seemed to be up in arms about the assault: it doesn’t make sense, so it doesn’t sink in. It threatens the paradigm.

My other barrier to reacting properly to the assault is that I’m an optimist, a liker. I think well of people. When I think about the world, I forget to factor in the strong engines of hate which drive people to commit acts like this. (Yes, it’s hate: not ignorance. It drives me crazy when people attribute acts of bigotry to ignorance. As if people didn’t know any better. As if there were an excuse.) Then two blocks from home a violent act of hatred is committed.

There are other stages. Sadness at the state of humanity. Hurt on behalf of the victim and others who share his sexual orientation. The need to talk. The need to do something.

I don’t know if all this is my need to self-justify, or stems from guilt at my initial reaction. Maybe you had a similar series of reactions. Maybe not.

Let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about the rally that’s happening next Wednesday, and what students are doing for the victim, about what we’re thinking and rethinking, about what we’re feeling and not saying.

Let’s react.

Second, I am also proud of all of the incredible maturity displayed by all of the performers, and how the play has challenged the way you think about certain issues raised in the play. Well done.

Third, I am hugely impressed with the turnout, for two reasons. Firstly, it was one of those rare times I have actually seen a line snaking around in order to enter a theatre production at Whitworth. Secondly, there were quite a few men in the audience (myself included), and that impressed me. I talked to Jim McPherson a little bit before the start of the show, and he said he had a friend who went to a production of the Vagina Monologues, and he ended up being the only guy in the audience.

As for my thoughts on the play, I think it imbued a sense of community, as cliche as that might sound to us on the Whitworth campus. I think all of us, regardless of our gender, can relate to the overall message of being comfortable in our skins, and being able to be proud of the fact that we recognize sexuality as part of ourselves.

Furthermore, one of the most powerful things for me, was the fact that all of the stories in the play were true. That adds a new dimension to the work, and creates a sense of connection that cannot be ignored. It simply reinforces the whole community aspect that I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, and it was touched upon during the post-play discussion, the subject matter contained in the play isn’t necessarily something that is outwardly expressed here on this campus. Having said that, I hope conversation will either continue, or get started because of what was done tonight.

Anyways, that’s what I have been thinking. What say you?

Dear G-Unit: I’m writing you today because I feel my parents are starting to like my roomate better than me.  The first thing they always ask when they call is “And how is *roommate name witheld to protect the innocent* doing?”.  They give him care packages, and they lavish him with compliments when they see him.  What can I do to reassert… ahem… “parental focus” back on to moi?

Belittled in BJ

Hi BB! Wow, how insensitive. I suggest getting new parents….No, wait, that’s not cost-effective. Never mind. Um. Let’s see.

I assume you have already tried standard techniques like whining on the phone. It’s time to get drastic. Stage a crisis.

I’ll go ahead & assume you’re a freshman, because, after all, Baldwin-Jenkins is a freshman-only dorm. It is a well known fact (at least to us upperclassmen) that most freshman are more concerned with friends then they are with grades. Plan carefully. Begin mentioning the names of friends that you are hanging out with (make up names if you have no friends or your friends hate you and refuse to hang out with you). Begin mentioning these names at an exponentially increasing rate.  Eventually, if they are the kind of parents I think they are (by which I mean, parents who like to see some evidence that you are putting all that money they are forking out for tuition to practical use), they will begin to ask about homework, classes, and grades. Downplay the grades, at first. Mention classes, but when they ask how said classes are going, mumble and change the subject. Mention tests but then don’t mention your final grade. Et cetera. Eventually they will catch on, being the savvy adults they are, and demand proof. Proof of grades. Proof of success. Proof that you are not on academic probation. At this point, break down. Begin to sob. Tell them about how much time you have been spending with your friends, instead of poring over your homework. Tell them the love of your friends is only a poor, shabby substitute for their love. And beg them to fly up/down/over and visit you next weekend. And they, sobbing by now as well, will proceed to do exactly as you ask.

I know, I know, I’m a genius. You don’t have to tell me.

Dear G-Unit: I just starting dating this AMAZING girl from Warren. I think she may be the one. We agree on everything; from how it is TOTALLY wrong to call people gay as an insult, to that apples are the best fruit! My question is: how do I tell when we’re annoying people? We really love each other and like holding hands and kissing and being all ridiculous, but even so, I don’t want to be THAT couple, who totally alienates everyone they meet just because they are just so SO.

Warren Peace

I’ll try to make this quick and painless for both of us, Tolstoy: I’m afraid you already are that couple. The ones making goo-goo eyes at each other across their Saga tables. The ones constantly referencing stupid inside jokes that nobody else gets, even if we cared to try and figure them out. The ones walking each other home in the Loop, shrieking loudly at 3 AM. The ones breaking the ‘quiet’ rule in the back shelves of the libraries.I have three words for you and your girlfriend: GET. A. LIFE. I know, I know, you are SOOOOOOOO IN LUV, and you NEVER want to be apart and you ALWAYS want to be together and you are TOTALLY ring-by-spring-ing, but my point stands. The relationship will die (I know, I know, HEAVEN FORBID OMG) without space. You need space, especially if you are seriously considering getting married and aren’t just flinging that around like so many Whitworth couples do. By space, I mean time apart, and having things you enjoy doing WITHOUT the other attached to your hip.

And, are you annoying your friends (really the only ‘people’ who matter)? I don’t know. I am not your friends. Perhaps you should, you know, ask them.

Dear G-Unit: Recently this really awesome band came to visit Whitworth. They played the HUB multipurpose room. Me and a couple friends started dancing. We just couldn’t help it. The music was so good! It was really awkward though, because it’s like the band on stage, and then that little square of light, and then everything else is dark. And there were, seriously, like four of us dancing, and everyone else just outside in the dark, standing still, maybe swaying a little, all spooky like. How lame! How can I get people to join in the fun next time?

I’ll March to the Beat of Any Drummer with a Good Bass Line

Well, I.M.B.A.D.G.B.L., all I can tell ya is to lead by example. Whitworthians are a little, how do you say, challenged in the R&B department. Trust me, get em a little excited, or, just, you know, turn ALL the lights off (Warren Rave, I’m talking to you), and they go absolutely nuts. Try not to stare at them, though. I know, I know, that dance move was out of style when your granddad was a kid, but progress is progress. You have to do the Running Man before you can waltz, as they say.

If you’d like some words of wisdom from the most straight up G advice columnist this side of Seattle, shoot an email at dearg-unit@live.com, and you could see yourself in print! Er, type! Er…Whitworth Forum post! Yeah, that one. 

She had a point. The article chronicling the administration’s censorship of the intended title for the annual senior art exhibition had received precisely one comment from the Whitworth community in the week it had been posted. Conversely, the article attacking the average Whitworthian’s propensity for wearing sweatshirts to class (also penned by Ms. Johnson) received five comments in its first week and thirteen as of this posting. It also inspired a Letter to the Editor, notable as being the only Letter to the Editor that the Whitworthian has published in 2009.

I won’t even get into the Vagina Monologues incident, which spurred the writing of two Whitworthian articles and an opinions column, but apparently failed to garner any attention from individual students (at least judging from the lack of comments upon said articles/columns).

It is, as a recent In the Loop column stated, “an upsetting trend.”  But what I find more upsetting than the administration’s actions is the lack of response from the Whitworth community at large – a community that erupts in outrage when someone makes negative remarks about their everyday attire, but says not a word when the artistic expression of their peers is imperilled!  What kind of attitude is this?

One friend who I pestered about the administration’s actions vis-a-vis the senior art exhibit said, “Well, I don’t really care about art. It’s not my [rights to free speech] that are being infringed upon.”

I hate to subcribe to an obvious logical fallacy, in this case the slippery slope argument, but indulge me.  In recent years Whitworth has been moving more and more toward a particular image, the image of a hallowed institution of learning.  This is fine, but their image apparently does not include seniors who wear wigs and make silly faces for their ID card photos, or advertisements that don’t have a “Whitworth University” stamp on the corner, or students who bedeck the other university in town’s campus with fliers declaring Whitworth’s societal, academic, and athletic superiority (in unapologetically silly terms, of course).

Understandable? Maybe…but the administration’s objections have now cut a little closer to home.  No ironic art show titles.  No productions of plays that dare to criticize traditional sexual mores.

How many more such decisions will have to be made before students as a whole start taking notice?

ASWU President

Tyler Whitney said, “I will effectively represent students in front of external groups, such as the Board of Trustees, B-Rob’s Cabinet, and the faculty.”

EVP

Tyler Hamilton said, “I am the most passionate and experienced candidate for the position.”

Mac Senator

Stephen Jansons said, “I like the quote you took from my page.  I feel it really represents some of the enthusiasm I have for my dorm and me wanting to represent my fellow Mac men in ASWU…On a more serious note, I would like to stress the tradition of Mac Senators.  Just looking at the past three Senators of Mac, one was a junior and the other two were sophmores.  If you were to ask anyone who lived in BSchMac when those guys were around they will tell you how great of a Senator each of them were.  The benefit of simply having a younger Senator is that they have more enthusiasm for the position and they are mentally present throughout the year.  Seniors check out early in the spring because they have to start making final decisions about the rest of their life.  There’s nothing wrong with that, I’ll do it too when I’m a senior, but a senator should be focused on his or her duties the entire year.”

East Senator

Kara Heatherly said, “‘If you wait for the perfect moment, when all is safe and assured, it may never arrive, mountains will not be climbed, races won, or lasting happiness achieved’…This quote…is one of my favorites for a lot of reasons.  Ever since a very young age, I’ve been an active member of most things I’ve participated in. I’ve learned that if you want something, most of the time your best bet is to go out and make it happen, if you believe in something, you’re only doing yourself a disservice if you don’t act on that belief.  Sometimes it takes a walk on the wild side to go out and make a difference…I am SO excited about this job and I think what sets me apart is simply my passion and excitement.  My hope is that from me my passion and my love for Christ will flow into this new leadership team in the new dorm next year.I look forward to setting traditions for this new dorm and building yet another community that Whitworth students are proud to be a part of.”

Duvall Senator

Jonathan Deal said, “As Senator, I plan on bringing residents of Duvall together through service projects, dances, and other activities.  I promise to keep everyone well informed of current events at Whitworth, and will listen to any ideas or concerns anyone has.”

Stewart Senator

Brittany Roach said, “I love the Stewshke community and being Representative this year and I would love the opportunity to serve it again next year; to another year of laughs!”

Arend Senator

Beau Lamb said “Serving currently as dorm Rep, I feel I have a great understanding of what my dorm needs and believe I can serve them best.”

Same deal as last time, people. I logged into Facebook and typed each candidate’s name into Facebook search.  Their first name I made a link to either the picture they’re using to campaign with, or their profile pic. Their last name is a link to whatever picture on their Profile Pictures Page amused or intrigued me most.  And after that I quoted an intriguing, amusing, or just plain WHAT?! quote from their “Favorite Quotations” section on Facebook.  And after THAT I linked you to any existing Facebook support groups.  Only difference: this time it’s the people who became, as the email said, “official candidates through the write-in process.”

Duvall Senator

• Jonathan Deal (We must not look to government to solve our problems. Government is the problem [Ronald Reagan].)
• Peter Pascacio (We’ll go with that [Alex Haley].)

Off Campus Senator

• Christine DeHaven

Warren Senator

• Briana (Breezy) Moser 

So, a couple of weeks ago a few friends of mine (guys) thought it would be a fun joke to hack into my facebook account and change some subtle things to inappropriate things.

Long story short, I did not notice the changes in my “about me” section and so as a result I did not change them. You can imagine my shock and horror when I saw that quote (is it from a movie?) that I have never heard before.

I hope you all can understand that that quote does not represent who I am – in fact it’s the complete opposite! If any of you have any other questions about me or what I plan to do if elected senator for East next year, feel free to ask away! And don’t forget to vote in the general elections on Wednesday, April 8! Have a great day, Forum readers!

OKAY, here’s what I did.  I logged into Facebook and typed each candidate’s name into Facebook search.  Their first name I made a link to either the picture they’re using to campaign with, or their profile pic (in many cases, both [in one case a Paint interpretation of a particularly evocative campaign poster]). Their last name is a link to whatever picture on their Profile Pictures Page amused or intrigued me most.  And after that I quoted an intriguing, amusing, or just plain WHAT?! quote from their “Favorite Quotations” section on Facebook.  And after THAT I linked you to any existing Facebook support groups.  WHEW.  

President

• Tyler Whitney (Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is [[Ghandi])
• Michael Harri (I‘m not weakened by the fears/that you have applied/See I’m now learning in these walls/that You have supplied./Slow, slow down boy./Slow down to/Control [Collective Soul]) The Official Facebook Support Group. The Website.

EVP

• Tyler Hamilton (If at first you don’t suceed, then lower your standards.)
• Charley Brinkman (We cannot all do great things, but we can all do small things with great love [Mother Teresa].)

FVP

• Carl Chan (Spirituality is not religion. Religion divides people. Belief in something unites them.) The Official Facebook Support Group.

Boppell Senator

• Katie Daroff

Mac Senator

• Jesse Prichard 
• Stephen Jansons (..when I’m going through the hard times I like to punch dance away life’s problems…) The Official Facebook Support Group.

Ballard Senator

• Meghan Eremeyeff
• Emily McBroom

Stewart Senator

• Brittany Roach (life is a series of images that change as they repeat themselves [Andy Warhol]

East Senator

• Marissa Connolly (You’re in college, son. Do anything that moves.)

• Kara Heatherly - The Official Facebook Support Group. 

Arend Senator

• Beau Lamb (I feel like I’m in some Greek play, you try to control your fate, but the gods have other plans.)
• Rachel Busick (violence is not the answer [though it is a solution at times]) The Official Facebook Support Group.

Off Campus Senator

• David Kuraya (The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work [Emile Zola].) The Official Facebook Support Group.

Off Campus Rep

• Dan Lewis (The world will never be safe as long as millions live in poverty so the few can live as they wish [Shane Clairborne].) The Official Facebook Support Group.

Regardless, here it is: Everyone’s least favorite favorite meme: with a twist:

25 Things Gabrielle Vaughn Loves and Hates About Whitworth

1. My favorite theatre major said [a really bad word] (I edit myself for Daniel Walters’ grandma’s sake) really loud in Saga-I-mean-Sodexo at 6:45 PM, Thursday, April 1st.

2. I play Dungeons and Dragons with a group in Hendrick Hall. The security people leave the lights on in Hendrick Hall for us from after classes leave the hall until about midnight.  Sometimes the security people stop by mid-session & tell us stories about epic things that happened in their high school/college/insert time period label here sessions.

3. Very few people commit the egregrious sin of PDA on the Whitworth Campus.  Those who do, do it with passion (find the pun, it’s not very hard [if you noticed the pun between these parentheses, you're a perv (if you noticed the double puns, email me, I think we'd like each other)]).

4. Percentagely speaking, everyone at Whitworth loves Facebook.

5. Those who don’t love Facebook have really interesting reasons why the heck not.

6. Go to the Whitworth Coffee Shop alone sometime. Say hello to the inevitable fifteen people there that you know/took a class with/took a class from/have about .2390572938456 degrees of separation from. Take a moment to mourn Stan’s loss to the Whitworth community. And then sit down. And people-watch/listen. People talk about EVERYTHING in the Coffee Shop. It is one of (surprisingly numerous) places on campus where Whitworth’s diversity of psyche can be clearly seen. I have heard/participated in any number of conversations there. I have had conversations planning road trips where people felt free to lean over and suggest places to go (incidentally, Julia, Powell’s was amazing, as promised). I have heard intense debates between conservative professors and liberal students (and vice versa [Whitworth's subtitle should be vice versa]). I have interviewed Bill Robinson (no, he’s not an unusually lifelike hologram) for the Whitworthian. I have seen first dates there. I have experienced a first date there. I have had people meet me and my boyfriend six months later and say, “Oh! You’re that couple I saw that one time doing that one thing!”

7. I have sat with a Theology major in one of the larger dorms on campus and listened to him rant about how very, very, wrong evolution was as a concept, knowing that several dorm floors away, someone was pushing the Everclear a little farther behind the Whitworth-approved Mountain Dew in the minifridge. The contrast in personalities amazes me.

8. I, who grew up a flaming Southern Baptist, have been taught the beauty of Roman Catholicism by simply watching other people love it.

9. I sat in a lecture with close to fifty other people. The lecture concerned Chaucer and Sex. Maybe a third of the student audience were English majors. The professors there (some of the legends, Doug Sugano, Corliss Slack, Arlin Migliazzo) expressed amazement at the amount of people there. I was fresh out of high school. I hadn’t even declared my major yet. I was struck speechless that a) not only were there people who CHOSE to take English class, but b) they were taking time out of their social life (AND MANY OF THEM WEREN’T EVEN MAJORING IN ENGLISH!) to listen to a professor who didn’t teach at their school lecture about the blatant sexuality in a piece that is bandied about by at least as many people as have seen A Knight’s Tale!

10. I have gone on a roadtrip with an opinion columnist thinking about transferring to a college back home and a girl who carried her Canon camera on every beach we visited who is giving serious thought to transferring to Seattle Pacific University. I was taking a trip driving the car, in a rainstorm, on a curvy mountain road. I was distracting them and myself from the bad weather and dangerous conditions by telling them stories about my other friends (sounds dangerous – actually helps me focus & drive better – ). I found myself telling them about the horrible things that a high school friend of mine had gone through while I was simultaneously experiencing my freshman year at Whitworth. I had never talked to anyone about the experiences before. Because it was a road trip and I had just spent two days camping on the Oregon coast with these girls and listening to the amateur photographer playing folk songs on her fiddle for us in the dark while our campfire burned, I forged ahead. ….Not to put too fine a point on it, but I found myself trying to drive and sob at the same time. Without expressing any (justified) concern for her life at all, the opinions columnist gently offered to drive the car (which is owned by the amateur photographer). And I let her. And instead of doing what MOST people would do, which is let the change in drivers allow the mood to lapse and the crying and sharing stop, the opinions columnist hugged me as we passed each other on the way to changing seats, and once everyone was settled and we were on the road again, the amateur photographer started encouraging me to finish the story, “because it’s important to get these things out.”

11. Stewart is the dorm known for being attractively sketch, having sewer problems of mythic proportions, and testing the patience of the surrounding residential neighborhoods every year with the Stewart Lawn Dance (Save a horse, ride a cowboy!) But Stewart is also the dorm whose front lawn was featured in the ‘07/’08 school year, as a photography student took pictures of the four seasons in action from his dorm window. Stewart also vies with BJ for my personal title of “most flags displayed on dorm windows” (Colorado seems to have the most state pride, flag-wise).

12. Whitworth is obsessed with good art, even if half the campus doesn’t know it. There is a 3-D art sculpture in the HUB right now. It’s triangular & made out of broken mirrors. There are small-sized advertisements for REALLY INTERESTING events on the Whitworth campus stuck to it. You should go see it. The sculpture, I mean. And the interesting events. The HUB’s a pretty good thing to see too, while you’re out seeing things because some girl on the Internet told you to (protip: there are no girls on the Internet).

13. Whitworth is a campus that simultaneously has art students paying their way through college who really, really try to make a show called “Free Beer,” and who write very contained opinion columns when their idea is turned down….and conservative students from California whose fathers are millionaire businessmen who go to Hosanna every Tuesday night, rain or shine (or April snow).

14. While we’re on that topic, I love the glow of Whitworth’s lights in December/January when they are mere halos through fogs of snow, low-lying clouds, or other inclement weather. But I’m a little bemused by the beauty of an inch of snowfall when it comes on April Fool’s day (you see what God did there?).

15. I have a really skinny friend who lives in Arend and sometimes forgets to eat. He has ADD and sometimes gets really caught up in checking websites and doing homework and talking to friends and he…just…forgets…to eat. One day he fainted in front of his roommate (who I later heard threaten him: “If you ever do that again I will strangle you myself!”). It’s been roughly six months since that incident, and he’ll still meet people in Arend or associated with Arend (you know, dating some of Arend’s infamous geeks or the like) who, after a while, will suddenly look intensely focused, then surprised, and go, “Oh! You’re that guy that fainted!” They will then look suddenly concerned, put a hand on his shoulder, and ask sincerely, “Are you doing okay?”

16. I once brought a plate of cookies to Whitworth for the express purpose of sharing them with my boyfriend and inadvertently invited three computer science majors over to chillax in a tiny Keola room (that’s right, Village pride) and have some cookies as well. This is how it went. I was in charge of the cookies, sitting in the one chair in the room, simultaneously trying to listen to everyone talk and finish painting my Dungeons and Dragons figurine. My boyfriend kind of pressed himself against the wall and watched everything (I may or may not have invited those guys over while my boy was in the shower, I’m not sure – IT’S ALL A BLUR TO ME NOW -). One friend argued, cookie in hand, his theory about why women shouldn’t play World of Warcraft. The other friend argued with the first friend that he didn’t think ANYONE should play World of Warcraft, because it does all the imaginative work for you (that was the first time I’d met this guy face-to-face). And the last friend was curled up on my boyfriend’s bed, having kidnapped my boyfriend’s copy of Watchmen to reread.

17. In the last month before the ‘07-’08 school year was over, a group of us took to the back 40 one night. Those who played instruments were encouraged to bring them. We went down to Pirate’s Cove. The boy who played bagpipes was heckled until he got up on stage and played for us. Several others had particular pieces of poetry memorized and got up on stage and recited them for the group. One boy did all the voices and motions of the “Bring out yer dead!” scene of Monty Python and the Holy Grail fame. Another performed some obscure speech by some crazy English revolutionary, in a funny accent (he’s talented with those). Then we walked in large circles around campus, singing shreds of songs that we all knew (The Beatles proved popular as the large majority knew at least a chorus’ worth of lyrics) as well as showtunes…..Incidentally, the boy who played the bagpipes still practices near Pirate’s Cove in the back 40 now and again. He prefers to practice in daylight, but often plays at night, lit by a bare lightbulb, surrounded by cigarette butts and dead pizza boxes.

18. If you are that rare creature, a sophomore or freshman who lives off-campus, most of Whitworth’s dorms and The Coffee Shop are a great place to just get away from it all. Take a book, take some coffee, take your laptop, take your sheet music & practice on the pianos that are in every single dorm (Thank you, to whoever’s idea that was). Any of the above, or your own idea, works. I especially recommend the big dorms for lounge-hopping, like Arend or Warren, but also spent about an hour in Schumacher last year when it was still girly and it worked pretty well. Haven’t been back in The Shoe since it changed gender, but I hear good things!

19. Whitworth lives in Spokane, a city that has a heartbreaking handfulsworth of metropolitan area centered around the Spokane River Falls and miles and miles and miles of condominiums and housing development. It takes a village to raise some beauty…

20. Three words: The Garland District. I don’t care when you go or where you go or what time of the day you go, just go. There’s Garland’s Dollar Theatre. There’s an excellent used-book store, I visited once and at the counter the owner looked through my selections and randomly started muttering, “That’s too much” and marking things down (which ended up really good because I was in a book glut mood and bought waaaaaaaay too much stuff that trip). There are about five semi-famous greasy-spoon restaurants (The Milk Bottle has Doug Sugano’s personal recommendation, if that means anything to you – plus the door is in the middle of a 15 foot milk bottle sculpture and there are lots of black and white pictures over the counter inside – what more do you need?). The Blue Door Theatre does cheap-ish but REALLY EXCELLENT improv every weekend or so and they need bigger audiences. GO SEE. REPORT BACK.

21. If you’re the occasional Whitworth student who actually has money, get yourself to the Spokane Civic Theatre. Two years ago they sent a Sondheim Musical (Assassins, for those literate in Sondheim Speak) to AACTFest in Charlotte, North Carolina. Why do I know this? Because I attended middle school and high school at Northwest Christian in town, and was in every musical from 7th-12th grade, and the theatre teacher graduated from Whitworth College. He played The Balladeer in that production of Assassins and as a person is why I attended Whitworth and plan to again.

22. Don’t be fooled by Whitworth’s white-bread exterior. It’s not all rich kids attending on their parent’s money. It’s also kids who cut and alcoholics and kids who love premarital sex and kids who write poems and kids who write worship songs and kids who wish…that…someone…would…just…react. Whitworth is like that crazy bread that Costco sells sometimes that looks nice and easily edible until you open it up and realize all the nuts in the inside. (”Everything is edible. People are edible, but that is cannibalism my dear children, which is in fact frowned upon in most countries [Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka, Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory].)

23. Whitworth is a boy who’s never known a kiss listening to his friend describe how much she misses sex in all its flavors.

24. Whitworth is a girl in a skirt hanging out with a group of boys, saying to one of them, “Stop being such a boy,” and having another boy twitch as in irritation and say, “As a boy I take offense to that,” and having the girl lean and say into his ear, “As a girl to a boy you know I’m right. Sometimes you have to realize that cliches are true, so you can transcend them.”

25. Whitworth is the marriage of the sacred and the profane.

No, not not that show. No, not that counter-culture group. Or that one, or that one.

Yeah, it’s a pretty common scenario, but this time with a whole new cast of characters.

Meet the senior art students. As art students, they’re always up for trying something different. Trying to be interesting. They’re, how-you-say, artsy. For sure, the goal of much of art is to do what has never been done in art before.

So when it came time for the senior art students to name their senior art show, the eschewed such typical art show titles. They didn’t go with, for example, “Obsolescence” or “Meaning” or “What lies Beneath” or even something uber-pretentious like: “*”

Instead, they called they decided to call the climax of their Whitworth artistic career “Free Beer.”

To me, it’s a genius name. It’s super highbrow meets super lowbrow. It’s using the dialect of Frat to market something the furthest from it. It promises something it cannot possibly deliver — something every one knows — but does so with a purely straight-face. It’s intriguing. It’s clever. As titles go, it’s downright applaudable.

Unfortunately, others didn’t find it as amusing as I did. The senior art students were told by both Administration and Art Department that, if they pursued their title, Whitworth and the Art department would not support them. They wouldn’t mention the show in any publication, they wouldn’t advertise it. (There’s a question if, according to policy, they would be able to advertise at all) Why? A few reasons.   The Title might confuse donors and parents. The Title was “immature” and “high-schoolish.”

You can have your little art show, they said, but don’t expect us to let anybody know about it.

In one sense, I applaud Whitworth for discovering that they can allow something without sponsoring it. For something completely edgy, for something crackling controversial, it’s a good compromise: Allow it to continue, but don’t officially support it. A good solution all around.

Except “Free Beer” isn’t really that edgy. Does it imply that Seniors (all who are older than 21) enjoy drinking alcoholic beverages? That’s one possible interpretation. But even if so, is that such a horrible thing?

There’s nothing the implies drinking to excess. There’s nothing to imply underage drinking. It’s an asterisk away from mentioning, that, no, free beer will not actually be served. Making it obvious.

The very mention of “Free Beer” is only offensive to the least prudent of prudes, the type that comes from the school of theology that believes that Jesus turned water into Crystal Light. That the very act of fermentation is an affront against all that is holy.

Look, I’m the squarest square in all of Squaresville. I’ve never been drunk. I think drunkenness is foolhardy at best, and immoral at worst. I’m a finger-wagging church lady with the best of them.

But the notion that the very touch of alcohol upon the tongue is evil is not only absurd, it’s unbiblical. From, you know, the Bible.

But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

That’s from a section about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. The Apostle Paul comes to the conclusion that there’s nothing inherently evil about a certain type of food — though for people that struggle with, say, alchoholism, it’s probably not a good idea to chug down a brewski in front of them. No food (or drink) is unclean in and of itself.

So refusing to sponsor a show merely because of the word “beer” in the title, is an absurdity piled on an absurdity.

Let’s examine the other issues. There’s the notion that people would be

The old “Parents and Donors are easily confused” meme is one of the most common, but also one of the most disappointing.

Let’s give them people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe people aren’t quite as dumb as Whitworth thinks they are. Maybe the confused angry outsiders — after we gently explain the intention and thought behind the show title — will understand. It could even be a “learning opportunity.” Because education’s what colleges do best!

And, as I’ve said, all you have to do on the advertisement is say “Disclaimer: There will not actually be free beer” in a subtitle below the main ad.  It’s funny, its punchy, and it gets the point across.

But the greater issue is even more troublesome: It’s one thing for Whitworth to hyperanalyze their own publications for marketability. It’s another thing for Whitworth to try to control the work of students, for the express purpose of public relations. The job of the students, ideally, is not to simply be walking Whitworth brochures. (We’re far too white for that, for starters.)

The other claim: It’s immature. Now, if this was an art show of high schoolers, where all the artists and viewers are dramatically underage, I would agree. “Heh heh… beer…” is a common statement from those a long way from drinking it. It’s immature because it’s skirting on a taboo, and smirking while doing so. The reference to this sort of immaturity is part of the appeal, part of the irony of the title.  (The art department doesn’t recognize “irony”, sadly.)

But beer is not taboo at Whitworth. We can’t have it on campus, but for 21 and 22 year olds, drinking it, is quite the opposite of taboo. It’s expected. It’s like saying “Free Cake.” Is Whitworth so skeevish about beer that they have created a taboo for college students that you’d expect of high school students? Where even ironic reference to it is immature?

Unsurprisingly, the senior art students have decided to compromise.  The new show title is something better than Free Beer. Well, technically, it’s “Something Better than Free Beer” which (in my opinion) isn’t really better than “Free Beer.”

But isn’t it odd that “Free Beer” is unacceptable, while “Better than Free Beer” is A-OK? “Free Beer” is value neutral.  “Better than Free Beer” establishes that free beer is something so awesome, it’s something that a truly divine art show should be compared to.

Plus, it flushes the whole irony/contrast aspect down the toilet. Lame. It seems more immature, not less.

The title of the show is just as pivotal as the location, the layout, and the colors. The title is an element of the art itself.

But that’s okay. Art is long story of compromise. You make your patrons happy. You fudge portraits to make the subjects look better. After all, without artistic compromise for, say, profitability we wouldn’t have some of our best artists: Like Thomas Kinkade.

What amazes me in particular is how these commenters seem to think they should be taken seriously. Why should we listen to what you have to say when you refuse to even attach a name to your work?

I could understand why a commenter would feel the need to disguise their identity when expressing their feelings on something that a future employer might find questionable, such as, say, the legalization of marijuana or a secret affection for NAMBLA (ew). But an article dissing on sweatshirts? Really, guys?

The readers of James McPherson’s blog have the courage of using their real names while they debate politics. I think Whitworthians can afford to be honest while snarking over whether someone’s gotten their research right.

My roommate and I have always maintained that Warren must be a hidden enclave of interesting people. This myth of ours has perpetuated, as we’ve only lived on the other side of campus and met very few Warrenites.

So, desiring to prove our theory, we went to Warren’s version of Mock Rock, dubbed War On Rock, on Feb 26. Each hall had planned a song and dance routine, and would compete the way freshmen from different dorms do during Traditiation. My roommate and I even decided which hall we’d say we were from if any suspicious Warrenites questioned our presence there. (Needless to say, we later found out that 1^st West is a guys’ hall. Whoops.)

We enjoyed the first few routines. Matching t-shirts, and more songs than I thought existed about hot dogs made it an impressive beginning. We were patting ourselves on the back for finally proving our mystery of Warren theory true.

Then 1^st East took the stage.

It began with a traditional scene of two guys competing for a guy in a wig. As reflected in reality, they had a dance off to win her heart. When one did, the two lovers danced with joy until, in a particularly dramatic dip, her wig fell off.

Apparently this type of deception is a capital offense, as the previously victorious Romeo expressed disgust and mimed barfing.

If it had ended there, I would’ve passed the incident off as a typical reaction to a switch in gender roles. Sadly, it did not.

Romeo motioned for his former rival and the group of tough looking guys in the background to join him, and they proceeded to mime violently beating up the jilted boy on the floor. This was no Disney channel beating; they were really wailing on him.

I was absolutely astonished. My roommate and I looked back and forth at each other, to verify that this was really happening.

As the thugs ran off, a girl comes skipping along with a flower. She gives it to the beaten up boy, and they go skipping off into the future. Once again, heterosexuality cures all ills!

I understand that we all come from very different places, and have different experiences with gender roles. This was offensive on so many levels, and no one around us seemed to notice.

Acting out a hate crime is not funny.

We couldn’t stay, in all good conscience. My roommate and I left, let down at what we’d seen represented by a dorm that had previously been a beacon of mystery and interest to us, but mainly shocked and offended.

Whitworthian Columnist Elizabeth Johnson had the audacity to note that Whitworth students are prone to wearing sweatshirts as their predominate form of chic expression.

This is not a startling discovery. Whitworth students are college students, and college students tend to showing up to class, not only in sweatshirts, but with pajama bottoms, tempest-tossed hair, stubble on their face (both male and female) and at least several shades of Meatball Sandwich stain. Sometimes the toothbrush from the night before is still lodged, nested if you will, in their hair.

That’s what college students do. They wear sweatshirts. Sometimes, they even ride longboards or toss the Frisbee. Sometimes they have parties and put their homework off until the last minute. Not exactly a shocking observation.

But then Johnson goes one step further. She condemns the style, the whole realm sweatshirtocity.  Oh, maybe a great fashionista could, with an artful swoop of scissors and the right accessories, transcend the sweatshirt, but unretouched, the simple sweatshirt is so blah. So mundane. It’s malaise with a hood and drawstrings.

I’ll quote at length:

 I am therefore led to believe that the problem must be blamed on extreme laziness. Why do laundry when you can just grab the sweatshirt you wore yesterday off the floor and put it on? Who needs to think about coordinating shoes and bags with your outfit with so much else going on? It’s really too much to ask, isn’t it? Take a moment and look around — sweat-outfits aren’t the only offense. Blue jeans and sneakers permeate Whitworth as thoroughly as pinecones.

This is why I admire the few students at Whitworth who seem to actually put an effort into what they put on in the morning. I admire them because I believe that what you wear says a lot about yourself and about how you want other people to view you. I know, doesn’t this all go against the whole “I’m beautiful on the inside” mantra?  As a Christian institution, shouldn’t we be more interested in looking at people’s souls than their shoes?

We have an outside for a reason, though, and the way that we present it is important as well. When you dress like a slob, I think you are a slob. When you dress like you are trying to express yourself, I am interested and would like to get to know you more —  your inside. I notice when you put effort into dressing yourself. Maybe your personal style isn’t my personal style, but I can tell if you thought about putting your outfit together and that is what I appreciate.

….
You’re not boring and you’re not like everyone else, so stop dressing like it. It’s as if Whitworth has a dress code of sneakers, blue jeans and sweatshirts, and everyone is nervous that they will get in trouble if they don’t wear that. As of now, kids at Mead High School have more style than we do.

I want to know you people, and if you are all wearing the same dorm sweatshirts and blue jeans, how am I supposed to figure out what you’re all about? I want to know what is unique about you. Being lazy is not unique, everyone is lazy to some extent. It’s the people who go beyond blindly putting on some clothes every morning who inspire and interest me.

Yes, how are we going to tell the Sneetches apart when they ALL have starbellies?

This type of thinking is utterly fascinating to me. The world of fashion has always intrigued me, because like the world of Kabuki or the world of romantic relationships, it’s so utterly foreign. 

Consider, my dresser drawers have only four types of clothes in them.

1) Christmas sweaters my grandma gave me for Christmas.

2) Dorm Sweatshirts I sorta had to buy because I was selling them as dorm senator.

3) North Central Cross Country Shirts.

4) Jeans.

So the world of fashion, with it’s trends and mores, tend to defy a lot of analysis.

There are objective elements to fashion. There’s optical illusions. Certain stripes and lines can make you look taller or fatter, or make it so when you stare into them, you get a 3d image. It makes since that earrings, say, draw the eye naturally to the smile.

But I also,  believe that if something that looks good on a person, it should always look good on a person. So why, I ask, does fashion change? Why does fashion mores ebb in and out with the tide? Sure music changes, but that’s usually a development of a whole new type of music, and the old types are generally always respected.

I also believe in something I call the “Fashion Law of Diminishing Appearance Returns.” A person can only look so good. I’ll look relatively shabby in a 40 dollar suit, and I’ll look quite a bit better in a 300 dollar suit. But that jump is a lot bigger than the jump to a 1000 dollar suit. Why do people pay thousands of dollars for single outfits? Why? Why did people spend extra money for jeans with holes pre-gashed in them?

A friend explained that it’s like you’re buying a piece of artwork. And then you wear it around, I suppose, and occasionally spill BBQ sauce on it.

And how, for that matter, do people like Joan Rivers decide what’s “glam” and what’s “hideous”? There’s this invisible line between trendsetting and tacky that people can somehow nod and agree about.

Doesn’t the idea of individual defy the very notion of fashion? Fashion, the word, is about what’s hip, what’s cool, what’s in, what’s trendy. What’s now. What, in a sense, everybody else is doing.

Fashion trends, as outlined in Malcolm Gladwells The Tipping Point begin with a few visionaries. They are the individuals. The others, the one’s that really get the trend spreading, are the exact opposite of visionaries. They’re the one’s that can see what others can like. And so, suddenly, bellbottoms are out, and “No Fear” T-shirts are in.

Which turns us to the idea that Johnson explored in her column. The idea that you can define a person by what they wear, and not, say, the content of their character. Quick, txt Gossip Girl about what Chrystynn is wearing!

This, my friend, is Fashism. That the worth of a person can be measured in incraments of chic. The idea that you can tell a nerd, a jock, a preppie, a goth, and emo kid, a yuppie, a hippie, a slob.

Commenter  Concerned Citizen (SideNote– what’s with this ridiculous trend of not writing your real name on Whitworthian comment threads. We know your name’s not “Concerned Citizen” or “Drug Rehab”) writes:

It’s incredibly judgmental to base people you want to meet off of what they are wearing. Figuring out what other people are about should go beyond our clothing. We got into this university so obviously we are all qualified to be here. We can dress however we feel is necessary and wear what makes us comfortable.

Concerned Citizen is railing against Fashism. But let’s not forget that there is an element of truth to fashism. What you wear is a choice (or a constraint of your environment.) It is a symbol of value.

No matter how hard you try, you can’t not make a statement with your dress. That’s why it always amuses me when people in high school tried to dress the part of their clique.

Why do people JUDGE me? man with a tuning fork “artfully” grafted into his lip says. Could it be the tuning fork? you respond. No! He laments. It’s because they’re all stupid preps who judge who you are by who you hang out with and how you dress!

Whatever we wear, has meaning. It’s because I want to fit in, or I think it looks good, or I want to impress the girl I might run into, or it’s what showed up when I pulled my outfit out of my laundry hamper in the dark again.  I make a statement with my fashion. It’s usually: “Huh?” “Whaaaa?” or possibly “Somehow my undershirt came untucked again, and I don’t notice.”

When Johnson says “I believe that what you wear says a lot about yourself and about how you want other people to view you,” she’s correct. But often what we’re saying with our clothing choice is “We really don’t care all that much about our clothing choice.”

Now, it’s often we come to the wrong conclusion when judging why a person is wearing what they’re wearing. You may think he’s wearing a popped collar because he’s a tool, when in actuality he’s wearing it ironically which makes him a totally different type of tool.

And there’s the danger of any type of fashion. The more you stray from the norm, the more you become the Other. The more people will use your fashion to judge who you are, instead of your intelligence, personality, sense of humor, or juggling ability. Everyone’s a little bit Fashist. There’s no escaping it. We predict others responses, beliefs and actions based on inductive heuristics: We expect to see what we’ve seen before. The guy wearing only a pickle barrel may have been hit pretty hard by the economy.

But Johnson misses something key.

By Whitworth students dressing drab, being generic in what they choose to don for modesty and warmth, the question of who they are will be determined based on other criteria.  They can use their personalities, actions, and beliefs to show how unique and special they are. We can vie for attention in other ways, rather than just sticking a feather in our caps and calling it Versace. 

Johnson says: “I want to know you people, and if you are all wearing the same dorm sweatshirts and blue jeans, how am I supposed to figure out what you’re all about?”

A little trick we communication majors like to call “a conversation”

For us drab dressers, we require you get to know us better before thinking you know us. And then when we want to fit into the established social norm of lookin’ goood we can actually dress up.  When you bring out your groovy threads only for special occasions, it makes those occasions all the more special.

Although, if we might mention, you have a bit of shaving cream stuck to your ratty Duvall sweatshirt. No, not there…. here, I’ll get it.

Usually Whitworth’s tuition rate goes up at TWICE the rate of inflation. Usually it goes up at a pace of 5 or 6 percent. I don’t ever remember it dipping below 5 percent. That’s typical of colleges.

But last year, inflation blipped around 4-5 percent. So the rate increase matches last years inflation trends. (January’s inflation was at 0.03 percent, however. Isn’t the economy weird?) But with a lot of economists talking about inflation and staglation as a result of the bailout/stimulus strategy, this seems pretty surprising.

This is pretty amazing, and unexpected with some trends (10 percent for some colleges.) Of course, a lot of other colleges seem to be pursuing a similar rate increase. Dartmouth is at 4.8 percent. Huntington University is at 4.9 percent. Loyola’s at a flat 4 percent.

Not sure if it’s financially smart with a 50+ million dollar debt over our heads, but this is one financial risk that I can get behind.

The gap between private and state colleges seems to be thinning, as state budget cuts force many schools to raise tuition rates substantially.

This comes, even as endowment investments have been hit HARD by the stock market and bank failures.

This low rate increase especially curious, as the rationale for raising tuition so quickly last year was the bad economy. The economy’s far worse now, but tuition has increased far less.

You may have noted the anti-piracy opinion article in the Whitworthian this week. Interestingly, the author, Jerod Jarvis, doesn’t attack piracy on the basis that it’s unfair to artists, movie producers, etc. He attacks it on the basis of piracy at Whitworth slowing down the Internet for everyone else.

I’m going to go ahead and say that statement is just not true.

Jarvis states that “File-sharing is the only reason our network speeds have been capped so severely. File-sharing eats up bandwidth. If it wasn’t regulated somehow, a few people sharing large files over the network would hog all the bandwidth and every other student on campus would suffer from speeds even slower than they are now.”

Actually, no, they wouldn’t. I have a few close friends majoring in computer science, and I ran the article by them to ask about the technical bits. One, who regularly invites me over to his dorm to watch the newest House episode (freshly downloaded using BitTorrent), responded that most downloads NEVER reach the set cap of 100kbs/sec, even downloads of movies or other large files. But even if they do…well, he provided a helpful metaphor.

Say there’s only 5 students at Whitworth, and the total bandwith available to split between them is 400KB/s. Right now, Whitworth is capping each person at 100KB/s. So when student A needs to download something in a timely matter, he can’t download it any faster than that cap. But the other 4 students aren’t downloading at the cap day and night. Basically, your internet will be slow even if no one on campus is downloading anything.

But say they are all downloading. If student A needs to download something, everyone else gets slowed down a small amount, and everyone gets even bandwith. So A would get 80KB/s. And B, C, D, and E, would go down from 100KB/s to 80 KB/s.

Now, if you’re going by Jarvis’ assumption that only the people that use the large bandwith are pirates, you’ve got nothing to worry about. The only people being PUNISHED when somebody tries to download something are the pirates themselves! But that’s not the case. Plenty of people using large amounts of bandwidth are doing it legally. Whenever you pay for a movie on iTunes, you have to then download it. Obviously, that uses a large amount of bandwidth…but it’s perfectly legal! Or take Hulu. It’s a free and legal way to watch your favorite TV shows and a large amount of movies, but it also uses a large amount of bandwidth to stream video…not that you can do it at high quality, thanks to the bandwidth caps.

Plus, there’s a bigger problem. If all the bandwidth would be used if the caps were removed, that’s not a sign that the caps are necessary. That’s a sign that Whitworth needs more bandwidth.  All the money they’re paying into software that caps bandwidth and the like could be diverted into purchasing more lines and bandwidth, thereby solving the problem instead of punishing the students.

The author mentions Whitworth receiving complaints from the RIAA. I do know that in the past students have been disciplined for illegally downloading music or movies; there is apparently some way of Whitworth discovering who is downloading what. The RIAA would like to fine people they discover doing this. Whitworth only requires a two page paper by the pirate in question.

As far as I am concerned, the choice to punish all students because of the actions of a few is unfair and ineffective.  They DO discipline students for downloading (I can be more specific as to the how and the why as soon as I find the Whitworthian article about it from last year…I’m having trouble finding it at the moment, I suspect thanks to the website redesign), so if the administration is really serious about preventing piracy, why not up the punishment from a two page paper to a fine, like a traffic ticket?

Trust me, a two page paper is a slap on the wrist to us collegiates.  BSing papers is what we do.  It’s a marketable skill (and by marketable, I mean it gets good grades).  You can’t BS up money for a fine, though.  I think that’s a much more effective deterrent than slashing connection speed.

The show finally made its way to the Whitworth campus, and then was postponed at the last moment because of “concerns over advertising guidelines.”

Really? Concerns over advertising guidelines? Okay, we’ll go with that, until we find out, specifically, what those concerns are, and over which guidelines.

But what about the play itself. Well, I’ve read it, or more precisely, I’ve read the transcript of the HBO version with author Eve Ensler. And here’s the shocking truth: It’s pretty awful.

It alternates between inane and offensive. I don’t mean offensive like “she said a naughty word” or offensive like “this challenges my politically correct sensibilities.” No, the very fuel that the play runs on is a philosophy that I find repugnant and dangerous.

It’s sexual synecdoche. It’s the notion that the whole of a women is defined — not just symbolized, defined – by a single part of her anatomy. (Not the fallopian tubes, oddly.)

The title doesn’t lie. It spends a lot of time just monologuing about vagina. Describing it in detail, tittering about it, praising it, worshiping it. Sometimes it’s flippant about it — crass — other times it treats it as a sort of sacred relic, the women’s one path to enlightenment, the way to discover her inner beauty and inner power.

Switch genders and body parts and you’ve got, well, a stereotypical male locker room. Men have been rightly mocked when they obsess or focus on their sexual body parts — Freud even said it was evidence of stunted development. But when women do it, this is supposed to be the height of discourse?

Granted, Ensler’s premise — interviewing a bunch of women about their experiences and struggles in their very private lives — is a sound one. It could make for a fascinating, in depth exploration. The problem is Ensler asks a bunch of really stupid questions. We’re talking Saturday-Night-Live parody level questions here. Questions like, if your vagina were to wear an outfit, what would it wear? I’m surprised she didn’t ask women how their vagina feels about steel tariffs, or whether it has a favorite Pokemon.

I’ve seen more nuanced explorations of the nature of female sexuality etched into restroom stalls. It traffics in the same sort of meaningless self-satisfied crudity as the worst types of college opinion articles. I’m shocking you squares into action.

Another feature of horrible college opinion articles: Like the Vagina Monologues, they spend an inordinate amount of time talking about how we don’t talk about sex enough. This, of course, is absurd. Our society talks about sex — whether explicitly or obliquely — all the time. As I’ve said, the only thing Whitworth students talk about more than sex is how Whitworth students “never talk about sex.”

The idea, of course, is that by talking about sex, we will stop sexual violence. Sexual violence, you see, is a product of the prude. We’re so buttoned-up and repressed. If there’s one problem American’s have, obviously, it’s repressing our desires. And simply by talking about people being abused, we stop abuse. Being aware, and all that.

Naturally, it must talk about sex as crudely — and often immaturely — as possible. There’s a section that simply lists all the different words for vagina. If this sort of bit seems familiar to you, it’s probably because it’s very reminiscent of an ongoing gag in the Austin Powers movies.

A quarter of the play seems to be just a reworking of George Carlin’s 7 dirty words you can’t say on television, although without Carlin’s detached ironic charm. One monologue consists of mainly the c-word (no, not crap) spewed over and over again.

It makes the argument that, because we use an incredibly offensive word to refer to a repugnant woman and a part of her anatomy, it’s proof of both society’s prudishness and its sexism. But guys have multiple profane words named after their anatomy as well. And the meaning is pretty much the same. Why? Because referring to a person simply on the basis of a single body part, especially one you don’t show at the beach, is inherently dismissive and offensive. 

Men, by the way, are portrayed as brutes, fetishists, or dolts. I’m not objecting to that portayal of men — it makes for good super bowl commercials — the problem is that when the same behavior comes from women, it’s something the play unabashedly celebrates.

Consider the case of the 24-year-old guy that seduces a 13-year-old girl, gets her drunk, and then gives her a sexual experiment. The girl likes it. It causes her to have some sort of sexual awakening.

Of course, by 24-year-old guy, I mean 24-year-old woman. And so it’s okay, see?

“If it was rape, it was good rape,” the girl says.

In recent versions, the girl’s age has been changed to 16, and the “good rape” line has been excised.

Yes, the play’s been through many drafts, which makes the organizations demand for complete textual fidelity (You must use EVERY monologue! Even the weird ones!) all the more hypocritical.

Monologues vary in tone, meaning, and rating. One’s basically an equivalent of the same sort of oh-my-god I was sooooo embarrassed story. Another’s just a few minutes of cliche “what… is the deal with menstration” female stand-up comedy. Others are awkward — one features a woman making orgasm sounds on stage, another has a domineering prostitute coo about the wonders of the female body.

Others are hyper serious — they deal with rape camps and sexual abuse.

Of course, there’s never any solution offered for this type of societal abuse. For all the work Ensler has done to try to end violence against women, there’s no discussion in the play about battered women’s shelters or legal protections against domestic violence. It boils down to: We should condemn this outrageous acts, and talk about them a bunch. Free-flowing conversation is the end goal. Society’s problems are caused, almost exclusively, by stigma. (Apply the argument elsewhere, it becomes ridiculous. If we’d only talk about kidnapping — or crack dealing — more as a society, it wouldn’t happen as much.)

Feminism is an idea that comes in many shades — but Ensler’s brand is a pretty destructive one. It’s the notion that women should take all that’s horrible about the male stereotype — the crassness, the promiscuity, the sexual single-mindedness and adopt it for their very own. See! It’s not just men that can be crude!

Some feminists might say that we should define a woman by her personality, her morals, her intelligence, her willpower, her insight, her analysis, her decisions. Ensler, however, says Woman is basically a vagina. (Again, why not a fallopian tube?)

A female undergrad from Gonzaga University said  it better than I could, in her article for the Independent Women’s Forum:

This is where the danger of The Vagina Monologues lies. It tells women that they are, first and foremost, sexual beings. It reduces the full potential of a human person to a single part of that person’s body. By defining the person by the functioning of her sexual parts, the play is saying that the woman was ultimately meant for sex, that sex is the fundamental expression of who she is.

In this sense, The Vagina Monologues communicates an idea of women not unlike that found in most major Hollywood movies. The movies present us with impossibly beautiful, assertive women who are overtly sexual without inhibitions and promiscuous without consequences. These women are the entirely sexualized beings that The Vagina Monologues encourages all women to be.

I think she’s right. Of course, for all the problems the play has I don’t think Whitworth should ban it.

Odd position, I know. By allowing something, I’m endorsing it. That’s the mentality Whitworth seems to operate under. They seem to be confused by the notion of listening to ideas they disagree with.

Hear ideas I find repulsive! Absurd! We must stamp the out, before people get the wrong idea.

There’s a simple solution to this. A basic stamp that says “Whitworth does not necessarily endorse…” Gonzaga has one.

Whitworth shouldn’t make it a subsidized main stage production — I wouldn’t want my money going towards putting on the play –  but it should definitely be allowed to happen.

Why? Because college is all about engaging with worldviews like Ensler’s. Whitworth, if it dislikes aspects of the play, should say so. It should let students grapple with the ideas, and deconstruct the inconsistencies. It should let students debate what constitutes “real” feminism. It should let students turn the Monologues into a Dialogue.

The more Whitworth bans things because it doesn’t endorse them, the more it defacto is endorsing all the things that it doesn’t ban. That’s a problem.

And it’s embarrasing for the community to read about. When Gonzaga banned the Vagina Monologues, it was rightly mocked by the community.

Yes, the Vagina Monologues is a crappy play. But if Whitworth banned all crappy plays, then we wouldn’t have had Man for All Seasons, would we?

Prudishness is not finding ideas or words or actions objectionable. Prudishness is when you try to — by fiat — limit the ideas or words or actions of other people.

Let the Vagina Monologues collapse under it’s own weight. Let us be offended. You don’t have to get offended for us. That’s the one thing that college students do perfectly fine on their own.

The one thing, of course,  besides talk about sex.

No, not Howdy Doody day. And yes, Saturday, would be a correct answer, but not the one I’m looking for.

No, I’m talking about Valentine’s Day. The day when Cupid loads up his quiver and starts firing indiscriminately into the crown, every kiss — even the Hershey’s kind, begins with Kay.

Love is in the air, along with chocolate scent and a lot of glitter and post-production effects.

But many of you don’t seem happy. I know, because I read your facebook status updates on my wall. I know because I’ve had conversations with you about how bitter you are over such a contrived commercial holiday. I know, because — and this is key — you’re single. And so something as couple-centric as Valentine’s day really boils your liver.

Funnily enough, those who hate Valentine’s Day the most when they’re single tend to go the most publicly Googily-Gaga over the day when they’re in a relationship.

Fortunately, I happen to be somewhat of an expert in Homo Sapien Singlius. I’ve dabbled in singleness myself on occasion, you might say. (Women don’t seem to go for the self-deprecating neuroticism as much as you’d think they would. Sadly, the female genders usually seems to cover their pink walls of their glittery rooms with pin-ups of Christian Bale more often than Woody Alan.) I’m can’t speak to what a person in a relationship should do on Valentines day — it probably involves a rose petals and an Ouija Board — but I can hope to ease the plight of the Single-American. I will do this by mocking your rationale for despising the holiday.

You seem to hate a lot about Valentine’s day. It’s so gooshy. It’s so manufactured.   You lash out — valiantly — against the mighty, lacy, chains of corporately-synergized Love(TM).

Singles like refer to Valentines day as V.D. (short, presumably for venereal disease.)  or V-day (referencing our victory over Germany) or, cheekily, as “Singles Awareness Day”

While that may seem clever — Singles Awareness Day, after all, makes the acronym “SAD,” — it’s also a bit silly.

Very few singles are unaware they’re single. Sure some don’t know yet, but that’s only because they haven’t yet checked their voicemail.

The world has many many ways of reminding singles of their singleocity.

We live in a world powered by Mighty Eros engines. Music, commercials, billboards, sitcom-plots, tax breaks — they all revolve around love and marriage.

All movies, you remember, must have a romantic subplot. Even Monsters, Inc. And it’s about Monsters! And their energy business! Mike Wazowski can get a date, and he’s a short, green, lizard-skinned one-eyed freak who sounds like Billy Crystal. Why can’t you? Monsters, Inc. asks.

Even without Facebook, we are constantly reminded of our relationship status. And it makes sense. Our evolutionary Prime Directive — the only purpose of life — is to meet some gorgeous Gene Pool, have babies, and give them cute hard-to-spell names.

If you don’t you have failed. Yes, I’m looking at YOU Mother Theresa.

You may be worth a lot in God’s eyes, but in Darwin’s eyes you ain’t worth a pile of Finch crap.

That’s no basis for a philosophy and lifestyle. But we are biologically hardwired to seek companionship, so it’s no surprise that your heart keeps making sad faces.

Of course, you unrequited singles, you’re even more comical. You get sad when you see a rose, because a rose reminds you of a rhododendron, which reminds you of a ficus, which reminds you of the word “fiscal” which makes you think of budgets, which makes you think of shopping frugal, which makes you think of Grocery Outlet, which is where you buy your laundry detergent, right next to the aisle with Fritos, the favorite snackfood of *sigh*… her.

And then you blame Valentine’s Day for reminding you of your lack of success in love? Your bellybutton lint would remind you of your lack of success in Life n’ Love.

Some people go the other way. They make a virtue out of being single, lambasting those married “happy” people who are so “in love” that they “get engaged” and “kiss” and “then comes a baby in a baby carriage.”(Read each word in quotes with a twisted sneer on your face, and an infantile mocking tone in your voice.)

They probably only joined hands, had an elaborate ceremony, and committed themselves — till death do them part — to an eternity as one to fulfill a silly Whitworth tradition.

And hey, even the Apostle Paul was single. (Guy had a thorn in his flesh. Girls hate “Yeah, Paul’s pretty smart and a published author and writes some pretty genius letters, but that whole thorn thing… that’s just a bit icky,” the hot 1st Century Women would say. “Now how about that Doctor friend of his? Is he Single?”

“Fine.” Paul said. “I like being single. Oh, and you women? You can’t speak in the church.  How do you like that?”

Paul did have a point when he said that it was good to be single. It allows people to accomplish great things they wouldn’t be able to do otherwise, like going into intense ministry for the Kingdom of Heaven, or getting martyred without needing to leave mourning wife and family, or raising a level 80 Blood Elf in record time, or consuming copious cans of Cheese Whiz.

It’s possible that God does have it in his plan for you to be forever single. But a lot of people fall back on this as an excuse.  (”God doesn’t want me dating right now,” let’s not forget, is the best, most hilarious, rejection line in a DTR(TM) with a person you’re just not that into. She may have a great personality, but there’s no way she’s going to be able to compete with Jesus. Or, for that matter, the sweet chick with a way hotter bod you’ll start dating when you meet her a week later.)

“So, Daniel, I get what you’re saying,” you say. “You don’t want me spending this Valentine’s day sitting, sobbing on the floor, listening to “On My Own” from Les Miserables, and eating fist after fist American cheese slices still in their wrappers. You want me to sieze the day! Grab life by it’s twisted horns! Now! Valentine’s day is the time to make my move with a Grand Romantic Gesture and proclaim my love to the girl who sits behind me in Brit Lit.”

No! Do not do this!

First of all, she doesn’t like you. She likes Chad. She thinks you’re a little funny, and you may whisper dirty jokes about Emily Dickenson to eachother, but Chad’s so relaxed, and good looking, and is a way better Frisbee player than you. He’s such a dreamboat. 

He’s way out of her league, honestly.

But more importantly, if there’s any day you shouldn’t make a move, it’s Valentine’s day.

Remember, Valentine’s Day started when St. Valentine decided to take a chance, take a leap of faith, strive for something he really believed in. So he stuck his neck out… and was promply beheaded. 

You see, the problem with Valentine’s Day is precisely with the second word. It’s a Day with a capital D. You remember things that happen on Day’s with a capitol D. They matter more. I explained the situation in a February Stall Street a few years.

If you are rejected, forever Valentines Day will be shadowed by the dark gloomy stormcloud of failure looming over it. (This is known as a Valentine’s Day Massacre.)
 
Instead of declaring your infatuation situation on Valentine’s day choose a day like December 7^th, September 11, April 1^st, or March 11^th that already has a bad reputation. “Well, my soul may have been asphyxiated with a metaphorical plastic bag, but at least this time Japanese Forces didn’t launch a sneak attack on American Naval forces stationed in Hawaii, thus insuring Americas entry into one of the worlds most deadly wars! So I got that going for me. Which is nice.”

A love confession makes the person you’re confessing to feel crappy as well. It may ruin her Valentine’s day. Rejecting you really isn’t much fun for her.

(This doesn’t apply to guys. Guys are likely to greet news of romantic interest from a party they’re not interested in with a slightly Boosted Ego. Then they forget about it, and go back to playing Super Smash Bros. Girls are likely to get totally bummed and start using words like “awkward” and start psychoanalyzing what exactly she did wrong. OMG, it’s all my fault. I never should have ever smiled ever when he was around. I feel so BAD. And so the pity commences.)

And let’s not forget the fact that Valentine’s day makes any sort of act — however only vaguely meaningful — all that much a bigger deal. Saying “Hey, I dunno, wanna grab some coffee or something,” may just be interpreted as coffee between friends on any other day. But on Valentine’s Day, she’s bound to think, “What if by “grab some coffee” he means grab the double-decker 4-shot mocha caramel macchiato… of LOVE? I’m not sure I’m ready to move this relationship into 4 shot territory yet. I better never speak to him again without telling him why.” 

Face it, you have a better chance of making a romantic move on any other day. Except, perhaps, the day she gets married to Chad.

Whatever you do, if you’re single, do not try to make Valentine’s day meaningful or eventful or memorable. It will be meaningful or eventful or memorable, but in a horrible car-crash catastrophic way.

So what should a single do on Valentine’s Day. Simple. Absolutely nothing. It is not your day. It’s a day for couples to rekindle their passion-fires and plan creative elaborate schemes to show how much they love their partner.  That’s pretty awesome. But it’s not for you. You don’t have to be the kid at your friends birthday party throwing a temper tantrum because you didn’t get any gifts.

Getting angry at Valentine’s Day because you’re single is just as silly as getting angry over Mother’s day because you’re a childless orphan, or Hannakuh because you’re a goyim, or Columbus Day because you’re not Columbus.  Being single might suck for you. But it’s not St. Valentine’s fault.

So relax. Sleep in. Get some homework done. Read a book. Play some video games. (Myself, I plan to have a romantic candlelight dinner with either Malcolm Gladwell or Heavy Weapons Guy.)

Just deal with it. Like a man. Or a woman possessing the quality of cold logic and toughness stereotypically — and somewhat unfairly — assigned to “masculinity”. Bitterness only leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Or, you know, you could write a blog post about Valentine’s Day. There’s always that.

This is a repeat joke of mine. I originally wrote it in this year in review.

The ASWC, persistent fellows that they are, continue their tradition of making their only real action of the year be to try to reorganize the ASWC.

It was a cliche even then. But who am I to argue with tradition?

From what I can tell, that’s the only thing the ASWU has done this year. Talk about itself. It hasn’t really tackled the Whitworth Drive issue, or really demanded new Academic Standards. It’s applauded administrative decisions — it cheered the decision to remove the temptation to take a meal tray from student decision — and it’s issued the usual racism-is-bad statements.

Oh, and it’s eaten a lot of sandwiches.

And then it returned to naval-gazing.

I don’t want to be too hard on this proposal, because I think Seth Flory is an incisive, analytical mind. I respect his thinking, and I respect his analysis.

But while this new proposal recognizes a very real problem, it proposes the exactly wrong solution.

The problem, is, of course, one of bloat. The coefficient of inefficiency states that a governing body larger than twenty becomes inefficient. The ASWU, to put it bluntly, is larger than twenty.

The problem is one of finances. The ASWU budget gets increasingly larger, and as minimum wage is raised, a lot of that goes to pay for ASWU salaries. (Now, I don’t believe that the minimum wage raises faster than tuition. Tuition raises faster than inflation, and faster than the consumer price index. Since the ASWU budget is tied to tuition, and the minimum wage is tied to the consumer price index there, theoretically, shouldn’t be a problem.)

So Senator Seth Flory, rightly, was looking for a way to cut some of the bloat, and cut some the fat off the budget.

Unfortunately, he decided to take aim at the Dorm reps. It made sense. After all, what were the dorm reps doing but taking up space? It’s not like they were, say, doing constituency reports.

But what if they were? What if, in some bizarro year, the ASWU just decided to keep asking the student body what they thought?

Take it from a previous senator. Doing a constituency report without reps is nearly impossible. Sure, you can lower the number of required constituents, but then you get a bias in favor of People on Prime Time. And trust me, People on Prime Time answer differently than People Who Sit In Their Rooms Playing World of Warcraft.

So this is a proposal that discourages ASWU from doing their much neglected job. Or encourages them to do it inaccurately.

The voting members are the most valuable members, because they provide some of the most unique insights. The coordinators are hand-picked by administration.  The voting members, however, often have some suprising viewpoints. The more voting members there are, the greater the chance someone will defy the group think. I’ve heard it happen again and again, usually from elected representives.

Proposal 2, however, is just downright insidious. You notice how, in your Presidential election ballot, you didn’t have a choice that said, “In the future, please allow the Senate to choose a new president whenever they want.”

During the past 4 years, the ASWU/C has come up with some absolutely awful reorganization proposals. Go through the Whitworthian Archives if you don’t believe me.  To vote for the proposal means that you’re dramatically kissing goodbye one of the few remaining “balances of power” the ASWU is constained by.

Vote for this proposal if you don’t care to ever vote on anything student-government related again.

And there’s the irony with these two proposals. All they do is sever more of the already-ragged connection between student body and Associated Student body. They make it easier than ever for the Chambers to become an echo-chamber.

—

You want to cut some bloat? You want to save some money? Here’s my alternative proposal, one which aims to shift ASWU back to becoming lean, mean, representin’ machine:

-Combine the Special Events/Cultural Events/Student Activities Coordinator position. Drastically reduce the number of required events.

- Reduce hours of arts coordinator position. (It shouldn’t be more than 5 hours per week. Don’t know what it is right now.)

-Reduce hours and responsibilities of Senior Class Coordinator.

-Combine outdoor rec coordinator with sports events. (Intramural already has too much work to it. It’s one of the few coordinator positions that’s necessary.)

-Only pay dorm reps when they help do constituency reports. They shouldn’t have any other job but constituency reports, and eating sandwiches during the weekly meeting. No GE 330 requirement, because GE 330 is dumb. Keep the rep pay budget in an account that, if it’s not zeroed out, it will go to charity. That way, more constiuency reports are encouraged.

-No political club should be endorsed by Whitworth University. They should have a right to exist, and be recognized, but should not receive money from the student body fund. This saves the school money, and allows for clubs that Whitworth expressively does not endorse without confusing donors.

And the coup-de-grace:

-Combine Executive-Vice President and President position. Call the new position “President.” Tada! Now the President has actual responsibilities.

I don’t expect this to be a proposal the ASWU would ever actually adopt, but it makes more sense than the one on the table.

The new Westminster is that same grandpa after every possible cosmetic surgery and a lobotomy. 

I know it was the right thing to do for the school and the English, World Languages, and Theology departments, but I still miss the old building.  The remodeled building has numerous advantages that the old building did not:  A path from one side to the other, enough offices for everyone, functional HVAC, upgraded technology, and thankfully, new bathrooms.  As a professor said the other day, “I used to think, I have a Ph. D.  This is the bathroom I use?”  S0 all that shiny new stuff is great, but who cares?  The new building is so sterile and devoid of character.   

The lounge is now a plain, well-lit, white room with black couches.  It’s like your yuppie aunt’s living room, stark, modern, and uninviting.  The mysterious passage between Alder and Westminster is now a long white hallway.  I wish there were more adjectives to describe how nondescript this hallway is.  At the end of this hall is what the theology department has dubbed, “The Catacombs,” where their offices are located.  

Now I am going to say something that sounds mean, but give me a few sentences of grace to explain.  The theology department should not be in Westminster.  This is not because I have a problem with the theology department, they seem nice, or because of some feeling of territorialism, but the fact that wanted to move to Westminster makes me angry.  

Westminster was the building no one wanted.  The navy gave it away for a dollar, the art department did not want it so it became a dorm, when the dorm gained an “Animal House” reputation they shut the doors and it was dormant until the English department laid claim.  The other departments thought they were crazy.  “It’s way out on the edge of campus,” the others said, “Well,” Leonard Oakland, featuring a full Gandalf beard, said, “We will bring the campus to us… and YOU SHALL NOT PASS!”  

It was our refuge; only the bravest of students could be an English major because it involved defying death by fire, braving harsh climate conditions, leaving dignity at the bathroom door, and straining eyes in the dim lounge trying to decipher the third part of “The Wasteland” in our own beloved wasteland.  (As well as convincing your parents that you can be an English major and still get a job.) 

Today  I stepped in the Westminster side downstairs door and looked left and right in an attempt to remember the old layout, with the bricks, mysterious halls to nowhere, shared offices, cramped hallways and paper thin carpets, and the memory is already fading.

 Just like that botoxed, lobotomized, eye-lifted grandpa, you know it’s the same entity, but you barely recognize it, and the stories are still in there somewhere, but he can’t tell them anymore. 

With eerie speed, a jargon develops. A new language, reflecting their own unique value system, arises. It’s a sideeffect of comfort. When speaking or writing, we slide effortlessly into a rut of comfort. It’s the same reason I constantly find myself using words like “smattering” “slew” and “downright.” I’ve used them many times before, and so I’m prone to use them again and again.

In a rare instance, jargon can be useful. They allow us, instantaneously, to understand what the other person’s talking about. That’s why words like “epistemology” and “worldview” aren’t going to show up on this list. While they may be bandied about more than a badminton birdie, they have a specific, precise meaning.

But a lot of words at Whitworth don’t have that specific precise meaning. The meaning is fuzzy. Soft. They’re words that are supposed to summon up vague feelings of happiness or anger, while obscuring the ideas that lie underneath.

And there’s the problem. These buzzwords aren’t just a matter of “bad writing” or “lazy thinking” they carry some dangerous and destructive assumptions. They gloss them over, dress them in pretty clothes, and prop them up so we don’t notice the shoddy construction. At Whitworth, students usually ignore these words, or dismiss them. In doing so, we also miss the pernicious effects words carry with them. Words matter. They shift minds. They twist ideas.

While I was an opinions columnist I banned these words (with occasional exceptions.) Not because I wanted to censor ideas, but because I wanted to make sure that when my writers were writing, the readers knew exactly what they were talking about. I’ve taken most of these ideas on before, but  Gabrielle Vaughn asked for a list.

Here, is that list. Now, I haven’t been at Whitworth for several months, so maybe the place has experienced a cultural renaissance, and these words have been banished back into the fires of Mt. Doom whence it they were forged, but if not, be on the lookout for these:

Community: Long ago, “community” became a punchline at Whitworth. Go to an RA interview, and you’ll be asked “What does the word ‘community’ mean to you.”

In a way, it’s similar to the classic small group questions “What does Jesus mean to you?” In that case, it’s valuable, just because many people have different conceptions of who Jesus is. They have a different relationship with him.

But I believe the similarity calls to mind the eerie religious nature that the word has. And not “good religious” in the sense that religion drives us to help others, and clarifies our life’s purpose. Bad-religious, in the way that for many people, religion is about reciting phrases, undergoing rituals, and feeling smug.

So what does “community” mean? It’s shorthand for a  “sense of community.” It’s a sense of belonging. And — this is key — a sense of peace. It’s having coffee with your professors. It’s sitting in Saga, and smiling and laughing with your hall. It’s a good feeling, and a nice world to live in.

So, for that matter, is Candyland. But try as you might, you can’t play Candyland for very long. There’s going to be conflict — a clash of worldviews — that rips you from that fuzzy cocoon. In fact, in college, that conflict is half of what you’re paying for. That opportunity to wrestle with the issues.

But at Whitworth, the key is to get that conflict under control as fast as possible, and get back into a State of Community. (It’s like the Rousseau’s State of Nature. It’s a sweet place to live, with bananas and happiness. But it doesn’t last very long, because there are only so many bananas to go around, and pretty soon you’ve got a state of war.)

They’ll form committees, put up posters, and have awareness meetings to placate the rumbling masses. Maybe create a coordinator.

At Whitworth, disruption of community is a crime. Of the three most important rules at Whitworth, “Don’t mess up the sweet vibe we’ve got goin’ here” is the catchall just-add-water mandate.

The big question is, what does that do to the people that don’t fit in into the sweet vibe? What about the pariahs, the anathemas, the gadflies? It sends a clear message: Keep quiet and we’ll like you.

Whitworth’s version of Community, when you get down to it, really, is “feeling you fit in.” So for the people who don’t, it’s frustrating every time the community mantra is chanted.

The debates Whitworth could be having have trouble getting going, because nobody wants to say things that are impolite. Whitworth students, one prof is said to have said, are too nice. And yet, in the effort to make everybody happy, Whitworth drives away those most in need of “community.”

Shalom: Shalom could be Community’s pious cousin. Shalom is just like peace, but with a added helping of “wholeness.” It’s that sense of completeness, of satisfaction. To a certain extent, this is biblical. Count it all joy. Water that permanently quenches you.

But if Christians aren’t careful, focusing on “Shalom” is one step away from the super-dangerous “Prayer of Jabez” style theology. Call it the Gospel of Emotional Wealth.

For people in emotional pain, this can cause them to feel guilty. A lot of Christians love to play the part of Job’s friends. If you’re going through a rough time, you must not be following God close enough.

For every figure in the Bible who’s found wholeness, who feels complete, there’s a dozen driven to their knees with anguish. If you have time, run a concordance search of “sackcloth and ashes.” Pagans aren’t the only ones prone to weeping and teeth-gnashing.

Jesus wept. He pleaded with God to allow him to avoid the crucifixion. He got angry. He called people “sons of serpents” and “whitewashed tombs.” He ran through the Temple, whip and invective cracking, like a divine wrecking ball. Anxiety’s just as much an important part of Christianity …

Remember, Jesus said “Shalom” be upon you.  I read that as a blessing, not a command.   Seek and you shall find — not, Gee Whiz, shouldn’t you have found that already.

The topic of peace versus war, satisfaction versus complete need, is something that theologians have been debating for decades. It makes a fascinating topic for exploration. But we can’t just throw the word around, plastering it on dorm names and the like, without having a heady sense of what exactly it means.

Whether permanent “Shalom” is attainable in the mortal life is not a given, it’s a matter of huge debate and question. It’s less Shalom! and more Shalom?

Diversity: This is the part of the post I’m most worried about. I’m choosing my words carefully, stepping gingerly, typing with extreme caution.

Why?

Because I don’t want to be a Racist. Racism is the biggest sin in our society — so big people believe it needs it own category of crime.

So let me just say, here and now, once and for all, that I am against Racism. Sure, like anything, I have my own preconceptions that I bring when I meet with anyone, but I don’t believe race is much bigger deal for me than class, or clothing, or demeanor, or age or gender or speaking style or smell or political affiliation or religon or favorite soda drink. So if Racism is being more prejudicial towards the Other than is normal I am not Racist. 

The fact that I would have to provide such a disclaimer when preparing to criticize the use of the word “diversity” shows, I believe, what the word has done to discourse. Diversity is the third rail of college politics. Touch it, and you die.

Let’s first reiterate what’s been said time and time again: Diversity shouldn’t just be about race. It should be about ideas. I know, that’s a typical White Guy thing to say. “Which just shows how racist you are!” You respond. 

But that’s not the way it is now. If I say “Warren Peace was a diverse event” you’ll tally the number of minorities in the band, not the number of music styles. At Whitworth, we value breadth of hue rather than breadth of philosophy. When you use the word “Diversity” there’s a hidden “racial” at the front of it. (Never an “of ideas” at the end)

Granted, they often go hand in hand. For all the hype that Diversity carries, there is a crucial element where they are right on about. People that come from different backgrounds, often have different experiences, and therefore, often have different worldviews. Examining racial diversity is a way — albiet a fairly lazy and inaccurate one — to examine intellectual diversity.

But for many people, the intellectual diversity of the population is of a second concern. Instead, it’s seen as a rehabilitative program for white people. Just by having minorities around, it will cure you of your racism.

Except research suggests the opposite. The more we’re with our own population, the more comfortable we are, the more theoretically tolerant we are. On campuses with very little focus on diversity, there’s very little racial tension, according to some studies. There’s going to be more racism towards Hispanics in  Wenatchee than Spokane. The problem is that on many campuses, diversity also creates a kind of Balkanization. You sit with your own race at the lunch table. Events are either regular (White) events or Cultural (Minority) events. It’s an us versus them situation.

And here’s my fear: Obsessing about diversity, obsessing about race, may actually create an increase in racialism.

Racialism’s is a far more insidious form of racism. It says that who you are — everything about you — is predicated on your race. If you happen to be a Black man that is the most important thing about you. In fact, it’s essentially the only thing about you. You are a representative of your race, the representative of your race. When you talk about your race, your views automatically trump the views of anyone else who’s not of your race.

You have your own stereotype. It’s called culture. “Black culture says this. Whereas white culture says this.” That culture is unassailable.

And if you decide to go against that culture, if you decide not to conform to your stereotype, you get criticized. I had a (partially) black friend, that was told — by both whites and minorities — to “stop acting so white.” That’s just good ol’ fashioned racism.

Race trumps class, politics, ideas, morality, or location. Race is everything.

Let’s quickly examine an “Implicit Association Test” cited in Macolm Gladwell’s book “Blink” about racism. It flashed a face, and you pressed a button whether it was “White or good” or “African-American or bad.” Then it switches it up. You associate  “White or bad” and “African American and Good.” No matter which order people take the test in, most people (including 50 percent of African Americans) have more trouble quickly associating “African American or Good” than “White or Good.”  (www.implicit.harvard.edu)

It’s not a suprising result. Everyone, as the puppet musical says, is a little bit racist. It didn’t matter what a person’s political beliefs were, or how many sensitivity classes they’d gone to, or how much they’d marched against racism. They still had struggled to escape their unconcious prejudices.

But what about when they start flashing celebrities, faces people know? Will Smith. Denzel Washington. Well, then that gap disappears. Our inherent, unconscious, racism fades away when we actually know the faces. One student taking the IAT started having an easier time associating Black with Good one day. Why? He’d been watching the Olympics — full of black track athletes — the day before.

Racism is something that can be beaten. But it’s something you beat by looking past the color of the persons skin, beyond the SPF factor of the Sunscreen they use. It’s not something we automatically do, and it’s not something that we can ever get rid of. (We carry a certain unconscious associations for blondes (stupid), or redheads (short-tempered), or girls wearing Nightmare Before Christmas shirts (borderline personality disorder) as well.)

The more we get to know minorities as individuals rather than as Minority #A, the easier it is. I start to think in terms of their personality and talents, rather than their external appearance.The only conversations you have with a minority shouldn’t just be entirely about race. They should be about politics and religion and Star Wars and how much you hate Core 350.

Content of character, and all that.

I want more Racial Diversity. Read that again so you don’t miss it: I want more Racial Diversity on the Whitworth campus. But we can’t just up diversity, have a few preachy programs and posters, and expect racism to melt like butter. Racism won’t go away if we talk about — in fact, obsessing about it may make it worse.

When Whitworth was hit with the racial tension explosion in Spring of 2006, I found myself thinking far more: This person is Black. Rather than this person is a Human with these personality traits. I was thinking of the person with less nuance because of Let’s-Solve-Racism efforts.

People lament Whitworth’s heterogenuity of melanin-levels. That’s fine. But don’t think Diversity will cure racism. And don’t think that Whitworth or ASWU or the clubs can solve racism by having Awareness weeks, telling people to be more aware of race.

Organizations can correct misconceptions. (A lot of people think that Act Six is a free ride to a student just because they’re a minority. It’s not. It’s not necessarily a free ride, and it’s not just minorities. Whitworth needs to do a better job of communicating that.) They can give us a common purpose (like a rivalry with Gonzaga)  so we

But they can’t do much to really solve our unconcious prejudice.

No, that’s the task of individuals. And the secret is a simple — yet noble — process:  Get to know you neighbor. No matter how Diverse they are.

Social Justice: You hear this in the Coffee shop a lot. “Oh, I got Fair Trade Organic Cow Poop coffee, because of, you know, social justice.”

“I’m writing a letter to the murders in Darfur, to stop their Social Justice.”

I understand, basically, what Regular justice is. Arresting criminals. Suing corporations that lie in their advertising. Punching evildoers in the face.

But, what, pray tell, is Social Justice? I asked my good friend Wikipedia, and he said: “It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society.”

So, is it redistribution of wealth? Marxism? Human rights?

It’s all and none of these. It’s one of those giant back-pat words we say to make us feel like we’re making a difference. From a political perspective, it’s a problematic idea. Let’s say we, somehow, closed down all sweat shops in Latin America. Great, but what are those people going to do for jobs? So you increase their wages. Great, but how are you going to compete with the cheaper competitors? Social Justice worked wonderfully in the wonderful land of Oz, but Earth’s far more complicated.

Now, any one of social justice’s specifics tenants make for a great discussion point. How, exactly, should we help the world’s poor? The problem is that the word wides the specifics behind a extremely large umbrella.Who are you to argue with Justice? Justice is a good thing, isn’t it? And it’s our duty to make sure that everyone has an equal share, an equal slice of pie?

A lot of times “Social Justice” just boils down to caring about poor people. And that’s it. Caring. Which brings us to our next ubiquitous Whitworth phrase.

Awareness: Whitworth folks love to save the world. They love to stop genocide, save children, and lift countries out of poverty just by thinking about it. To “raise awareness” is an awfully low threshhold isn’t it? It doesn’t even rise to the level of “understanding.” You’re simply aware. You may write a letter, you may chip in a buck or two, but you certainly don’t grasp the complexity of the situation. You walk past to Saga, and you’re peppered with signs, signals, brochures, and in-person pleas to be aware of all the bad stuff in the world. There’s a few problems with this tactic:

-Wordiness. Why do we have to have a Cultural Awareness Week. Can’t we just have a Culture Week. We do we have to have a Gender Awareness Week. Can’t we just have a Gender Week. The shorter version is punchier, more appealing, and — in many cases — more accurate. Culture Week sounds fun like “Greek Week.” Cultural Awareness Week sounds preachy.

-Generosity fatigue. Whitworth focuses on so many different causes, its easy to become overwhelmed, and not help anybody. It’s easy to avoid doing any research to find out if the charity is actually a good thing. (Some people are concerned that Invisible Children actually puts the Ugandan Children in more danger, by putting them all in one place. Never heard about this? Neither had I.) Awareness doesn’t mean understanding.

-Results don’t matter. Making people aware is easy. Actually making a difference is hard. A lot of people love to focus on national causes they can’t influence, while letting the local causes they can influence slide by. The best types of Whitworth activists are the kinds that focus on Whitworth or Spokane causes — like Low Income housing — and actually get stuff done. In this case, there’s accountability.

Sustainability:

Look over Whitworth history, and you’ll see one thing jump out at you: Whitworth loves to follow fads in higher education — but three or four years later than the rest of the country. (There are some notable exceptions with regards to Alcohol and Homosexuality.)

So even as combating Climate Change drops in priority among Americans, overwhelmed by the economy, Whitworth seems hell-bent to become as sustainable as possible. That’s, in part, because of students clamoring for it. It’s the hip thing to do.

But what does sustainability mean? In its very basic definition. It means using resources wisely.

So is doubling the amount of debt, when the threat of recession  was rumbling, sustainable? Was spending almost a million dollars to build an intramural field that a large percentage of students didn’t want sustainable? Is angering the neighbors and spending $500,000 on an on-ramp in order to close Whitworth drive sustainable? Are $500 ice sculptures sustainable?

(To be fair, the Science Building was a pretty good investment. And if the stimulus leads to hyper inflation, Whitworth will quickly make back the cost.)

But, in this case, “resources” means environmental resources. Clean air. Water. Paper. Food.

Here’s the thing. Besides the homeless, College students have some of the lowest carbon footprints among Americans. They rarely drive. They all eat from the same dining facility. They live in huge communal dorms.

Does this mean they can’t do better? No. But it does mean that the notion of Whitworth being to blame for global warming is largely overblown. If anything, simply by being a college, Whitworth is helping save the environment.

I’ve done extensive research on what other businesses are doing to “Go Green.” They’re rejiggering their sprinkler system to save water. They’re replacing lightbulbs with more efficient, longer-lasting ones. They’re educating their employees and customers on how to best use their resources.

They’re not, for the most part, taking away customer privileges. They aren’t charging higher prices. They don’t expect their customers to just suck it up for the case of the Earth.

Here’s Vic Bobb in Whitworth Today, to elaborate on the buzzwordy aspect of sustainability.

Efforts to protect or sustain the environment sometimes engender eye-rolling and cynicism from even the best-intentioned folks. It occurs to me that the problem might be less with the concept than with the language.

“Sustainability” is a word that has acquired some undesirable baggage. In part, I think the fact that it has become a buzzword makes some people a little shy of it; the term gets used in pretty imprecise and unthinking ways, and people who value precision are dubious about committing themselves to a notion that has not been clearly defined.

In addition, the term is used by some pretty radically Luddite opponents of modern farming methods and technologies, a fact that increases the reluctance of the reasonable person to be associated with the word.

Perhaps most significantly, though, “sustainability” has come to be associated with the bullying and the intellectual dishonesty of the more vocal and apocalyptic global-warming activists. Even though sustainability and climate change are separate matters, they’ve been (not unreasonably) conflated in people’s minds. It’s easy to understand why a person would edge sideways so as not to be touched by the penumbra of the ugly associations of “sustainability” in 2007.

However, we have a perfectly Presbyterian and scripture-rooted term available to us that avoids virtually all the potential perception-pitfalls of “sustainability.” Perhaps we could recast some of our appeals into terms of “stewardship.” Most of the practical implications are the same, the principle is biblical, and the excesses of the extremists are not associated with the word. Calvin would approve, and so might some of our eye-rolling colleagues.

 The problem with “Sustainability” is when it gets used as a mantra, it overwhelms some basic common sense. For example, Whitworth spends three times more money on biodegradable silverware and to-go trays, despite the fact that it will likely be incinerated anyway. Whitworth recently banned trays in the dining hall, by claiming they’d save food and water (250,000 gallons is what many other companies save accidentally. As for the food shortage, that’s caused mainly by ethanol and farm subsidies, as well as a burgeoning Chinese population. Not Whitworth students.)

The recent tray loss revealed the biggest problem. Students were forced to be sustainable, instead of encouraged. Why’s that a problem? Because as soon as they’ve escaped Whitworth’s yoke, they’ll fall right back into their wasteful ways. If, however, students can be encouraged to not take a tray (make the location of the trays more inconvenient, advertise where money saved on food and water can be spent) then they’ve developed a habit for life. That matters. That’s big enough to make a difference.

Whitworth is now using “sustainability” as a tool to talk about banning cars for freshmen. Not discouraging freshmen from having cars, outright banning them.

With the exception of getting rid of the Forum requirement, Whitworth student freedom has been ebbing away since 1989. (Not requiring SATs or essays for admission doesn’t count. Neither does getting rid of the GPA scholarship maintanance standard.)  They’re using words like Community and Sustainability to do it.

Words Whitworth’s critics use. 

Of course, it’s not just the Whitworth Mainstream that abuses language. The Whitworth Counter Culture loves to lash out at Whitworth and their stupid frisbee-loving ways. In doing so, they often find themselves using just as much lazy language as the Whitworth Mainstream.

Pinecone Curtain: Whitworth columnists have been abusing this word since the ’60s. The basic notion is that Whitworth students were so self absorbed in Whitworth they didn’t know what’s happening in the world around them. Please. Can you honestly walk to Saga without having the horrors of the outside world — genocide, torture, and starvation — preached to you?

If anything Whitworth students are too concerned about what’s happening 25,000 miles away, to notice the problems right beneath their noses. There is some truth, however, to the idea that Whitworth students aren’t engaged with the Spokane community enough. Years ago, we tried to solve this with something called Springfest. It was a party in Riverfront park to bring Whitworth to the community. Now, Springfest is held at Whitworth, and features almost entirely Whitworth students.

Silencing”/Censorship: Just as Whitworth does have racism, Whitworth does have censorship. I ran into this when trying to pass out the Whitworth Forum “How to Win Whitworth” guide. Despite the assurances in the Student Bill of Rights, and despite the fact that I was, technically, a student (I had my final internship meeting I needed for graduation a few days later) I was told I couldn’t pass it out.

Why?

Cuz.

Because Whitworth was a private campus and it can do whatever it wants – (even ignoring its own promises.)

So those 20 pages of work during the summer were all for naught, suddenly made useless because of a casual, arbitrary decision. Gone With The Whim.

But people still use censorship and silencing when they’re actually not being censored or silenced. For example, if I say something unpopular, and Whitworth students get angry at me, that isn’t censorship. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not censorship.

Similarly, if a student says that homosexuality is A-OK, but somebody else disagrees and says its wrong, nobody’s being “silenced.”

I think this is a side-effect from Whitworth’s Community obsession. Whenever there’s disagreement, something’s horribly wrong. And the Administration, the students cry, needs to do something about it.

If however, a club isn’t allowed to be associated with the Gay-Straight Alliance, that, while not a freedom of speech issue, is a Freedom of Association issue. It is a double standard issue. Here’s a bit of irony though. At most colleges it’s reversed. A person who said he believed homosexuality was wrong is often punished for “harassment” or “discrimination.”

Students who argue for a Gay-Straight Alliance need to be equally adamant that students with the opposing point of view be allowed to express their opinion as well.

That’s called “tolerance.” Not necessarily acceptance, but tolerance. Freedom is about letting other people make you angry. It’s about fighting to allow ideas you strongly disagree with to be expressed.

—

You should always be cautious when people begin to use vague words like “Diversity” “Sustainability” or “Community” to simply mean “good.” They’re distractions — a bright pretty flash — clouding actual issues. BS is full of those types of good-words.

Use real words instead. If you mean environmentally-sensitive, say that. If you mean “sense of belonging” or “camaraderie,” say that. Valuable conversation and debate can only start when you begin dealing with sharp points, not mushy platitudes.  Speak with specifics, conviction, and precision.

And, if you do it emphatically, please, please use a breath mint.

(Note, the “BS” stands for Big Silliness)

Said survey was apparently some form of cruel joke.

Tonight I was in Arend 2nd West for the purpose of watching some episodes of the British show “The IT Crowd.” If you haven’t seen it or heard of it, it’s HILARIOUS, as well as being posessed of a really catchy theme song, so I suggest you check it out ASAP. But that’s not what this is about.

After a while, biological processes being what they are, I found myself visiting the bathroom on 1st West (since 2nd West is a guy hall, and I’m not a guy. Despite the guy-esque name.) I hopped down the stairs, through the double doors to 1st West, and entered the bathroom.

Dear.

God.

Not only was it freezing cold in there, I realized as I slammed the stall door shut and shiveringly tried to get my business over with as soon as possible, THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS ON. Cold air was being actively blown into the bathroom. I believe it may actually have been colder in the bathroom than it was outside.

I rushed to the sink, washed my hands in record time, and turned with relief to the hand dryer. At least it would be warm.

NO.

IT WAS NOT.

THE HAND DRYER WAS BLOWING COLD AIR.

I persevered bravely for about thirty seconds before I gave up and ran sobbing up the stairs to use my friend’s towel instead.

I dedicate this sordid tale to whoever is reponsible for the temperature of Arend’s bathrooms. DO SOMETHING. I BEG OF YOU.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s Shalom Community Center and Shalom of the Village, but the fact is that the shorthand name for both is still “Shalom.”  It’s a fantastic name, sure, with its sort of vaguely Biblical aura implying that all the inhabitants live in Big Three-less harmony.  And why have just ONE fantastically named dorm when you can have TWO?  I just happen to think the confusion involved outweighs the potentional fantasticness of double dorm naming.  

Why, just the other day my poor boyfriend lost five bucks in a bet with me about whether a friend lived in the Shalom next door to Keola, or the Shalom down the street.  Tragedy, tragedy.  (It was the Shalom down the street.)  

With any luck we will wave farewell to the adorably tiny Village next year (or should I say the TA half of BJTA and the Shke bit of Stewbopshke?) and then will not have this problem anymore.  But until then it remains a source of confusion to both current students and visitors.

With a crappy job market, people need whatever college they can get to.

In fact, at Whitworth, we not only had more students attend, we had a larger percentage of accepted students attend than last year.

But I do want to address new evidence  when it arises. To be fair to Mr. Pfursich, there were several private colleges where admissions did decline. See this article in TIME magazine.

A September NAICU survey found that nearly 20% of private schools reported fewer students returning to campus this semester.

Look for other media outlets making much of this trend. Of course, this comes at a horrible time, as endowments (including Whitworth’s) have plunged with the stock market. That’s the danger of investment.

But there’s another danger in assuming too much. That’s what happened in 1991, where pundits assumed that most colleges would have fewer students interested. Instead, the opposite happened.

Sure 20 percent of private colleges have lower enrollments, according to the  NAICU survey. But what does that also say? 80 percent actually have a HIGHER enrollment or a steady one. That’s significant.

I suspect Whitworth admissions will continue to grow, while a few others may fall, for several reasons:

1. State colleges may have to hack the number of enrollment spaces because of state budget cuts (many state colleges lose money per student, since they get a certain percentage of expenditures from taxes.) So while some will find the cheaper prices of state colleges attractive, some won’t be able to get into those colleges.

Why would Whitworth accept students rejected from state colleges? Three letters: S.A.T. Many state colleges still require SAT scores submitted. Whitworth doesn’t.

2. Whitworth’s a relatively good deal, in comparison to other institutions. While some students will no longer be able to afford Whitworth, more will not be able to afford Gonzaga and Whitman, insitutions more expensive (but more prestigious than Whitworth.) People who normally would be going to Whitman and Gonzaga, will find themselves forced to attend Whitworth. This should go a long way to ameliorating the effect.

3. Whitworth’s number of applications have continued to increase. Application numbers — especially early application — tend to signify interest and confidence that they’ll be able to attend the school.

4. Whitworth has needs-based financial aid. Loans are a great deal for incoming students. In four years, by the time those students graduate, the recession will be (presumably) long gone.

Tuition may skyrocket, to help save our floundering endowment. But the number of students choosing to attend should remain consistent, if not grow. We need to keep that in mind, as we choose how many students to let in.

Despite its “efforts” Whitworth is growing faster than 2 percent.

From 1993 to 2007, Whitworth grew 57 percent. According to my calculator-wielding brother, that means Whitworth is growing at a rate of 3.5 percent. Of course, recently, it’s been faster. This year’s freshman class is 4.5 percent bigger than last years, a class that also outstripped the 2 percent growth goal.

At a rate of 3.5 percent, Whitworth’s population will have more than doubled in 24 years, when my kids are attending. Whitworth will be radically different. That’s what makes managing growth so important. We can’t make assumptions that people will stop attending Whitworth just because times get tough.

More may attend, because what Whitworth’s offering has become increasingly valuable: Something to set your resume apart from the others in the pile.

Whitworth has rules. They’re in the student handbook.

But as most Whitworth students know, the rules in the handbook are not really the rules at Whitworth. In fact, I suspect that it’s been a long time since many administrators have actually read the student handbook or read the student bill of rights to see what’s actually in there.

The don’t have to. There are few clauses — specifically the “disruption of community” clause — that’s basically a blank check. On a whim, an administrator can make any rule up that he or she wants.  The true rules lie in the Mighty Morphin’ Mandates of Mandeville. Instead of Law being King, the King is the Law. (Or in Latin: Dick Lex)

Remember, Whitworth is about relationship — not rules. So don’t expect consistency or some sort of list or guide that you can appeal to. If you have a bad relationship with the enforcer, you may expect a different result than if with someone who’s best chums 4ever with the enforcer.

Let’s be clear: I don’t believe that any administrator punishes its students out of spite or malice. I believe they think they are being fair, impartial, and are doing what they believe is best for the Greater Good. Storm and Mandeville are good people with good motives — though I may disagree with some of their philosophical beliefs, I definitely understand and can empathize with their goals to create a smooth-running community.

But we the students are left groping for some kind of way to know what WILL get us in trouble and what WON’T get us in trouble.

I want your help listing off the things that aren’t in the student handbook — but that people have been punished for or threatened to be punished for.

These are the no-no’s you may not know-know.

I will update this text as you post in the comment section.

This is not intended to be a place of “Whitworth students are required to get married and throw frisbees! Lol!!!”

I want to actually catalogue the breadth and depth of the term ‘Disruption of community.’ Whenever Big 3s are given (or threatened) we need to know exactly why. Students should never be in doubt for what they can or can’t do… I’m not here to say that any of these SHOULDN’T be a rule. I’m just here to say that these aren’t specifically outlined in the handbook. Some of these may be common sense, others may surprise you.
Obviously, because of FERPA and the nature of rumor, I can’t speak to the veracity of any of these. (Well… some of these.) But to my knowledge, these are situations that have, at one time or another gotten students in trouble (or threatened). I’ll divide the Big Three’s up from the Non Big Threes, although if you know of someone being told they could get a big three for doing something I have listed in Non Big Three, I’ll change it.

Here goes:

Non Big Three…(These are just things prohibited. There may not be an actual punishment for breaking these. Maybe just a stern talking too.)

Moving into a dorm early.

Exploring certain sections of the dorm you live in (such as steam tunnels.)

Climbing on dorm roofs.

Switching out Art in the Art building at night.

As a student, sending an All Student E-mail.

Passing out newsletters unaffiliated with a Whitworth Club.

Listing non-Whitworth affiliated Web sites in your dorm newsletter.

Big 3 given (or threatened) 

threatened, for holding a clothed mixed-gender shower party in Warren….

given, for hiding in people’s rooms and leaping out and scaring them….

given, for being a student leader and paying rent on an off-campus house, that happened to have a party where underage students consumed alcohol….

threatened, for posting lists of reasons Whitworth was better than Gonzaga on the Gonzaga campus….

Having alcohol — even for cooking — in a Theme House. (Source: Whitworthian, 2002)…

Stealing campaign signs….

throwing water balloons at cars….

threatened, for not downloading AntiVirus Software (Source,  Whitworthian, Oct. 7, 2004.)…

being found with an AirSoft Gun (Source: Whitworthian, Oct. 21, 2003)…

eggs thrown in dorms…

streaking. (Source: Whitworthian, Oct. 16, 1996)…

“verbal harassment”

—-

Please, add to more in the comments below.

For another class I actually did some more research, and expanded my thesis (though I never wrote anything down.) My theory is that the pendelum of Whitworth rules are swinging back toward the “in locus parentis” style paternalism of its early days — although this time it’s driven by liability concerns and  concern for a peaceful “community” rather than an attempt to maintain a grip on student morality.

With the exception of getting rid of the forum requirement (in 2000), I say that Freedom at Whitworth peaked at about 1989 (Whitworth’s centennial)and has seen a steady erosion since then, especially with regards to Orientation. The last 5 years in particular have brought a number of new limitations — hole policy, trays removed, free to-go boxes removed,  consequence control fro RAP policy limited, parking privileges tightened, Alumni banned from traditiation, dorm doors always locked, off-campus policy extended — and no new freedoms that I’m aware of. (Unless you count the “right to have a low GPA and still get an academic scholarship.”) If you can think of some, please tell me.

Here’s the essay:

From Grumbling to Grudging Gratitude.

Whitworth College Associated Dean of Student Richard Mandeville’s office door is a quote by 19th Century Theologian G.K. Chesterton: “And the more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while I had established rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild .” That Mandeville, the strict face of Whitworth discipline, would choose that quote to affix to his door encapsulates the Whitworth administrative philosophy towards rule and discipline. Like other Christian colleges, Whitworth has constantly struggled with a basic administrative challenge: Balancing their desire for an orderly campus centered on Christian values with students’ desire for freedom.

In one sense, they want students to feel safe, to develop healthy lifestyles and to remain moral. But simultaneously, they recognize the value of letting students learn by experience, of giving them a chance to wade through the life’s brambles and nettles. Preparation for the real world often means being confronted with the kind of actual tough choices. Whitworth’s push and pull of strict rules against freedom throughout the years generally mirrors the surrounding culture of the time. Even when Whitworth’s rules stayed the same, student attitudes toward them shifted. The reaction towards Whitworth’s rules boiled to angry rebellion in the 1960’s and then cooled to contemporary lukewarm acceptance and gratitude.

The 20th century at Whitworth began with but one rule in the handbook: “To do right.” Obviously, many students and trustees found this rule a bit vague. Consequently, in 1904 the handbook changed to outline specific taboos, forbidding “harmful amusements” like dancing and card playing. From the beginning, Whitworth pursued a Baptist mentality of strict moral discipline. A strain of paternalism ran through the College, as administrators set curfews and rules on visitation, correspondence, and travel. When Whitworth College still resided in Sumner, students were required to be at class on time, attend church, and keep their rooms clean. Men could not visit ladies without first presenting a letter of introduction, and women could not visit town without a chaperone. After all, George Whitworth’s founding philosophy was not only education, but also “religious training.” Attendance at Chapel twice a week, therefore, was mandatory. Even secular colleges at the turn of the century still had these kinds of leftover strains of Victorian sensibilities. Almost imperceptibly, however, that began to shift. Several controversial thinkers– Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, and George Bernard Shaw– began to plant seeds of change, challenging capitalism, Christianity, and chastity. Straggling, as always, behind the march of new technology, followed new and improved styles of morality.

By 1916, some of Whitworth’s rules had loosened- slightly. The course catalogue allowed students to make their own personal rules on card playing and dancing, while simultaneously outlawing the attendance of any public dances under the auspices of the College.

Still, inequality abounded. While men could stay out all night, women had a curfew of eleven o’ clock. Even as late as 1964, women couldn’t stay out past ten. The first movie wasn’t even shown on campus until 1958. Not only could students not consume alcoholic beverages on campus, they couldn’t consume them at all while attending Whitworth. Administrators were worried that inebriated Whitworth students, even off-campus, could give the school a bad reputation. Similarly, Whitworth disallowed smoking of any kind, anywhere on campus.

Whitworth was not alone in this paternalistic philosophy. Social psychologist Kenneth Keniston calls the mentality of the early college student one of a ‘gentleman-in-waiting’. At first, college’s primary mandate was to transform boys into gentlemen, to school them in manners and social niceties. Thus, it only made sense for Whitworth College to have strict rules. The rules, from discouraging card playing to requiring men to present letters before dating Whitworth women, each helped refine the ruffian into a gentleman. Legislated morality was not only compatible with Whitworth’s academics, in many cases it was more important.

Soon, however, the concept of the gentlemen was tossed into the corner for a newer, hipper, flashier character: The big man on campus. Students aimed to improve their social skills in college, instead of simply their etiquette skills. Here began inklings of criticism, slight urges for greater freedoms. The right to recreate- to dance, to play cards, to fraternize with the opposite sex- became paramount.

After two world wars, these urges came to a head in the 1960s. The prosperity of the 1950s gave Americans a precious gift: extensive leisure time. This, combined with the success of the automobile, allowed the beginning of a more casual dating culture. This naturally led to a greater frequency in parties, and those, predictably, led to greater consumption of alcohol and drugs. According to historian Howard Zinn, the sixties and seventies brought “a flood of cultural changes such as the country has never seen—in sex, family, personal relations—exactly those situations most difficult to control from the ordinary centers of power.”

The sixties marked an end to Whitworth students’ mostly passive attitude towards their campus. Whitworthians went from desiring rule changes to outright demanding them. Paralleling the hubbub and furor around the country, the anger with the Vietnam war, and various civil liberties movements, students discovered the power of the protest.  They were no longer willing silently follow rules that held little regard for their opinions. They picketed the HUB over poor food quality. (The administration responded, somewhat ironically, by hiring SAGA food services.)

Student also protested the misuse of ASWC power. In response, student Terry Casteel reorganized ASWC in 1964. Under the new constitution, representatives formed a Student Judicial Board, thrusting power into the hands of the student populace. The students on this board aided administrators in disciplining their peers. This proved critical in raising student sensitivity towards college policy. As their friends were paraded before them for discipline, they began to question the legitimacy of the rules themselves.

The Judicial Board sometimes spoke out against the very policies they were hired to enforce. Calling the legal structure “potentially a tyrant,” they claimed that if students weren’t allowed to drink and smoke on campus, then Whitworth better have some very fun alternatives.

Dancing became one flashpoint for this controversy. Since 85% of students favored social dancing, rules against it seemed garishly obsolete. Instead of simply complaining about it to friends as they may have in the past, the students acted. The Student Senate passed a unanimous motion recommending that the Board of Trustees change the rule.   Along with allowing dancing, In 1967, the blanket prohibition against alcohol was clarified to “encourage… total abstinence” from liquor, but only punish off-campus drinking if it became disruptive.

Still, Whitworth had many strict regulations. Freshmen women needed a permission slip to stay off-campus and were forbidden from driving outside of Washington and Oregon.

The average students’ frustration with the strict rules of Whitworth is encapsulated in a 1969 editorial: “Why does our parent away from home have to be so legalistic? Can’t we as Christians be justified by faith rather than the law? An institution must make laws in order to preserve itself, but couldn’t it rely on the students to make their own laws to preserve themselves.”

Since many students were rebelling against their parents at home, it was only natural for them to rebel against their “parents away from home”.

The Whitworthian dealt with such pervasive sentiments by publishing a Student Bill of Rights. The document stressed the importance of student involvement and freedom speech. All decision-making bodies at Whitworth signed the Bill of Rights, hailing the way for new leadership.

When Edward Lindaman became Whitworth’s President in 1970, he understood the percolating dissatisfaction of the student body and planned to fix it. From the outset his goals included rousing enthusiasm from students. In his very first year, Lindaman not only approved establishing Co-ed dorms, but also expressed interest in hearing student’s ideas. Along with the ASWC, Lindaman brought together a group of sixty to seventy students to gather their opinions. Similarly, in 1971, director of student development Dave Erb allowed some residence halls to establish their own policies.

A 1972 Whitworthian retrospective called the arrival of Lindaman the “real beginning of the new Whitworth.” President Lindaman continually stressed the importance of involving students in decision making processes, and “rapping one-on-one with the fledgling college student.”

Councils would propose rule changes in the form of a Summary of Action. If there was any objection to the action, open hearings would be held. If there still was disagreement the issue would go before an Advisory Review Board, composed of staff, students and administrators. The final decision, however, still fell before the President.

Students swiftly took advantage of the chance to protest Summaries of Action. While this meant more time and more bureaucracy, visible student involvement allowed them to feel the administration was listening. In many ways, it was a shunt that temporarily relived the campus pressure. Some students, however, still eyed this administrative strategy with suspicion. The choices the administration gave the students often varied only slightly. Some students felt patronized. “It was like a choice between pork chicken chow mein, chicken chow mein, and pork and pork chow mein and chicken,” ASWC Vice President Alec McIntosh told the Whitworthian regarding the ‘Big Three’ proposal.

True to his word, however, Lindamann responded to many of the student complaints. A few rules were relaxed, and some were discarded all together. Lindamann created several rooms where smoking was allowed, while the Psychology department created programs to help students quit. After much student pleading, chapel attendance became voluntary in 1970. Whitworth even began to allow students to freely visit dorms of the opposite sex on weekends.  The administration and student Senate approved the first truly coed dorm, Arend hall, in 1971. A year later, in 1972, Whitworth enacted its most permissive rule change: 24-hour visitation. Boys and girls could visit the others dorm whenever they felt it necessary. While many trustees and donors expressed discomfort over the ongoing changes at Whitworth, each earned the administration applause from the students.

The students could feel they were part of a much bigger movement. The entire nation was shifting. In one maelstrom of a year, 1973, Congress impeached the President, American Soldiers fled Vietnam, Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion and the American Psychological institute removed homosexuality from their list of illnesses.   The protests of ten years were finally beginning to bear fruit. These successes, however, left a restless emptiness in many students. Optimism and confidence in the government continued to fall, while alienation and cynicism continued to rise. With the war over and Nixon ousted, Whitworth students turned their anger on authorities closer to home. The students were itching for a cause, and the seemingly archaic rules of Whitworth seemed a juicy target.  The administration understood this anxiety, and continued to consider various means of accommodation.

In a 1974 interview academic dean David Winter conceded that it would even be conceivable that Whitworth could allow cohabitation in “certain instances.”

In 1976, however, administrators proposed adding the ‘Big Three,” Whitworth’s most famous and infamous set of rules. In its first iteration, the Big Three prohibited the consumption of alcohol, the use of drugs, and cohabitation. Those caught breaking the Big Three were subjected to increasing amounts fines and eventually forced off-campus.

In a certain respect, the implementation of the Big Three may have been a strategic mistake. Just when Lindamann’s strategies began to ease campus tensions, the Big Three gave the restless student body something to fight against. By May of 1977, the student-led President’s Council had challenged the “Big Three” on three separate occasions. The council criticized the way the Big Three only applied to students and not staff members, questioned punishment for simply falling asleep in the room of the opposite sex, complained about “unreasonable search and seizure,” and asked for the fine for every offensive to be lowered to only 10 dollars. An R.A. resigned over the Big Three, calling the policy “part of a growing trend towards a legalistic and oppressive kind of atmosphere on campus”

Whitworth already outlawed alcohol, drugs, and cohabitation, but calling them “The Big Three”, bound the rules in a single gloomy package. The phrase “the Big Three” could roll effortlessly off the pen of an editorialist and fit economically into letters of complaint, protest signs, and sarcastic jokes. ASWC presidential candidates built campaigns around opposing it. For the anti-authoritarian, the Big Three was an all-purpose bogeyman. Several felt it was a vestige of Whitworth’s tired Christian affiliation, and simply important to keep donations flowing.

Nevertheless, the phrase “Big Three” rapidly became an inexorable part of Whitworth jargon. Students often bandied the phrase about, joked about it, alluded to it, and parodied it.

In some cases, students used humor to express their bitterness towards the Big Three policy. In an April Fools feature of the Whitworthian called the “Stupid Forum,” journalists supposedly asked students if Jesus would have been convicted under the rules of the Big Three. The consensus was that Jesus likely consumed alcohol, but was less likely to have smoked drugs or cohabitated.

Whitworthians in the 70s and 80s continued to complain about the school rules, pleading for the right to keep both their beer and their women in their rooms. To many students, the ban against alcohol in their rooms seemed especially patronizing. They were weary of being treated like “little kids.”

Furthermore, many felt the administration failed to make the Big Three specific enough. For much of the college’s history, students had questioned what exactly cohabitation meant. When 24-hour visitation was implemented, the definition became even more difficult. Did simply sleeping in the same room count? Did there have to be any sleeping at all? How about staying up all night talking? Gradually, the definition of cohabitation became more specific, while still attempting to be broad enough to avoid loopholes.

Still, the Big Three grew more all-encompassing as the need arose. Administrators proposed that Prohibition of Alcohol and drugs be combined to one category in 1986, and a new category prohibiting violence be added. This clause became to an all-purpose rule against “violent and destructive behavior” and “disruption of community life.”

The precise meaning of ‘disruption of community,’ naturally, was left up to the dean in charge of discipline. The ambiguous meaning was entirely intentional, allowing the “Big Three” to cover any future problems. Whether it was Macmillan Men streaking during a coffeehouse, or Baldwin-Jenkin boys dry-ice bombing the Macmillan lounge, the Big Three covered it all.

In recent years, however the stormy protests and aggravated editorials have dried-up. Richard Mandeville has been Whitworth’s Assistant Dean of Students for seventeen years. In all those years, there hasn’t been a single major rule-related controversy.

Mandeville just missed the last one. When the administration tried to restrict 24-hour visitation, in 1989, students waged a massive sit-down protest, signed petitions, and threatened to leave Whitworth all together.

It’s unlikely that such a campaign would happen today. The contemporary Whitworth student usually responds to what they feel are campus grievances with snarky asides and the occasional letter to the editor.

But many of the biggest changes in recent Whitworth History, from the Whitworth name change to increases in the times dorms are locked have been met with comparative indifference.

Whitworth no longer has a Student Judicial Council or groups which protest Summaries of Action. ASWC meetings tend to revolve around mainly monetary issues, rather than trying to change campus policies. Even Eric’s Fruit Stand, a controversially caustic independent Whitworth publication in the early 90s, remained indifferent towards Whitworth’s rules. While its aliased authors mercilessly mocked budget cuts, tuition use, and specific teachers, the Big Three never appeared in archived Fruit Stand issues.

According to Mandeville, students have even complained about the Big Three less on a personal level. This transformation from rebellion to acceptance has been a multifaceted one.

First, the makeup of the average college student has changed over the years. As the culture wars has shifted and morphed, the college reaction has as well. Even the face of activism has changed. The activist fury of the 1970s gave way, to the more weary cynical 1980s, and then to the nihilistic rebellion of the grungy 90s. Today, however, activism rarely focuses on personal rebellion or individualistic rights. Most contemporary college-specific protests launch against offensive words or ideas instead of the university’s rules or decisions.  An ill-considered newspaper column or picture might spark a fury of righteous indignation. So can a passing reference to a politically-incorrect point of view, as former Harvard president Lawrence Summers found out. A racist or sexist comment can stoke anger like no disciplinary policy can. The few protests over campus policies focus on grander ideals than simply the rights of student to drink on campus.

The new college activist fights generally against large, vague, timeless problems. They organize programs and outreaches to fight demons like poverty, racism, sexism, hunger, and war. They think globally, and act globally. Sometimes they collecting donations for outside groups, but even more often they strive to simply “raise awareness” about global problems. The new college activist rarely seems phased by the possible futility of their cause. Just because mankind hasn’t wiped out racism in its six thousand odd years of recorded existence doesn’t damper the student’s hope that they can make great strides just by trying. Many student activists protest federal government policies, like the War in Iraq, the USA PATRIOT act, and homosexual discrimination. These protests, however, are usually on a national or global level, rarely dabbling in local issues. Recently, Whitworth students have petitioned for an end to genocide in Darfur and walked to “raise awareness” of injustices in Uganda.

Without the draft to Vietnam, anti-war sentiment becomes philosophical problem rather than a personal one. Furthermore, today’s activists would likely view getting angry about school policies as not only a waste of time, but downright selfish. Some see even discussion about student issues to be a waste of time. Why should students whine about not being able to drink on campus, they say, when warlords in Darfur are slaughtering hundreds of Sudanese?

Neil Howe and William Strauss could say much about this phenomenon. Their book, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation aims to capture the zeitgeist of the “Millennials,” those born from 1982 to 2002. As they make their way through college, the Millennials have begun to shape their surroundings by acting, instead of reacting. Representing disgust with the Generation X, and rebellion against the rebellious Boomers, the Millennials’ “life mission [is not] to tear down old institutions that don’t work, but to build up new ones that do.” An idealistic generation, they  “believe in their own collective power.” The Millennials imagine their future selves fixing the environment and stamping out bigotry and poverty. Most importantly, they “accept authority” and are “rule followers.” Large majorities actually favor stricter rules for not only school, but society at large. The current generation not only accepts the rules, but often appreciates them.

Naturally, it would be foolish to lump the entire generation into the single archetype of the wide-eyed idealists. There are the cynics as well. Brian Anderson describes this college campus group as “South Park Conservatives.” Based on the politics of the gross-out, politically-incorrect cartoon comedy South Park, many South Park conservatives tend to disdain activism. Usually skeptical of authority, they despise censorship, buzzwords, and smug activism.

Therefore, although this group has the most to complain about on the modern campus- from speech codes to predominately liberal faculties- they are the least likely to try to institute change through conventional means. True, they occasionally hold protests, such as the oft-used “Affirmative Action Bake Sale,” where cookies are sold to white students at higher prices than minorities. Such protests, however, are focused on ruffling feathers and rankling political-correct students.  These are far from the ‘power of the people’ types of activism favored by liberal students in the 70s.

One of the things South Park Conservatives despise about the establishment is the save-the-world-by-raising-awareness, post-hundreds-of-flyers-around-campus-mentality.  They’re far more apt to express frustration through eye-rolls, verbal jabs, and mockery.  Being independently-minded, they’re far much more likely to deal with unpleasant rules by moving off campus or by disobeying.

Finally, there are those who don’t care about politics at all. These are the people most likely to break the Big Three, most likely to get swept into the stereotypical college lifestyle. Ironically, the students who would party are generally too apathetic to fight for their right to party.

At Whitworth, a number of other factors contribute to the tacit acceptance of the surrounding regulations. While the Big Three was demonized at first, by now it’s existed, in some form, for thirty years. To today’s Whitworth students, the reality of the Big Three is as unchangeable, immutable, and primeval as the laws of physics.

Plus, Whitworth sells itself as a conservative Christian college. Many students apply to the college expecting as many rules and regulations as Bob Jones or Brigham Young university. Instead, they find a set of rules much more lax than many other colleges. Even institutions like Norte Dame don’t have the same 24-hour visitation freedoms of Whitworth College. Other religious schools, like Seattle Pacific University, have a number of strict rules pertaining to exactly when males can be on female halls. Whitworth’s rule policy, on the other hand, is “principle-oriented” rather than “discipline-oriented.” This means fewer rules and more focus on common sense. “At other colleges, I’ve seen some rule books that looked like Leviticus,” Mandeville says. “That’s insulting to the 98% of students who will follow the rules.”

If students really need to drink or party at a Christian college, they can either head off campus or go to Gonzaga University only six miles away. There are enough opportunities to break the Big Three off-campus, without needing to try to change the rules on-campus.

Many students, however, are thankful for the Big Three. Tom Wolfe’s meticulously-researched novel I Am Charlotte Simmons depicts fictional DePont university as a hormone-charged circus of beer-guzzling, ceaseless partying, and rampant meaningless sex. Such a free-wheeling atmosphere could probably be changed with just a few rules. According to Mandeville, ninety percent of vandalism, seventy percent of sexual assaults and forty percent of dropouts are can be traced back to alcohol. Increasingly, more and more schools are trying to find ways to prevent excessive drinking. The Surgeon General has made it a goal for colleges to cut binge drinking by 50% by the year 2010. Students understand today more than ever before that binge drinking tends to harm an entire community. Students on binge drinking campuses are “three times more likely to have their sleep and studying interrupted.” College students tend to value their sleep very highly.

Most Whitworth Students, therefore, don’t find the prospect of attending a University like DePont attractive. They don’t want to stay up till three o’clock listening to their friends cradle the toilet. They don’t want to be “sexiled,” Wolfe’s word for being unceremoniously booted out of your own room so your roommate can “hook up.” They want to be able to casually be a teetotaler or a virgin on campus, without it being a “big deal.” A study done by James Madison University indicated that sexual promiscuity increases when students have the perception that other students are promiscuous.

Thus, just by creating an atmosphere that seems prudish and socially conservative, students bring their own actions into line with these expectations. This reasoning can be applied across the board to all of Whitworth’s rules. By creating an atmosphere that feels moralistic, students feel less of a need to drink and cohabitate (provided students don’t feel Whitworth is missing out on the experiences of other colleges.)

Though to some students, Whitworth may seem staunch and moralistic, unwilling to budge to the mandates of the time, Whitworth has generally followed cultural tendencies in its rules. Whitworth followed the rise and fall of trends regarding coed dorms and visitation. Smoking fell in and out of favor, as Whitworth prohibited smoking until the late 70s, and then banned it again once the dangers of secondary smoke were discovered. Whitworth tends to wait to see if the cultural trend is stable, wary of reaping unexpected consequences.

Generally it has achieved this balance with a manner of subtlety and grace. Though there were a few missteps in marketing, once Whitworth slyly allowed students to have some input in their situation, they tended to appreciate that situation much more. The college has become expert in defusing students concerns before they become volatile. Whitworth usually enacts just enough reform to satiate students and prevent most complaints. To paraphrase Keniston, the worst thing that can happen to a revolution is for it to partially succeed.  For college administrators, however, this is exactly what they want: Enough freedom to satisfy and enough regulation to protect. That atmosphere makes for the best kind of college experience: one where entertainment, socializing, and academics all hang in near-perfect balance.

Bibliography

“Administrative Policies.” Catalogue of Whitworth College (1966-1967) (Spokane, Washington: C.W. Hill Printing co, 1966)

Anderson, Brian. South Park Conservatives (Knoxville: Regnery Publishing, 2005), 142

Alan Finder and Kate Kernike, “Embattled President of Harvard to Step Down at End of Semester.” New York Times, 21 February 2006.

Allie Lowe, “Hundreds Converge on Dartmouth Hall for ‘Solidarity Against Hatred’ Rally.” The Dartmouth, 30 November 2006.

Bacon, Joy and Chelsea Larson, “Students petition U.S. government to end genocide,” 26 December 2005.

Beechinor, Lucas “Cultural Awareness Week.”  Whitworthian, 21 November 2006.

“Big Three Enforcement Proposals.” Whitworthian, 10 December 1976.

“Board Charges Six Over Smoking Case.” Whitworthian, 17 April 1970.

Brock, Steve. “They were very good years.” Whitworthian, 12 May 1972.

Coleman, Bob. “Big 3 revisal proposed; Violence policy added.” Whitworthian, 8 December 1986.

“College offers new flexibility in determining dorm rules,  regulations.” Whitworthian, 1 October 1971.

Eric’s Fruit Stand collections, Whitworth Archives: Student Publications- G14, Box 2 of 3.

Evans, Lorilee. “Letters.” Whitworthian, 6 May 1977.

Davis, Jessica “Date set for name change to university.” Whitworthian, 2006 April 25.

“Dean clarifies liquor rule.” Whitworthian, 9 October 1964.

Dixon, Kathy. “Winter Speaks: Student Rights.” Whitworthian, 27 September 1974.

Donin, Robert and Connie Greer, “Student Forum,” Whitworthian, 1 April 1977.

Fuller, Gary. “Lindamann named Whitworth President.” Whitworthian, 7 November1969.

Gray, Alfred. Not By Might. (Spokane, Washington: C.W. Hill Printing Co. 1965), 81.

Grun, Bernard. The Timetables of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982), 456.

Henry Wechsler and Toben F. Nelson. “Binge Drinking and the American College Student: What’s Five drinks?” Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 15. (2001): 287.

Hollifield, Ann. “All College Council to decide SOA issue,” Whitworthian, 6 May 1977.

Howe, Neil and William Strauss, “Millennial Rising: The Next Great Generation.” <http://www.millennialsrising.com/aboutbook.shtml> (22 November 2006)

The Judicial Board, “Problem is more than leaving Whitworth.” Whitworthian, 12 December 1969.

Keniston, Kenneth. Youth and Dissent: The Rise of the New Opposition. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, inc. 1960)

The Uncommitted: Alienated youth in American Society. (New York: Harcout, Brace, & World, inc. 1965)

Russel. Beth “Whitworth Senate acts on HUB plans, open door policy.” Whitworthian, 19 February 1971.

Landt, Mike and Ken Endersbe. “Speaking Out.” Whitworthian, 17 January 1969.

“Lindaman Okays Cigarette Sales.” Whitworthian, 4 April 1973.

“Lindaman Tells Policy Change.” Whitworthian, 17 April 1970

“Lindaman Wants Students’ Ideas,” Whitworthian, 6 March 1970.

Medefind, Marc. “Editorial.” Whitworthian, 6 May 1977.

Morehouse, Sara. “Invisible Children.” Whitworthian,. 2 May 2006.

“Mother Whitworth Controls Hours.” Whitworthian, 14 February 1964.

“Policy stated on drinking.” Whitworthian, 8 December 1967.

“President: Edward B. Lindaman.” Whitworth Catalogue (1977-78)  (Spokane: C.W. Hill Printing co. 1977.)

Prins, Erika “Day of Silence Speaks Volumes,” Whitworthian, 2 May 2006.

“The Residence Halls,” Whitworth Catalogue (1977-78). (Spokane: C.W. Hill Printing co, 1977)

Richard Mandeville interview by Daniel Walters, November 22, 2006, notes (in Daniel Walters’ possession.)

Rob McDonald, “Affirmative action protest draws more from other side.” Spokesman-Review, 15 April 2005, B1.

Robert Q Edwards [psued.], “Wake up Whitworthian!” Eric’s Fruit Stand, 16 September 2006.

Schoeff, Suzie “Senate passes coed dorms; Arend proposed for 1971-72) Whitworthian, 19 March 1971.

Soden, Dale. A Venture of Mind and Spirit (Spokane, Washington. Ross Printing Company, 1990), 18.

Steve Lowe, “Student Forum.” Whitworthian, 29 September 1978.

“Student Bill of Rights.” Whitworthian, 9 April 1976.

“Student Conduct.” Whitworth Catalogue (1970-71) (Spokane: C.W. Hill Printing co, 1977)

“Stupid Forum.” Whitworthian, 1 April 1977

Thomsen, Connie “Candidates prepare for campaign showdown,” Whitworthian, 3 March 1978.

“Trustees congregate on campus, Whitworth operations discussed.” Whitworthian, 6 October 1974.

“Trustees consider open door policy.” Whitworthian, 6 October 1972.

Tracy Lambert, Arnold S. Kahn, and Kevin J. Apple. “Pluralistic Ignorance and Hooking Up.” The Journal of Sex Research 40 (2003): 129.

[Untitled Editorial.] Whitworthian, 22 April 1977.

Wilson, Denise. “Those were the days…”  Whitworthian, 13 October 1978.

Wolfe, Tom. I am Charlotte Simmons. NewYork: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004).

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States: 1942-Present. New York: Perennial Classics, 2001.

Point

Despite an increase in the number of applicants, the admissions staff expects fewer incoming students to enroll for fall 2008.

….

Pfursich said some factors that may account for the decline in the number of incoming students include the current sub-prime mortgage crisis and stocks dropping. The admissions staff predicts that the current economic slump will affect the number of incoming students for fall 2008, Pfursich said.

“There seems to be an uneasiness [this year] for families making huge financial decisions in deciding [to attend] universities such as Whitworth,” Pfursich said.

….

However, with the tuition increase this year and the various economic challenges the country is facing, students are becoming a little more hesitant in making their college decision, Pfursich said.

–Fred Pfursich, quoted and paraphrased in the Whitworthian, March 18, 2008.

CounterPoint

Schools nationwide are also receiving a surprising number of early action applicants in spite of the economy, according to a recent article in The New York Times.

People are often more prone to try to get into school during an economic downturn, Pfursich said, because of the greater number of career opportunities open to college graduates.

-Fred Pfursich, paraphrased in the Whitworthian, Nov 24, 2008

Maybe I’m just getting old and am having a hard time breaking old habits, but I’ve never been much of a habitual person. However, having four classes that meet twice a week or less has made me have to change the way I think about school. I miss the flexibility of three days a week, the classes coordinated easier. Now the late classes before night classes release at nearly 5pm, the big projects are seeming to hit at the same time with even more of an impossible force, and in order to have a minimal social life I have to sacrifice the “important” things like perfect attendance.

If Unit II of Core 350 teaches us anything, it’s that overload is bad. Three days in a row of the same class nearly no one wants to be in causes feelings of despair and cramming assignments into those days makes the weeks seem like neverending torment for the short-sighted people who like to have lives apart from school like me.

On the other hand, haven’t Tuesday/Thursday classes always kind of felt like cheating? Teachers themselves say that more learning occurs outside of the classroom and that becomes painfully obvious after the first twenty minutes of most lectures during an hour and a half class. Teachers often cater toward students’ tiredness in the classroom and then release them whenever in order to do homework or whatever. Less days per week in the classroom equals more space in between those valuable early minutes of each class period and more classtime spent not really learning in an attentive way. Now added to the Tuesday/Thursday mix, in which I’ve spent a lot of my time thinking “okay I only have to sit here for an extra half-hour, but then my day is done,” the new schedule has added the occasional Monday/Wednesday or Wednesday/Friday class. It is now possible to eliminate ever taking a class three days a week from a student’s schedule. Night classes, of course, are even worse.

Is this good? I may not be the greatest student, but I’m not a bad one. However, the constant thinking ahead to meet the demands of more classes that meet fewer times per week is challenging and has been catching me off-guard. It also seems as though many of my friends and myself are having the “busiest” semester of our lives. I like being challenged, but I also like the idea of finishing things on time, which for the first time in my academic career has been brutally difficult. My classes are not harder than I’m used to, in fact I have many hellish semesters full of all-nighters under my belt, but something just feels off about this year.

What do you think? Am I just a senior who’s used to something different or has this schedule made things exceptionally difficult for you? Should I stop sexing up the town for school?

In the 15 year period, from 1993-2008 ASWC– and later ASWU — gradually slouched towards complete irrelevance. The many student committees for changing the school, the student judicial organizations, have fallen silent, replaced by the whims of administration.

In 2005 — when I was on ASWC — I wrote a short Wonderful life parody where the protagonist wishes there wouldn’t be an ASWC. To his horror, he wakes up and realizes that absolutely everything is exactly the same. Except, he has $140 in his pocket. Not knowing how to spend it, he fervently wishes to have the ASWC back.

Hyperbole, obviously. But the point remains. ASWU makes a lot of sound and fury in your E-mail inbox, but they signify practically nothing. I’m not asking for the student government to be given more power — more power in the hands of an incompotent organization would be a horrible thing. I’m asking them to use the power they have more effectively.

While the Donnell Regime last year was a start. It was not perfect — for sure — but it represented a slight improvement over the dismal years past. It was a sliver of what the student government could be.

I don’t know how the ASWU is this year — it may have magically become an incredible force, but if not, here are a few suggestions for transforming the institution into something worth your student fee.

Triple the Constituency Report number. Your job, on ASWU, is not to put on Homecoming. It’s not to sit around and eat pizza and tell your life story. It’s not even to go spend student money to jump off the Blob at Camp Spalding. It’s to represent the students. Unfortunately, that’s harder than turning to your roommate and saying, “Hey, Joe, should Whitworth close down Whitworth Drive?”

Constituency reports are a pain to do — you have to interact with people — but they are also a pretty awesome way of determining what students are thinking.  They give you an actual figure.

Do the RIGHT constituency reports: Some constituency reports in the past have asked questions like “What do you think of your Student Government” “Name the student leaders you know” and “Who’s the fairest of them all?”

This is endemic of an insular organization. In some years, the ASWC might as well been enclosed in a Bomb Shelter, for all the interaction its had with the outside world.

The best consititency report focus on specific, controversial issues. Especially things that students are talking and complaining about. “Should Whitworth close Whitworth Drive?” “Should Whitworth seek to have more students, less, or the same number?” “Why do you hate CORE 350 so much?”

Turn those constituency reports into resolutions. Too many times, ASWU will actually get around to producing a consituency report, only to let to say, “Hmmm…. that’s nice,” and then move on. They need to do two things:

1) Send an all-student e-mail with the results of the survey.

2) In many cases, turn that into a resolution. If you find out that all the students hate a particular thing about Core 350, maybe ASWU should turn it into a resolution. It’s one of the better ways to get the administration’s attention and to highlight a contrast between Whitworth’s policies  and their customer’s wishes.

Give enough background knowledge with the consituency reports: What the students know and don’t know can detirmine the result of the report. Let’s say you ask them if they want Sodexho to start charging a dollar per to-go box in order to buy biodegradable materials. They might say yes. After all, sustainability, amiright guys? Now lets say you inform them that Spokane uses a Waste to Energy plant, and 80 percent of the garbage is burned up in an incinerator before it has a chance to biodegrate.

You’ll get an entirely different response. Aim to be fair, but also educate. For example, inform them that closing down Whitworth Drive will not only upset the neighbors, it will likely cost, at minimum $500,00.

Let students determine the Agenda, not administration.

I’ve heard administrators “subtly” try to detirmine the agenda of ASWU by saying things like, “You know, we could really make a difference on the issue of [sustainability, racism, steel tarriffs]. We have a grand opportunity here. Let’s not waste it”

And so ASWC gets really excited about pursuing some goal suggested by an admistrator, who may have no idea what students care about. There’s lots of things that students care about, many things that the administration may readily dismiss. Find those things and pursue them.

You can’t change mindsets through legislation. Something bad happens. We’ve got to DO something, ASWU says. So you hold yet another event, or put up a slew of posters reminding people of things like “Bullying is not okay.” The problem is you spend so much time trying to, say, Do Something about the atrocity in Darfur, that you forget about the measuring the opinions of Whitworth.

Slash the required programs: Programs you have to do suck. Programs you want to do, often turn out pretty awesome. Whitworth is already beset by a deluge of programs. My suggestion: Drastically lower the number of required program for all leadership. Have only one required community service event a year per dorm, not 2. True, lazy senators and coordinators will just coast by, but their programs were never very worthwhile to begin with. We need more Real Men of Geniuses and less Green with Envys. We need more labors of love, and less labors of duty.

Slash the number of coordinator positions: When I was Senator I took a lot of flack for being opposed to creating a Cultural Events Coordinator position. But how are we going to solve racism without a Cultural Events Coordinator??!, they exclaimed.

I was opposed for two reasons. First, I felt that segregating the “Cultural” events from the “non-cultural” events would actually exacerbate racial tension on campus, perpetuating an us-versus-them paridigm  as opposed to uniting people — as individuals — under a common Whitworth banner.

And second, I felt that Whitworth already has to many Official Leaders. A Cultural Events Coordinator would overlap with the CDAs and the Senior CDAs the RAs and all the Senators interested in putting on a cultural event. And once a Position is created, it is rarely ever destroyed. That’s the way government — even student government works. Scott Donnell was right to observe that this school is beset by an overpowering swarm of programs. His solution, to add a program telling people to relax more, wasn’t a good one, but his insight was there.

We don’t need both a Special Events Coordinator and a Cultural Events Coordinator and an Other Events Coordinator.

If combining some job descriptions means that we have to slash some programs — only concentrate on creating a few incredible events — that’s even better.

Treat student fee money with a sacred respect. I’ve heard a poisonous analogy thrown around when ASWU is choosing how to spend student fee money. “You can either be Santa or Satan.” Essentially, you can be the good guy and answer people’s wishes, or you can be the bad guy and horde the money.

Here’s a better analogy. You can be Santa, if Santa snuck into the kids room, stole around 150 dollars from his Piggy Bank, and then used some of that money to go to Camp Spalding with Santa’s friends.

Repeat after me: It’s not your money. It’s not the school’s money. It’s not magical money that you’ve just got to spend. Invest the money, find ways to turn a penny into an incredible transformation. Heck, if you want to splurge spend your own money. It’s more honest.

Last year, the ASWU did a pretty good job with examining requests for money critically. This needs to continue.

Unfortuntately, right now the ASWU budget is a percentage of tuition.  When Tuition goes up at twice-the-rate-of-inflation, as it always does, so does the ASWU budget.

I suggest that Whitworth change the rules so ASWU would be allowed to take that much money from the students, but if it wanted to, it could choose to simply lower student fees — or keep them the same.

Do not punish clubs for spending money wisely. Give clubs money the next year to reward how effectively they spend the money last year. “You did all THAT with half your budget! How much do you want this year.” 

Put more money in unallocated: Money in unallocated actually has some oversight over it. Money given to clubs or coordinators can be spent recklessly without ASWU giving permission.

Create a list of money priorities: Rank these financial requests in order of importance: Trip for recreation/club, educational trip, funds for a student to research, an event requesting money for “pizza,” money request for advertising, request to spend $2000 to bring a comedian/speaker/band to campus.

Have leftover dorm money at the end of the year funnel into a Dorm capital account. 

There was a time when Senators had to beg, tin cup in hand, door to door, for “Dorm Dues.” So it made sense that Senators were required to spend that money within the year.  After all, the people that were donating the money, wanted to have the benefit of it.

But in 2005, that’s changed. Now it’s a tax, as required as tuition. I payed tuition money for an Art Building I’ll never use; part of my student fee money going to fund a future improvement in Warren is the same rationale.

But currently, Wise senators who pench pennies and spend wisely, are left with as much as $300 at the end of year. Not enough to buy a pool table. But that’s a lot of money to waste on a pizza party. The money is simply thrown into Whitworth’s general fund if he doesn’t spend it, and the frugal senator is chided. Fiscal responsibility is punished.

Here’s my suggestion. Each dorm gets a “Capital” account. Leftover money transfers into that account. Any future senator could take money from that Capital account, as long as using it would benifit the dorm for five years or more. That way he won’t waste it on Pizza parties.

Whitworth’s economic rules prohibit this, people say. So change the rules. You may have to go through The Board of Trustees to do it. But believe me, it will encourage Senators to spend their money wisely better than the DORM FUND LIQUIDATION SHOPPING SPREE does now.

Start a competition with Gonzaga. Whitworth doesn’t have anyone to unite against. We need a little school spirit, and that can’t come by just focusing on ourselves or uniting against abstract concepts like Racism and Apathy.

Post your opinions of what happened at each ASWU meeting on the Forum. You shouldn’t have to go to the meeting to have a feeling of what’s going on. The Whitworthian does a good job of providing a summary, but lacks the opinion a senator can infuse into it.

Remember, one of Whitworth’s biggest weaknesses is that it gets freaked out by disagreement. They don’t know how to debate. The ASWU can lead by example, starting debates on key campus issues — things that directly concern Whitworth — and then encouraging students to continue that debate in their dorm rooms, at Saga tables, and online.

Even if Mandeville, Soden, Le Roy, and Robinson never listen to a word the ASWU says, you can still turn it into a powerful, effective organization.  But it’s got to be a respectable, focused one first.

I am an Obama supporter and I am horrified by what I have seen on and off campus these last couple days. The election hadn’t been over for two minutes before I was assaulted and assailed by text messages, emails, blog posts, Facebook statuses and other means of expressing one’s opinion saying that the America was going to hell and that we would be in a civil war by the end of 2009. Several even went so far as to make crude and racist comments about our future president, something that my friends know I don’t tolerate.

Understandably McCain supporters are disappointed and I don’t blame them for being so, but the time to be angry is long past us and all anyone can do now is pray and worry. I would go so far as to say that these attacks are not only crude and mean spirited but also anti-American and anti-democratic. The citizens of America have spoken and now is the time to come together and work to make this country unified.

One particularly nasty example of this post-election smear campaign is a text message I got stating that the book of Revelation describes Obama perfectly when it describes the anti-Christ as a “man in his 40s, of Muslim descent, who will come out of nowhere, deceive the nations with persuasive language. . .” and be “. . . allowed to have authority for approximately 42 months (almost 4 years)” and finishes with a plea for “God to have mercy on us.” Now this is the kind of thing that I would expect a high school student to believe and forward, but no. The text came from (what I thought was) a mature college student who has traveled extensively and who isn’t even that strong of a Christian. Now before all the conservative Christians out there rush out to get your bible and crucifixes and holy water to prepare for the Armageddon let me assure you that this chain letter is absolutely NOT true at all. While there is an abundance of fallacies in the text the two most blaring are this:

1. The book of revelation does not even mention the anti-Christ in the entire book and thusly doesn’t describe him/her.
2. The Islamic faith did was not established until a great deal after the book of Revelation was written and thus it could not have described a man of Muslim heritage.

These kind of remarks make me just a little nervous about where this country is headed, not because it is controlled by the Democrats (though a one party rule is something to be wary of) nor because the president is “not qualified for the job.” But rather because I tremble to imagine an America where people are this vehemently against democracy and don’t trust the majority.

I am not asking that you silence your opinions, because this country is great partially because its citizens are allowed to have opinions. I am asking however that you trust the system to work itself out, the majority of Americans obviously want the future president of the USA to be Obama and that is what democracy is all about. Don’t attack Obama supporters on their beliefs and don’t attack Obama, especially using lies and slander as your tools of doing such. Imagine if the situation were reversed and McCain had won. Would you want to be subject to the personal attacks that liberals are being subjected to now? As a closing note for all the Christians out their (and I realize that we aren’t all Christian) remember that in Romans chapter 13 verses 1-7 we are told to respect and obey authority (government) because it is God’s will that they have authority.

Thank-you for reading this and peace be upon you.

 Whaaaaaaat?

http://media.www.whitworthian.com/media/storage/paper1220/news/2008/10/21/Opinions/Debate.Obama.Will.Point.Us.In.The.Right.Direction-3496483.shtml

Few would disagree that this country is in a precarious position. Whether one is considering the current financial crisis, the state of our healthcare system, our dependence on foreign oil, or our military involvement abroad, it appears we are doing something wrong.

For the past eight years, the country has endured under a president who not only has the lowest approval rating in history, but who has also made more executive orders than any other president. In some major ways, the president has been ignoring the civil liberties of U.S. Citizens and has been treating us like subjects instead; abusing democracy and offending politicians from both parties.

These realizations have prompted both of this year’s major presidential candidates to run on a platform of change. Neither of the candidates’ proposals is perfect in my opinion, but we’ll never see Jesus run for office- no matter what the fundamentalists might think.

However, when presented the choice between Senator John McCain (R) and Senator Barack Obama (D), I choose to support the candidate whose policies have a better chance of moving this country in the right direction. I’m going to vote for Obama.

We live in an American age where trust in the government is often considered foolish. There is a good reason for our mistrust. President Bush has exemplified how skewed our system of checks and balances has become. The executive branch has run amok. Go online and review the list of executive orders he has made and you will probably find yourself afraid of the influence of one man, even if you agree with his policies.

Do we really want to vote a self-proclaimed maverick into the most powerful office in the land? A man who says “country first” over and over again, but who is willing to nominate a gimmick as his running mate?

Do not misunderstand me, a qualified woman in the office of President or Vice-President would be a positive testament to our society, but the nomination of a woman with less than two years of experience governing a sparsely populated and naturally wealthy state should be an insult to everyone.

Again, go online and watch Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin, it should make you sick at the risk McCain has taken by nominating her. After that, look up the definition of the word maverick. McCain has fallen into the very political circus he is so outspoken against.

If Obama is voted into office, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. Government will both be ruled by democrats. In other words, Obama will be able to lead effectively, without needing to abuse his power or play maverick to bring about actual change.

It is scary to have a majority opinion in the government, but think about what would be able to be accomplished.

Obama’s platform includes tax breaks for 95% of Americans, affordable health-care for everyone, and an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

Admittedly, Obama’s tax plan may have to be reexamined in the light of the current financial crisis, but his philosophy of working from the bottom up instead of the top down will be key to providing as much relief as is possible in the days to come.

I would rather be governed by the actual U.S. Government than by a multitude of profit hungry businesses benefiting from subsidies and tax breaks. Trickle down economics is a trickle of spit by the time it reaches the common laborer. It is simply human nature; those who have, keep, and those who can take advantage of a situation, do.

It is time we took our country back from the faceless corporations who legislate our lives more than congress ever could. Follow the money trail and we all end up in the same machine, victims of our own greed. This is why we need the regulation promised by Obama, not the corporate freedoms offered by McCain.

This includes insurance companies who stand in the way of Americans and healthy lives. Earlier this year when I had the flu, I had to stay by the phone for hours trying to get a referral so I could see a doctor outside of my hometown. I ended up becoming too exhausted and going to bed. This is a picture of privatized healthcare and one of many reasons to change the system. It’s not hard to imagine a worse scenario than mine that ends up taking someone’s life. It happens on a regular basis to the homeless and mentally disabled citizens wandering the streets of Spokane.

Obama wants the government to subsidize healthcare for those who don’t have it. In the second presidential debate he stated that he believes healthcare is a right, not a commodity. I couldn’t agree with him more.

It is also no secret that America is at the mercy of foreign oil companies, much the same way the average citizen is at the mercy of insurance companies.

McCain supports offshore drilling and extended drilling in Alaska, two temporary solutions that would not not affect the price of fuel in a noticeable way.

Obama supports alternative energy research first and foremost. The world is running out of oil, alternative sustainable energy is the right direction no matter what it temporarily does to the market.

In the meantime, a vast amount of our country’s resources are being poured into an un-winnable war abroad that has lost us the respect of other world powers. Someone should explain to me how anyone can defeat terrorists. Several groups of unorganized idealist radicals are as impossible to defeat with guns as drugs were for the Clinton administration.

In the second debate, McCain said he wants to bring our troops home in victory. In my opinion, they have already had several small victories working on the infrastructure of Iraq, but there is no war to win, just several unending battles.

It’s time we elected a candidate who can see the big picture and who can understand how to shape America into a country we can be proud of. It’s time we elected Barack Obama.

Links:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/obama-would-order-review_n_115782.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/bush-strategist-mccain-kn_n_134570.html

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Katie+Couric%2C+Sarah+Palin&search_type=&aq=f

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maverick

I think at some point most of us reach a place when we have so much on our plate that something has to go: grades, friends, sleep, video games, class reading, facebook (just kidding), etc. But for most people I also think there are certain things which, even though they might not correspond to our day-to-day commitments (i.e., classes, homework, work) we just can’t, or shouldn’t, let go of. You don’t give up breathing to conserve energy.

For me, it’s poetry. I planned to take a nap today, and instead ended up reading some poems. I felt really refreshed and filled afterwards. (Then I actually took a nap and felt double-refreshed. Funny how that works.)

Another one is down-time with the housemates. A good fifteen minutes of (mostly) ridiculousness with my housemates gives me a really good boost that I think helps me be more productive during the times when I am working.

What is it for you? What’s the one thing—or more than one—which you need even more when you’re busy than when you’re free, the one bright spot in the dark tunnel that is busy-ness? Sharing how we cope might give others some good ideas for stress-avoidance… or at least provide a legitimate source of procrastination from the things we really should be doing.

The better news:  They call us Whitworth College. Glad to see someone still cares about tradition.

Just thought I’d post something to cheer up your day, amidst the dour economic news.

I’ve gone on the record as saying that I don’t care that we get a lot of e-mails. Deleting them is really, really easy.  The problem is that most of them are horribly ugly abominations.  Here are some quick E-mail Commandments that all ASWU people should keep in mind.        

1. Thou shalt not attach Microsoft word documents, for thy documents, being bountiful in size, beget full mailboxes, and torn garments, as well as weeping and knashing of teeth. If thou hast something to say, thou can easily say it in thee body of thy e-mail – NOR shalt thou attach graven images — thou weigheth down thou e-mail with a painful burden.         

2. Prithee, tharfore, to put Thou’s actual subject in thy subject line.Do not, prithee, hide thy intentions behind facades of messages of “Please send this to all students” and “Cool event” and “Attention Whitworth Community Men.”

They may garner a flurry of clicks, but lo, and behold, these clicks will, post-click-age, revealed to hath been empty and full of contempt &fear.

Aye, aaa curse shall be cast upon thee, and thy seats will be empty and thy event lame.   

Lysteeen, a faithful messenger lets’ his yesssss be yesssss, his nooo be nooo, and his Whitworth Unplugged e-mails saye them “Whitworth Unplugged” in the subject line – foorsooth.        

3. Thou shalt not use “zany” colors or “large” fonts. Do not give into thee temptations of vanity. An e-mail beset by colors and giant fonts shalt not persuade – only coonfyuuuseh et ayngyer!Do Not, Prithee, be swept up in ye garish colors of ye world, or mayest thou idols of false fonts.Return to thy first love: Black 12 pt Times New Roman – Let thy content be thy witness, and do not, therefore, makee vaulgar displayees of th’art ugly fonts, prithee, ye peeople de yon Whitworthian University Collegiate Academic Institution!         

4. Thou shalt be limited to three e-mails, but only three. Onye: for recrooiting people to help or play at your event. Twoo: for letting people know your event is coming. And the third – yes, thee third – on the day of said event. Morrre iees gluttonous, less shaaall bee naught kind to thye event’s tuorn-out, and th’art doom’d, forsooth, to have e-mails thet shall be swiftly consigned & damned to ye hell of thee Deleted E-mail folder, as it should bee.     

5. Thou shalt make thy case. Tymeee be short! and yee people of Whitworth arrrr slaves to ye yoke of ye’r homework. Th’art E-mail shalt not attract thy listener with empty words. Link to thee MySpace pagez of bands, or lieest awards they hast won, so people may see thie e-mail and pronounce that “It is good.”       

6. Thou shalt remember: Thou cannot takest back e-mails, even if thou hast committed a sin against thy dictionary. Run thy spellcheck before the sun goes down on the “send” button, for it shall be of comfort to yee in theese dark dayez; wear ye people doo not caer hoW thare events arr perceeved, butt rathur how they arr thot of after the fact. 

      7.  Thou shalt capitalize letters according to natural law, Feor, in yese dark days, the peeple of Whitworth let their

shift keys wither and fade, and their beginning of sentences bee barren. The prophets, searched far and wide, foer a capital I ooorr ANY capital for names, but, Alasss, thayr search was et reemanes asss fruitless as theee fig trees of Golgotha – curses bee upon ye Jewish Christ forr hiss thoughtles cursse upon ye fig trees de Golgotha, while weee arr on dat subjeck!  -  

-Ye figs of dey Middle East in generrral be fruity et delicieux, et appreciaterrrss of froouit everywharrr would dooo gouyod two heed ye mistakes of yon earthly Christos, and learn!   

Dost thou wannest two-ooh bees kieeellt?!??!  

Jest becauoz yeee seeellff proclaims-t-Saver got keelt upun a tree, dost thou wont to be keelt on a tree in frunt of all ye WORLD?!   

NEIOYN?!?!?!?!?!   

Iiiii didn’t think sEW, DArlingset!!!!11one        

8.  Thou shalt leave thy name and e-mail at yee bottom. Messengers give tidings from “ASWU ANNOUNCES” and “DAYNA COLEMAN,” but their true origin is yonder:List thy direction, list thy name, and list thy own e-mail, prithee!        

9. Consider theee words of yee prophet: Theee cries went to yeee Peeple, “Whitworth Unplugged!” “Whitworth Unplugged!” But ye peeeple refyoosed two listen, for thay had hearrrd yee cryes duh “Whitworth Unplugged”  before, and werrre seeck und tyred, as untoo DEATH, forsooth! of heeearrrieengh aboout ittt. Thay sought new direction in new events, FOORSOOTH, for thayir passion far “Whitworth Unplugged” hayd longh aygo wither’d from too many e-mails, foorsooth, et theyir harts hed turn’d hard from deleting them, foorsooth et bedamn’t two theym!    

Doooo NOT become like Whitworth Unplugged, prithee! Larn from ye mistakes of yee damn’d souls, poorrr beasssts! Doooo not! force too many, of the same events on yee peeple of Whitworth. For yeee peeple of Whitworth will tiirre of yer words, et look elsewhar fer guidance et illuminateion, FOORSOOTH!  

  10.  Sparest us yee exclamation points, bebes. Woe et curses be sent upon any who turn yon house of e-mail into a den of excess punctuation!   

Ye wood tharfore make pretense of excitement – whence excitement should cometh from thy heart and thy words! not thy punctuation.    

et    NevArrr shallr tharr bee TwO exclamation points in a row –  for thet looks totally moronic, forsooth & bedam’t the concept et idea!!!!!!11oneone

To quote President Bill Robinson’s Friday evening email:

This stunt is not funny. It is abhorrent. It assaults GFU’s commitment to be a more diverse campus. It belittles Act Six students who are trying to engage a dominant culture, in most cases one that is not their culture. It invites angry and inaccurate speculations about people and motives responsible for this. It affronts every student who is different from the mainstream.

I agree with Robinson on all fronts.

Not only has this incident hurt the GFU community but it also affects the Whitworth community, reopening old wounds and acting as a reminder that we continue to be confronted by the ugly face of racism on the modern college campus. The Act Six students here remember some of the challenges and pain from early 2007, when race-relations were extremely tense and in part resulted in the Eighth of May demonstration.

Upon reading some of the comments to the above story on ABC.com, we are reminded that racism remains deeply embedded in our culture, and that education and understanding lie at the root of the solution. Here is one comment that caught my attention:

“Umm…It is abundantly clear that the Reverse Racism presented in the form of a “Minority Only Scholorship” was the cause for the retailitory racial display. If they had not discriminated against a white male or female from getting a scholorship, this probably would not have happened. It appears the Black minority group who was promoting a “Blacks Only” scholorship has thrown the first stone. I applaud the individual/s for stepping up against the overt reverse racial discrimination against the white students at that school, or any American school for that matter. The promoters of the “Minority ONLY” Scholorship has clearly violated Federal and State Anti-Discrimination Law and should be penalized. It’s a two way street, but the whites didn’t start it this time, those Black racist scholorship promoters have demonstrated a grave disregard for Federal and State law and should be punished accordingly.

I suggest a “Whites Only” class action lawsuit against those idiots who were promoting a “Blacks Only Scholorship.” Do those morons actually think Reverse Discrimination was not upheld by “Case Law” of the United States Supreme Court? I smell lawsuit against that school for even allowing the “Blacks Only Scholorship” on that campus!!!“

Posted by:
deuce_24 Sep-26

Sadly, “deuce_24″ is not alone in this opinion. I have heard this kind of argument countless times from disgruntled white students. They typically feel like college financial aid is unfairly portioned to minority students, and baseless drivel like that comment is spawned from ignorance and prejudice. As another commenter quickly explained to “deuce_24″ (and as is explained in the story), the Act Six program is not exclusive to minority students, though the majority of Act Six scholars are minorities.

Such displays of ignorance further fan the flames of division and prejudice, and it is key for us to nip these allegations at the proverbial “bud”, preventing them from blossoming into full-formed racism.

As a white student, I struggle to overcome the underlying racism that permeates American culture. It is so subtle as to be almost completely invisible, particularly at a place such as Whitworth, where minorities make up a mere 17% of the incoming freshman class. We must take this opportunity to reflect on and recognize our own flawed views, and adjust our worldview accordingly. This takes a measure of humility and requires a heavy dose of respect for the concerns — both valid and seemingly invalid — of our minority students.

I know some of you out there are probably thinking, “I don’t get what the big deal is! So what if a cardboard cutout of Obama was hung from a tree? It wasn’t racially driven, it’s just someone using their right of free speech to complain about Obama!”

Just ask any of our Act Six students what the big deal is, and I am sure they will be able to explain it to you. The big deal is that minorities (yes, even at Whitworth) often still feel uncomfortable being the only non-white student in a class of 40. It is the fact that some students resent the Act Six scholars and hold them to an unfairly higher standard. And now this underlying issue has reared its ugly head in a very public way.

So what are we going to do about this? Should we simply continue the trend or should we try to rise above it?

It is great that our President has spoken out against this act of racial violence, but what I would love to see is a collection Whitworth students, both white and otherwise, forming a collective statement in response to this incident. For the good of our campus such a statement seems both necessary and invaluable. Some kind of forum on racism would also serve to open up dialogue where in the past is has been closed.

I can imagine a day where Whitworth will be a place where people of every ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation will feel comfortable coexisting and learning together. It is up to all of us to step closer toward this vision of equality in order to make this school an even better and more welcoming place.

But a simple trip through the Whitworthian Archives — specifically to Oct. 16, 1929 — reveals that the Pirate Mascot already has a name: Pat. Choosing a mascot was a long and drawn out process, but when the Pirate was finally chosen, Pat was his name.

Of course, “Pat” hasn’t been used in some time, to my recollection. Personally, I think it would be awesome if Whitworth could resurrect a tradition from almost 80 years ago. Besides a few old buildings — buildings remodeled again and again — Whitworth doesn’t have all that many longstanding traditions left.

Besides Pat, here are some of my other suggestions:

Piratey the Pirate
Napster the Pirate
Blackbeard’s little helper
Fatty Arrrrrbuckle
Michael Carlson
Michael Carrrrrrrlson.
Scourge
LeChuck
Yellowtooth
Avast
Kristopher Keelhaul
Robert
Christian
Spike
Hugo
Mind and Hearth the Pirate.
Pegnose Pete
Guybrush Threepwood
Scurvy the Pirate.

It’s good that we’re clawing our way back up the ranking ladder, although  it’s disappointing, for those paying tuition next year, that we’ve fallen from 3rd to 5th in “Best Value.”

Wisely, Bill Robinson doesn’t succumb to the temptation to gloat when we’re doing well and decry the rankings when we do poorly. Instead, he remains modest, pointing out the ranking system’s flaws instead of just celebrating Whitworth’s strengths. From the press release:

Whitworth President Bill Robinson says he welcomes the attention high rankings can bring to Whitworth’s academic excellence and value, but he cautions students and parents against placing too much emphasis on rankings when selecting a college.

“It’s great to be recognized so favorably, but it isn’t healthy for Whitworth or its prospective students to think some schools are ‘better’ than others in absolute terms,” Robinson says. “We have a very clear mission to provide an education shaped by the integration of Christian faith and learning and by rigorous, open intellectual inquiry. For students who want that kind of educational experience, we’re the best school on the planet. For students with quite different educational objectives, we might not even be in the top 15. Our satisfaction comes from serving students and being faithful to our mission. All the recognitions beyond that are a bonus.”

While Robinson has a point — ranking the quality of an education is a very tricky thing — I do think that we shouldn’t stop from trying. I took a look at the U.S. News ranking system to measure how it stacks up against common sense. I’ll even assign them a 1-10 value, to make reading easier. (1 being lousy and 10 being hott!)

Peer assessment (weighting: 25 percent).

The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school’s undergraduate academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult—presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions—to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools’ academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who don’t know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly are asked to mark “don’t know.” Synovate, an opinion-research firm based near Chicago, in spring 2008 collected the data; of the 4,272 people who were sent questionnaires, 46 percent responded.

Score: 8. Probably the best strategy on the rubric. Who better to judge than the ivory tower than people in other ivory towers. They know the scuttlebutt, they see the teaching strategies, they hear the reverberation in the educational community. The only problem? I can see this getting political. Let’s say Gonzaga doesn’t want its rival (Whitworth) to get ahead. So it rates it negatively. Probably more problematically, it tends to favor the educational fads and trends that the mass of academe is behind. It is a popularity contest. But that’s not a problem if the educator masses know what they’re talking about.

Retention (20 percent in national universities and liberal arts colleges and 25 percent in master’s and baccalaureate colleges).

The higher the proportion of freshmen who return to campus the following year and eventually graduate, the better a school is apt to be at offering the classes and services students need to succeed. This measure has two components: six-year graduation rate (80 percent of the retention score) and freshman retention rate (20 percent). The graduation rate indicates the average proportion of a graduating class who earn a degree in six years or less; we consider freshman classes that started from 1998 through 2001. Freshman retention indicates the average proportion of freshmen entering from 2003 through 2006 who returned the following fall.

 Score: 6. Retention tends to be a great way of judging education — in high school. But at prestigious colleges it should actually be a challenge to graduate. The problem is that the schools with really high standards, that are really challenging end up actually being punished for their high standards. Schools that are easy enough to just sliiiiiide by will do better. And things like lowering the academic scholarship standards? It only helps us in this area.

Faculty resources (20 percent).

Research shows that the more satisfied students are about their contact with professors, the more they will learn and the more likely it is they will graduate. We use six factors from the 2007-08 academic year to assess a school’s commitment to instruction. Class size has two components: the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students (30 percent of the faculty resources score) and the proportion with 50 or more students (10 percent of the score). In our model, a school benefits more for having a large proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students and a small proportion of large classes. Faculty salary (35 percent) is the average faculty pay, plus benefits, during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living (using indexes from the consulting firm Runzheimer International). We also weigh the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields (15 percent), the student-faculty ratio (5 percent), and the proportion of faculty who are full time (5 percent).

Score: 9, 3, 7, and 8.  A 9 for measuring class size. The education you get from a droning professor in a hall of hundreds is so much less valuable than in a class of 12. You can get one from renting a lecture-on-tape at the North Spokane library. But the other is worth the extra cost. There’s a reason Jesus chose 12 disciples instead of 5,000.

3 for using Professors salaries. Theoretically, the best professors get paid the most. But only in theory. In reality, often, the professors who care the most about money get paid the most. The best professors at Whitworth stay, despite the fact they could get paid more elsewhere. Why? Because they care about the students, they care about the community, they care about the college. Teachers who really don’t care are the ones that pursue the bigger paychecks.

If you want teachers that care more about the quality of their bank accounts than students, than the quality of their students, use Professor salaries to judge.

Profs with highest degree in their fields, is a little better. You don’t want a lot of adjuncts and masters degrees, obviously. Those people get their statements disproved by their students far too often. Of course, people with doctorates can make absolutely lousy teachers, too trapped in a world of ephemera and intellectual genius to really explain things to their far-less intelligent students.

It’s also good to judge by counting full time faculty members. In my experience adjuncts, while well meaning, can be awful teachers. Full time faculty members tend to be consistently quality.

Student selectivity (15 percent).

A school’s academic atmosphere is determined in part by the abilities and ambitions of the student body. We therefore factor in test scores of enrollees on the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT or Composite ACT score (50 percent of the selectivity score); the proportion of enrolled freshmen (for all national universities and liberal arts colleges) who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes or (for institutions in the universities-master’s and baccalaureate colleges) the top 25 percent (40 percent); and the acceptance rate, or the ratio of students admitted to applicants (10 percent). The data are for the fall 2007 entering class. Whether the SAT or ACT was used in making these calculations was determined by which score was submitted most often at that school for fall 2007 admissions.

Score: 9. Ask any teacher. You can only teach to what your class to handle. With a smarter class, you’ll be able to delve more deeply into the material. Only problem? A students high school class rank depends a lot on how intelligent his classmates are. (Hopefully Whitworth gives U.S. News ALL the SAT scores, not just for the students who submit them for admissions.)

Financial resources (10 percent). Generous per-student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services, and related educational expenditures in the 2006 and 2007 fiscal years. Spending on sports, dorms, and hospitals doesn’t count, only the part of a school’s budget that goes toward educating students.

Score: 3. You might as well just applaud schools for having horribly expensive tuition. I tend to believe that much of the money spent on “student services” rarely helps the actual educational experience. A wide variety of services may look nice, but in some cases can actually distract from education. For example, Eastern Washington, I believe, spent thousands of dollars on a climbing wall. Unless you’re majoring in kinesthetics, a climbing wall doesn’t do much for your education. (But it’s fun!)

Graduation rate performance (5 percent; only in national universities and liberal arts colleges).

This indicator of “added value” shows the effect of the college’s programs and policies on the graduation rate of students after controlling for spending and student characteristics such as the proportion receiving Pell grants and test scores. We measure the difference between a school’s six-year graduation rate for the class that entered in 2001 and the rate we predicted for the class. If the actual graduation rate is higher than the predicted rate, the college is enhancing achievement.

Score: 3. Woah! Are we supposed to be measuring how quality the college is or how easy the college is. If EVERYBODY graduates, how good of an education are you really gettting?

Alumni giving rate (5 percent).

This reflects the average percentage of living alumni with bachelor’s degrees who gave to their school during 2005-06 and 2006-07, which is an indirect measure of student satisfaction.

Score:7. The amount of students who give a money to their college should be a fairly accurate indicator of how satisfied they are. But it shouldn’t be any more than 5% of the trend. (Especially because a school could completely transform, without their almuni changing their donating habits much, either way.)

So the ranking system’s not perfect, but it’s doesn’t really look easily “gamed” either. My question is, what would make it better? Design your perfect ranking system. (And don’t take the cop out to say “we shouldn’t rank colleges. Everyone ranks them in their mind in one way or another. I just suggest finding a way to try to quantify them.)

17 years.

Let’s put that in perspective.

17 years ago, Bill Robinson was not yet at Whitworth. Stan Bech had more seniority than Bill Robinson.

17 years ago, Sodexho was not yet at Whitworth.  Stan Bech had more seniority than the entire Whitworth Sodexho operation.

17 years ago, incoming freshmen were just googoo-ga-ga-ing past their first birthday.

And perhaps strikingly different, 17 years ago, Whitworth cared more about people than profits, personality more than products. Sometimes it lost money because of that. Sometimes it made the wrong long-term decision because they cared about people.

But loyalty was something honored, rather than something only worth the occasional peck of lip service.

Maybe that’s not entirely fair. I know Jess Dozier and Jim O’Brien. They’re both nice guys who really care about making the Whitworth chapter of Sodexho a swell food service operation.

But that doesn’t mean I have to like their decisions.

For a while Stan was Whitworth. Most younger students don’t know, but he was the one food service employee you really knew cared. I didn’t really know him very well. I’m not a coffee man. But some people did, and gave him rave reviews. There was a time, it was Stan who was one of the judges of  Mock Rock. He was as much a fixture of Whitworth as the Big Ugly, Campanile, or a falling pinecone.

To Sodexho’s credit, they encouraged him to apply for a manager’s job. Not to Sodexho’s credit, they didn’t hire him when he did apply, despite his very strong customer service skills.

In 2005, when Stan’s Coffee shop was first threatened I was a Warren Senator. I clumsily attempted to protest the way he was being treated — albeit ineffectually and far too aggressively. Here’s a (fairly sarcastic) piece I wrote for the Stall Street Blog around that time: Stan by your Man.

I’ve admitted that Mind and Hearth turned out a bit better than I had anticipated.  But if it meant Stan’s job, sacrificed to the whims of interior decoration, it wasn’t worth it.

But here’s the really frusterating thing. The reason Stan was fired was money. But by all accounts, Sodexho should be making more money. Food costs have gone up slightly, but then again, so has sodexho’s prices. If anything, they should be raking in the dough, with all their increase in customers.

Instead, it seems like all that cash is being spent on organic, green, press-garnering food. I get it. Green is sooo hot right now.

But my suspicion is that the actual environmental benefit is far outweighed by the cost. Let’s take spudware for example: It’s completely biodegradable! Expensive, but biodegradable.

Here’s the thing, though.

Spokane doesn’t throw most of it’s trash away in a landfill. No, 80 percent of the trash is consumed in the incinerators of the Spokane Waste to Energy Plant.

I called the company that makes Spudware, asking them if it really mattered if we used plastic silverware, if it was incinerated anyway. They said, no, when you get right down to it, it doesn’t.

I asked Jess Dozier about this in an informal conversation, and he said that he was aware that it was being incinerated. Sodexho has a long term goal of eventually composting their waste, but the bureaucratic knots are proving very difficult to untangle.

Dozier added that there still is value to the Spudware, because incinerating Styrofoam gives off harmful chemicals. If we were burning it in a campfire, he’d be right. But the Spokane Waste to Energy plant has an extensive filtering system to prevent most harmful gasses from being released.

Continuous emission monitors test and record quantities in the stack every 15 seconds. Monthly reports are submitted to SCAPCA and are available for public viewing. The facility is regulated by the following agencies:

1. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

2. Spokane Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA)
3. Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)

4. Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD)

How well the plant does in cleaning that up, of course, is debatable.

It’s interesting, how, in all the press, in all the hype, in all the back-patting that went on about Spudware and going green, I never heard a word about the incinerator.

College students usually have the lower carbon footprint than a majority of Americans, no matter their types of silverware.

So after a few years of hype and excitement over Sodexho’s green transformation, what are we left with? To-Go cartons that cost money and odd biodegradable silverware that’s going to consumed in flames anyway.

And no Stan.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there were any Disney songs all night. Did they make a no Disney rule? Or did the frosh take Daniel’s advice from the “Guide to Winning Whitworth?” Either way, it was a refreshing change of pace.

To replace the Disney cliché, they came up with a brand new one! A gangstalicious cliché. In at least three performances, the bass started thumping and some top 40 rap song came on. A group, most often a group of girls, came to the forefront wearing hoodies, baseball caps, and baggy jeans and started crumpin’. Get it? Because they are mostly suburban white girls.

The Mac Men gave a thrilling performance and I was sincerely worried they were going to take the crown. Turns out, the lady in their skit, that was a dude. Kudos to that guy for convincing me that he was a lady, but cross dressing results in an automatic disqualification.

I have to admit, I am a Warren gentleman through and through. This makes me biased through and through. However, I was underwhelmed by their performance. So why did they win? They incorporated the theme, and they followed the rules. Those are the keys to building a Mock Rock Dynasty.

Three-peat? Oh yes. But for the record, we’re talking a minimum five, six-peat.

My favorite part of Mock Rock this year: brevity. It was just shy of an hour long; the perfect length for a show of this nature.

My only complaint: two bleachers. That’s it? There should be ample seating for an event as popular as Mock Rock.

See if you can spot any trends:

1992: Stewart Guys

1993: ??

1994: Mac men.

1995: Warren Women.

1996: ??

1997: ??

1998: ??

1999: Warren Gentleman.

2000:  Mac Men.

2001: ???

2002:Mac/BJ tie. (Rivalry anyone?)

2003: Warren Gentleman. (Tied with Mac.)

2004: Warren Gentleman.

2005: Arend Guys (Warren Gentleman second place)

2006: Warren Gentleman.

2007: Warren Gentleman.

2008: Warren Gentleman.

Why do you think Mac and Warren seem to do so well? (Mac in the first decade, Warren in the next 6 years) I mean, not counting the year that I was a traditiator, sadly, Warren has won 5 years  in a row. With around 10 competitive teams, that’s fairly significant.

Why the trend? I have my theories, but I want to hear yours first.

Terminology: Become Fluent in Whitworthese

“Did you hear from the RD about the RA and SGC who got a B3 after their DTR at CBD– Now, that’s AOK for A&P, but a no-no in J-KOG” Have no idea what we just said? Let us help.

Mac: McMillan Hall. Not MACmillan hall, oddly.
BJ: Baldwin-Jenkins
RA: Resident Assistant. Their job is to be a friend/mom/narc/person with important keys.
RD: Resident Director. Also known as “RA Wranglers.”
SGC: Small Group Coordinator. The Groups are small, not the people. Well, sometimes the people are too. The important thing is that they coordinate the small groups, which start out popular but then lose all their members by the end of the year once the members shift their efforts to being lazy. It’s a noble calling. (DW)

The Nunnery: Ballards nickname, despite the fact it doesn’t really fit the Nun stereotype anymore.
Your “hall” is not your residence hall; it is the straight corridor on which you live.
Your “dorm” is not your little room; it is your residence hall. Counter-intuitive, but you’ll catch on.
Hello Walk: The double sidewalk on which daily play a giant game of “To Greet or not to Greet?” (KMV)
That metal hunk in front of the library is known as the “Big Ugly.” The artist set out to create the Biggest Ugly imaginable, and he succeeded admirably.
There’s far less clarity over the name of the rather exuberant statue throwing his arms up in glee out in the soccer field. People either call him “Victory Jesus,” “Football Jesus” or something far less politically correct.
Big Three: Cohabitation. Inebriation. Decapitation
Little Three: Dropping your tray. Not dropping your pinecone. And don’t forget the secret little three that the Whitworth Government doesn’t want you to know about: Getting engaged by spring of your senior year. Or “Ring by spring”. (Followed closely, they say, by “Separation post Graduation.”) You’ll hear a lot of whining, mainly from women, about how Ring by Spring is an absolutely abhorrent goal, but the number of people, one figures, who only get married to satisfy a college tradition is fairly low. Generally “love” or “pregnancy” factors more heavily into the marriage decision. Ring by Spring is a symptom of a marriage-happy campus, not the cause.
Gen-Ed: Either “General Education Requirements” or Ginny Eddington, that girl in your Ceramics class. Gen Eds can be annoying. Honestly, who wants to learn about math? Gross. Get them out of the way as soon as possible, so if you decide to change majors sophomore year you won’t be stuck with a deluge of Old Major classes on your transcript.
The PineCone Curtain: An old cliché from the 60s referring to Whitworth’s isolation. Since this is no longer the 60s and the campus is no longer ignorant or isolated, you’ll look like a moron for using it. Even ironically.
Histochris: History of Christianity, not to be confused with Histogram of Christopher.
JKOG- Jesus and the Kingdom of God, not to be confused with J-Cog, the lovable, jive-talking robot in a series of poor selling self-published steampunk novels.
ANP: American National Politics, not to be confused with Anatomy and Physiology.
ANP: Anatomy and Physiology, not to be confused with American National Politics.
“Whitworth University,” “Whitworth College” “Whitworth College University” and “Whitworth Community College University Technical Institute” are all acceptable names for the school we go to.
Mind and Hearth: A name for the coffee shop that no self-respecting Whitworth Student will ever be caught using. Instead, call it “The Coffee Shop.”
ASWU is often pronounced “Ay Es Triple You.” You may also call it the “aswutang-clan.”
NASCAR: The “Theme” of this “year.” It will be something referenced obsessively for the first two weeks, until people just forget about it and all the NASCAR-Themed decorations just look quaint.
DTR does not stand for “Denmark Transit Radio.” Instead it’s an abbreviation for “define the relationship,” one of those delightful conversation that begins with those four ominous words: “We need to talk.”
DTRmaggedon: Alum Kyle Pflug’s phrase for a DTR that goes horribly, horribly wrong. (DW)
Moon Bowl:  The football practice field behind the aquatic center.  But don’t let an athletic trainer or a lawyer hear you call it that.  The rugged terrain is the source of the nickname, but calling it that acknowledges that there is a problem, which could apparently lead to a lawsuit.
D-Group:  Core discussion group.  You will learn to simultaneously love and hate it. (BF)

The Saga of Saga: Terminology and More.

The concept, the idea, the philosophy of “Saga” is as pivotal to Whitworth as the concept of Tao is to ancient China.
(Technically, the Dining Hall is known as “Saga” while the company that serves Saga is “Sodexho.” It’s acceptable on casual reference to simply refer to both as Saga, however, even though the company ‘Saga’ went out of business 22 years ago. Calling everything “Sodexho” will either out you as a freshman or a Whitworthian copy editor. And nobody wants that.)

Naturally, Saga is so integral that half of Whitworth terminology revolves around this place of glory. It’s important you understand this word and its many variants, if you are ever to win Whitworth.

Saga: Saga can refer to the dining hall, the Sodexho food service, or the food itself. You can easily say, “Do you want to go to Saga to get served Saga by Saga?” And be perfectly clear.
Saga Stare: That moment of tension where you stand in the front of Saga, holding your tray of food, scanning tables. Quickly, your eyes search for somebody, anybody, who you know, thus putting an end to the agony. Every moment more you stand still without finding anybody, the more your own humiliating social standing becomes clear. You’re alone. So very alone.
Saga Walk of Shame: A variation on the Saga Stare for those of us who have bad eyesight. From the front of Saga, all faces, friend and foe alike look like androgynous blurs, like God was too fond of the smudge and clone brush tools when creating people from a long distance. You grab your tray and walk around Saga — with a determined look affected on your face — as you look for sympathetic sitters.

This can also help avoid the humiliation of a Saga stand by looking, to the cursory glance, like you already have a person in mind to sit with. You’ve got everything under control, they think. Little do they know you’re just hanging on, BSing until you find the perfect table.

Of course, if you take too long and cover too much of the same ground in your Saga Walk of Shame, you just look crazy.

Saga Signal: “HEY DANIEL! OVER HERE!” When you see a friend doing the Saga Stand or Saga Walk of Shame, the raising of a hand, the gesture, or simply yelling can end this humiliating process. However, sometimes you are given a Saga Signal by somebody you don’t want really want to sit with. Then this becomes the awkward process of making some kind of excuse to get to another table. It’s embarrassing for everyone involved.

Saga Gypsy: These are the type of people, who, not having a Saga home, hop from table to table. Often you will sit down at the point in time that everyone else at the table is almost finished. They leave. You have two choices. You can be a Saga Invalid- a person sitting entirely alone at a Saga table. Or, you can be a Saga Gypsy. Find another table to temporarily put down your roots.

Of course, it’s very easy to get addicted to being a Saga Gypsy. Sometimes, you walk into Saga and the entire dining hall is full of people you want to eat with. What do you do!? Simple. Get a small portion, spend 5 minutes with each of them, and then use the fact that you’ve finished your small portion to hop to another table. You get dozens of different Saga experiences in a single, magical, night.
Saggarrhea: An intestinal, gastronomic, and scatalogical condition that arises from the ingestion of quantities of particular Saga foodstuffs. I recommend staying far, far, far away from the Late Night Bur-Eat-oh’s(TM)

French Dip! It is glorious and almost always served the same day they make chocolate chip cookies.  The line is long, but is so very worth the wait.

Mushrooms: The most important part of Saga Culture is whining about how they put all the mushrooms on the International Dishes. (DW)

Just because the Cocoa machine in the dining hall is out of hot chocolate, that doesn’t mean you have to start breaking out the mournful dirges of the lost souls. Hint: The extra cocoa’s in the cabinet under the machine. Pop open the front of the cocoa machine by “pulling” on it, open the little Tupperware container where the cocoa goes, and pour the newly-discovered cocoa packet into the receptacle. Close machine. Fill cup. Drink. (DW)

During finals week, late night meals are free for everyone. I did not learn this until my third semester at Whitworth. Since this discovery, I have been utilizing, nay, abusing this amazing offer. You should too.

Some people prefer eating alone to eating with strangers. For the first two weeks it is acceptable to sit next to people you don’t know and introduce yourself. Everyone is trying to meet new people and expand their horizons. But after that grace period, if you see someone eating alone, don’t think you need to rescue them from their loneliness. Some, like me, would rather forgo the meaningless pleasantries (“What’s your major?”) and just eat. I met so many biology and business majors the first week in Saga, none of whom I ever spoke to again. All that time talking could have been better spent eating. (BF)

Spokane: Near Nature, Near Colfax.

Spokane is boring, you say. Counterpoint: YOU’RE BORING! Yes, Spokane tends to be pretty dull for those who never leave their dorm rooms. True, Spokane isn’t Portland, with entire neighborhoods, businesses, and districts dedicated to entirely to making you feel hip. It’s not New York, where the constant possibility you might be mugged makes for never a dull moment.
No, in Spokane, you’ve got to know where to look for the excitement. Spokane’s awesomeness doesn’t just come barging through your dorm room, unannounced, wanting to take you out for drinks for your 21st birthday. It’s subtle. Discrete. We’ll give you a couple tips and list some of Spokane’s secrets.

Restaurants: for when your parents come to visit and foot the bill.

Dick’s Hamburgers- Providing Spokane middle schoolers with a cheap source of double entendres for over 40 years. Whether the Dick’s in Spokane is better or worse than the Dick’s in Seattle is one of those huge controversial topics, on par with abortion or “which is the one true faith”, that we at the Whitworth Forum will angrily debate for ages. No matter. Just know that Dick’s is a Spokane icon, where the food has twice the grease at half the cost. No stay in Spokane is complete without at least one visit to Dick’s Hamburgers. (DW)

The Old European is an incredible breakfast restaurant that crowds out with the post-church rush on Sunday mornings, but is well worth the wait. The portions are large and the cooks know what they’re doing. Everything I’ve eaten on the breakfast menu has been excellent, though their lunch menu isn’t quite as impressive.

Tomato Street is an Italian place that has good calzones, good pizza, good pastas, and good bread. It’s kitschy (all the waiters wear goofy hats), but the food is quality for the price.

David’s Pizza is across the street from Gonzaga – read, “too far away if you don’t have a car” – and by far has the best pizza in town. They offer a staggering number of toppings which you can pick and choose from to make the pizza of your dreams. (CW)

Getting a Raw Deal on Sushi: Odd as it may seem, I grew up in Seattle but did not try sushi for the first time until moving to Spokane.  Now, when I go home I notice the abundance of sushi available at my fingertips, and the contrast that is Spokane.

As far as the Northside / Whitworth area goes, it is almost non-existent.  Grocery stores sell poor excuses for California rolls, and if you need a raw fish fix real bad, it will do, I guess.  The Top O’China Buffet (Chinese restaurant with Irish flair?) has “sushi.”  You should avoid it. However the TO’C does make some fantastic donuts.  Really, they are almost worth the cost of admission to the buffet.
Downtown the choices are Raw, Bluefin, Sushi.com, Sukiyaki and Ichiban.  I’ve never been to Ichiban, but I have not heard good things.
Raw is good, but the atmosphere is so trendy and dark it gets annoying, fast.  Bluefin is very contemporary and hip, not as annoying as Raw, and has a great late night menu.  The prices are a little steep however.  Sukiyaki is good, not great.  Your best bet is Sushi.com.  The food is good and inexpensive, and it does not have the intimidating hip environment.  Someone told me that the best sushi in Spokane is a place in Airway Heights called Sushi Yama.  I have yet to go. (BF)

Bars: Sharing a glass you call loneliness (But it’s better than drinking alone.)

For any 21 year-old transfers, or daring freshmen with fake IDs, the two most popular bars for Whitworth students are Fizzie Mulligan’s and the Bigfoot.

Fizzie Mulligan’s or as it is known in the streets, Fizzie’s, or the Fizz, unofficially hosts “Whitworth Wednesdays.” $2 Blue Moons and Domestics, karaoke, and free popcorn are what attract the kids, and a lot of Spokane… ehhh… colorful characters, to the Fizz on Wednesdays.  Monday is the big Whitworth night for the Bigfoot. The Bigfoot is a dive, but the atmosphere there is authentic, not manufactured or snooty like at so many places.
There are a lot of bars downtown.  At Fast Eddie’s you can spin the wheel on your birthday and possibly win $100 in free drinks.  The Viking has an incredible beer selection and zero macros on tap, Jimmyz has bathrooms that are waaaaay too small (one toilet in the men’s room, really?) , O’Doherty’s will give you half off your first drink for life if you stand on the bar and sing a song.) (BF)
If you drink your alcohol to taste it instead of feel it rush to your ears, Bin 98twenty (affectionately called just “The Bin”) is a great wine bar/expensive restaurant on the north side of town. It has an extensive selection of wine and wonderful service, but comes at the prices you’d expect from such an upscale restaurant. It’s beyond most college students’ budgets, but makes a very impressive first date. (CW)

Twigs is another upscale option. It’s a martini bar/restaurant. The Twigs in Wandermere is new and boasts a gigantic alcohol tower. Downtown’s is smaller, and in the mall, but still swank. –KMV

Music: When Ringtones just won’t cut it.

The Big Dipper is a nice venue downtown that features a lot of smaller acts.  I saw Rocky Votolato there a couple years ago, before I decided that he actually kind of sucked.  The Spokane Arena is where the big names go if they make the trip to Spokane.  You know, DMX, Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Avril Lavigne, Kenny Chesney, all that crap. It works, but it’s really just too big for concerts. The Big Easy The Knitting Factory is the premier Spokane concert venue, all ages, bar w/ ID, and a lot of good shows (I saw Built to Spill there, a dream come true).  If you want a venereal disease you can go to Elements (formerly club Cuh-razy 8s).  It’s the only dance club on the Northside and it is gross.  Ladies night Thursdays, ladies get in free. I imagine there are drink specials, but is a half-off Smirnoff worth your purity?  The Boulevard, Empyrean, Caterina Winery, and the Service Station also hold shows. (BF)

In my opinion the Service Station probably has the best concert bang for your buck.  The Whitworth Info Desk often often OFTEN has reduced price tickets to their shows, they have a very wide variety of talent, from bigger names like Shiny Toy Guns and Relient K to garage bands (some of which, surprisingly enough, don’t suck), and, for any freshman who crashed the Whitworth scene sans a vehicular mode of transport, it’s not so far away as to make you weep with ride-less anxiety.  Plus, the Service Station is a coffee shop.  You go in, you mosh, you rock out, you buy a cookie.  Works for me. (GV)

General Spokane Advice:
-     Don’t drive North/South on Division. It’s slow as molasses. When possible, take Waikiki/Wall/Monroe instead.
-    If you don’t have a car window scraper, go buy one. You don’t want to be the kid in the parking lot trying to get ice off their windshield with a credit card.
-     Don’t expect to find any good Mexican food in Spokane if you’re from a less-white hometown. If you’re from Montana, Taco Bell is right down the street.  (CW)

Day or Weekend Trips
Have a Saturday free and don’t care about high gas prices? There are a couple places that make for nice day trips around the Whitworth area. The default day trip locale is Coeur d’Alene. It’s only about forty minutes on I-90 from downtown, but since it’s in another state it feels like going farther. The main destination here is the Dockside Restaurant, which sells sundaes as big as a size 7 soccer ball. There are also places to walk around and shop, including a very respectable used bookstore.

Another destination which is slightly father away, but worth every inch of the drive, is Priest Lake, ID. It takes about one and a half hours to get to the lake from Whitworth. Going during the school year is off-season for the resorts and campgrounds, but there are plenty of places to camp besides the official ones. Priest Lake is a popular destination for dorm camping trips, but if yours doesn’t have one, you might think about gathering some friends and making the drive yourself. The serenity of the lake in the twilight hours and the clarity of the stars afterwards are simply amazing. (KMV)

Riverside State Park ain’t bad for camping either, as long you’re not expecting to be heart-of-darkness deep wilderness. The real important thing, when you get right down to it, is that you come back with S’mores in your hair and smelling like campfire smoke. That’s what camping is all about. Reserve one of the group camp sites early. (DW)

Transportation: Planes, Trains and those little shoes with mini-wheels on the bottom.

Bicycles – When you want to be as cool as Alan Jacob: Bikes are awesome. Especially if you add cards in the spokes, tassels, and a little horn. Having a bike cuts transportation time between classes down by more than half, giving you more time to be late to class. (DW)

Sadly, the days of the bicycle free trade agreement are gone. There was a time when you could leave your bike unlocked, and someone might borrow it and bring it back. You could just hop on any unlocked bike and take it to the HUB as long as you brought it back. The rash of bike thefts in the fall put an end to that. Lock up your bike. And buy a crappy one. Enough students don’t lock their bike that just having a basic lock on yours should protect it. (BF)

Galen says: Some students claim they’ve witnessed unlocked bikes being ridden off by security. When my bike disappeared freshman year I checked their secret underground bike cave (not kidding!). My bike wasn’t there, but my friend’s was. If your bike goes missing, check with security. They may have stashed it in the basement below their office for safekeeping. (GS)

Segway: My way or the Segway. There’s this one guy at Whitworth who has a Segway. He’s called the Segway guy. He will zoom by when you least expect it to, just to add a bit of surrealism to your otherwise dreary day. Who was that man? You will say. But you’ll never know. (DW)
For those without a need for speed or with a penchant for soaking in the scenery, walking tends to work just fine. No additional machinery required.

Longboards- If you want to be a quintessential Whitworth student, a long board is a must. It gives you some of the speed advantages of a bike, without the risk of it being stolen. Still, keep in mind the LongBoarder’s Code: Pedestrians still have the right of way. It’s no fair “jousting” with students running to Core class.

Cars: When you want to really cheese off Al Gore. Don’t drive from class to class. My roommate sophomore year drove his car from parking lot to parking lot between classes. This campus is small so that is completely unnecessary — don’t be a douche. This is especially true because, well, there’s not likely to be very many free parking spaces, if any, next year. A parking space is a precious, precious thing. Not something to be wasted on moving your car at a whim. (BF/DW)

Decide if you want to gamble with the parking system. Technically, you have to buy a $20 permit to park in Whitworth’s increasingly competitive parking spaces. I say, technically, because for every person that does, there are several who don’t. They are the unregistered, the outlaws, the ronin of the Whitworth parking lot. Here’s the thing. Security gives you tickets for not having a permit, but since they don’t know who you are, they can’t charge your student account. For a few cases, Security went to the measure of looking up the culprit’s license plate number with the DMV to track them down, Tommy-Lee-Jones-In-The-Fugitive style. Much fine-ocity ensued. But that has only happened to very few. For the rest, well, they saved twenty bucks, and rode off into the sunset on their noble Trans-Am, free as could be. Apply your own personal risk/benefit analysis as you see fit. (DW)

Buying a parking permit is like paying for the extra five dollars in taxes to pay for the bear patrol.  Clearly it is working, because you don’t see any bears do you? (BF)

The classes you take aren’t that important. Who you take them from is. For example, if Ron Pyle was teaching “History and Theory of Low-Fat Margarine”, you’d have to wait until you were a senior to get into the class. Such would be the waiting list.

There are a few teachers your peers will say you must take classes from, towering pillars of the Whitworth experience: Teachers like Pyle, Oakland*, Stronks, Sitsser — and from what I hear – Julia Stronks and Kamesh Sankaran. Don’t worry too much. One of Whitworth’s biggest strengths is the quality of the teaching staff. Whitworth doesn’t pay much, so it tends to attract teachers that care about teaching, rather than paychecks or prestige. No Nobel Laureates who leave all their instruction to TA’s and Grad Students here.

*His teaching schedule may vary. Void where prohibited and in the state of Wyoming.

That’s not to say there aren’t bad teachers. Fortunately, they are easily identifiable by the title “adjunct” and can thus be avoided.

It’s no coincidence that some of Whitworth’s toughest teachers – Mohrlang, Migliazzo, Sugano – are also some of the best. (Oddly enough, they are also among the toughest to spell correctly.) A teacher who’s difficult has to be incredible just to avoid all their students flunking, a situation the Dean would frown upon. Take a class from one of them and you’ll be challenged, frustrated, aggravated, tested, stretched, and battered. These teachers will be able to hone into your B.S., neatly fillet it, and serve it back to you on a china platter with garnishes that read “Nice try.” Your papers will drip tauntingly with red ink. Drip… drip… drip…

This is precisely why I recommend you take classes from these tough teachers. You’ll come out a stronger human, a better writer, and a deeper thinker. Wear those classes like a badge of honor. “Sugano? Oh, yeah. I survived Sugano. What of it?” (DW)

The key with these professors is to know what you’re getting into and prepare (by, for example, actually buying the textbook). A few botched essays and flunked quizzes early in the term can be really hard to recover from.  (KMV)

If your professor encourages you to see her with questions during her office hour, and you have questions: do it. Swallow that lump in your throat and knock on her door. In my experience, the best advocates, resources, encouragement, and general conferees of good things are often professors.

These are the people who are going to give you valuable advice, open doors, write letters of recommendation, and be sources of wisdom for your time at Whitworth, if you seek them out. They are teaching at Whitworth out of a genuine desire to be here, and part of that involves you, the student. Interacting with professors outside of class is something I was really shy about at first, and generally poor at. And of course those are often awkward, tenuous relationships (mostly because the professors you really want to know are the ones you’ve elevated to semi-divine status). But the pay-off here is immense—not in terms of future name-dropping or some other status symbol, as might be the case at more prestigious institutions, but because many professors at Whitworth are phenomenal people. You’re here for an education, right? They can help with that. (KMV)

Academics:  The most obnoxious part of Education.

Whenever you’re bored, start getting homework done for goodness sakes. You don’t want to have one of those situations where your friends drop by and say “Hey! We’re going to all go meet Jean Claude Van Damm at Laser Quest and then go and get free Ben and Jerry’s ice cream they’re giving out during the Awesome Parade!”

And then you have to say, “Can’t. I have a reading response on Pascal to do. But that sounds fun too.” Then, as you wistfully gaze off into the setting sun, a single tear rolls down your cheek and lands *splash* on the pages of your Plato to Derrida book. (DW)

Don’t talk in class. Really, I mean it. If you’re a freshman and full of opinions, guess what? Most of us have heard everything you’ve got to say. But you’re unusually bright and well reasoned? Please keep your brilliance to yourself. Some freshmen have the tendency to think that everything that comes out of their mouth is pure gold, and if a dose of humility isn’t kicked into them pretty early on they turn into the same opinionated, annoying, loud classmates you hated in high school. Keep class discussions bearable – think about something four times before you say it out loud. (CW)

DISSENT: Sorry, Charity. Speaking as the archetypal opinionated, annoying, loud classmate you would have hated in highschool, I strongly, strongly, disagree with this. You learn humility by talking and being proved wrong. By seeing that others have pretty awesome opinions as well. Not by thinking that your words are too precious to waste on the plebeians surrounding you. Save that sort of self-censorship for The Real World. Nothing’s worse than a class where the prof begs for class interaction, but nobody gives it. The best classes, the classes that counted, that were interesting, that were educational, were not the ones where a prof droned on and students diligently copied down the PowerPoint slides. They were the ones where there was lively, fast-paced, even intense discussion. Thinking for yourself, and then testing those thoughts at the fires of discourse, is one of the best ways to learn, not just memorize.

Personally, I can’t pay attention if I don’t talk in class. Play on both sides of the aisle. If you’re shy, try actually speaking your mind for once. If you’re a talker, learn to leave your hand down occasionally. (DW)

Absolutely agree. Case in point: Multi-Cultural American Literature with Doug Sugano. One of those must-take classes, namely because there’s a lot of heated, respectful, generally off-topic discussion from all quarters of the socio-economic-political spectrum. In the midst of the chaos you learn wisdom. College isn’t about memorizing facts emitting from a professor. Education, rather, occurs when the professor has to veer off PowerPoint because the students want to understand. Sure, you can attain knowledge by ferociously copying PowerPoint slides. However, wisdom seeps into you intangibly, intuitionally, during dialogs with curious, perhaps pretentious, students, and their oftentimes wiser professors. (GS)

Don’t skip night class. That is like skipping a whole week of class. I skipped one night class this semester and my grade took a hit it never really recovered from. 140 point quiz, ouch. Day classes, go nuts, you are paying to go here, if you feel like skipping, skip. You only need to maintain a 2.0 to keep your scholarship. (BF)

DISSENT: Allow me to disagree with Brent’s glowing recommendation for irresponsibility. Skipping class is an oh-so-slippery slope. Once they’ve tasted the sweet nectar of skipping class, they develop an unquenchable thirst for it. I’ve seen people skip their first class sophomore year, and then figure out “Hey… that was easy.” And then they do it more, and more, and more, until they’re skipping their academic probation meetings as well. (DW)

Closing Argument: Skip. But make it count. Start by going to every class. Taste it before deciding you can live without it. So chew for a while, ruminate. When you grasp the import of the class, ease your way towards the door. By that I mean, if you know you could learn more reading the source material, consider that the professor has also read the source material, twenty-seven times. They’ve also taught it to countless students who didn’t pay attention. Be the student who does. And then, when your friends want to go tennis ball golfing on a perfectly sunny afternoon, skip. Your education is crucial and classes will dull your mind.  And always skip for protests and illustrious conferences! (GS)

Study in groups: Tactics of studying vary, but studying in a group ensures that you’ll at least meet new people while doing it. The test results, of course, are of secondary importance. You’ll get distracted complaining about the class, but it’ll be worth of it. My best strategy was always to find some attractive girl in the class, and study with her. I never tried to leverage the study session into a date (I’m not that smooth) but I guarantee, anything that she said I remembered. Forever. Even the stuff about Kierkegaard. Your results or gender may vary. (DW)

The Bookstore:  A Bear Trap for Gullible Freshmen.

The crafty college consumer never — never! — buys books or sells books at the bookstore. (If ONLY there was some sort of social networking site dedicated to interactions like selling and buying your books, and maybe even poking people. If ONLY.)

Crafty consumers Facebook. They eBay. They buy them for discount on Amazon and Half.com. I know that “sharing” is just the first step toward Communism, but as a college student, frugality can force you to do horrible things. Chip in for the same book with one or two or five other students. (DW)
BetterWorldBooks.com sells used books, proceeds go to literacy programs, and they offer free shipping.  So you can feel good about being cheap. (BF)

In fact, in many classes, you can get by without reading entirely. Sometimes it might cost you a half a grade. But saving $100 and countless hours, in exchange for a mere minus (and, yes, education) might just be worth it.

The exception is English lit classes, which generally like you to bring, well, lit. Still, remember, that most British literature before the 1800s is in the public domain, which means you can find it laughably cheap online. Or even, if you don’t mind moving a scroll bar while reading, for free (and searchable!) on gutenberg.org or Google Books. (DW)

DISSENT: You can’t get by in a lit class that calls for a Norton Anthology without actually having the tome in your possession. That beast will be your best friend and your worst enemy. A lot of early Brit lit may be in the public domain, but having it at your fingertips in one (sometimes three) volume(s), with every play, ballad, and epic song on exactly the page the professor says it is, is priceless. Compiling all that material on your own would be a nightmare far worse than the final essay exam. (KMV)

Some people attempt to cognitive-dissonance-ize their foolish book purchase by claiming they’ll probably want to keep it. Maybe they’ll read Plato to Derrida to rock their future babies to sleep.
Spoiler: In all probability, you will never read the books you bought for classes ever again. Never. Ever. Regrets? I have a few. All of them have to do with reading Deep River for Core 150. Even the *author* clearly hated the book, seeing as he sent it off to the publisher without bothering to give it an ending.

If students had any sense at all, the bookstore would be abandoned to dust, tumbleweeds, and the occasional ghost of bookstore employees past. Don’t let your laziness cost you. (DW)

DISSENT: Daniel’s first premise is sound: Don’t buy books from the bookstore. They’re rumored to charge 10% less than retail, but that’s irrelevant when you can buy used books for a dollar, or brand new books at wholesale. One Psych 101 book, retailing for over $100 in the bookstore, I bought from a wholesaler for $60 and then sold the next semester to another student for $80.

The second premise, however, I entirely disagree with. I’ve kept a number of my books and reread or at least reconsulted most of them, Deep River the foremost (I’ve read it twice more now, and it’s easily the most important book you’ll read for the Core classes).

Further, ignore what other students tell you about books, including the opinions you’ve just read here. They’ll say, “Oh you don’t need to read that.” Or “C.S. Lewis is the greatest author ever!!!!!” Let them have their opinions. Then go and make your own. This is your education. You don’t have to finish every book you start, so at least start them all

PS. The smartest students don’t buy books at all. Find friends who kept their books and borrow them. Or, if you’re really, really smart, you check them out from the library. (GS)

Print in the library, you’ll save around 50 dollars a year that way. If it’s printing double-sided and you just don’t roll that way simply go into printer options, and uncheck the double-sided box. Still, don’t be the schmoe who prints out the 75-page PowerPoint presentation with a black background. And then prints it out again when he finds a typo. (Yes, we know *we* printed like a skajoobillion copies of this guide on library paper. But that’s okay. Hypocrisy is in this year.) (DW)

And do print two sided. It won’t hurt you. Further, don’t ever print out Core anything. Not the presentations, not the fill-in-the-blank note-templates, not the reading packets. Core 150, 250 and 350 professors (and especially 350 professors) have a vendetta against forests dating back to when their parents took Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason away from them and told them to go climb trees like normal 3-year-olds. (GS)

DISSENT: I would suggest printing the core 250 outlines.  If you are like me, you mentally float in and out of the lectures and just write down the bullet points in the PowerPoint.  Bad idea.  The Outlines have words that act as cognitive triggers to snap me out of my daydreams. (BF)

The Whitworthian:  The New York Times, but with more reference to squirrels.

The Whitworthian is Whitworth’s student-run Newspaper o’ Record. It is perhaps the oldest running institution at Whitworth. The advantage: it’s not beholden to the ASWU, the Administration or anyone else. It tries to give you the straight scoop, while so many others are busy deciding exactly how to sugarcoat their spin. The disadvantage: With the exception of editors so intense, hard-working and flawless they qualify, legally, as robots, the Whitworthian is predominately made up of humans. That means it makes mistakes.

If the Whitworthian makes a mistake there are two ways to proceed. The first is by whining about it to your friends and never trusting anything the paper says again. This is also known as the “completely worthless option.” All it does is make it harder for the paper to improve. The alternative is to actually address the problem at its source. Talk to the editors (not just the writers.)
Trust me. After the editors are done with the requisite 20 lashes, they’ll try to figure out what exactly went wrong, and actually try to fix it. Hopefully, such mistakes won’t ever happen again. Or, you know, more lashes. And if that fails you can always write a post on the forum, or hey, actually write a Letter to the Editor. Imagine that. Dealing with these issues publicly is always more honest and valuable than grumbling and mumbling and badmouthing. (DW)

Jan Term: See how much of a single class you can cram into one month

Ah, Jan term. Whether you fly away for one of the many off-campus courses or bundle up in lovely Spokane, these three weeks can be some of the best weeks of the academic year.

There are a few different approaches to Jan term. One is to take a gen-ed or a difficult class which you don’t really want to take. That way you only have to take it for three weeks instead of a whole semester. Some people swear by this method. I, on the other hand, think the method sounds analogous to: if you don’t like garlic on your meal, eat a whole clove of garlic by itself instead. Gross.
If you’re taking a dreaded gen-ed during a normal semester, at least you have other homework to intersperse with that homework, other lectures to listen to, other things to ponder over. Making yourself do your homework during Jan term can be difficult. Most people are out of class by noon so everyone has plenty of free time.This means that there’s usually a lot of non-organized activity going on in the dorms.

Sometimes taking a class you actually like can be the only way to make yourself do your work. Otherwise, you might find yourself doing about twenty minutes of Plant Bio reading and then drifting over to join the fort-making in the lounge or the night skiing trip. The way I see it, the only reason to take your science gen ed-during Jan term is to avoid having to take a lab (which can be a big plus if your fall and spring semesters tend to be crowded).  (KMV)

DISSENT: Jan Term is the perfect time to get rid of Gen Eds. Why? You want to get rid of Gen eds as quickly as possible. Jan Term offers one more slot to be able to do that. Concentrate on those classes your first two years. Then if you decide to be a flake and change your major, you can do that with losing your freshmen year to the abyss of uselessness. I double majored with classes to spare at the end of my education. Why? Because I played it smart.  Also, find out what major requirements you can ONLY take during Jan Term. Take them then. (DW)

Then there are those who use their Jan term as a time to take it easy, maybe take a couple PE’s and go snowboarding every afternoon. I’ve never done it, but the people who do tend to enjoy this route, at least until they hyper-extend their ACLs.

Another alternative is to arrange your own off-campus independent study Jan term course. Not very many people end up taking this option, but I’ve heard about some good experiences. One friend of mine arranged to spend Jan term at a convent in Idaho. Options are nearly endless, but from what I hear it takes some heavy planning to make this happen (you need a faculty advisor, etc., set up far in advance of Jan term). (KMV)

A lot of students try to take advantage of the many off-campus study opportunities offered during Jan term. Jan term is a great time to do off-campus study, for several reasons. These reasons almost all boil down to: the stakes are a lot lower than semester-long off-campus study. A semester abroad requires a great deal of planning in order to make sure you’ll get all the classes you need by graduation. It is also more expensive, and there’s probably more of a sense of missing out on what’s going on back at Whitworth. During Jan term, on the other hand, you’re only gone for three weeks and you can survive anything for three weeks. (KMV)

(All it takes to go on a trip during Jan Term is to decide to go.) I went to England for Jan Term, and didn’t get a bit of credit for it. I did it cheaper, however, and didn’t have to fill out a permission slip. If it hadn’t been for being jet-lagged and sick the whole time, it might have been awesome.  (DW)

The off-campus courses offered at Jan term are stellar, taught by some of the all-stars of Whitworth. The two off-campus Jan term courses I took—Core 250 Europe with Forrest Baird and Christian Spirituality at Tall Timber with Jerry Sittser—have been hugely influential in my life in more ways than academic. No exaggeration, these are times which I will look back at years down the road as landmarks of my time at Whitworth. If you have a chance to take an off-campus Jan term course, do it.  (KMV)

If you are anything like me, you will hate Jan Term.Not because it is hard, or the classes are long, but because there is so much damn snow.  I hate snow more than I hate people who hate things.  A lot of people suggest taking a gen-ed you are not really interested in like a science or math class.  I suggest taking a class from your major that is not offered during regular semesters.  Last semester I took a class that was all about Edgar Allen Poe. Doesn’t that sound like more fun than a class about infectious diseases? (BF)

Group Projects:  Like Being Married to 4 People You Barely Know.

If you’re like me, no two words send a chill snaking down your spine than the phrase “Group Project.” The key to survival is taking a healthy swig of Aristotle’s Golden Mean. Too many people become either Mussolinis — barking orders because everything has to be just right, or it will all be for nothing! — or Lebowskis — simply abiding while their team members have to lug their snoozing corpses across the finish line.

Be somewhere smack in the middle. Suggest ideas. Don’t be surprised when they get shot down.

More importantly, readily agree to the seemingly horrible ideas that other group members suggest. You’d be surprised how successful horrible ideas can be when a massive bulk of enthusiasm is thrown behind them (Example: The New Deal). Run boldly toward mediocrity.

Your time to shine, however, is when they assign projects. That’s when you should go into full creative berzerker mode. Bring back something absolutely brilliant to your group members. They’ll thank you for it.

And never, never, let the final product get in the way of group cohesion. Groupthink is bad on a real project with real consequences. Fortunately, the only thing real in your group project is the relationship between group members. If you’re lucky, everything might just click between your group, and you’ll find each other orbiting in perfect Synergy(TM). It’s like Magic, but with more electrolytes. (DW)

DISSENT: Yes, it’s true that, in every possible way, people are more important than any schoolwork you’re ever going to do. No doubt. But realistically I don’t think group projects ever come down to a dilemma between (1) treating my fellow group member as a valuable and respected human being or (2) creating an epic PowerPoint. Call me an optimist, but I think both can happen. It probably isn’t going to be your three-hour group project meeting on David Hume that earns you some lifelong friendships (it didn’t for me anyway). Maybe that’s because I prefer the quality-is-key policy for group projects. Getting along is important, but since we’re all adults it seems likely that we can all get along and shoot for something north of mediocrity. It’s important to be flexible, humble, and open to the opinions of others; but it’s also your grade on the line. I hesitate to say that group cohesion is more important than coming up with a high-quality product. (KMV)

Usually, it’s important for your other parts of your life — like social activities — to take precedence over academics. This is NOT true, however, for group projects. Your group members are counting on you. Don’t tell me you’d let them down because you just HAVE to attend the Battlestar Galactica Series Finale Costume Party. That goes doubly true if you’re working for some major product, like the Whitworthian. Whitworth Forum writers are on standing orders to find people who casually dismiss deadlines, and punch them in the mouth. (DW)

To Be Continued: Naturally. This is just one section of four. Click the other links for the rest. You have 4 years and $120,000 on the long road ahead of you. Roads? Where you’re going… you don’t need… roads.

Relationships: A new last name in only 700 days!

If you came here to knock down random drunk college slutties like you see on MTV’s spring break, you came to the wrong place. Don’t worry, it’s not too late to get into WSU. What Whitworth girls lack in drunken sluttiness they more than make up for in some things that seem much less important when you are two Old English 40’s deep: substance and class. (BF)

If you need a Dramatic Love Confession (DLC) to figure out if somebody is attracted to you, they probably aren’t.

Don’t date until at least the Jan Term of your freshman year. Too many students – still intoxicated on the power of Traditiation wooing – get a girlfriend within weeks, and spend the next few months seeing nothing but each other’s eyes. Frankly, first semester relations have the lifespan of a goose going through a jet turbine. Oddly enough, this is exactly what the breakup looks like.

And then what happens? When the tears clear and you’ve bitterly incinerated the last of the heart-shaped cookies she baked you, what are you left with? While everybody else was making friends, playing the “whats-your major” game at Saga tables, you were spending all your time, oblivious to the buzzing world around you, making kissy-faces at your snuggle-wuddums in the Warren Hall Study Lounge. But now that you don’t have any wuddums to snuggle with, and you’ve missed those crucial first moments of friend making, now what?

You’re cold and alone. Somewhere, off in the distance, wolves begin to howl. (DW)

DISSENT: I maintain that first-semester freshman relationships get a bad rap.  Speaking as someone who acquired my boytoy…I mean, boyfriend, in the first month of the first semester (I know, I know, I’m a walking cliché) my only advice is to be careful.  Take it slow.  If you must date in your first semester, leave time for homework and your other friends (yes, you have other friends).  And by time for homework, I don’t mean leaving your darling at two a.m. and crawling into your dorm room, dazed with love, to discover five pages of incomprehensible French homework on your bed.  Be smart.  Your G.P.A. will thank you. (GV)

Closing Argument: Yes, Gabrielle, to every Iron Clad Social rule, there is an exception. Yes, there have been successful couples that have somehow survived after being spawned in the first semester. I have two friends that met in the first week of freshman year, and four years later, are apparently still doing pretty well (as evidenced by the fact that she now shares his last name.)

But there have also been people that have survived the plunge over Niagara Falls in wooden barrels. Doesn’t mean we should start selling tickets to “Splash Mountain 2.”  Remember, guys, if she’s willing to date you in the first week of freshman year, presumably she’d still be willing to date you when Jan Term comes around.
Unless, of course, some other guy calls “dibs” first. But that’s why they invented slapping gloves, high noon, and dueling pistols. (DW)

In a hauntingly similar situation, don’t play any video games until at least your sophomore year. Too many people have been sucked in by the siren song of World of Warcraft and end their four years with nothing to show for it but pasty white skin and a blister on the mouse finger. Remember the verse in Corinthians, “If I have a level 70 blood elf paladin, with an epic mount, and the full set of the glowing epic armor of Snol’Toc, but have not love, I am nothing.” (DW)

DISSENT: Don’t ever play WoW.  Play a game that may require you to directly interact with a friend who is in the same room.  Such as, Madden, Mario Party, MVP Baseball 2005 (best video game ever made), Tekken, or Sega hockey like those nice young gentlemen in Swingers. (BF)

There are three video games acceptable to play at College. They all have the word “Super Smash” in the title. (DW)

To borrow a phrase from Facebook, relationships at Whitworth are complicated. The problem boils down to the fact that you’ve got three different types of relationship philosophies:

The Hookup Artist (Wham, Bam, now what’d you say your name was again? The Vodka makes my memory a bit… drunk.)

The (increasingly rare) Casual Dater. (If all goes well, I’ll ask her out to Olive Garden next week. Then, who knows? Could Red Robin possibly be in our future?)

And the Gradualist (In 2 years, maybe our friendship will have somehow blossomed into a more-than-just-friends-ship. But I don’t want to move too quickly. A fine woman, like a fine deer, is easily frightened by sudden moves.)
The problem is that these three tend to have the expectation that everybody else shares their dating philosophy. Miscommunication and wacky hiijinks ensue! The solution? Give the other person a break if they don’t do things the “right” way. Or, figure out which relationship theory they subscribe to before plunging in willy-nilly. Remember, it’s only “overanalyzing” if you analyze incorrectly.

For those of you who are in Serious Committed Relationships(TM) or, heck, even if you’re just Ms. Slutty Slutty McSlutterson, the Health Clinic offers condoms. If you must have sex, please use a condom. And if you must use a condom, please use them off-campus. Not in your dorm room. And keep in mind, there’s no form of contraception that can protect you from the penetrating glare of your judging peers. (DW)

Religion: Going from zero to angry in a single Bible Verse.

If you are not Christian, you can still go to Whitworth. There are plenty feral heathens running about.

The key to religious discussion is to keep to the energetic exploration at a maximum, and the indignation and desperation at a minimum. Disagree. Float crazy suggestions and notions. Parry and riposte. Roast sacred cows.  But at the same time, keep a thick skin and be careful about trying too hard to convince the other party — once and for all! — that your view of what kind of manna-and-quail casserole the angel chefs serve during Heaven’s Sunday brunches is irrevocably, unarguably, correct. Talking theory, batting moral and philosophical theories back and forth like an eternally-significant ping-pong ball is fun and educational. Being preached to (or in the case of Atheists — unpreached to), isn’t.

Very few people will hate you because of your religious beliefs, or supposed lack of them. They may hate you for how — or with what frequency — you choose to express them. That isn’t called intolerance or judgmentalism. That’s called “being annoyed by the actions of others.” (DW)

Furthermore, if you are going to disagree with the Bible, you better be familiar with it.  (BF)
That’s also true if you are going to defend it. You’re in playing in the big leagues for theology discussions now. Mere flannelgraph and advent calendar knowledge won’t cut it.  (DW)

The Social Scene: OMG, did you see what emoticon Katie was using?

Never say anything mean about anyone ever. Social networks are incomprehensibly complex. Let loose a casual insult and the next thing you know it’s scampering along the grapevine and you’ve earned yourself a fledgling reputation as a meaniehead.

Generally girls, like hyenas, hate in packs. Be a jerk to one, and don’t be surprised when you walk into Saga and are immediately pinned to the wall by a barrage of poisonous glares. This simmering hatred just doesn’t go away with time either. Grudges, when shared, passed around, and reinforced by occasionally sycophantic peers, can last practically forever. Tread carefully. But you probably already knew that from middleschool.

Gossip-guzzling may be addictive, but drink in too much of it, and you’ll end up stuck with a permanent holier-than-thou sneer frozen on your lip. And remember: While gossip might be a social currency — you trade gossip to get gossip — it won’t be too long before people are swapping tidbits about you faster than bootleg Pokemon cards. And with less of a commitment to accuracy. Note: Another effective strategy to avoid being gossiped about is to simply to be really, really boring.

Alcohol: The Devil’s Sparkling Cider.

Whitworth is often portrayed as made up of entirely pursed-lipped teetotalers, ready to set their scolding fingers a-waggling if someone even speaks the beer-word. In reality, we don’t. The majority of Whitworth students of drinking age drink.  The nice thing about Whitworth is you can get away without drinking, without being treated like prohibition incarnate.

People will still judge you if you drink underage, but it’s not as simple as a binary 21st Birthday switch. If you get utterly smashed before Mock Rock, people may start to lose respect for your judgment. If you start drinking regularly at age 20, however, or even late sophomore year, most Whitworth students won’t have that much of a problem with it. It’s a sliding scale.
People will still judge you if you get so falling-down drunk that you projectile vomit on their linoleum, couch, or face. It’s considered impolite.

It may seem like a wise idea, hey, even a brilliant one, to make out with various acquaintances while you are slightly intoxicated. It isn’t. Some people, those with Teflon reputations or those who are expected to do that sort of thing, may be able to get away with it socially. Unfortunately, you’re not one of these people. You playing Russian Roulette with your lips will only result in “draaaammaaaa!” The kind you thought you were supposed to leave behind in Junior High. (DW)

There are two parties every weekend. I like to refer to them as the “business major” party, and the “peace studies major” party. Not everyone at the former is a business major and likewise for the latter, those are just names I gave them based on stereotypes. The BM parties are populated with athletes and beer pong and Top 40 music. PSM parties are populated by hippies, indie kids, dancing, and the same three U.S.E. and Peter Bjorn and John songs ad nauseum. Both are fun — choose wisely. (BF)
(Or choose both! (GS))

The Dorms: Livin’ in Community with Impunity.

One of the biggest mistakes that freshmen make is expecting their group of Freshman friends, often grafted together purely out of geographical proximity without anything in common, to be the only group they’ll ever hang with. Branch out of the clumsy niche you’ve found yourself in, and you could find one you actually connect with.

The best way to meet people is to, you know, meet people. My freshmen and sophomore years I spent most of my time working on homework in the Warren Lounge. At Saga I moved table to table, having conversations at each. Sure, people made fun of me, but I still met a lot of cool people that way. Locking yourself in your room with your books and Red Bull isn’t good enough. Eat at Saga. Go to prime times. (DW)

The most helpful people to get to know, and usually the easiest because of common interests, are people in your major. These are the people who are going to give you advice on which professors to take, how hard to work in a given class, etc. They’re the people who are going to share study notes with you. They’re also the people you’re going to be taking a majority of your classes with, and that’s always more pleasant if you like them and they like you. (KMV)

If you are living in a dorm, you already know that you won’t have cable. If you are a sports fan, invest in a Slingbox. Its 100-200 dollars, you hook it up to your cable and internet at home, and you can watch your home cable on your computer. It is great. I would not have made it through baseball season without it last year. (BF)

Some of the best advice I was ever given about dorm life: leave your door open. Not 24/7, obviously, but when you’re doing something interruptable (which is almost everything). It’s a lot easier to get invited to dinner or get in on what’s going on on your hall if you seem available. This is especially important the first couple weeks of the semester. (KMV)

A small, but major, area in which all dorm-mates need to practice respect and tolerance is bathroom music. Have a high degree of tolerance for music you’re not used to and don’t like. You don’t have to stay in the bathroom if you don’t like it; if you can hear it outside, shut your door or ask the listener to turn it down. Furthermore, DO NOT change or turn off someone’s music while they’re actually in the shower. ASK THEM FIRST, just stick your head around the corner and pose the question. It’s not that hard to be respectful in this area. (CW)

DISSENT: As a person who lived next to a bathroom for three years, don’t play music in the bathroom. Unless it’s 4 p.m., you’ll probably be waking somebody up. This goes doubly for Big and Rich country music or ‘gangsta’ ‘rap’ turned all the way up to 11. (DW)

Some roommates become the Bestest of BFF friends forever. Most don’t. Sometimes the secret to a good roommate relationship is simply surviving and not stabbing each other with broken chunks of glass. The keys:
1) Headphones.
2) Earplugs
3) When your roommate wants to go to sleep, it is his room to go to sleep in. Turn the lights off. Move your homework elsewhere, if possible.
4. Learning to be silent when another person is sleeping produces a skill that is invaluable in marriage. Or so we assume.
5) Keeping the room generally cool allows for layering to take into account your different preferred climates. If a room is too hot, however, there’s not too much your hot-blooded – check it and see—roommate can do.
6) Your roommate is not your therapist. Try not to use her for a constant sounding board for your various anxieties, or regale her with your angsty social drama. A few sessions can be effective, but eventually, it’ll just drive her crazy. And no one wants a crazy roommate. Especially other crazy roommates.
7) While Passive-Aggressive sniping is fun, usually direct communication with your roommate is more effective.
8) Keep your room clean. Some guys are fine with their room being the Land of a Thousand Empty Pizza Boxes and smelling like rotten cheese and Axe musk, but nobody truly prefers that to a nice clean room. Except for some very basic time spent cleaning, there’s no downside to, you know, putting your boxers in a clothes hamper instead of on your roommate’s reading lamp.

When clean just isn’t going to happen, sometimes the best solution is containment. While it may not have worked very well as a U.S. foreign policy, as a dorm room policy containment works just fine. Be as messy as you must; just keep it in your private space (shelf, closet, drawers, desk). If your things are all over the shared space (floor, couch, anteroom), the other roommate reserves the right to pile them on your unmade bed.
9) Don’t use AXE. For the love of George Whitworth, don’t use AXE. In this vein, I say, “Deodorant is mandatory, perfume and cologne unnecessary.”
10) Never eat someone else’s leftovers. (BF/CP/DW/KMV)

In many dorms (especially Warren and Mac) the Hall is the social unit. There have been years where Warren Third West and Mac Second have been forces with personalities all to their own. That’s a good thing. Bond with your hallmates. That’s the whole point of on-campus living. (DW)

Who Are You: Becoming an entirely different John Malkovich.

Time for some Psych 101. You may think that, now that you’re out of high school, you can reinvent yourself into a whole new person. (”I was a ‘dweeb’ in high school, but now I’m determined to have the world view me as a ‘nerd.’”) But it’s not quite as easy as Magic Markering your new chosen stereotype onto a “Hello my name is…” nametag. First of all, your personality tends to get in the way. No matter how much Jar-Jar Binks wants to transform himself as Lando Calrissian, it nosa gunna happen. Purge the “She’s All That” myth from your mind.

 DISSENT: The transformation may not be of Freaky-Friday proportions, but college will change you. You might not instantly shift from one reductive social category to the next (like from nerd to jock), but you may find that nerd suits you, that you can make nerd look good. More importantly, I think you’ll find that whatever social demographic you more or less fit into, there are other people at Whitworth like you.  Tempted to complain that Whitworth is full of straight-laced Sunday-school kids? There’s a Whitworth demographic that’s dedicated to complaining about that. Music junkies? Yep. Dorm-life-is-my-life enthusiasts? You got it. Yeah, there is such a thing as a “typical” Whitworth student, but I would guess that the counter-culture groups tend to be pretty internally supportive because of their small numbers. In any case, don’t let your first few days convince you that in order to fit in you need to jive with the whole “Camp Whitworth” feel of Traditiation. Once classes start, that world fades faster than your attention span. (KMV)

Even the best of us tend to be slaves to the one-dimensional personality others project on us. No matter how much we may hate what they think of us, after some time, we actually begin resembling the stereotype.

We unconsciously adopt, and *become* the nerd/jock/shrew/dolt/jerkface people see when they look at us. So consider this before quickly chunking your fellow students into categories and caricatures. Stereotyping is natural (and fun!) but once you unleash the full force of your half-baked theory on who other people are, you’ll often change them for the worse.

See someone as a loser, and they become one. See them as an interesting, if quirky, genius — and they’ll become that too. (DW)

DISSENT: People will be who they are despite who you think they are. People will surprise you if you let them. That dude who made the unforgettable double entendre in freshman seminar? Turns out he’s a deep thinker. That bookish girl who rocked the Brit Lit final? Turns out she’s got a wicked-good forehand. The only way to find out who people are is to suspend judgment. And if you can’t do that, leave lots of room for revision. (KMV)

To Be Continued: Naturally. This is just one section of four. Click on the appropriate link on www.whitworthforum.com for the rest. You have 4 years and $120,000 ahead of you. Less if you save money by not eating. That’s what Ghandi did.

Contributors: Brent Flyberg(Senior) Gabrielle Vaughn(Soph.) Kelly Vincent(Senior) Daniel Walters(08 alum) Charity Whitney(08 alum) Galen Sanford(08 alum)

Congratulations. You somehow managed to graduate from high school and get accepted into the place of higher learning that is widely regarded, after extensive study and analysis by U.S. News and World Report, as “A College/University.”

You are officially, incontrovertibly, for-a-limited-time only: A Freshman.

And don’t you ever let anybody tell you otherwise.

By now, as you shake hands with your roommate, and tack (not nail!) your Newsboys and DC Talk posters to the wall (the cultural icons may have changed a bit since I was a freshman) you are likely experiencing one of two emotions:

“Ohmygah ohmygah ohmygah ohmygah I can’t believe it’s colllllleggge! I’m going to text all 37 of my friends right away.”

Or, slightly more soberly: “I think I’m going to die.”

But let me promise you this: No matter what attitude you have, you aren’t truly ready. You may have talked to friends, you may have glanced at the multicultural smiles of glossy Whitworth brochures, you may have read, dog-eared, and annotated that copy of “Surviving the Best Four Years of Your Life” that your Grandma gave you for graduation. But you don’t know Whitworth. You don’t know its secrets and warts and nooks and crannies. You can play. But you don’t yet know how to win.

That’s where the Whitworth Forum comes in. You ever heard of something called the “Internet”? Well, on the “Internet” there’s this official unofficial group blog for Whitworth students (www.whitworthforum.com.) A few of the regular writers at the forum decided they’d meld together some of their advice on how to rock Whitworth’s metaphorical socks off. How to, once and for all, win the great game of college ­– or at least get a nifty consolation prize. We are by no means experts. But that doesn’t mean we can’t act like we’re experts. It’s the America way.

If this little sampling of haphazard thoughts piques your interest, you may be interested in writing for The Forum. There’s a lengthy application process that involves three letters of recommendation, a personal essay, and a written statement of faith. We’re kidding. As long as you know how to spell correctly, don’t use annoying abbreviations (like “LOLing out loud!”, and don’t devote entire posts to what you had for breakfast, just e-mail Gabrielle Vaughn at gvaughn11@whitworth.edu, Kelly Vincent at kvincent09@whitworth.edu or Daniel Walters at danieltwalters@gmail.com and they’ll sign you right up. Like Whitworth, you don’t even have to submit your SAT score. After all, the entire point is open discourse, proving that disagreement isn’t a sign of the Apocalypse.

We want unique perspectives, we want opposing views. That sort of fire and friction powers the engine of education. It’s what college is all about. Not to mention the fact that we need freshmen writers like you, if only for your unique gawking wide-eyed sense of wonderment.

This is only part 1 of 4 the guide. The rest are also on this blog, ready for your clicking.

Leadership: Not just a title on your paycheck.

Whitworth has, officially, five gajibillion leadership positions. Many of these have names like Assistant to the Resident Coordinator, Cultural Diversity Exchange Awareness Events Coordinator, and Coordinator Coordination Coordinator. Because of the massive influx of students anointed as Leaders, Whitworth is awash in mediocre events. These are programs performed more for a paycheck than passion. This isn’t the leaders’ fault. They usually have to attend so many meetings and put on so many events, they have little time to produce something beyond the realm of the clichéd, half-hearted, and banal.

So where does that leave you, the freshman?  Whitworth doesn’t need more Official Leaders. It doesn’t need more casual events. It does, however, need incredible events. It needs regular civilians who throw every last inch of themselves into making a program amazing. It needs freshmen who start working on the Mac Haunted House in September, who blow past all the usual haunted house clichés and tropes to produce something truly phenomenal. It needs events rippling with pure inspiration, like the Middle School Dance or Real Men of Genius.

And it needs students who recognize that sometimes Official Leadership is too busy doing Official Leadership activities to really put on something absolutely unbelievable.

Whitworth needs leadership vigilantes. (DW/GS)

Leadership Vigilantes implement stunning, remarkable ideas. Coffee House Concerts do not stun, nor do people remark on them except to say, “Whitworth Unplugged… again?” Vigilante Leaders are better than that. (GS)

Big Three, Little Three, what begins with Three?

Of the little threes — catching a virgin pinecone, dropping a Saga tray, and getting engaged by your senior year — only one, the pinecone catching, is really under your control. Wait for windy days in the fall or early spring. Don’t be afraid to drop your laptop or other valuables to catch it. Many times, a pinecone will fall right by you as you’re walking to class. Learn to hear the snickersnack-snickersnack of the pinecone bouncing off branches. Put your hand out. Have faith. Fear no evil. Then once you get married, on your honeymoon night, you can, with a flourish, give your spouse your virgin pinecone.

Of The Top Three biggest threes of the Big Three, two — no sex and no drinking — are pretty lame. The rules themselves aren’t lame (I done the higher ed research on these rules, and trust me — thank God for these two rules), but breaking them certainly is. (DW)

Don’t drink in the dorms. I say this not because I have a moral objection to it, but because it’s just not fun. If you go to UW or WSU, everyone else in the dorms is drinking too, it’s fun. If you are drinking in your dorm at Whitworth, chances are it is just you and your roommate — not so fun. (BF)

But the third, the third my friend, is a magical, magical Big Three: “No disruption of community.”
“What does that mean,” you ask.

Exactly.

It’s a catchall. It used to be a clause mainly to deal with violence, but somehow, at some point, it mutated into a shape-shifting Hydra impossible to pin down.

It’s the Big Three they pull out when they just don’t know how to handle you. It’s for when there’s no rule on the books for what you’ve done. Remember, how in Air Bud, the officials had to let the golden retriever play basketball because there wasn’t any rule specifically that said, “no dog may play basketball”? Well, at Whitworth, they’d simply slap Air Bud with “disrupting community” and he’d be stuck using his doggy savant skills to pay a large fine and a perform a considerable amount of community service.

Usually, “disrupting community” means something entirely awesome. You’ve done something so memorable, so crazy — that the shockwaves themselves have, for one priceless moment, shattered the status quo.

The best college campuses hang in a precarious balance between order and chaos. And sometimes, your job is to provide that chaos.

What better way to build community than by doing something that you, your fellow compatriots, accomplices and lackeys, and the school itself will never forget? Be the Dog playing basketball. Do something nobody’s ever done before. Make like Rudolph. Go down in History. Sometimes the best way to create community is by disrupting it. Avoid the first two Big Three’s. But that third Big Three? Pursue that like the Holy Grail. (DW)

Pranks: When you just have too much Grape Kool-Aid to let it go to waste.

Traditionally, pulling off a good prank has been the paramount goal of the college male, just as finding a husband has been the paramount goal of the college female. Of course, that’s sexist, and times have changed. Since women’s lib, girls have the right to pull off awesome pranks as well. The question is not “should I pull an awesome prank?” (The answer to that one is “yes.”)

The question is: What makes an awesome prank?

Pranks should involve:
1) A massive monster truck tire, or other items found in the Back 40.
2) A bit of societal commentary, subtle or otherwise.
3) Temporary theft of a sacred or impossible to steal item.
4) Multiple calling-cards left at the scene.
6) Fooling the target, or making the target a victim of his or her own hubris
7) At least one Mac Smiley

Pranks should not involve:
1) Physical harm
2) Massive amounts of permanent damage
3) Indoor Fireworks.
4) Livestock.
5) Numbered livestock.
6) Hey, guys let’s number all the livestock but skip one number, so they keep looking for last one! We’re so creative!
7) Felonies.
8) Messes for the sake of messes.
9) Profanity.
10) Fecal material.
11) Burning fecal material.
12) Bombs of any kind.
13) Paint remover.

Scale: Pranks against your hallmates are good for a laff, but frankly don’t even deserve a correct spelling of “laugh.” Far better are the bread and butter of Whitworth pranks — pranks against rival dorms. Read Whitworth history. Mac versus Baldwin-Jenkins. Mac versus Stewart. And, due to a directional error, Mac versus Mac.

Traditionally, the biggest interdorm rivalry of the last twenty years has been between Mac and Baldwin-Jenkins. Administration has tried to quash the rumors that there was ever a Mac-BJ rivalry, but as long as students have access to the Whitworthian archives, the rivalry will rise again. We have a long institutional memory at Whitworth.

The best pranks are the biggest. The kind that makes you say, where on earth did they find that much Limburger cheese? And the best pranks are ones against rival schools. Look at the great Pranking Colleges of this nation. Cal-Tech. MIT. Harvard. They all have rival schools, and they all develop impossibly elaborate schemes to show their superiority in the rivalry. They all have enough creativity and engineering prowess to make it happen. Whitworth has had two traditional rivalries. EWU (they’re a bit beneath us, I think) and Gonzaga. (DW)

Attack the right target: A good prank does not punish the custodial staff. Or, for that matter, the fire department. Instead, find a target worthy of pranking. The uptight. The humorless. The arrogant and self-absorbed. (DW). (read: Gonzaga (BF))

Remember the old wartime saying: Loose lips end up nailed to Dean Mandeville’s wall. Oooh, after a successful prank you are going to want to talk. You are going to want to spread your tale of adventure and glory to every poor schlub who ends up stuck at a Saga table with you. Crush the urge. You see, there’s no David Caruso on Whitworth security. They don’t take fingerprints or swab blood or enhance-enhance-enhance security camera footage to identify a face in a watch reflection. They don’t really do intensive investigations. You’ll only be caught if you blab too soon.

The number of prank participants is directly proportional to the chance of getting caught. You think it’s hard to keep yourself from talking? Imagine how hard it is to stop 50 people from talking. Or blogging about it. Or sending a monogrammed letter to Whitworth security.  With some pranks, you may decide to throw caution to the wind and invite hundreds of students to participate. That’s fine, but realize that somebody probably will get caught. Instead, it’s best to keep the number down to a few allies who swear to take the secret to their graves. And then only confess at the end of your senior year, long after the statute of limitations has run out.

Never, ever, ever invite an RA on a pranking mission. I don’t care how “cool” and “hip” and “chill” they are. The life they have chosen, tragically, comes with great pay, but also great sacrifices. One of those sacrifices — the small part of their soul that they’ve sold — is that they will likely freely admit their involvement when the post-prank disciplinary bloodhounds come sniffing.  Worse, they might actually ask their boss if they are allowed to participate in the prank.
Even if the RD says yes, it sort of defeats the entire purpose of an undercover operation. Do your RA, and your prank, a favor. Keep them in the blissfully ignorant dark.

Lastly, remember: The kudos may not come at first. At first, typical college students will be Outraged™! They are college students. Like a baby that bites everything after growing teeth, many college students are first discovering Outrage™ and even Indignation™ and are applying them to almost everything they see.  But as time goes on, if your lucky, your prank may be accepted. 20 years later, lionized. 50 years from now, it may even show up in photographs in the HUB or Dale Soden’s History of Whitworth presentations. (DW)

Personal Security:  Overrated?

Here’s a counterintuitive suggestion: Don’t lock your room door. Unless you have a Wii or Faberge egg in your room, the probability of anything of yours actually getting stolen is very very low. I lived four years on campus, barely locked my door more than twice, and the amount of things I had stolen number in the zeros.

However, the probability of you accidentally locking your roommate out of the dorm while he’s taking a shower — trapped in the hall, naked and cold — is very high. If you really want security, buy one of those little keychain locks for your laptop.

But the amount of criminal masterminds willing to sneak through a hall full of strangers, walk into an unknown room, and slip away with a hefty bag full of your valuables is relatively low. Most thefts – and a few do happen at Whitworth — are crimes of opportunity. Just close your door when you’re gone and don’t flaunt your invaluable valuables in the window. You should be fine. A little bit of risk is, in my opinion, worth a massive amount of convenience. Your paranoia may vary. (DW)

DISSENT:: You lock it up.  Laptops are not cheap.  Whitworth has an ever increasing enrollment, more people means more D Bags.  Law of averages dictates that there will be at least 7 seven people on campus who would steal your stuff if given the chance.  And in case you were wondering, my calculations are definitely correct, I used my TI-83.  Getting locked out is a minor inconvenience compared to losing your 1st edition Bart Simpson action figure (still in the package of course) to a thief. (BF)

REBUTTAL: You’re assuming that Mr. Simpson will automatically be stolen, when running your cost-benefit analysis program. Like I said: Four years of unlocked doors, not a single theft. Plus, if you lock your door, you’re living in fear. The terrorists win. (DW)

CLOSING ARGUMENT:  Terrorists win, but I still have my iPod.  I’m shallow.  (BF)

Most of the buildings on campus have a simple way they can be “accessed” after hours, if you think ahead. I’m not going to go and divulge these security flaws (most of which can be discovered through simple observation), but trust me, they’re worth knowing. You never know when such knowledge will come in handy. (DW)

Such knowledge comes in handy when you get locked out of your dorm at 4 in the morning because you were necking with some co-ed. He does not mean when you decide to imitate the Italian Job (the old one, of course). B&E is B&E, even in college. Such rationale does not apply to pranks. In fact, it’s sort of the point of pranks. (GS)

Is breaking into the Art building after hours to work on your art project illegal? Sure. Unethical? I say no. (DW)

The PineCone Curtain: Kill the cliché once and for all.

Inevitably, in your time at Whitworth, there will be a moment when some bloviating Whitworth pundit – maybe even on the Forum – will start whining about the “PineCone Curtain.” This is your cue to lose all respect for them.

What’s the “PineCone Curtain,” you ask? Well, back in the 60s, back when there was legitimately an Iron Curtain, back when Radio Free Europe ads ran in the Whitworthian to fight communism, some wit decided to use the phrase “PineCone Curtain” to describe Whitworth students’ tendency to be completely sheltered and ignorant about the outside world.
Let me remind you, this is from the 1960’s. Before the Internet. Before blogs and text messaging and 24-hour news. When Whitworth wasn’t just in the suburbs, it was in what zoning commissioners refer to as “The Boonies.”

By the 70’s, the phrase had already been so well-worn that Whitworthian opinion columnists were complaining about its overuse. In 2008, people still use it. Why? Because they’ve heard it. This is dispite the fact, with the internet and newspaper and discussions with brilliant students, most students are more involved and knowledgeable than they’ve ever been before. They  are far from sheltered. Never let the phrase cross your lips, except to deride it.

Killing the cliché also takes a fair amount of action. Keep track of the world around you. Read the Whitworthian. Read the Whitworth Forum. Read the Spokesman-Review. Read the Inlander. Read the entire Internet.

Get involved in Making A Difference™: Many students think that the only way to show they care about the world around them is to join some Official Club, to, like, change Sudanese Domestic Policy by Raising Awareness™. That’s fine, but it’s much easier to make a difference in the town and school you’re living in. Go to ASWU meetings (One word: Freesandwiches) and see how your money’s being wasted invested.

Follow Spokane Issues such as low-income housing, the increasing desire for a Bike Culture, and the occasional mayoral scandal. (I recommend, along with local papers, metrospokane.blogspot.com.) Go downtown to bring your city leaders your College Student concerns. You probably won’t Save Darfur. But you just may Save Whitworth or Save Spokane. (DW)

Busyness: Turns out, not on the original seven deadly sin list.

In between classes assigning you massive research papers and requiring you to “volunteer” X many hours at non-profits, Whitworth will chide you for being too busy. Busyness, it seems, is one of the gravest of all sins. No successful person has ever been busy! I tend to disagree. You have but four years at Whitworth. You better be busy, or you’re not getting your money’s worth. Don’t waste your time doing too much chillaxin’.

But here’s what I do recommend: Be the right kind of busy. Too many students cram their schedules with club after class after club after group after project. And they do a sorta half-hearted job in all of them. They are jacks of all trades, but masters of jack. Instead, I recommend picking one or two things to be really really busy at. And then rock them. (DW)

Events: They’re kinda big deal.

Many events at Whitworth are tragically mediocre. They neither rock nor inspire, they’re simply there. But somehow, someway, some events manage to transcend the muck. It’s your job to experience as many awesome events as possible. That way, next year, you can figure out how to make it even better. There is no upper limit to how good an event can be. Only increasingly deeper and deeper shades of awesome.

Events Worth attending:

Warren Peace: With the possible exception of Pirate Idol, Warren Peace is the biggest Whitworth-Centric show the school has. The acts vary in quality (naturally) but with around 10 of them, it’s bound to have at least a few brilliant moments. The cool thing: The musical acts are usually a diverse bunch, but they’re all from Whitworth. No $2000 a show mercenaries here. There’s no easier way to see the breadth and depth of Whitworth talent than this one.

The Middle School Dance: Many events at Whitworth are slightly awkward. This event, however, fully embraces the awkward, albeit from arms length, while clumsily swaying back and forth. Then, like a judo throw, flips it around to suddenly make it awesome.

The Bachelor Auction: Girls go to see if they can nab a fun little date with one of Whitworth’s star guys. Guys go to see if they can drive some guys price up to over $300 dollars for a single date.

The Presidential Christmas Breakfast: Two words: Potstickers Potstickers.

Art shows: Nothing’s more fun than showing up to one of Whitworth’s art show with your friends and offering your own BS analysis on what the art pieces kinda look like. Okay, maybe Laser Quest is more fun. But nothing else.

Real Men of Genius: One of the few programs borne out of brilliance rather than “we have to put on a program.” It’s a question panel with Whitworth’s professor-superstars for guys. They get real. Also, pizza.

The Mac Haunted House (once): The Mac Haunted house is usually great for a lark. The only problem? Too much stays the same year after year. Until Mac figures out how to really twist this around year after year, it’s a great experience, but one with lousy replay value. If you happen to live in McMillan, don’t be satisfied with the usual, don’t be satisfied with the cliché. There’s plenty of interesting horror conventions that have never been used in the Haunted House. Use them. And start planning now.

Last Chance Summer Dance: Though not officially Whitworth affiliated, it is a dance for Whitworth Students hosted by “The Drive Inn” (a bunch of Whitworth Dudes who live in a house with a name).  Due to poor organization it slipped to becoming the “First Chance Winter Dance” last year, but the rumor is the LCSD said, “I will be back, and this time, it’s personal.” (BF)

Events Worth Staying Home and Working on Homework for:

The Green with Envy Dance: Some events have a very good reason for existing. Others exist because the Arend Senator is required to put on a program.

The Homecoming Dance: Remember how you had a homecoming dance in High School? Remember how you’re not in high school anymore? (DW)

Traditiation: Welcome to Camp Whitworth.

These are the first few glorious days at Whitworth which consist entirely of loud chants, choreographed dances, super-secret group activities, and massive crushes on several fellow freshmen.

Technically, Traditiation is entirely “optional.” The option is to (1) go through the gig with everyone else, learn a few names, embarrass yourself, and bond as a dorm, or (2) cry alone in your room and wait for classes to start. My advice? Unless you have a clinical fear of group games or being on stage, follow Nike’s lead and just do it.  You’ll meet people, get to know your official leadership a little, and maybe even get a chance to shake it in front of hundreds of people to Dark Side of the Moon.

What’s not an option is holding back in order to retain some semblance of dignity. Concerning the public events like Wooing, the Yell-Off, and Mock Rock, you may be tempted to think, If I go all out, people might think I’m actually into this.

Well, buddy, you are into it. Every upperclassman who shows up at Mock Rock goes not to make fun of Freshmen and the silly things they’re doing on stage. They go to relive their own moments of glory when they jiggled in front of hundreds of strangers to the Nooma-Nooma song or kept on beat in that killer stomp routine. Maybe this is hard to understand until you’ve gone through it, but there’s a cult-like reverence at Whitworth for the awesomeness of Mock Rock. If you stand up on stage and grimace while you sort of go through the motions of your choreographed dance, you’ll be the only one who looks a little foolish. (KMV)

The most important thing in your entire life is not who you choose to marry, or how you treat your kids, or which religion you choose to follow. It’s how awesome your Mock Rock is. True, the Warren Guys tend to win every year, but part of that’s because many Mock Rocks are tragically crappy. I know Mock Rock. Mock Rock was a friend of mine. Here’s a few tips on how to win (which, ultimately, is what’s most important.)

1) Do NOT CHOOSE DISNEY SONGS. Last year three, count ‘em three, groups did the same stinkin’ song from Mulan. The audience was ready to “get down to business” of committing seppeku.

2) Have a coherent theme or story. Don’t just throw together a mishmash of unlinked vignettes. It’s a win for everything involved.

4) Worry about creativity, not choreography.

5) Creative actions win games, but large visuals and props win championships. (DW)

To Be Continued: Naturally. This is just one section of four. Other sections deal with topics like academics, professors, relationships, the secrets of Spokane, decoding Whitworth Terminology, and – probably most importantly – how to replace the cocoa in the Saga Hot chocolate. There’s two ways you can find the rest. The first is by scraping together the missing three pieces from other students in other dorms throughout campus. Probably the easier way is to simply click on one of the other topics on www.whitworthforum.com read it there. The Internet, people. It’s the way of the future. The way of the future. The way of the future.

You have 4 years and $120,000 ahead of you. Good luck… and we’re all counting on you.

When Whitworth admissions underestimated the number of freshman who would decide to follow through on their Whitworth application, it spawned a number of very real pragmatic concerns.

(Remember, despite the fact that Whitworth had more students apply, and the fact that admissions go up in shaky economic times, we decided to accept more people than last year, and somehow planned on admissions going down.)

The most obvious consequence  is the one of housing. You have x number of freshman but only x number of beds. You don’t have to be an algebra whiz to know that there’s problems when you end up with a negative integer. Our cup runneth over with freshmen. If you have too much frosh, and not enough rooms in the inn, you’ve got a problem. Instead, Whitworth has three choices:

1) Use the sweet, sweet lure of money to persuade upperclassman to move off campus. If my Whitworthian Archives memory serves me right, Whitworth did this back in the 80s when it had a similar problem. (In the early 90s, it was a struggle just to find enough students to fill the dorms at all.)

2) Cram more freshmen into a dorm room, hoping, with time, the close quarters will cause them to grow to love eachother.

3) Ask them to stay in the stable, and throw in some free maternity counseling.

I talked with Alan Jacob, Assistant Director of Housing about the situation. How many freshmen are there?

“The non-numerical answer is a lot,” Jacob says.

Out of that “a lot,” 556 of them are being housed in the dorms and resident halls. (That number includes transfers, not just freshman.)

“There were more that wanted to live on campus, but we told them that we didn’t have room for them,” Jacob says. “Because that was the truth.”

Whitworth University is designed to hold about 1130 students in the residence halls. But this year it’s being asked to hold around 1666. (Jacob notes, however, that the overflow is actually larger than that. For example, there may be a spot in Boppell available, but they couldn’t exactly place a freshman student in that dorm.)

The official overflow number, Jacob says, is 44.

44 extra students.

So what can one do with all those extra freshmen, especially now that Washington’s anti-hazing code is so strict?

“In many rooms, we’ve created overflow spaces.” Jacob said. Housing puts in an extra bed and loft kit, an extra desk and dresser, and an extra desk chair. To compensate for the cramped conditions, each affected student is given a small weekly stipend. For three students packed in a double, that’s  $21 a week. For four packed in a triple, that’s $25.

There’s 44 rooms tied up in this sort of arrangement, for a total of 132 student, Jacob says.

Of course, this isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened. I was supposed to be with Scott Wagstaff, and Cole Casey in  a double, which would have been a fantastic freshman arrangement. When an upperclassman decided not to live on campus, however they found a spot for me. (How different my Whitworth experience would have been, if I had roomed with Cole and Scott!)

But just because it’s happened before doesn’t mean that this isn’t a major overflow.

Jacob has been Assistant Director of Housing for  four years. This, Jacob says, is the largest number of overflow that he’s ever seen at Whitworth. (Last year they had 12 rooms, instead of 44 on overflow. By the 10th day of classes, Alan said, there were only three more freshmen than beds.)

Of course, there are other, secondary consequences to having more students than the dorms are designed for. For one, Jacob says, it puts extra work on the custodial staff, who have to clean up more people in the bathrooms. It can create pressure to build more dorms, quickly.

Even more problematically, when you put that many students in the that small of space, it’s a pressure cooker. Tempers rise. Fuses shorten.

“It can elevate anger,” Jacob says, “There’s more alarm clocks going off in the morning.”

(The key to alleviating these situations, Jacob says, are some of the basic staples of roommate communication. Tell your roommate when your upset. Communicate often and honestly. Don’t let things build up until they explode.)

Claustrophobes can take comfort in the fact that Whitworth Housing is always, constantly looking for free spots to get the students resituated.

“As soon as we get an opening we act on it, usually within an hour,” Jacob says. “We start making phone calls. We know people don’t want to be in overflow.”

Housing will still try to resituate with roommates they’ll find compatibile, just like any other student. (Jacob likes the challenge, he tells me. “I like Housing. It’s a fun job for me,” he says. He compares it to “556 puzzle pieces we’ve got to stick together.)

In the meantime, the freshmen students who, essentially, lost the Housing Lottery, will continue to wait. Wait for that phone call. Wait for a room to open up. Wait for the double they’re paying for to actually become a double. They’ll continue to tiptoe around their two other roommates, dealing with their snoring, trying to reorganize their furniture so their desks aren’t hitting each other and their computer cords aren’t tangled, as their little quirks and idiosyncrasies grow more quirky and idiosyncratic — they’ll continue to tolerate that drip, drip, drip of roommate Chinese water torture.

They wait.  And tolerate. And wait.

I’ve only heard awesome things about Whitworth and I can’t wait to experience them for myself. I have a feeling it’s going to be a ton of fun and it’s going to be chaotic. A few people I have talked to are a little worried about being welcomed into Whitworth but I feel like that’s not going to be a problem at all. From an outsiders perspective, it looks like everyone on campus is friends. I’ve been in Saga a couple times for my Campaigner’s meetings and just seen piles of people at one table or tables pushed together and I can’t wait to be a part of that.

Another aspect of Whitworth I am absolutely stoked for is the chaos that goes on and being a part of that and hopefully getting a few friends together and starting that. I’ve heard awesome stories of pranks or just creative things to do in the dorms and i want to be a part of that and I think being in BJ will help with that.

On the academic side of things I plan on being a theology major and I know it’s going to be a brutal road but a really rewarding one. I always hear the theology program is one of the best in the country and I’m so excited to get into it and get destroyed by it.

But overall I’m stoked to be at Whitworth and I can’t wait to be a part of the awesomeness that is Whitworth University.

There was a time, long ago, when the drinking age was set at 18 instead of the classic 21 years of age.

It makes sense that many College president’s would want it to return to 18. For wet campuses, it’s a pain to weed out the underage from the of age. A lower drinking age means that alcohol could be served at all-campus events, bars could exist on campus, and IDing students would be a thing of the past.

But there’s also a few assumptions in the oft-stated rationale for a lower limit I believe are falacious.

Kids are going to drink underage anyway. Absolutely true. Kids are also going to do heroin anyway. But will the same number of kids drink at age 18 if the drinking age is lower. I doubt it. Remember, there’s always the people who want to follow the rules. There’s underclassmen that, the only reason they don’t drink, is because of there’s a law against it. Not all that many, but they do exist. The amount of people getting smashed (for the first time) on their 21st birthday proves it.

It would cause binge drinking rates to go down. Maybe. Sometimes, with the idea that this might be the last time they will ever see alcohol (until they’re 21) try to cram as much alcohol as they can into their system to tide them over for the next years. So the thinking goes.

But even if people suddenly started drinking responsibly because it’s legal, a shaky prospect at best considering that many 21-years-olds still drink stupidly, I could guarantee this: Drunk driving rates would go up. I’m guessing less people would get full blown passing out alcohol poisoning, but more would get sorta drunk. Just drunk enough to not realize they shouldn’t be driving. At the age of 18, kids are bad enough drivers without adding alcohol to the mix.

It’d be sooo European. People have this assumption that if the drinking age was lowered, we’d automatically become like Europe, which people imagine to be a place where drinking consists of wine is gently sipped on a Tuscan Balcony, while they talk of Foucault and the savour faire of high society.

To that I say:  Have you been to Britain? Getting drunk for them is like eating ice cream is for us, a necessary part of almost every day.

Furthermore, European society contrasts dramatically with American society. Reason Number 1: Transportation. When college kids in England get drunk they walk/stumble home. We drive/swerve home. That’s a problem. Reason #2: Culture.

We are a culture of obsession. Of overkill. We don’t just eat, we eat to the point of obesity. We don’t just go to movies, we camp out for them seven weeks ahead of times and write internet stories about them. We don’t just make bombs, we make the mother of all bombs.

For some things, that national obsessive personality is pretty awesome. We do some great things, precisely because we have frightening tenacity. But that also can be a problem, with things like drinking.

Does the current drinking age stop all underage students from getting drunk and making mistakes that mess up their lives? Obviously not. But I believe it does stop some underage students from doing that.

And, honestly, while lowering the drinking age may make it more convenient for college administrators, I doubt it would stop the binging, vomiting, and erratic driving. Drug Legalization advocates always dismiss marijuana’s negative effects by comparing it to the far more dismal effects of excess alcohol abuse.

And that point, we agree.

But Whitworth’s generally got a pretty good free speech record. They haven’t censored the Whitworthian (to my knowledge) in about 60 years (when a bikini-clad advertisement got almost every issue literally burned in a bonfire.) They’ve threatened a few times, but each time they’ve come down on the side of free speech. Good for them

But when Whitworth students are upset,  they can take comfort by chanting this mantra: At least we’re not SPU.

Seattle Pacific University made the Seattle Times a few days ago.

The story begins, as do many stories, with a whiny lawyer. See, back when Shakespear Feyissa was a student he was arrested for attempted sexual assault. He wasn’t charged, but he was still suspended. Granted, presuming he’s innocent, that sort of sucks. But Feyissa presumed that part of the reason for his suspension was his race (Ethiopian, I believe.)

So that’s what he told the SPU student newspaper in 1998. The student newspaper wrote about it. As they should have. There was an extensive investigation into the matter, an outside party investigated, and the university found itself innocent. The reporting was thorough, extensive, and featured quotes from many sources. From what I can tell, it was completely accurate.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is the persistance of the Internet. Grass withers and flowers fade, but the google cache remains forever.

10 years later:

Now a lawyer (and one with a unique name) Shakespear Feyissa finds the article cropping up in the most annoying places. From dates. From people on the jury. The accusation of sexual assualt and his crying “discrimination” when an investigation found none aren’t exactly good for your reputation.

From the Times:

The 1998 article in the student newspaper, the Falcon, quotes Feyissa saying “SPU is still a school like the KKK, in my opinion.” It also quotes then-provost Bruce Murphy saying there was “sound reason to believe that Mr. Feyissa is a threat to persons on campus.”

With that popping up every time someone searches his name, Feyissa said he cannot escape the shadow of the accusation of attempted sexual assault, even though Seattle police closed the investigation and he was never charged. He’s also worried what people will think after reading this article.

“Do you know how many girls, after they see that, we go on a date and they don’t want to see me again?” he asked.

And for the sake of his business, Feyissa said, he fears the article casts him as a troublemaker who files frivolous discrimination complaints — not exactly the image he wants as a civil-rights lawyer.

Opposing attorneys have dug up the article to smear him in litigation, he said. Once a juror asked him about it in court.

It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for him. Until you read this.

So for two years, Feyissa has requested that SPU remove the article, most recently four months ago, he said.

Seeking to end the bruising and expensive fracas, SPU moved to placate Feyissa. SPU’s attorney on the case, Michael Porter, agreed in a Sept. 5, 2006, letter to purge the article. Administrators a month later asked the Falcon’s student editors to delete the story.

So there’s a pesky bit of truth floating around, and Feyissa believes that the best thing to do, the right thing to do, is to try to use clout and legal pressure to try to stamp it out. Naturally, the student editors refused to do so. Deleting something from the Internet archives is pretty blantantly unethical. The article happened. Erasing it is like pretending it didn’t. A lie of omission. A lot of editors and ethicists agree with me.

So did SPU support their student journalists following basic precepts of journalism ethics?

Of course not.

Don Mortenson, vice president of business and planning, said administrators tried repeatedly to convince the students that the article benefited no one and wasn’t worth standing up for. But from the students’ perspective, the larger issue — freedom of the press — was.

“The student editors decided it was their right or whatever to keep online what they wanted,” Mortenson said. “It’s not a matter of someone’s rights being violated, it’s just a matter of wisdom. Is it the prudent thing to do?”

Yes. Their “right or whatever.” And making decisions purely on whether something is “prudent” is very suspect ethical ground. And, with all due respect, someone’s rights are being violated: The public’s. You’re taking away the public’s right to access a specific story, simply because someone didn’t like it. Heck, there’s a number of things about me that I might like deleted forever, but I’m not about to try to whitewash the Internet of them.

But SPU’s behavior gets worse than that.

While the wrangle between Feyissa and SPU has worn on, the Falcon’s server has aged. Now it needs replacing.

When the Falcon asked the student government in April for $3,000 for a new server or Web host, the student government consulted the administration about its liability in exactly this kind of situation, said Daniel Miller, last year’s student government president.

The administration replied that first it wants the Falcon’s editor-in-chief to sign a contract giving officials access to the new server, and affirming that SPU is the publisher of the Falcon and has final say over content.

Those of you at home are undoubtedly yelling at the screen: Don’t do it, Falcon editors! Don’t go in there!

Don’t worry, they didn’t. But that still leaves them about $3,000 short of a new server. Theoretically, SPU could force them to take down the article (they are a private campus, without the benefit of freedom of speech,) but instead SPU wants them to sign it away, voluntarily.

Even if the article is taken down, it doesn’t mean the info would be gone forever. At least one blogger has copied the original Falcon article, verbatim, to his blog. And the National News coverage on the issue, can’t be good for either Feyissa or SPU.

Ironically, from my understanding of the legal issues involved,  SPU is actually MORE liable for what the Falcon prints if it claims full responsibility. The more it mucks about in the Falcon’s business, the more future angry lawyers will be able to sue SPU (and it’s endowment) for mistakes the Falcon makes. If it has a hands-off policy, it would actually be safer from lawsuits.

What I don’t understand is exactly why SPU is kowtowing to Feyissa’s demands. Is it just to be nice? It doesn’t seem like SPU or the Falcon ever made a mistake that Feyissa could use to threaten legal action. In fact, I’m not even sure if any legal action was threatened. It seems like it was just a few complaining phone calls to SPU’s (expensive) lawyer.

If you want to send the new editor (Evi Sztajno) an e-mail encouraging her to stick to her guns, or even donate a few bucks for the new server, shoot her a message at  sztaje [at] spu.edu.

And be proud that, as much at is it often seems to try to strive to emulate our neighbor to the West, Whitworth isn’t yet like SPU.

 Whitworth’s freshman class is expected to be about 557. That’s an increase of 4.5 percent over last year, while the university’s goal is to grow at 2 percent a year, said Fred Pfursich, dean of enrollment services. “We were planning on having a class slightly smaller than last year,” he said. “But what’s happened is we already have a higher number of students enrolled.”

Ah, yes, the fabled “2 percent growth” limit. Legend has it, if you follow the leprechaun trail through the Forest of a Thousand Dreams, on the vernal equinox under a full moon,  you may catch a glimpse of the 2 percent growth limit. Otherwise, you’re not likely to see it anytime soon.

As for this years, figures, I don’t want to say, “I told you so,” but…

In the last two years, we’ve surpassed our growth plan by more than double. The freshman classes last year were each larger than this year’s graduating class. That means the amount of students at Whitworth increases by a considerable amount. Whether or not that growth is “culturally sustainable” or even sustainable with regards to the cafeteria, housing or class size, is debatable.

Keep in mind, we grew at 4.5 percent more than last year, which also had excess growth. This is compound interest we’re talking about.

Granted, student acceptance rates is a tricky guessing game. A large number of students that apply (often because, hey, you don’t have to write an essay) don’t accept. So admissions has to eyeball and estimate, given demographic and admission trends to figure out how many to accept to hit just the right numbers. This year, they were, shall we say, off.

From last year’s March 18th Whitworthian, titled: “Admissions staff predicts decline in freshmen enrolled in Fall 2008.” (This is a truncated version)

Despite an increase in the number of applicants, the admissions staff expects fewer incoming students to enroll for fall 2008.

The regular decision admissions deadline was March 1. Fred Pfursich, dean of Enrollment Services, said there were approximately 400 more applicants this year than last year.

“There were 5,448 freshman applicants for fall 2008 and of those, 2,500 were offered admission for fall 2008,” Pfursich said. “The applicant pool has gone up 8 percent this year from past years.”

With the May 1 national reply deadline for college decisions, the admission staff predicts 515 incoming students for fall 2008. There were 530 incoming students for fall 2007, according to admissions data.

Pfursich said some factors that may account for the decline in the number of incoming students include the current sub-prime mortgage crisis and stocks dropping. The admissions staff predicts that the current economic slump will affect the number of incoming students for fall 2008, Pfursich said.

“There seems to be an uneasiness [this year] for families making huge financial decisions in deciding [to attend] universities such as Whitworth,” Pfursich said.

“The system [yield rates] is pretty accurate,” Pfursich said. “I have been doing this for 13 years now and I have never encountered a situation in which the number of students exceeded or was 100 short of the predicted target [of incoming students].”

…

The percentage of accepted students decreased from 49 percent for fall 2007 to 48 percent for fall 2008.

That is primarily due to the increase in the number of applicants compared to last year, Pfursich said.

However, with the tuition increase this year and the various economic challenges the country is facing, students are becoming a little more hesitant in making their college decision, Pfursich said.

Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Last year we increased about 3.5 to 4 percent. This year, it’s about 4.5 percent. There were (about) 5,050 applicants last year, this year, there were  5,448. But still, we chose to accept (about) 30 more students than last year.

So we expected the numbers of students to DECLINE even though there were MORE applications and we accepted MORE students?

Predictably, instead, this freshman class has about 24 students more. That’s an entire Core 150 discussion groups worth. You thought it was hard to get into Core 350 now? Just wait 3 years. (If 350 still even exists by then.)

At first glance, the theory that less people will attend Whitworth when times are economically rough makes sense.  Still, of course, other people may disagree.

“Colleges and universities tend to benefit when economies are bad because more adults will tend to go back to school. People who are let go from their jobs need to find out if the degree they have is still viable or do they need a new degree,” [said Lisa Kujawa, assistant provost for enrollment at Lawrence Technological University]

… “I think more and more students are realizing the value of a higher education degree in getting a job in this economy,” Kohrman said.

In fact, the economy has a sort of counter-intuitive inverse relationship on  college enrollment, according to a 1994 USA today article.

College and university enrollments have dropped in a number of states. American Council on Education (ACE) officials attribute the declines in part to continuing state fiscal problems induced by the recent recession, as well as increased job opportunities accompanying the upturn in the economy.

“A rebounding economy reduces enrollment,” notes James Appleberry, president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

To be fair, it’s pretty hard to predict what college enrollment will do in a medium recession. If only we had some sort of historical comparison, from, say, 1991.

 College enrollment in public and private institutions increased this fall [in 1991] despite the recession, a … survey shows.

And in 1991, they weren’t even in a college attendance demographic boom. From the Spokesman Article:

 ”State officials project a growth of 8.5 percent in high school graduates between 2002 and 2o18… It’s too late to pin down exact numbers, but most colleges in the region got a lot more applications this year and will be enrolling record numbers of freshmen.”

From my reading, the notion that recessions actually increase enrollment, is not the exception. It’s practically the consensus. While a recession often ends in budget cuts for state colleges, it causes students from those harried institutions to flock to private colleges, like Whitworth.

So it’s frustrating to watch this predictable, avoidable, mistake unfold.

Just as it was frustrating to see the SAT requirement done away with, even though combining the SAT and GPA is a better predictor of college success than high school GPA alone.

I always believe that it’s best to err on the side of having less students, because our small size is one of our biggest selling points. And while there can be financial problems from having too few students, the problems when you have too many are far more problematic to the student body. When Whitworth overshoots its target for enrollment, it costs them for all four years the class squeezes through Whitworth.

As you know, I’m not I’m fan of Whitworth’s growth. Other people, who want the opportunities a larger school offers, are fine with it.

But either way, let’s make it growth we plan, not growth that we get because we screwed up. If we’re going to grow by 4 percent, let’s say we’re going to grow by 4 percent. Then the appropriate debate can occur.

No freshman wants to hear that he was the result of an “accident.”

Next time, Whitworth should use more protection.

I want to open this up for people to share thoughts, remembrances about Nadine, encouragement, whatever you want to share. Grief is never easy, but it is even harder when we’re apart. So let’s come together and testify to the amazing impact that Nadine left on those at Whitworth who were privileged to know her. I’ll go first.

I took only one class from Nadine: Creative Nonfiction in fall of 2006. Students from that class still reminisce about how it was the perfect mix of people, the perfect class atmosphere. I suspect that for many of us, that was the class or semester in which we first felt that we had a real home in the English department—that we were somehow at the heart of what was going on there. I know it was that way for me. And a lot of that is owing to Nadine, whose classroom management was one of maximal involvement. Students felt at home in that classroom because Nadine was always asking us, each single one of us, to share our input in every class session.  This was pure seminar style, pure Nadine style: not didactic, but exploratory.

One of my most vivid memories of Nadine is of the first day of class. Not having taken a course from her before, after signing up for the class I had looked her up on stalker-net so I could keep an eye out for her around Westminster. Her most striking feature from the photograph was thick, dark, curly hair. On the first day of class, however, she walked into Westminster 102 sporting short, spiky, white-blonde rocker hair. Nadine gingerly set her things on one of the miniscule desks, sat down, smiled at us with her sweet broad smile, and simply said, “Everyone needs a change sometime.” And that was that.

I never really knew what was going on with Nadine’s health during the time when she was on medical leave. All I knew was that every once in a while, Nadine would show up in Westminster (to the heart-felt and emphatic chiding of Laurie Lamon) and sit in on a class or two or chat with Lisa in the department office, sometimes walking, sometimes in a wheel-chair. I could sense that in Nadine there was a heart of strong tenacity. She couldn’t stay away, or wouldn’t. She loved us as much as we love her.

Nadine, we miss you and cherish our memories of you. You are well-loved.

KMV

It is my intention not to reveal anything about The Shack which would constitute a decent plot “spoiler.” I’m not going to tell you who kills Dumbledore in book six, all right? I won’t mention specific events. I’ll skirt around the heavy imagery. I’ll even try to avoid quoting choice lines, because you too want to stumble across them in the sand as unexpectedly as I did. Pearls make for poor deja vu. But if you’re like me and prefer to hear nothing besides Vic Bobb’s hearty “read this” prior to opening a novel, then… you’ve probably stopped reading this post by now anyway. Proceed, as always, at your own discretion.

If you’re still reading, here’s the reason why we can have a full-fledged discussion of The Shack without revealing even the premise of the novel: the novel is somewhat of a frame story. What happens in the plot is in some ways secondary in importance (at least, I imagine, to the author of the book, if not spiritually and metaphysically) to the conversations the protagonist has with God, which occur in the middle section of the book and most of which have frustratingly little correspondence with the plot and main problem of the narration. There’s plenty to be in suspense about, etc., which doesn’t bear all too heavily on what I want to discuss with you. There were even times when, reading, I would think to myself, “This is so scripted. William P. Young is just using this novel as a dispensing machine for his little theological nuggets of wisdom. I prefer to search for nuggets, but no! Young has dumped a whole box of nuggets right into my lap. I have nugget overload, and what’s more—some of them are a little hard to swallow.” (These are chicken nuggets, of course; I’m not mixing metaphors.) I even felt a little vindicated, when, upon reading the afterward, I discovered that the conversations came to Young first, followed by the process of constructing a suitable narrative in which to frame them.

This brings me to preliminary two: I will also try to take off my critical/editor’s glasses and not comment about those literary elements of the writing which caused me to squirm, occasionally reconstruct sentences in my mind, and generally miss the message of the novel (which, I labor to remind myself, has nothing to do with commas, sentence structure, or the per-capita quantity of similes). Yes, there were times when I literally closed The Shack on my bookmark and exclaimed loudly to everyone in general, “This is stupid.” But the things that bugged me are of far less cosmic importance than the things they distracted me from. So while this post could be titled “The Literary Gnats and Other Capital Annoyances of The Shack,” I’m trying out this new focus-on-the-important-stuff approach. We can all vent our grammatical angst elsewhere.

Enough for pre-lims. Now to the liminaries themselves. I want to talk about one of the things Mack (main character) and God (other main character) discuss: the distinction between forgiveness and relationship.

In the story, God presents the protagonist Mack with the idea that to forgive someone is not the same as to establish a relationship with that person. It certainly makes a positive relationship possible, but they are not the same thing. I suppose there’s nothing especially revelatory about that. But then God explains this in relation to God’s own forgiveness of humankind. He says that, according to Scripture, Jesus’ sacrifice is for everyone, and everyone is forgiven. To me that sounds like a short, slippery slope away from universalism, but get this: everyone is forgiven, but not all choose to have a relationship with God. God explains that it is the relationship that God is after; that is the grounds for reconciliation, sanctification, and eventual communion in heaven. That is what separates, on one level, the sheep and the goats.

I don’t know if this is any sort of revolutionary way of thinking or not. When you say it out loud, it almost sounds self-evident. Maybe you theology majors or otherwise better-informed can help me out and say whether this interpretation has any historical roots. It’s a really attractive way of thinking to me. It seems to help explain some of the universalist-sounding verses in the Bible.

But then I think about Matthew 6:14-15, which my pastor used last week as a text. It says, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” As my pastor said, this is a terrifying verse; but we are offered forgiveness on no other terms. Those who do not forgive are not forgiven, which goes pretty directly against the idea Young’s character of God offered to Mack—that all are forgiven.

And this got me thinking, even more heavily, about the pop-culture aspect of The Shack and similar viral-spiritual books in the past (The Prayer of Jabez, Blue like Jazz, A Purpose-Driven Life). Some of the theological nuggets, as I’ve been calling them, seem to me to be a little questionable, if not unorthodox, and here we have a metric ton of people reading them. What’s the value?

Here are some pros for Christian pop lit (which may cross-apply to other media: music, etc.). Obviously such books are valuable in the sense that they get people—ordinary people, not vocational ministers—to read Christian literature, which helps draw faith out from Sunday mornings and into the weekday, into one’s consciousness. This is a positive—even, I would say, an essential—thing.

They’re also valuable for the fact that they get a lot of different people thinking about the same thing. And we all know what thinking leads to: talking. Having Christian pop lit gives people who don’t, e.g., hear the same sermons something in common to discuss about Christianity (besides, you know, the Bible, which is so long and diverse that to talk about it as a whole can be difficult, or so vague as to be unhelpful). It sort of widens the pool of people who are reading the same spiritual literature. This is great because more people critically thinking about something allows for more diverse reactions to it, which can help people from taking a non-scriptural text for absolute truth.

Cons? Sometimes the Christian pop lit is a little theologically or doctrinally shady, and vast popularity can sometimes be enough of a recommendation that people read the books without examining them. Yep, I know that this is pretty much the opposite of the pro that more readers = more thinkers = more critical analysis = less blind acceptance of non-scriptural text as absolutely true. But I think it can be argued that some people will take the book’s popularity as a means of critically discussing it with others, whereas some will take it as a national endorsement of its helpfulness as spiritual material and indication of its (theological) truth. (I’m not talking here about the people who thought The Shack was supposed to be a true, or mostly true, story. The narration is a little tricky, so I can see how people might think that. I’m talking here, though, about people who, knowing it is fiction, take the spiritual instruction as true.)

The con here isn’t so much that the people accept it as true more easily (faith like a child isn’t such a bad thing), but that the books that gain such vast popularity often are a little… alternative. They say something new. I learned a lot from Blue like Jazz, but I don’t want to model my life after Donald Miller’s. I was made to think by The Shack, but it isn’t pure theological gold. It’s someone voicing his ideas—a lot of them. And some of them are helpful, whereas others (like the idea that all are forgiven) are contrary to what I believe the Bible teaches.

The problem is that they’re just so darn attractive. It’s a really nice thought that all people are forgiven. That sort of placates my conscience and gives me some warm fuzzies. It’s kind of edgy and alluring to think that we have as much license with our lifestyles as Donald Miller seems to think we have in Christ. It sure as heck is great to think that God wants to give us money, if we’ll only pray for God to prosper us like Jabez did.

I want to ask: why isn’t it the hard books that are popular? But the answer to that is included in the question.  

So instead I’ll ask: What do you think the value of books like The Shack is?  Were there any “nuggets” that you particularly disagree with? If you haven’t read it yet, will you? Why? More broadly, how does attending a Christian university affect your desire to participate in Christian pop culture?

The Delta Beta Gamma, or DBaG, house will replace the Poverty Awareness theme house. The previous residents will be forced to live on the streets and, “really become aware of poverty,” according to Storm. Storm also noted that Alpha Chi Omega will take over the Men and Women in Community theme house because, “there will be men and women communicating diseases,” in the sorority house.

Incoming students who decide to join one of the Greek houses will not be required to take the traditional “Freshmen Seminar” class. Alpha Chi freshmen will instead take a class titled “Avoiding Date Rape.” DBaG freshmen will take “Date Rapist Seminar.”

Senior Education major Michkayla DuPont will be Alpha Chi’s first sorority president, and says she looks forwards to meeting her new sisters, “We’re looking for girls who are dedicated to making poor decisions, but still wear Christian affiliated jewelry. You know, girls who will go to church if they’re not too hung over on Sunday. This is a Christian university after all.” DuPont went on to say that there will be a meet and greet for students interested in joining, “but DePauw rules will be strictly enforced.”

Junior Business major Trevor “T-Hug” Huggins will be the first DBaG president will host a “Jack Johnson karaoke night” for male students who are considering joining the fraternity. “There will be prerequisites,” he said, “WSU frat rules apply, you need to be willing to get an MIP before the first year is over, and you should be able to hold a keg stand for at least twelve seconds, and respect for women is frowned upon.”

The Spokane Police department has been notified and has pepper spray, riot gear, stomach pumps, and DNA test kits prepared.

Written by Jeff Madeuplastname for the Ifyoubelievedanyofthisyou’readumdum Press.

But here’s what I read on the back of this spring’s issue:

When former ASWC president Wendi Story McFarland, ‘96 graduated from Whitworth 12 years ago, the Internet was just hitting its stride, Bill Clinton was on the verge of being elected to his second term as president, and the average cost of gasoline was $1.23 per gallon. It wasn’t that long ago, and yet much has changed since then. But some things don’t change – like Mock Rock, The Big 3, and the value of a Whitworth education.

  Really? The Big Three and Mock Rock haven’t changed?

I’m sure this was just a throwaway line. A basic transition to connect phrases. However, Unluckily for this particular line of the publication, in my time digging through the Whitworth Archives I focused on two topics: The Big Three and Traditiation. Specifically, whether or not they’ve changed.

 Answer: They have.

When the Big Three first burst onto the Whitworth rule book in 1976, it forbid, as you know, three things: 1) cohabitation 2) drinking alcohol, and  3) using drugs.

Notice the conspicous lack of anything regarding violence or disruption of community? That’s because there wasn’t any. The “disruption of community” clause didn’t come on the books until 1986, perhaps due to news of my birth. So really, the thing we have today is, for all purposes, “The Big 4.”  Of course, what “disruption of community” means has changed drastically according to the whims of the dean of discipline. Student involvement in the disciplinary proceedings, meanwhile, dwindled from its major role in the early 1990s to pretty much non-existent today. (The Student Judicial proceedings have been taken over by the RA, RD, and the dean of discipline.)

As for Mock Rock: Well, we all know how Mock Rock — and traditiation in general — changed fairly significantly this year. Mock Rock’s change in venue isn’t its first. When it began (around 15 years ago, about 1992) it was held in the Library Courtyard. Each setting had drasitically different tones: Library: Silly skit. Auditorium: Musical/theatrical production. Auditorium: pep rally.

The first Mock Rocks, according to Whitworthian archived accounts, were more like skits than musical perfomances. Dressing in drag, always height of comedy, was so popular it eventually had to be banned, along with other aspects of initiation, like military formation, bawdy skits, intiatiors yelling at initiates, “tubbing” “icing,” Mac Men throwing their shirts up into the Mac tree, and even allowing alumni to be at traditional accounts. Change happened — a lot. Sometimes because of legality, sometimes because of liability, sometimes because of growth, and sometimes because “hey, why not.”

(That we now call it “traditiation” is a particularly classic irony.)

As to whether the “value of a Whitworth education” has changed, that’s arguable. I’ve heard people argue, fairly persuasively that the value of a Whitworth Education has increased. I’ve also heard people claim that — with things like a lack of SAT and Entrance Essay Requirement, or a Scholarship Maintance requirement– the value of a Whitworth Education is slowly deteriorating. Either way, you can make an argument. It isn’t just some inherent “well-duh” fact.

 I’m sure that this mistake in Whitworth Today was a simple over-generalization, borne out of lack of research rather than some sort of intent to deceive.

Still, Whitworth Today has a definite motive to try to maintain that Whitworth is still roughly the same school – plus a few buildings – that it was 30 years ago, or even 4 years ago. Donors tend to give to the school they remember, oblivious to the school it’s become. Sometimes change is good. Other times it’s bad. But it’s a bit silly to pretend that it hasn’t happened.

The other night, in the midst of a family outing, my mom and one of my little brothers got into a rather heated argument about his MySpace.  One of the family rules for the use of such sites is that they must be set on private.  My mom had randomly looked up his profile and found it to be set on public, meaning any random stranger could browse his (rather extensive) albums of photos and read the (rather personal) thoughts on his blog.  Naturally there was the usual discussion about the wide variety of pervs on the Internet these days, followed by the increasingly more usual discussion about what kind of impact that availability of one’s personal thoughts can have on one’s eventual career and current relationships.

I say increasingly more usual because, as opportunities for posting one’s personal life on the world wide web, whether it be in videos or passionate blog posts, increase, so too does discussion on the consequences of such behavior increase. In the media world, The New York Times Magazine published an article in May by avid blogger Emily Gould called Exposed, detailing the disastrous results of overly personal blogging in her own life. On the home front, concerned parents admonish their younglings that if a potential employer found that badly-spelled love letter to anarchy the child posted on their MySpace, job offers might not be the first thing on their minds. Friends of mine have been known, when asked by me why they don’t share their wealth of opinions in the occasional Facebook note, instead of only in late-night discussions, to shrug and reply, “Well, I want to go into politics someday, and I don’t need some stupid thing I wrote at twenty coming back to haunt me.”

 What about you?  Have you ever had something you published online come back to haunt you in your personal or professional life, and, if so, do you regret it?  If it came out that a politician or other leader you admire had written something when young that contradicts their current opinions, would it change your feelings about them?

I’ve typed up this basic evaluation of Heller after reading the whole thing and noting what it specifically purports to do and not to do, and I hope it is helpful to anyone who’s interested in understanding the decision.

What the Heller decision does:

·       It rules unconstitutional any federal ban on possession of handguns for self-defense.

·       It strikes down any federal law rendering or requiring guns to be inoperable.

·       It holds that the 2^nd amendment gives individuals a right to bear arms without limiting this right to those with military involvement or purpose.

What Heller does NOT do:

·       It does not confer an unconditional right for anyone to buy and use any guns for any purpose. (No Constitutional Amendment is absolute – even the free speech clause of the 1^st amendment doesn’t give the right to slander and libel.)

·       It does not prohibit licensing requirements (like background checks, fingerprinting, gun registration, etc.).

·       It does not forbid mandatory disqualifications to purchasing and owning a firearm (such as bans for felons and the insane).

·       It does not strike bans or restrictions on concealed weapons.

·       It does not disallow regulations on gun sales.

·       It does not strike down gun-related public safety and fire hazard laws (such as rules about the storage of loose gun powder).

·       It does not hold that people have the right to own any kind of gun; unusual/ridiculous guns (like M16s and sawed-off shotguns) are specifically not protected by the 2^nd Amendment.

·       It does not prohibit the regulation of guns in sensitive areas (schools, government buildings, etc.).

·       Lastly, and most importantly, Heller does not incorporate the 2^nd amendment right to bear arms to the states.

Incorporation means that a Constitutional amendment applies to States as well as the Federal Government. (Incorporation can be kind of counter intuitive/confusing – a more detailed explanation of it can be found here.) 

Many amendments have been incorporated, but the 2^nd amendment has not – and Heller specifically did not address incorporation. Because it did not incorporate the Second Amendment, Heller doesn’t have any mandatory effect on state gun control laws, however severe they may be. 

So as it stands, the Chicago and San Francisco handgun bans are not yet made unconstitutional by the Heller decision. Only federal authorities (Congress, executive orders, federal courts, etc.), are currently bound by the long list of holdings I typed up above.

If it’s not even applicable to the vast majority of Americans, then what’s the big deal?

Even though it took 69 years for the Supreme Court to come out with a decision on the 2^nd Amendment, it’s not likely that they’re going to wait that long again to further clarify issues surrounding the right to bear arms. Now anticipating a friendly court on gun-rights issues, many petitioners are going to challenge city and state regulations on guns (including this guy who challenged the Chicago gun ban 15 minutes after Heller was announced). Some state and appeals courts are going to defer to the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings, even if they technically don’t have to. However, all states that still want to increase or maintain gun control have full reign to do so, and will likely resist the holdings of Heller until it is directly incorporated to the states.

But then I thought about what is—to self-centered me—the one event happening this summer at Whitworth: the renovation/potential ruination of Westminster and Alder. And it got me thinking: where will Whitworth be twenty years from now? (besides, you know, Spokane) In my time at the Whit, I have witnessed the birth and post-partum difficulties of Duvall, seen a hallway Cinderella-ed into a coffee shop, made the transition to the card access system, etc., etc. That’s just in three years.  

So where’s Whitworth going to be one score from now? Here’s what I think—more and less seriously, mostly based on extrapolation, premonition, and a little rumor:  

Twenty years from now,… 

(1)  the great increase in student body will lead to the installation of lockers with locks outside saga in the HUB, instead of doorless cubbies.  

(2) at least one structure and/or area of Whitworth will be named in honor of Leonard Oakland. 

(3) Leonard will finally fully retire and then immediately be taken up to heaven in a flaming chariot.  

(4) the number of computer labs on campus will rival the number of trees.  

(5) Whitworth will take an institutional stance on homosexuality which will have reverberations in campus policy. (I won’t guess which stance WU will take.) 

(6) at least one more Weyerhaeuser-like building will be constructed on campus.  

(7) Whitworth will have some sort of film studies program, whether minor or major—maybe as an art concentration.  

(8) Whitworth will have broken ground on a satellite campus on another continent.  

(9) there will be more than two females in a graduating class of philosophy majors. (I kid, I kid) 

(10) there will be at least a bakers’ dozen legitimate and well-known frolf courses on campus.  

(11) a sculptor will introduce something Bigger, Uglier to campus.  

All right, your turn. Concur emphatically, disagree vehemently. Add, subtract, find the square root of. You may even season your response with the little twist of what you hope will or will not have happened at WU in twenty years.

Indexed

There is no wall separating east Mountlake Terrace from west Mountlake Terrace. If there was a wall, the East side would be populated by the Smaller Learning Communities proponents. These would include former principal Mark Baier, former vice principal, and most prominent pro-SLC voice, Steven Gering, and most notably, Bill and Melinda Gates. Yes, the Bill Gates and his wife. The Westside would consist of the SLC opponents, including most students, many parents, and some faculty members. The Smaller learning communities, much like communism looks great on paper. The idea is simple. In the last fifty years, the average high school has grown from 1,000 students to 1,500 students, and research has shown that “smaller schools are safer and more productive because students feel less alienated, more nurtured and more connected to caring adults, and teachers feel that they have more opportunity to get to know and support their students” (Great Source Grants and Funding). So, if you are a large school, like Mountlake Terrace High School with its 1,800 plus students, you use grant money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to divide yourself into smaller “academies” within the school to give each individual school the feel of a smaller school. As a former Mountlake Terrace student who attended the school both before and during the implementation of the SLCs, I can tell you that like communism, in practice, the SLCs are not an effective fix.

Instead making students feel “less alienated, more nurtured and more connected to caring adults,” it turned the students against each other. Each school gained an image that can be represented by characters from The Breakfast Club. Andy Clark would undoubtedly be a student in the Achievement Opportunity Service School, which according to the MTHS website, “offers students and parents a traditional high school experience in a small school setting. This experience is enhanced by rigorous, innovative programs and an outstanding staff. Challenging core and advanced courses, a diverse elective program, and an emphasis on community service are successful elements of our small school,” which is code for, “just like high school before the split, but smaller.” (And there was no community service that I am aware of.) So the kids who were socially successful including, but not limited to, athletes, cheerleaders, ASB members and others like Emilio Estevez’s character.

Brian was the poster boy for the Terrace Arts and Academics School, or TAAS. TAAS is a “college prep school founded on the belief that academic challenge and the study of the arts prepare students to live rich, satisfying, and creative lives,” or what Bart Simpson might call, “Nerd City.” TAAS also offered most, if not all, of the AP classes, which made things difficult for other students.

Bender represents the “burnout” image unfairly earned by the Discovery school. Discovery is a school where “you frequently design your own projects with direction from teachers, through innovative class sessions as well as through traditional courses,” which sounds an awful lot like alternative high school to some.

The Renaissance school is devoted to “providing an environment in which students can explore the interconnections between academics and performing arts. In this fashion, students will discover the importance of developing knowledge in all disciplines in order to truly excel at that which they love most.” None of the characters feat neatly into this school, but I think Ally Sheedy’s crazy ass character could have been into theater (she is awfully dramatic), and Molly Ringwald’s character could have been the lead in the fall musical. It quickly gained the reputation of being “band camp.”

The Innovation school is a bit of an anomaly, it was often lumped into the “burnout” category, because it shared a schedule with Discovery (TAAS, AOS, and Renaissance operated on six period schedules, Innovation and Discovery on a four period, alternating days schedule; yet another wrinkle in the blueprint), but because of its focus on technology, gained a nerdy mystique. I was tempted to say that Anthony Michael Hall would have been a great fit, but his inability to make an elephant lamp says otherwise.

So much for making students feel “less alienated.”

The claim that SLCs make students fell “more nurtured by caring adults,” is misleading. Every teacher selects a school as well, so students do get to know the teachers in their respective school better, but as a student who was there before the split, there were many teachers I had already forged a strong bond with who were teaching in a different small school, so I was unable to take classes with them. The conversion also chased many veteran teachers away. The first year of SLCs was my junior year, and my senior year there were roughly twenty new teachers. Twenty. That means that roughly twenty teachers left MTHS for greener pastures, leaving students with many inexperienced, though ambitious, teachers. It also meant that students would get to know roughly 1/5 of the teachers, and the other 4/5 would be complete strangers. The average high school junior walking through the halls would see multiple authority figures who are completely foreign to him. Would that make this student feel more nurtured by caring adults?

In a testament to the trouble the SLC conversion caused, Mark Baier, the principal during the entire planning process, left the school to take a principal job at another high school before the doors opened on the new fragmented MTHS. Steven Gering, vice-principal and captain of the SS small schools, left MTHS to become the principal at North Central High school in Spokane after the first year.

The wall seems to be crumbling however. My brother, who just graduated from MTHS a week ago, informed me that next year the SLCs will exist only in the rearview mirror of MTHS. I have yet to find any sources corroborating this rumor, but if it is true, MTHS’s attempt will be viewed as an abject failure.

So, in preparation I am beginning a blog training regimen to get into tip-top blogging shape. I figure that with just two of us writing, I should write at least two posts a week. I am going to start by doing a blog a week. I am going to find articles online that somehow relate to Whitworth, college life, higher education, or something along those lines, and then write something about them. Hopefully something insightful, dialogue inciting, or otherwise interesting.

The first story I found is about certified smart guy Lukasz Zyblut who decided to go to Harvard after being accepted to Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Dartmouth, Pennsylvania, Amherst, Cornell, Columbia, Georgetown, NYU, Middlebury, Occidental (does Occidental seem out of place to you?), Richmond, Ohio Wesleyan, DePauw, Carnegie Mellon, and CUNY Hunter. That must have been a tough decision. Which brings me to the subject of this post, what made you decide to come to Whitworth? Furthermore, at what point did you realize you had made the right, or wrong, decision?

I had my decision narrowed down to two choices, Whitworth College as it was known in those days, or Concordia University Portland. I knew I wanted to go to a small school because I would be easily distracted by the social life of a larger state school like WSU or UW. I decided to visit both schools before making my final decision. Concordia was first, and after my visit I was ready to move to Portland. In retrospect I think I was blinded by the huge dorm rooms. All the dorms were new, built in the last 10 years, and had huge rooms with a bathroom between every two rooms. Think Duvall but bigger. I was so sure I even created a facebook page with my CU-P email address ( I still have to log with my now defunct bflyberg@mail2.cu-portland.edu email address). My Whitworth visit was a week later and when I arrived it was early evening in May. The first time I saw the loop lit up in all of its sparkling, shimmering, splendor, I knew CU was not in my future. Baseball, money, and location also played a role in my decision, but the campus was the deal maker for me.

The second night of traditiation was the moment I knew I had made the right choice. I don’t remember what we were doing, but I remember having more fun than I thought humanly possible, and feeling like I was already a part of the Whitworth family. I also remember a lot of free food those first few days. That was nice.

So I ask again, why did you come to Whitworth, and when did you know that it was the right, or wrong, choice?

That, my friends, is the bias against Catholics.

Before you deny having any idea of what I’m talking about, I’ll admit it’s not just Whitworth. I’ve grown up going to various private schools. It’s always very heavily emphasized that there is no denominational favoritism. Yet, strangely, Catholics always seem to get left out from under this tolerance umbrella. “We’re all a big, happy family….except for the Catholics. They’re weird.” There is a similar attitude at Whitworth. Presbyterian-oriented as it is, I’ve never heard of any of my multidenominational friends have to deal with being told they’re “not really Christians,” having the tenets of their beliefs dismissed as being “outdated,” or having a sin committed by a miniscule amount of people associated with their denomination thrown in their faces over and over again. Except Catholics. Why is this?

There may be several reasons. America itself isn’t exactly geared toward Catholic friendliness, having been founded by low-church Puritans. And Catholic theology doesn’t really mesh well with our modern sensibilities. Nobody really listens to their parents anymore, so the idea of listening to some old guy in Rome who wears a funny hat is really out there. Accountability isn’t real big either. It’s a lot easier to just quietly whisper to a conveniently invisible and rather quiet God the fact that you totally blew it on keeping your relationship with your girlfriend pure for the third weekend in a row than it is to confess to a respectable priest you really admire, who’s probably going to give you a good telling off. But since when were our religious beliefs supposed to conform to what was fashionable, or even what was easy?

Then there’s the fact that Catholics and Protestants are supposed to be mortal enemies, religiously speaking – Protestants did split from the Catholic Church after all. Yes? So? One of the reasons there are so many varying Protestant denominations is splintering of the original movement away from Catholicism. Yet the only denomination that constantly has the others at its throat is Catholicism. Why?

Finally, I’ll address the issue I’m sure everyone has had in mind since I the word “Catholic” came up. Pedophile priests. Everyone knows priests are just a bunch of dirty old men, right? Ever since the abuse scandal broke in 2002, the Catholic Church has been up to its ears in bad press. And rightly so! Any organization that allowed such horrendous goings-on to fly under the radar for so many years should be inundated with nay-sayers! Except that a look at the statistics yields something odd. There are 11,000 cases of abuse by about 4,000 priests and deacons in the U.S. since 1950, about 4% out of the total amount of priests in the U.S. That’s five decades. Comparatively, 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from ONE DECADE —1991-2000. So where is all the outrage about pedophile teachers?

In my admittedly limited experience at Whitworth, I’ve found it to be a  friendly environment without outright hostility. It’s that lurking under the surface that I’m worried about. Hopefully I’ve given everyone some things to ponder. And next time you feel like telling your buddy that absolutely hilarious priest joke you heard the other day…maybe you won’t.

What? Sandals just aren’t douchey enough? So you genetically crossbreed a sandal and a Birkenstock? The result is a hideous mutant freak shoe that is a crime against nature. Quit playing God you Dr. Moreau of footwear

Jessica Biel:

She is just not that hot.

The Mariners keeping Richie Sexson:

This is not a sports blog (If you would like to see a good one try Withleather) so I won’t bore you with stats and whatnot, but he is as worthless to the Mariners as Jack Johnson is to music.

Skydiving:

Throw myself out of a plane? No thanks. Here is a list of things I would rather do: Eat a cricket, wear chacos in the winter, punch myself in the face, play scrabble with Nancy Grace, watch an episode of Mind of Mencia… ehhh, maybe not that last one.

Cover charges at bars:

You want me to pay you for the privilege to come in and buy alcohol at your bar? I’ll pass.

The Arcade Fire:

I am missing something here? Am I the only person who does not like the Arcade Fire? Really? Maybe I am missing something, but I just can not stand how pretentious they are.

Comedians who blame the audience when their joke bombs:

You probably don’t see this a lot because most comics who are good enough to be on TV don’t do it, but as an open mic regular I see it often. Example: comic goes to the stage and pulls out phone, (props?) pretends to have conversation with someone on the other end of the phone. Conversation is profanity laced and about a club she went to. Punchline: “The club was called the Aristocrats,” near silence, one person sympathy chuckles, “Oh good, one person here has seen that movie.” No, he was not the only audience member who had seen the movie or was familiar with the concept, the joke wasn’t funny. Five minutes of almost incomprehensible muttering full of f-bombs followed by “The aristocrats” is not a joke. Don’t insult my intelligence by assuming that your jokes are too complicated for me. They were not funny. Get over yourself.

Horses:

If you don’t live on a farm, you don’t need a horse. Someone tell my neighbor back home. Every time I drive down my drive way, at a reasonable speed mind you, it spooks her horse, which results in her shooting me a dirty look.

Black Licorice:

It tastes like dirt. On a related note, here is something else I don’t understand, how I can hate black licorice, but not mind the taste of Jägermeister.

Homophobes:

I worked with a guy who was: A. A total douche, and B. a homophobe (I think the two really go hand in hand). We worked for a party rentals company and one day we were setting up a bunch of tents at a winery in Woodinville. This winery had an event coordinator named Marcus. Marcus is gay. Not normal gay dude gay, but TV stereotype gay. Like Ryan Evans gay. We had some questions about the tents and Marcus was the person to ask. “I’m not gonna ask him, I avoid talking to gay guys whenever possible,” Mike so eloquently stated, “ ‘Cuz if one of hit on me, I’d probably have to kick his ass.” Keep in mind, this is at 9:30 in the morning, and Mike already has ranch dressing on his face, shirt and sock. Gay dudes are not into that, you fat, sloppy bastard. No one is into that. A lot of guys think that because they have no standards and will copulate with any woman that breathes, that gay dudes are the same way, but (duh) with dudes. Not true. Homophobes, think of gay dudes as being like your classier male friends who actually have standards. Dipset! No homophobia. (I guess you guys don’t get that joke. Your fault, not mine.)

Why your mother refuses to tell you that she and I are in a relationship:

You are an adult and you deserve to know. Now that I am your new daddy, go mow my lawn.

Why the open face sandwiches went away:

It has been mentioned in this blog several times (sometimes by me, sometimes others) that SAGA did make delicious open faced sandwiches in the pizza conveyor/oven at lunch, but now they are gone. In their place we have a pizza with mushrooms so big and gnarly they look like they escaped from middle earth. (Is that what it is called in LOTR? Or is it Mid-world? Is that from The Dark Tower? Am I a nerd? Yes.)

Arrested Development gets canceled during the 2005-2006 season and Mind of Mencia was the highest rated show on Comedy Central in 2005, and is still on the air:

I just threw up.

The Spanish subjunctive tense:

AKA the bane of my existence.

The Japanese language:

I watched five minutes of a Japanese language on Youtube the other day, and I did not understand a single word. I know; I was surprised too.

Spokane Dick’s:

How is this even legal? The same name, same menu (plus crap), same style, but much lower quality than a real Dick’s. It is an embarrassment to Richard himself, customers, the city of Spokane, cows, potatoes, and most importantly, me. I love Dick’s. (No homophobia.)

How to cut my post in half and insert “more after the jump” link:

Oh, that’s easy! I just click the Split Post with “more” tag button at the top of the screen (between the tree and the spellchecker) or just hit Alt+t. That really was pretty simple.

This line from Chamillionaire’s ethereal classic, “Ridin’ Dirty”

“Girl you know I’m crazy like Krayzie Bone/

Just tryin to bone/

Ain’t tryin to have no babies.”

Alright, I don’t not understand it so much as I despise it. It has the elements of a good line, simile, rhyme schemes, and misogyny, but fails miserably in all of them. He rhymes bone with bone, tryin with tryin, and is Krayzie Bone really that krayzie? I’ll let you be the judge.

In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy’s skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones:

I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

This kid:

I lied. Who doesn’t like turtles? I just wanted an excuse to post this video.

And for some of us.  School’s out forever.

Summer has a curious quality. For some, it’s paradise. It’s a time to kick back, work on your tan, go to The Lake (capital T, capital L) relax and have fun.
For me, it’s more purgatory. Remember, if there’s one thing I despise, it’s relaxing-and-having-fun.  (I’ve combined the two because so many people conflate them.) And I’ve always found the very concept of tanning to be vain. Part of that’s because while others turn a deep profound brown — like a perfectly roasted marshmallow — I slowly a crimson red, an evolutionary response, no doubt, that enabled my ancestors to camouflage in with, say, a stop sign. Then, like a snake, I doff that outer layer of crispy skin, returning to my usual stock printer paper color.

So instead of spending the summer months frolicking in the sprinkler, summer was about waiting. Thumb-twiddling until school started again. I spent most of that time preparing, charging up, for the upcoming school year. In high school that meant running 50 miles a week, in college that meant desperately looking for a job. Sometimes I typed up a column to put in Varnished Truth arsenal reserves. I’d usually read an Important Book or two, so I could sound smart during the school year by awkwardly relating whatever conversation I was having to Tolstoy.

Last summer, in the precious 1-hour break at Lutherhaven, I spent my time furiously typing up Mock Rock intros, and trying to put together something called the Whitworth Forum.

Here’s my question: Besides the requisite summer job, what are you up to this summer? That may seem like just a boring small talk question, but I’m hoping for any straggling commenteers to delve deeper.  For you, what is the purpose of this curious season they call summer? What makes summer shine?

Would you relive your life

the same way? Would you make sure

you haven’t missed a thing?

Because there’s nothing worse

than being ashamed of all the things

you’ve done today, and I want to make sure

I don’t end that way. 

This is a time of year when graduates get so much advice on “the next step” and the “real world” and “life beyond the pinecone curtain.” Then there are those of us still working on this step, in the pre-world, still arranging our furniture to match the curtains. We are temporally floating between the inspirational spur of freshman seminar and the barrage of post-grad advice and self-searching which we’ll get next year or the next or next.

I guess I just want to say, to you and me who’ve still got time to serve, that we can start living now a way we’d want to relive. I guess I’m just saying, make sure you haven’t missed a thing.

This one’s for the fellas. If you came here to knock down random drunk college slutties like you see on MTV’s spring break, you came to the wrong place. Don’t worry, it’s not too late to get into WSU, they will take just about anyone at anytime, like a WSU sorority girl. HI-YO! But what Whitworth girls lack in drunken sluttiness they more than make up for in some things that seem much less important when you are two Old English 40’s deep, substance and class.

Some people prefer eating alone to eating with strangers. For the first two weeks it is acceptable to sit next to people you don’t know and introduce yourself. Everyone is trying to meet new people and expand their horizons. But after that grace period, if you see someone eating alone, don’t think you need to rescue them from their loneliness. Some, like me, would rather forgo the meaningless pleasantries (“What’s your major?”) and just eat. I met so many biology and business majors in Saga the first week that I never spoke to again. All that time talking could have been better spent eating.

During finals week, late night meals are free. I did not learn this until my third semester at Whitworth. Since this discovery, I have been utilizing, nay, abusing this amazing offer. You should too.

Core 250 is not that hard. I have yet to take 350, and I am not required to take 150, but 250 is not that difficult. Show up for lectures, take notes, and you will do fine.

Don’t drive from class to class. My roommate sophomore year drove his car from parking lot to parking lot between classes. This campus is small, that is completely unnecessary, don’t be a douche.

The days of the bicycle free trade agreement are gone. There was a time when you could leave your bike unlocked, and someone might borrow it and bring it back. You could just hop on any unlocked bike and take it to the HUB as long as you brought it back. The rash of bike thefts in the fall put an end to that. Lock up your bike.

There are two parties every weekend. I like to refer to them as the “business major” party, and the “peace studies major” party. Not everyone at the former is a business major and likewise for the latter, those are just names I gave them based on stereotypes. The BM parties are populated with athletes and beer pong and Top 40 music. PSM parties are populated by hippies, indie kids, dancing, and the same three USE and Peter Bjorn and John songs ad nauseum. Both are fun, choose wisely.

Printing in the library is free, but don’t abuse it. Don’t print out three copies of your 16 slide PowerPoint on one side. That is ridiculous. I have seen it happen.

Whitworth professors are very friendly, if you need help, just ask.

If you are not Christian, you can still go to Whitworth. There are plenty of us heathens running around.

Don’t drink in the dorms. I say this not because I have a moral objection to it, but because it’s just not fun. If you go to UW or WSU, everyone else in the dorms is drinking too, it’s fun. If you are drinking in your dorm at Whitworth, chances are it is just you and your roommate, not so fun.

Master the faux swipe. Yes I am condoning sneaking into Saga. If you don’t have an unlimited meal plan, and there is no one standing at the till, just wave your wallet over the sensor. Booya, free lunch.

Spokane water tastes like doodoo. Bring your nalgene to saga and fill up at the drink station, or buy a Britta filter. Unless you like the taste of lead. It didn’t bother Nero.

Don’t skip night class. That is like skipping a whole week of class. I skipped one night class this semester and my grade took a hit it never really recovered from. 140 point quiz, ouch. Day classes, go nuts, you are paying to go here, if you feel like skipping, skip. You only need to maintain a 2.0 to keep your scholarship.

If you are living in a dorm, you already know that you won’t have cable. If you are a sports fan, invest in a Slingbox. Its 100-200 dollars, you hook it up to your cable and internet at home, and you can watch your home cable on your computer. It is great. I would not have made it through baseball season without it last year.

Participate in traditiation. Tear up your “cool card.” It is the best way to make friends fast and if you let yourself be a goober and have fun, you will remember traditiation for the rest of your life. You don’t want to miss out on Mock Rock.

I hope this helps. You have made a great decision in coming to Whitworth, and remember, Gonzaga is your mortal enemy.

That’s okay, I feel I’ve earned it. Everyone gets one rambling regurgitation-of-angst post. This is mine.

As my e-mail Inbox cheerfully informs me every morning, the sand in the college hourglass is rapidly draining. The bony finger of Real Life silently beckons, and then points at a crumbling gravestone: Here lies the college experience of Daniel Walters.

It’s like being the captain perched on the prow as the Dawn Treader slowly tips over the edge of the world. You helplessly grip the wheel with white knuckles, and meet the approaching blackness with a set jaw.

This is the end, my friend. Such a dire — or at least dramatic — situation is bound to produce a certain pathological emotional state.

Generally, my official position on emotions is that they are pesky constantly buzzing gnats — biting, draining parasites — that distract from the important stuff, the work of logic and steel! Emotions are things to be sequestered away, hidden in the cupboard under the stairs when company’s over.

For this post, however, I’ve decided to highlight my irrationality instead of hiding it. For posterity. So some Whitworth Grad twenty years from now will do a Google search on “Graduation Anxiety” and come to this page and be able to say, “I’m going through almost exactly what that guy is. Except I’m not nearly as whiny.”

This is a blurred snapshot of the mental muddle of a graduating Senior — neurotic, sardonic and slightly psychotic.

At its most simple my senior angst goes by the name ennui – a French word created to describe the Eeyore-like resigned apathy, a mixture of boredom and annoyance that arises during the last gasps of the Senior year. Others refer to it by its more colloquial name: “Senioritis” (literally “infection of the Senior). After The Whitworthian printed its last issue it began to take a titanic act of raw willpower to rip myself out of bed every morning.

But it’s more complicated than that.

It’s a paradox of complete listless apathy and pure wide-eyed panic.

It’s the experience of every emotion, but, yet — somehow — none of them.

The landscape of my mind is a free-for-all battleground of hundreds of different fears and feelings clanging and clashing against dozens of epiphanies, hopes, hang-ups, and neuroses. One moment Swaggering Confidence seems to have the upperhand, but then it’s swiftly flanked on two fronts by Insecurity and Uncertainty. And there’s an airstrike of Nostalgia from the south, followed by the boom-bam of the Student Loan Stress Artillery firing mortars from the east.

Oh, and there’s Finals. Remember those?

That’s not to say I haven’t experienced that kind of mental chaos before.

It’s eerily similar to graduating from high school, but for almost the exact opposite reason.

I hated graduating from North Central high school because my experience was beyond incredible.

I hate graduating from Whitworth because my experience wasn’t.

My experience at North Central started out great, and improved linearly. Each year — each moment — was better than the last. My senior year wasn’t unmarred by difficulty or failure or stress or loss. But those defeats were precisely what made it awesome. Senior year of high school had all the hallmarks of a Series Finale.

It was a series of stunning success and noble failures, a rat-a-tat succession of die-hard projects and creative absurdities, a narrative brimming with naive romantic whimsy and loyal friendship, a story populated by an unsurpassed cast of impossibly funny and intelligent characters.

True, it didn’t all come to one archetypally climactic resolution At The Prom — the most exciting thing that happened was accidentally backing into my date’s car with my van — but the year was filled with the some of the most memorable moments I replay on my mental VCR.

With the mere motion of breaking the seal on my diploma, I lost that institution, lost the teachers and the football games and the dances and , and lost most of the friends.

Now, I’m not a person still stuck in reliving the glories of high school. But I’m also not going to ignore how awesome it was, and thereby, how much graduation sucked.

The quality of my experience at Whitworth, on the other hand, was a bell curve. Only for the briefest of moments — second semester of Sophomore year — did it manage to crest above adequate. There’s a lot of reasons for that, most of which Whitworth couldn’t solve by trying to implement some program panacea.

Part of it’s that I feel, for all the changes at Whitworth, most have been negative. Whitworth has chipped away at student creativity by setting up increasingly stuffy regulations. I’ve seen the implementation of Hole Policies, Locked Doors, and the Castration of Traditiation — the one event where I used to feel Whitworth rose above mediocrity. Despite my whining and lampooning and protesting and frantic discussion, nothing really changed. I recognize the arrogance of hoping to make a pivotal difference as only one man, but still find the compulsion seductive — and can’t stand it when I don’t succeed in the near impossible task. Think Don Quixote, finally leading his horse to pasture after four years of tilting at the Windmills of the Mind and Heart.

But mostly, it’s because there’s a panicked feeling of a lack of personal accomplishment. Most obvious is the nagging fact that the major legacy I leave to this college, besides a few unpaid parking tickets, is the giant Warren Peace sign. You know, the one snapped in two, sitting in some Facility Services dumpster. One of the reasons I’ve been critical of ASWC execs pursuing some silly change in their final year is because I know how compelling the need for a legacy can be.

A few people go through college and get a Ring By Spring or land the Dream Job.

I got a diploma and a pinecone.

I don’t think I’m alone. I think there’s a number of graduating students — right now — who are sifting back through their accomplishments in college and are saying, “And…? That’s it?”

Oh, I have a few great memories, most of them 3rd West related. But there just weren’t enough Moments of Greatness jam-packed between the hum-drum filler.

What’s funny is how similar the end of a good experience and the end of a sub-par experience feels. During one you lament that the good times are over. During the other you lament the fact that the times weren’t better.

For example, you know the one good semester I had at Whitworth? Here’s what I wrote during that semester, in the final edition of the Stall Street Journal.

So, Act Three’s almost over. The first semester that I’ve actually enjoyed being at Whitworth is *this* close to being through, bringing with it a whole new wave of possibility.

We’re so busy, distracted by the fury and hubbub of finals, that we barely notice the last semester of the 2005-2006 school year fading away. A year from now we’ll look back on the story told: The hiijinks, the plot twists, the vivid characters. Only time can give you the perspective to know whether the story was good or not. Even if it was, you’ll later lament what could have been. What would have happened if you’d made a different choice, if you’d taken a different class, lived in a different dorm, if you’d had a little more courage, or a little less?

Those blasted ‘What-ifs’ will shadow you like the Hound of the Baskervilles. You never get the entire story, you never get to know what others have done, or are really thinking or feeling. You can never achieve that omniscient perspective that good epic stories have. And you’ll look back at all the fragmented plot lines that were suddenly dropped or finished in a hackneyed or bewildering way and grit your teeth in frustration.

That’s what makes the Novel or Play or Movie analogy break down. Nothing ever seems to really coalesce, there’s never a satisfying ending. The plot line is ragged and unpredictable. The climaxes come when you least expect it, and the characters never quite seem believable or consistent.

Real Life has a habit of Dropping or ‘Killing Off’ the audience’s favorite characters just as they were really getting interesting. Real Life has chapters that drag, chapters unpredictable, and those that end way too soon.

Even the best chapters, the good times, are tinged with depression because those particular good times can never happen again. Life isn’t something you can reread. So you better hope your reading comprehension skills are up to par, or you happen to have a good pair of Cliff Notes handy.

Despite the noble goals of graduation, it just doesn’t do its job of giving a meaningful sense of closure to four years of laughing, learning, living, loving, and lounging. The dénouement– the conclusion — is never quite as snappy or satisfying as you need it to be. It’s like a Television show suddenly canceled or the pathetic last few pages of Deep River.

Instead, there’s an indeterminate amount of time senior year where you realize nothing much matters. There’s a time when you know that the people you meet won’t become life-long friends. You won’t be able to seriously date them. They won’t become much more than a few sparse footnotes in a chapter labeled “What could have been.” Your actions — however dramatic — won’t change the environment around you. There just isn’t enough time. You’re a lame duck, hobbling through the motions, quacking half-heartedly through your lines.

That’s why people do stupid things constantly at the end of their eras. They pull destructive pranks. They get epically drunk. They make stupid love confessions. They want closure, they want meaning, they want one or two last memories; they know there’s no real consequences for whatever they do — and, at a subconscious level, that bugs the hell out of them.

You can’t neatly tie up all your subplots in what little time remains. You won’t even be able to say goodbye to everybody who deserves it. The last thing you’ll say to many of your friends will be “See ya later” (you won’t) and “Have you studied for your Core 350 test?”

So what’s there to do when you know you’re reaching the end of yet another book, despite the fact that there’s so much left to say, so much unexplored? You keep reading. You plod through the final pages, savoring even the clunky exposition, the dull characterizations, the rambling prose and, yes, the mixed metaphors. You keep reading until you run into that final hackneyed phrase: “THE END.”

Then you get up from your chair, blow the dust off your book shelf, and start searching for another story.

See you in the epilogue.

Update:  Note – jmcpherson.blogspot.com is, apparently, not the blog you’re looking for.

In a previous post, I mentioned I’d like to see a Whitworth Forum-type blog for professors.

While something as coordinated as the Forum hasn’t yet happened, there are at least a few professors who’ve begun to join the blogwagon. Perhaps the most promising is professor of journalism Jim Mcpherson’s media and politics blog, called, creatively, “James McPherson’s Media and Politics Blog.” The blog’s just starting out, so there’s no telling how it will evolve or whether McPherson will be able to maintain his rate of posting. But for now, there’s an impressive amount of depth and analysis to comb over.

Blogging professors aren’t new. Some of the most popular blogs on the Internet, including Instapundit and the Volokh Conspiracy come from law profs. McPherson’s blog, in particular, deals with religion, media, and politics, three of the most popular topics on the Web. Depending on how lucky he gets with links, and how willing he is to “pimp” pivotal posts on other blogs, it just may become a Web site of moderate popularity.

Blogging professors don’t only help the institution gain prestige — and the respect of other institutions — it allows conversation with students on academic matters to continue outside the four walls of the classroom. A good blog stirs conversation, incites debate, and informs an audience.

Much the same way college should.

Marxism: Marxism is the academic equivalent of the team in the sports movie that gets absolutely crushed, until the end of the movie where it finds the strength it never knew it had and rises up to defeat Team Evil and win the pennant. For most of the class, I learned minimal information. But then came studying for the final test, where we had to speak eloquently on a Marxist thinker for two minutes. Here was the catch, we wouldn’t know *which* Marxist thinker it was before the test. We had to be able to wax poetical on all twenty thinkers. With that roaring fire lit under my belly, I dove so deep into Marxist thought that for a few days, I was Marxism.

Looking back, it seems the test was just a devious scheme of Yoder’s to trick us into learning the material. Sneaky, that guy.

I also learned that many things I’d “learned” in other classes was wrong. For example, everyone believes that Hegel’s dialectic can be reduced to “thesis” “antithesis” and “synthesis” except, well, Hegel.

Medieval Russia: History classes that deal with a large amount of time usually try to teach so much material that I learn none of it. The advantage with early Russia? Information is so comparatively scarce that there’s not much to teach. We spend a lot of time mucking about in primary sources, which in the end is the best way to learn history. Corliss Slack’s classes usually don’t specialize in the recitation of chronologies, but they do help communicate the *flavor* of historiography. In Medieval Russia, however, there’s plenty of both. True, I can’t list off the Seven Changes Vladimir I enacted in Russia, but I can tell you the general ebb and flow of the Russian state — and the controversy in the historical community over exactly what that entails.

Theories of Human Communication: Thi-Comm for short, I learned far more in Theories of Human Communication than in Interpersonal communication. First, the textbook, Communication Communication Communication rocked. Rather than simply saying “This is how it communication works”, Communication Communication Communication says “here’s a theory on how communication works” and even more importantly “here’s why people disagree with that theory.” The notion that experts disagree on sociological and psychological concepts is downright revolutionary for Whitworth’s typical pedagogical methods.

Of course, it helps that the class is taught by Ron Pyle. Pyle isn’t the smartest prof, or the funniest, or most charismatic. But he just may be the best teacher at, well, teaching. He threads in analogies and examples into his explanations artfully enough for even college students can understand. The fact that “Coordinated Management of Meaning” is useful in the everyday (even if only students like Michael Vander Giessen references it in everyday conversation, and I do mean *everyday*) makes it worth learning. Not to mention realizing that “let’s make meaning together” is a great pickup line.

Core 250: Some students like to complain that the course called “Western Civilization” doesn’t talk much about, say, “Eastern Civilization.” But what Core 250 does is hand students a basic intellectual arsenal to work with. These are the thinkers regularly referenced by philosophical and psychological thinkers. Core 250 teaches you almost all the language of higher ed, the jargon and buzzwords of theology, philosophy, psychology, and epist0-freakin’-mology . All in a single class. And somehow, whether because of the infamous tests or simply Forrest Baird’s lecture style, I remember almost everything today. Except for Saarte and Kierkegaard. Whoever they are.

(On an unrelated note, the Forum just reached 1000 comments. Congratulations, commenteers)

1. Warren Hall. Perfect sized halls for strong unity. Large enough that almost everyone can find a niche. Best designed dorm lounges on campus, make for ideal, relaxing prime times. Warren Guys win Mock Rock almost every year. Up to three ASWU events in the top 5 (Warren Peace, Bachelor Auction, sometimes Assassin Nation.) And two words: Third West.

2. Baldwin “BJ” Jenkins: This is the iconic Freshmen dorm. Friendships forged in the BJ kiln last a long time. And archetypally, the residents are crazy, creative, and, occasionally, catastrophic. They are “carpe diem” in residence hall form. They are a booming, rumbling, occasionally aggravating presence at Mock Rock. BJ isn’t just a dorm. It’s a lifestyle.

Until this year, I may have put it at number one, but this years BJ crop — prankless, quiet and in bed by 11:00 — was a major disappointment.

3. Arend Hall: There’s a reason I decided to live in Arend my final year. It’s as close to the HUB as you can get, it’s a near perfect size, and goes off the ideal “hall” structure instead of an icky “pod” or “suite” style. The fact that the men of Carlson hall are willing to publish near-naked pictures of themselves shows just how much … uh… community they have. So why didn’t this dorm win? The little things. Obnoxious fire alarms. A high table that makes lounging at Prime time difficult. Wildly Fluxuating temperatures. And having “Green with Envy” as their ASWU event. Lame.

4. McMillan “Mac the Knife” Hall: This dorm is an populated by a mix of guys, men, and dudes. That’s both the largest negative and leads to the strongest positive aspects of the dorm. Mac is only matched by BJ in the dorm spirit department, and they had the only symbol that actually carried over: The ubiquitous smiley face. Their ASWU event, the Haunted House, is one of the best on campus. While both sides of the Mac-BJ rivalry brought passion to the front lines, Mac always had the more creative pranks. And while many dorms have an awesome secret mechanical room, Mac has a whole series of Labyrinthian tunnels. Mac is the one dorm with memorable, classic architecture.

Lastly, from what I’ve hear, 2nd Mac is one of the few halls comparable to Warren Third West in the category of awesomeness.

5. Stewart. I subscribe to the contention that the crappier the physical details of the dorm, the better the actual dorm unity. Stewart may be the crappiest looking dorm on campus — it’s interior decoration is part prison, part locker room, and every once in a while the very sewage system itself comes bubbling up out of the ground itself to protest it. But all this sub-par physicality means residents find their satisfaction in eachother, rather than isolating themselves in their rooms. Stewart is the one “suite” style dorm that actually has unity. That’s impressive.

6. The Village. If it wasn’t for Scott Donnell this dorm — or collection of dorms — may be much further down the list. During my freshmen year, the Village was literally a punchline. It was synonymous with “lousy community-less dorm.” But in what I feel was Donnell’s greatest moment in his four year term at Whitworth, he came into Village tradition with a barrage of Rhetoric about how The Village was the best, it had always been the best, and would always continue to be the best. It was a lie of course, but The Village believing the myth somehow made it true. For one perfect year, the Village was united. They rocked Traditiation, waving a giant flag, singing Newsies, and coming together — Power Rangers style — as one powerful SuperDorm. It was tragic, then, that the construction of Duvall destroyed two Village dorms, and split up the other Village dorms during Traditiation like a Solomon’s Maternity Test. If we were judging the Village in 2005-2006 it may have made the Top 4. But even now, vestiges of that perfect year remain. There’s power still left in the paint-peeling walls of The Village. For a few years more.

7. Ballard. Ballard is, uh, nice dorm? It’s an inverse of McMillan in almost every way. Where McMillan is a dorm that defines Whitworth, Ballard slips through the cracks, and swirls down the memory hole. It’s pretty unremarkable. While Ballard doesn’t seem necessarily aggressively lousy, but it rarely makes itself known. Even the “Nunnery” nickname has been slowly ebbing away in favor of a simply generic all-female dorm. Blah.

To be fair, I’ve never lived in Ballard.

8. Duvall. See “Towel racks, inability to stick to wall.” See “Showers, cold.” See, “Bathrooms, lack of janitorial assistance.”

Boppell. Duvall. One more lousy dorm and Whitworth will have struck out. Consider Duvall a Noble — if failed — Experiment. Yet, when you actually look at the structure and design of the dorm, it’s as if everything was customized to harm unity. If you have a Pod full of fun people, you’ll sequester you’ll self away with those people and have a passable time. If, however, you don’t have a certain chemistry with the other few rooms in your pod, you’re pretty much sunk.

Worse, the lounges are sprawling and there’s like, seventeen of them. Instead of guiding the residents of a dorm to one central lounge like Arend or Warren, Duvall spreads them out in dozens of little clusters. Duvall hall is one of the few dorms that always seems empty, that always seems dead.

Duvall has its apologists, but their defensives are quickly dismissed by detractors.

9. Schumacher. I’m convinced this dorm phases in and out of existence. For most of my time at Whitworth, I don’t remember that there is, in fact, a dorm called Schumacher. It’s residents seem to like it. But they like it in relative secrecy.

10. Boppell. Has all the charm and unique character of a Best Western, but without the continental breakfast. Dorm unity is non-existent. If somebody actually comes out of their room it’s an odd occurrence, like the Hayley-Bopp Comet. And the final nail in the dismal coffin? You have to clean your own bathrooms.

Not necessarily.

From how I read it, Bill Robinson’s popular enough that if he decides he wants another couple years at the wheel of the good ship Whitworth he an have it.

The bigger question is if Bill Robinson is the best match for Whitworth for the next couple of years — or rather, whether Whitworth in the next couple of years would be the best match for Bill Robinson.

First let’s get out of the way some of the requisite accolades for Robinson’s tenure. His bent for personal interaction, his infamous charisma, and his near-photographic memory mean Robinson will join Warren and Lindaman in the pantheon of Great Whitworth Presidents.

But as Whitworth grows in both size and debt, so does a looming question: Will Bill Robinson’s skills be as useful in the Whitworth of Tomorrow?

As the campus grows so does the long list of names Robinson tries to memorize. One of Robinson’s oft-discussed advantages is his ability to walk up to a freshman, flash his perfect smile and say, “Hey, Robbie. How’s your business major and theology minor going? Heard you had a bit of trouble with your Core 150 test. If you want to stop by my office we could study.”

He’s like an Alan Jacob omniscent e-mail that cares. But pretty soon –arguably even now –he’s not going to be able to do that. They’ll just be too many names.

An even bigger difference in the presidents role comes in an E-mail from Robinson discussing his role:

In some respects, I think Whitworth has entered an era in which it would benefit from a presidency that is even more involved in resource development than I have been. I will definitely tilt more in that direction if I continue in this work.

I may be oversimplifying, but to me “resource development” sounds like fancy-talk for “fundraising.” “Tilt more in that direction” sounds like like fancy-talk for “Bill Robinson will be spending even more time traveling cross-country to attempt to woo prospective donors.”

Bummer.

Part of me almost thinks it would be best for Bill to take the Bill Watterson/UK Office route and retire early, at the top of his game.

While Robinson might be great at selling the greatness of Whitworth University — he’s certainly polished and slick — that’s not his specialty. Robinson’s forte is the way he can slip, comfortably and chameleon-like, into the parlance of any social situation. He’s casual with students. He’s formal and professional with trustees. He’s friendly in one-on-one situations, and firm and confidant when speaking in front of an audience. He can help calm controversies and lead rabidly-oppositional groups into a kind of tenuous ceasefire.

But he can’t really do any of that while fundraising.

Yes, we need fundraising badly. But Bill Robinson seems wasted in that role. If we need a president to fundraise, it seems better to find the best darn fundraiser in the land and higher him.

Maybe Bill Robinson is still the best possible president we could have. But Whitworth has changed enough that I don’t think Bill Robinson’s strengths are as useful as they once were.

What do you think? Should Bill Robinson pull an FDR and continue in a fourth term of his presidency, even as Whitworth changes radically in the next few years? Or should he step down at what may be the near-height of his reign?

These are numbered not out of preference or priority, but for convenience.

Major: English

The good:

1. Faculty. Not only is this department peopled by legends, but the internal relations among professors are amazing. In the [70’s?] when, for financial reasons, Whitworth had to cut one faculty position from each of several departments, the English professors got creative. Knowing that the position would be restored once finances were better, the English professors chose to take turns in taking a one-year leave. I think Vic Bobb even took more than his share of the blow, because he could make enough money freelancing, and other professors had bigger families, etc., to worry about.

2.Westminster. Sure, the desks in 206 can’t fit an 8½x11 sheet of paper. Sure, the upstairs women’s restroom is about 4’x4’, and the downstairs one is creepy to the max. But the building has character. And more importantly: couches. And computers, and a printer, and English majors, and the Fortunado closet. What more could you want?

3. Workshop classes. These are classes in which, for the most part, people who love to write get a legitimate, transcript-significant excuse for creative writing. Other perks are the writing faculty (who are extremely insightful and deadline-forgiving), the loose structure of the classes, the break from lecture style, and the joy of reading Danny Atherton’s vocabulary.

4. Westminster Round. The English department actually has a department club (step one) which actually plans and facilitates events (steps two and three). I have hardly gone to any WR events this year, but it’s a fact that they’re there to give English majors something to be nerdy together about (okay, to be more nerdy about). And next year I will go to events (this, so I hear, is something club presidents are expected to do), and there will be valiant attempts to up the awesome of this year’s events. Did someone say “late night dead poetry spelunking”? Yes, yes, someone did.

5. Script. Script is a quality publication which encourages students from all majors to submit, encouraging interdisciplinary support. I’m continually impressed by the quality of the journal. (Full disclosure: I’m on the editorial board.) The reading is this Friday at 4 in the Loop, and since we’re not allowed to send e-mails this week, you may all consider this your invitation.

6. Westminster Courtyard. The garden is currently in disarray because of the art building construction, but we still have witnessed the opening of crocuses, something wonderfully melon-colored, and the most delicate tulips I have ever seen. The courtyard has served us well as a class meeting place during September and that last warm week of classes, when Westminster itself is unfit for habitation. Once construction and the Westminster remodel are done, I have no doubt the courtyard will do so again.

7. The “hang-out final.” This is the final you have in writing classes or any class by Laurie Lamon. It involves: primarily, snacks; secondarily, sharing about what we’ve learned this semester; tertiarily, hearing a story involving the professor’s dog.

Room for improvement:

1. Men.

2. Really, desks that could hold a sheet of paper or maybe a Norton (without the counter-weight of someone sitting in the seat) would be nice.

3. Greater availability of workshop classes. Professors are often accommodating to those who really need to take a class in a given semester, but often just one section of a required 15-person writing workshop class is offered per year. That’s not enough, which means the classes end up growing a little larger, making it difficult to discuss everyone’s work.

4. Building stuff. I love Westminster in all its shabby chic, but there are a few actually significant issues. For one, the basement which houses faculty offices and the student lounge isn’t wheelchair accessible. I already mentioned the bathrooms. But these will change with the remodel.

_______________________________

Major: Philosophy

The good:

1. Faculty. I would wager that most of the times the syllables “for-(r)est” are being uttered on campus, the conversation has nothing to do with trees. And Wyma is no less legendary. Yes, it was a major blow to lose Rebekah Rice last year. We can’t even hope to replace her with someone equally as precise, knowledgeable, or well-suited to round out our department as she, much less hope for improvement. But our two heavy hitters are solid professors, and they’re committed to prolonging the search until they find a candidate who they’re comfortable putting on the tenure track.

2. Students who care about what we’re studying. Despite all the hype which seems to be out there (so professors say) about the marketability of being a philosophy major, none of the Whitworth philosophy majors I know are in it for its marketability. Philosophy majors love to get behind what they’re being taught. They love to push questions to their limits and answers to their logical (or absurd) conclusions. They don’t accept vague answers or faulty logic. And professors are the same way. People do philosophy because they want to know everything, which makes for a really engaging classroom atmosphere.

3. Men. At Whitworth I’m in every way in the majority—white, Protestant, female, English major—except in philosophy. It’s a nice reversal.

4. Philosophy jokes. Putting Descartes before DeHorse, to err is Humean, Continental breakfasts, “Mm… Danish.” The fun never ends.

5. Secret code. A lot of ordinary words mean something distinct when used in philosophy. This makes us feel like we’ve got a secret code. Here are a few: universal, particular, accident, realist, idealist, materialist, phenomenal, form, vulgar, essential, world.

6. History of philosophy. Our department is really strong in history of philosophy. We’ve got Ancient, Medieval, Modern, Contemporary, and Asian, whereas Wyma said his undergrad only offered two history courses: Ancient/Medieval and Modern. History is a nice strength, because a broad range of topics are covered in most history courses. Even if we can’t offer a class devoted to philosophy of language or topics in continental philosophy, e.g., we get a decent amount of those within the history series.

Room for improvement:

1. More of the above! Our department would hugely benefit from having simply more faculty, which would lead to a greater number of classes being offered. It’s nice to be a part of a small department, but having more classes and faculty would be nice for those considering graduate studies in philosophy. Also, a female professor would be great. Rebekah, we mourn thee!

2. Philosophy club. There’s always more to say than is said in class. (One time we finished Medieval Philosophy 20 minutes early and still got out 5 minutes late.) Having a club would provide a forum for continuing the discussions which get cut off with the end of class and the need to scoot to other classes.

_______________________________

All right.  It’s your turn. What do you appreciate about your major? What distinguishes it from other majors? How can it be improved at Whitworth?

A few days ago I said it was time for us seniors to be prepared to enter the world, but not to leave Whitworth behind. Though this school has been great to all of us, everything could use a bit of improvement every year. Sure, some of you want to point out the discrimination policies and the lack of environmental awareness and such. But really, we’ve covered those. What about the little problems? What about the smaller, feel-good upgrades? Who’s going to step out and advocate for those? I am, darn it. And I’m starting here. My final list in my semester long series is the Top Ten Future Improvements for Whitworth. And I swear to you, I am totally serious.

Whitworth Improvement #10: “You are here.” Every summer Whitworth dotes itself with a few cosmetic additions to the campus. One of the newer ones are those fancy little maps littered around the loop that show Whitworth in all its glory complete with parking lots and building identifications. Visitors now can freely move about the campus and never be confused. Except for one tiny little “oopsy”: none of the signs have the all important “You are Here” logo. How did we forget to add those? The maps are almost pointless without them. Somebody tell Facilities Services to go buy some little gold stickers or something.

Whitworth Improvement #9: What Unwritten Rules? I hate having to follow laws that don’t actually exist. No jumping off the stage at Mock Rock. No taking your food (that you already paid for) out of Saga. No disrupting community. Whitworth, probably similar to every other school in the world, has many random, unverifiable dos and don’ts that everyone seems to know and recognize but cannot point out a source for. There’s plenty more than what I just mentioned too. If some of these rules are important, then define them and print them out somewhere. If the school’s not willing to write them down though, then why should the students follow them?

Whitworth Improvement #8: Put some hello in that walk. Hello. Hi. Howdy. Como Estas? Hola. Bonjour. G’day. Kenchu. Guten tag. Merhaba. Shalom. Konichiwa. Sup. Dobry Den. Aloha. Buon Giorno. Oi. Nei Hou. How you doin? If we’re going to have a hello walk, then let’s have one. Whitworth should make it a rule that everyone must greet everyone else on the hello walk with a different greeting. Cheesy? You bet it is. That’s why it’d be great.

Whitworth Improvement #7: Return the feedback favor. I like the lengths that Whitworth goes to trying to gauge student opinion on classes and professors. Not only have they instituted this new online version of classroom evaluations, but they’re even willing to hold our grades from us for an extra few days as an incentive for doing them. Unfortunately, whether or not I find out about my grades (which I already have a good handle on) by a Tuesday or a Thursday has little to do with whether or not I’m motivated to fill out a class evaluation. If Whitworth really wants our feedback, they should give some back to us. After every semester, or at least every term, send a quick bullet point list of changes that are made due primarily to student evaluations. Which classes will be tweaked, added, dropped, given an increase in size? As of right now no student has any idea what changes occurred because of evaluations unless they go talk to Dr. Le Roy directly. Whitworth claims that they consider these evaluations as a vital part of academic life. This may be true, but under the current system we have no way of knowing for sure.

Whitworth Improvement #6: Cots in Academic Buildings. Students o’er the land, assemble at my feet. How many of you music majors, who stay until the wee hours practicing for your recital, would like a place to curl up and nap for a minute or two adjacent to your practice room? How many of you science majors, rather than asking security to let you into the lab at 4:00am to check your streptococcus growth would prefer to simply spend the night in the building? And you art majors, who seem to have to resort to vandalism when the creativity bug arises ere the sun; would not you also enjoy a comfy place to stay in your building as well? Whitworth should create one room for every academic building equipped with cots for just such an emergency. It sounds like an awkward idea, but the first time you find yourself in a position similar to one mentioned above you will begin to think otherwise. Trust me.

Whitworth Improvement #5: Dare I Say it, but Bring Back the Old Cafeteria: Earlier this semester Saga made an economic (I assume) decision to offer a new grill item once a week rather than once a day. The problem is Saga isn’t good at knowing what isn’t good. A mushroom burger for one day is ok. A mushroom burger for a week will make anyone lose their appetite. On the flip side, I like the fish sandwiches they used to have. A week of fish sandwiches is way too long, but we could all handle one day a month. Now we’ll never see this kind of variety again. This wasn’t the only switch for the worse that our Hub eateries went through in the past four years. It used to be a staple of my diet to walk into the café at 8 in the morning, smile at Vonda and say “sausage early riser please.” Now they aren’t even open for breakfast anymore. And one more, absolutely dreadful loss that the juniors and seniors have experienced: no more open-faced sandwiches. During lunch on Tuesdays and Thursdays they used to make these little delights of French bread, turkey, provolone, lettuce and tomato shoved through the pizza griller. Where in the world did those go? They weren’t greasy, they had actual food, and they were pretty good for you too. For the sake of future generations, bring these food amenities back into our lives. I beg of you.

Whitworth Improvement #4: Televise the Nietzsche Lecture. There’s a few classes out there that are apt to find themselves in the “you have to take this” category. Interpersonal with Ron, Intro to Christian Faith with Jerry, Thermodynamics with Kamesh (no really), and so on. But in four years at Whitworth I have only heard one specific lecture go down in academic lore: the Core 250 Nietzsche lecture by Leonard Oakland. Here’s the problem: Leonard’s on the retirement track as we speak. We must find a way to preserve this 90 minute talk, if only by recording it and simply pushing play on the VCR once a semester.

Whitworth Improvement #3: Dead Week. I have never wished for a Dead Week more than this week. This should be it. We should have no classes right this very moment. We should be spending time with our friends on the golf course, on the river, out of town, staying up late, doing all these things. We have one more week left, and a majority of that will be in test mode. I don’t want a Dead Week because I want a cheap and easy way of getting out of classes. I want a Dead Week because 24 hours after our friends have finished their finals Whitworth kicks them off campus. We need some time to get our sadness and goodbyes out of our system in proper fashion. I’d even be willing to entertain thoughts of extending the school year by a week, but one way or another we need to fix this in the future.

Whitworth Improvement #2: Official Campus and Frisbee Golf Courses. In Mac sophomore year, because I had that much time on my hands, I made a scorecard for campus golf. It had a map of the course, pars and handicaps, and was even laminated. We held a four-day tournament at the end of the year and even transformed a crappy old ValueVillage coat into the coveted Gold Jacket for the winner. This would be such an incredible thing for Whitworth to invest in. All us Frisbee tossers and tennis ball whackers on campus already know the Stewart course, the BJ course, the Warren course, the Mac course, etc, so why not have it officially set in stone? A ream of paper could make 2000 miniature scorecards for campus and Frisbee golf courses, each available to pick up for free at the Info Desk and cost a total of about $10 to make. I would use this, and you know you would too.

Whitworth Improvement #1: The $5 idea. I cannot take credit for this, it belongs I believe to Caleb Knox and Joe Tobiason. What if, at the beginning of the year, the school asked all donors and board members to pool together around $10,000. Then they take that money to each bed on campus and slap a five dollar bill right on the pillow. Imagine being the student to walk into that room on Day 1. Would you not love seeing that sight? Every student starts the year out with $5 to buy your roommate a coffee, or pool together for a pizza with your hall mates on the first night, or buy a poster or two for the room. Show me a school that implements the $5 idea, and I’ll show you a school that understands the hearts and minds of its student body.

With that folks I am calling the Top Ten list series closed. Hopefully you have found these lists somewhere between the relevant/interesting and entertaining ends of the spectrum. I don’t know if I’ll write again on this forum so, if not, it’s been fun and good luck on finals next week. Knibb High Football rules; peace I’m outta here!

Yes? Yes, father? Tell me!

I’m… graduating. *cough, cough*
No! Don’t say that! You still have a chance, the doctor says that if you manage to somehow pull through and fail Comm Ethics, you’ll be able to live another year at Whitworth.

No. *hack* It’s… too late for me. Everyone must eventually… graduate. It’s the human way. It’s just… my time now.

Just get a Big Three, Father! That’ll save you for sure!

No! *round of coughing and hacking* I must graduate. I’m sorry. But… I have something… to give you.

Your extra rounds of blue tape?

Hah! No, I will take my Blue tape to my grave. I want to give you the… Whitworth Forum?

The what?

—-

As most of you know, I, like the ill-fated characters in Saved By The Bell, am graduating.

Since I don’t want this Web site to turn into Whitworth Forum: The Real Life years, I’m planning on not writing after graduation. Oh, occasionally I may write a post or throw in a nonsensical here and there. But I definately won’t be an Administrator. Such is the reality of the college experience. You’ve basically got a four year limit; once that’s done, you’ve moved onto bigger and less expensive things.

More than half of our writers (and all three of our main administrators, myself, Kyle Pflug, and Nathan Harrison) are graduating.

But I don’t want the Forum to go perish with us. I truly believe that the Forum has been a good thing for the campus. We’ve discussed issues that wouldn’t have been discussed elsewhere. We’ve come to mutual understandings. We’ve complained about Core 350.

Yet, the Forum has also been but a fraction of what it could be. I envision dozens and dozens of regular writers. I envision in-depth stories and personal accounts of events on campus. I envision the forum becoming a source for breaking news and surprising revelations.

Eventually, I want the Forum to become, not necessarily a competitor, but a counterpart to The Whitworthian. It’s not good for a community to have only one news source. The Whitworthian misses things. The Forum should help fill those holes.

So here’s the deal. The forum needs a Next Generation. We need a three or four Forum administrators willing to write semi-regularly and, even more importantly, advertise the forum for future readers and writers.

Here’s the basic role a Whitworth forum Administrator should play:

• The most important thing is to find other writers. I didn’t do nearly enough. Remember, the more writers, the more readers. That means a diversity of writers — not just communications, English, and philosophy majors. The Forum needs some Seething Haters of Whitworth and some Brazen Defenders. It needs Crazy Lib’rals and Reactionary Conservatives. And of course, it needs those hem-hawing moderates stuck forever whishy-washing in the middle.  (What we don’t need more of: Whitworthian Opinion columnists moonlighting on the forum. They already have an opportunity to get their opinions out.) Remember, the goal of the Forum should be to give voice to the voiceless, power to the people, cliches to the lazy writer.
• Also, a forum administrator should try to recruit readers. Writing often will keep reader retention, but some amount of advertising is necessary as well. A few posters, a facebook group, the occasional facebook event, handing out flyers, etc. As soon as the Freshmen arrive may actually be the best time. Also advertise the fact that they can WRITE for the Forum. (As long as they make some semblance of an effort to spell correctly.)
• The prime directive: Let people write. When somebody says something incredibly stupid, offensive, or even incendiary — and believe me they will — it may be tempting to edit it away. Don’t.
• Only Edit for three things: Formatting (some people like to write 10,000 word posts without a paragraph or page break or “click here for more” option. That’s just ugly.) Grammar, (the Internet is a vast wasteland of uncapitalized letters and horrific abbreviations) and Anonymity (Having a secret screenname, like “obamacylon1337″ is fun on the other parts of the Internet, but just leads to flame wars and personal attacks. Allow this fairly profane comic to explain further.)
• But other than those three, it’s actually better — both legally and ethically — if you take a hands-off approach to other writers’ posts. Feel free to ream them in the comment .
• We need at least one Administrator familiar with H,T,M and L. WordPress is a great program, but occasionally it spits out posts with bizzaro formatting, usually when pasted from Word. The forum needs an administrator to correct those few times your post turns out in 72 point Comic Sans font.

So anybody up for it? It’s not a glorious job, or even a paying one, but it’s an important one. Respond in the comments if you’d like to be an Administrator for the Whitworth Forum next year. You can put it on your resume!

More than any other of my lists, the readers on this blog will already have an outstanding background on this topic. As soon as I say “Whitworth Moments” we all have five or six in mind. The September morning you walked into your dorm room. That midnight trip to the store, driver’s license in hand, to buy a bottle of wine for the first time ever. The study session for the 250 final that by 3:00 am had transitioned into a cribbage tournament. These are the great moments of the past one two three four years. So after reading the more all-encompassing list I have here, throw down a comment or two on which moments you’ll personally remember that no one else has ever known about. Meanwhile, here’s a more general recap of Whitworth as it was.

Honorable Mention #1: The Intramural Field. As much of a pain as it is to no longer have the loop as our default field for Frisbee, it was even more of a pain in the past when not only were we not allowed to play on the loop but we weren’t allowed to walk on it. Frisbee will never (oh please oh please) be totally eliminated there, but to have an additional field still on campus to play on will take some of the strain off the grass and soil. Plus, with no trees on the field, no one should be dislocating any bones on Omache either.

Honorable Mention #2: Changing of the Cores. Considering at least one Core seems to change every single year, I’m not sure we can narrow this down to solely an ’04-’08 happening. But something needs to be said about this. There’s a difference between tweaking a class and overhauling it, and all three classes have experienced at least one overhaul in the past four years. Maybe one of these overhauls will satisfy enough students and faculty to become a more permanent fix.

Whitworth Moment #10: The Hello Walk. It doesn’t seem like a huge deal now, but for all you non-seniors who don’t remember the cracked, uprooted, uneven, shadow-filled walkway that used to connect the east and west ends of the school, you don’t know how much of an improvement on the campus it is. On a foggy night, with the lights lined up in that little wave, standing in front of the library—well, I seriously think it is one of the most picturesque images in Spokane.

Whitworth Moment #9: Snowball Fight, 2005. I admit, this one is less of a universal moment. But I’m adding it anyway for one reason which shall wait until the end. Wednesday before finals, December, 2005. Mac has built up an enormous snow fort with dimensions (by memory, so this could be wrong) of 20 feet long x 10 feet deep x 8 feet high. The fort came with a booby trap net, icicles embedded in the wall to repel the cavalry, a sling shot and a catapult. That night around 100 MacMen waited in the fog until 1:00am when another 100 BJ brothers came attacking. They traveled by snow skates and sleds and tarps tied behind bicycles. For an hour and a half the loop was covered with half-naked and painted boys and girls in a frozen onslaught reminiscent of a Calvin and Hobbes scene. So other than the fact that I was there for the fight, why did I include this moment? Because that was the moment that the infamous and mostly misunderstood BJ/Mac rivalry transitioned from pointless hatred to merely fun and games.

Whitworth Moment #8: The Card System installation. Would we all prefer to just be able to walk into the dorms whenever we like? Yea, probably. But this was a change that was necessary, especially given the events at the beginning of the 2006-2007 year. It seemed like it was just a way for Whitworth to pull some of the personal touches out of the student’s life but, in reality, the card system has made our campus safer while not really affecting our lives. You can still get into any dorm. You still can’t get into any dorm other than your own past 11:00. The only difference is now only students can get in rather than the rest of the world also. The beeping thing’s been annoying, but it’s been a necessary evil to a necessary change at Whitworth.

Whitworth Moment #7: Dorm Changes. Goodbye Beyond. Goodbye Villages. Hello Duvall. Not much else needs to be said here. Though glorious parts of the Whitworth tradition, the buildings that all of oh, I don’t know, 20 of our fellow students used to call home are sadly no more. Instead we have a new pod-style dorm. The new setup hasn’t come out with the bang like it could’ve, but the school has learned some valuable information about what worked in Duvall and what hasn’t. Expect to see these changes implemented in East Hall in the coming years.

Whitworth Moment #6: The Tumultuous Trials of 2006. “The Perfect Storm” is now a firmly established cliché, but that’s pretty much what happened spring semester last year. First came an instance of racism reported at an off-campus party. It was fairly heavily disputed on all sides, but then came one very very not-disputed racist act during the ASWC elections, and all of a sudden the school had a race problem. Then, Olympia decides to have a little fun with Christian campuses of the state and say that schools, among other institutions, must adapt a non-discrimination policy toward sexual orientation—unless you are a private institution and choose to be an exception. Hey, that’s what Whitworth is! Thus followed an awkward period of Biblical, Whitworthial, and personal interpretation and reflection. Throw into the mix issues with Whitworth’s recycling and environmental policies and you have three topics that not only created multitudes of discussions but bad feelings, bad tempers, and a few protests. By the end of the year, the school was in a funk and we needed a summer break for more reasons than usual.

Whitworth Moment #5: Whit U. In 2004 I was accepted into Whitworth College. In 2008 I will be a graduate of Whitworth University. Last July Whitworth finally made this switch. There were a few decent reasons for the name change such as the fact that a college everywhere else on the planet is a high school, and also that we’d rather not consider ourselves to be in the same category as a community school masquerading under the name of “college.” Overall though, it was basically an economic reason. A university has graduate programs, and so does Whitworth. A university can have a seminary, and Whitworth may want one of those in the future. But most importantly, by changing the name to university we could change “ASWC” to “ASWU” (also known as As-woo) and that alone is worth the change.

Whitworth Moment #4: Traditiation Without the Tradition. Grrr…I hate complaining but, I’m sorry, this is one of the worst decisions Whitworth will ever make in its history. I was there for the infamous traditiation in 2006 when it got out of hand. And I admit, it did get out of hand. But one single person let it get out of hand. That’s all. Because of this, the school decides to punish every single freshman from now on for a total of four years each: one year of not experiencing traditiation with their dorm alumni, and three years not getting to be a part of the alumni. Make rules, make regulations, ensure safety of the students—all this is good. But don’t just wipe it off the face of the earth. Whitworth can no longer be proud of its great dorm traditions because the school is now preventing anyone from passing them on. I try to see both sides of issues, but I can’t get past this one. It was the worst decision the school made in my four years here.

Whitworth Moment #3: No mo Radio. I think the radio fans on this campus could build a decent argument for this being one of the most poorly implemented ideas as well. I’m not an avid KWRS listener, but I’ll do my best to make their case. The FCC a while ago warned that they would be increasing the medium range for radio stations that would be granted a frequency. Whitworth was below this limit. On the one hand, to increase this would mean a large sum of money would need to be acquired and, along with it, some additional training, classes, etc to make it worthwhile. The school didn’t make this decision; they were victims of growing market. On the other hand, aren’t we in the process of building a new Art center? Couldn’t a new radio station have been incorporated into this somehow? Decide for yourself, because both sides have a legitimate gripe here. All I know is, listener or not, it will be weird not to have a campus radio station there just in case Colin and Sean decide to make a comeback show or something.

Whitworth Moment #2: Weyerhaeuser Hall. Grand Opening in 2004, Weyerhaeuser has been a terrific addition to this school. Spacious, electronic-afied classrooms, ton’s of office and meeting spaces, and a nice little den of horrors for all you Core kiddies out there. Whitworth doesn’t really have too many college-y looking buildings or aspects to it (which I like), hence the nickname Camp Whitworth. But Weyerhaeuser is one of the more mature-looking sections on campus. Not to mention, can anyone imagine going a single semester without utilizing the building somehow? I sure can’t.

Whitworth Moment #1: Go Bucs. As a D-III school Whitworth doesn’t have the athletic persona and atmosphere that one would expect at a Gonzaga or WSU. But boy was this school alive with athletic spirit the past four years. Football: The first perfect season in history, and Michael Allan going to the Chiefs. Soccer: Sabrowski making the greatest play in the history of the universe with an OT penalty kick goal into the net to send the men to the Final Four in North Carolina. Swimming: I’ve lost count of the records and titles we’ve secured, both men and women. Track: Kristin Shields and the Academic All-American Award. Basketball: 2-time NWC champions. Golf: Champions um, well, every year pretty much. Softball: record setting year for wins. Volleyball: 05 NWC champions. Thank you to all our athletes for making it fun to be a pirate.

Ok I lied…one more list coming up in a day or two to officially wrap up this series. See you then.

Hear that? That’s the soft thwip-twhip of pig wings flapping, gently gliding over the frozen hellscape below.

The general issue concerns Whitworth deciding to nosedive standards for maintaining Whitworth academic scholarships — currently at 3.5 and 3.0 — to a 2.0. That’s right, students will be able to come in, after a mere 3.75 GPA and a 30 point ACT score, and be paid $12,000 a year for the Mind and Heart scholarship. At Whitworth, meanwhile, they can get a C-average, every single semester, and still be paid $12,000 a year for simply coasting by, Van Wilder/John Belushi from Animal House style. Colleges that give athletic scholarships don’t continue to pay students that decide they don’t want to play football, why should we continue to pay academic scholarships to students that decide they don’t want to get good grades?

So the person who does great in high school, who takes easy classes, and who does moderately well on the SAT is rewarded over the person who struggles in high school but excels in college? Can anybody honestly say, they are the same student junior year of college that they were senior year of high school?

2.0, by the way, is the required average to be able to graduate. So the standard for maintaining a scholarship isn’t just being lowered it’s being entirely obliterated.

Of course, Whitworth’s incoming GPAs and SAT scores have steadily risen in the past few years, mainly due to a sudden influx in Whitworth applications. But here’s the thing. Since the SAT scores are no longer required for admission, it’s expected that around “15-20 percent of applicants will choose not to submit test scores.”

Let’s play a guessing game: Which students do you think won’t submit their SAT scores? The ones with high SATs or the ones with low SATs? If I’m correct, and only low SAT scores will not be submitted, that skews the hell out of any SAT data.

There’s a reason high school grades are focused on. They are a great predictor of college success. (Although College Board says the new SAT writing portion is helpful as well. In some cases, the new SAT actually does better than high school grades at predicting college freshmen grades.)

But do you know what’s an even better predictor of grades in college than grades in high school? The actual grades in college. Why does Whitworth focus so much on high school grades — and believe me, I’ve known Valedictorians who would genuinely struggle at Whitworth — while practically ignoring grades in college?

There’s a few reasons given for obliterating the requirements to maintain your scholarship. One is that, even if there were no requirements, students still wouldn’t slack off.

Maybe some. Some feel the sum total of their intrinsic worth can be summed up by a few letters on their report card.

But most, like me, do what we can to get by. Once we put in the work to get, say, a B we concentrate our work on other projects. We take more classes, join more clubs, or start a blog.

I don’t worry too much about my grades because a 3.0, the stat needed to maintain my middle-of-the-road scholarship is very, very, very easy to maintain. (At least with a history and communications double major.)

But if I had to maintain a 3.5 GPA, like some of friends, you can bet I’d put in more work to my classes. You can bet that I’d send my paper’s to the writing center, read through every book, and meet with teachers outside of class. I’d fling myself full on into academics, scraping by with every morsel of intellect I could muster.

I would learn more.

Many students, however, understand that, unless they’re applying to Grad school, their College grades won’t matter much on Job applications. They aren’t going to give much more than a C-average of a damn unless they have an incentive. Currently all we do to reward good-grade garnering students is to say, Congratulations, you can take more classes.

(If I seem to be contradicting myself — simultaneously saying that college grades matter, but many students don’t care about them, because college grades don’t matter — I apologize. College grades may not matter all that much practically, but they matter educationally. They are a proof of how much you’ve learned. They measure your work ethic.)

Maybe our cash-strapped institution shouldn’t be forking over yearly $12,000 academic scholarships to reward students who happen to barely scrape by in their Gen eds. Like a college junior still wearing his letterman’s jacket, the Whitworth academic scholarships are still stuck in a high school mentality.

There’s other reasons why Whitworth is lowering the requirement. It’s frustrating to have to send out all those “You’re about to lose your scholarship” letters and e-mails.

(Solution: Tie the students transcript to the E-mail system, and use some automated Alan-Jacob-style form letters.)

Things happen, students get sick, there are deaths in the family, dogs eat homework, to cause grades to plummet. Students shouldn’t be punished for events beyond their control.

(Solution: Then don’t. If students have a very good reason why they struggled during a semester, then give them a semester to boost their grades back up. Or even better, don’t have it be an “all or nothing” loss. Let’s say a student’s grade dips from a 3.5 to a 3.2, and he loses his Mind and Heart 1200 dollar scholarships. Just bump him back to the $11,000 Presidential scholarship. If he gets his grades back up, then he can have the old scholarship again.)

But more than the wonky details of how to fix the current system, there’s a greater philosophical question. How rigorous do we want to be?

What type of school do we want to be? Do we want to be the School Where you Don’t Have to Write an Admission Essay? The School Where You Don’t Have to Submit an SAT Score? The School That Strives for the Muddled Mediocre Middle of our Peer Institutions? The School that dropped from a 3.7 to a 3.3 in academic reputation last year?

Or do we want to be the School That Challenges The Snot Out of You. The School that Looks you Straight in the Eye and Says “Hell no, I Won’t Let You just Slide By.” The School that Doesn’t Take “Slack” or “Sloth” for an Answer. The School Where Intellect and Work Ethic is Celebrated, Instead of Being A Trivial Stat when Compared to Your Frisbee Score.

(Personally, I’m a person, who , like Groucho Marx, doesn’t really want to be a part of college that would accept me as a student. I’d prefer to be the stupidest person at my University. My favorite classes – the one’s I’ve learned the most in — are the ones that I barely survive. I hold Whitworth to a high standard, and I expect Whitworth to do the same to me.)

Captions by Daniel Walters

Art by the respective artists. 

First the Junior art students, in a creative masterstroke, come out with a “Junior Art Exhibit.” Critics loved it, fans loved it, it was a box office smash.

And now, less than a month later, the Senior art students are producing a Senior art exhibit. It’s even in the exact same gallery.

*Tsk tsk tsk.* There’s a fine line between “homage” and “ripoff.”

The official name for the Senior Art Exhibit is called “School of Hard NOX” a subtle reference to the classic 1994 inspirational film, where English Teacher Caleb Knox teaches a group of smartmouth inner city kids by using a combination of tough-as-nails discipline tactics and rousing inspirational rap songs about synecdoche to show that poetry is just as powerful as prostitution.

I’m sure you’ve seen it.

Thomas and I asked the Senior art students if I could review their art pieces — and by “review,” I mean make bullet-point comments on what the art pieces sorta kinda almost look like, to a plebe like me. For some reason, they didn’t say No.

Before I move on the main event, let me say this about the Senior exhibit: It was a great show, but the entire time, I was tempted to sneak back in around 3:00 am, pop the hinges off the gallery door, and replace all the student art with Ruben Trejo’s banana sculptures. There’d be a certain karmic alignment it would achieve.

Now that that’s out of the way, onward and artward!

We Didn’t Have Anywhere Else to Sleep.
Cassie Swayze
17.5 x 14″

• This piece wasn’t nearly as delicious, until the artist spilled an Oreo McFlurry on it. Lickable art, people. Wave of the future.
• Just when high-rise Tokyo apartment complexes, thought they were safe from giant mutant monster attacks, they face the onslaught of a massive Shambling Icosidodecahedron Wireframe monster. Run, little citizens, run!
• The architecture of this apartment building is slightly modernistic, but moreso, inspired by the horrible tiled backgrounds of MySpace pages of 15-year-olds. If you need evidence that human nature is fallen, take a gander at that apartment: Such is man’s inhumanity to architecture.
• If Umbrella man continues forward, oblivious to his vertical plight, he’ll be safe and sound. If, however, he takes notice that he’s walking on thin air several hundred feet above ground, his eyes will inevitably bug out, his feet will windmill and his arms will flail, all before plummeting down to the canyon depths below. Stupid ACME umbrellas aren’t worth crap.
• This is like one of those optical illusions. Is that the Umbrella Man’s leg? Or the dancing girl’s really odd nightcap? Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
• [Insert your own Scrapbooking joke here]

I Miss You.
Cassie Swayze
17.5 x 14″

• Awwww. I’ll miss you too, Cassie Swayze.
• Don’t you hate when you open a book and find that your mom has been using it to press flowers, and even more surprisingly, press miniature Asian children. Me too.
• My real problem with this piece of artwork is that the photographs are getting in the way of reading a fascinating dictionary entry.
• Man, Grandma has NO IDEA what’s happening. She’s just going to ignore the chaos around her, concentrate on her book until the background turns back into the Rolling Hills Retirement home like it’s supposed to be. That’s what happens when you steal Edna’s pills, Grandma.

You Were a Chain Smoker.
Cassie Swayze
17.5 x 14″

• Somehow, Swayze got a hold of a Whitworth College Brochure from 1973. Back then, the theme for Initiation was “Growing Massive Grizzly beards of the Mind and Heart.”
• In the 1970, the “Albino Tribble” was the fashionable hat of the Paris Elite.

Jersey Boys
Kara Hyatt
11 x 17″

• Ah, yes, “Jersey Boys” the inevitable sequel to Kevin Smith’s magnum opus.
• The silhouetted man is only going to reach the top of that microphone by slowing scaling it, making basecamp in the middle, and then eventually reaching the summit two days later.
• He’s either a skinny man playing the guitar, or a fat man ready to shoot a studded bazooka.
• I washed my computer screen for twenty-minutes until I realized the spots were part of the artwork, and not just grime on my monitor.

Century Gothic
Kara Hyatt
11 x 17″

• Hey, it’s the English Alphabet, from the hit song, “The ABCs!” Glad to see a homage to the old classic.
• Isn’t sad how the mainstream media obsesses over letters like “A” and “Z” merely because of their youth and beauty, while ignoring truly interesting letters like “G” and “little w”?
• Of course, all this Alpha Bits business is simply a cover for the secret message. All the red letters spell “CENRTUYcghiot” Unscrambled, of course, that spells “Etching Outcry,” “The Grout Cynic” or “Hectic Orgy Nut.” Deep.
• Or maybe, you know, “CENTURY Gothic.” That’s always a possibility.
• Wow, that Z sure is spouting off a long line of profanity. Cursing like a zailor.

That’s Great.
Kaitlin Trott
18 x 24″

“when are you going to get some real work done?”

• I was a camp counselor, and let me promise you, eight-year-old girls look exactly like this when they’re mad.
• Somebody overdid the mascara.
• Now, I’m not accusing these little girls of taking drugs, but do their pupils seem… dilated to you?
• Originally id Software had planned to make these girls the “floating head” enemy, instead of the flying, flaming, skulls, but the ERSB made them take it out for being “likely to give kids — and adults — nightmares.
• I love it when you go to Value Village and find a chair, the perfect chair, a cheap chair, a chair literally glowing with perfection. Or maybe asbestos.
• If this were an Adventure Game, the yellow outline would totally mean we’d be able to pick up that Chair and slip it in our inventory.
• I’m just going to explain the deep red stain on the other chair as “somebody sat on a strawberry-grape jelly sandwich.” It’s a more comforting explanation than the alternatives. Like, say, a boysenberry jelly sandwich.

Influo
Thayere Wild
11″ x 15″

• The ensuing battle between the Great White Shark and the Giant Squid left massive injuries on both sides, and no sign of poor little Nemo.

Untitled 1
Stefan Robinson
24 x 48″

• It’s like a fusion of melted Skittles and water damage.
• Or maybe the world’s biggest closeup of a clown wig, slightly stained with mildew.
• This painting actually spins if you deign to twirl it. This is entertaining for three or four hours, after which it just becomes repetitive.
• The painting gives a vibe of “soft, but slightly poisonous.”

Erosion
Maddison Colvin
13 x 16″

• See! This is what happens when you leave your hands in the Hot Tub too long. Why didn’t you listen!
  
• Even the fingers have fingers!
• While all the other Sith Lords shot forked bolts of lightning from their fingertips, Darth Mysteriouso shot forked streams of molasses. But isn’t that, in a way, even more frightening.
• You can tell this image is French by the horrific forest of tangled hair swarming tentacle-like, from that female figure’s armpit.
• The medium: Charcoal. The canvas: Either Birch Tree Bark, or the wall in my basement around the dartboard.

Usnea
Maddison Colvin
32 x 24″

• This is what I imagine the Bathroom floor of the “Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll” theme house looked like after one of their Communist parties.
• Some paintings use a little bit of texture to accentuate the painting. This one is downright topographical. You could literally be running by this painting and the texture would closeline you and knock you to the ground.
• Art critique: “I really like the Mannequin heads, but if you wanted to, like, you know, make it more edgy and stuff, you could put one of the Mannequins in a shirt from the GAP. It could be a powerful statement against the consumerism that, like, pervades America. Just an idea.”
• The title “Usnea” brings to mind the words “nasea” “urea”"nasal” and “ooze,” all of which match this image’s color scheme.

Friends in High Places
Betty Gardner
8.5 x 11″

• So, from this vague artistic work, let’s try to ascertain the general political philosophy of the artist. What do you think? Republican? Tory? One of those people that avoid discussing politics with their peers, because they don’t want to alienate anyone or make anyone uncomfortable?
• Whoops! The artist put the American flag upside down, which, is disrespectful to the flag. I’m sure that this was a honest mistake and was in no way meant as disrespect to the flag, the country, the leaders, or their unilateral, illegal, dictatorial, monkey-brained, jingoistic decisions.
• Ah, George Bush is shadowed by his slightly larger, much more monochrome doubleganger. This represents George Bush’s duplicitous nature, as evidenced by the three-week period during 2003 when the United States was briefly run by the goateed Evil Bush.
• Thousands of naked people may seem scary, but it’s just not the same when they’re only 6 inches high. As long as you keep your jeans tucked into your socks so they can’t crawl up your legs you should be fine.
• The liberty bell represents the War in Iraq.

The Three Stooges
Betty Gardner

• From right to left: Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush, and… West Wing Presidential Candidate Arnold Vinick , as played by Alan Alda?
• I know I’m supposed to avoid Pee Wee Herman references but President Bush looks so much like a depressed Paul Reubens that I can’t help it.
• I’m pretty sure you can use that Condoleezza Rice puppet to crack small walnuts.
• Deep down, once you look past the bombast and the swagger and the drawl and the pretzels, all George W. Bush really wants is to be a real boy.
• Of course, this a representation of the popular conspiracy theory currently in vogue with the Far Left: That the president, vice-president, and secretary of state are secretly puppets, controlled by a mastermind named Stromboli. I don’t care what Popular Mechanics claims, it’s too unbelievable not to believe.
• The pretend horse represents the War in Iraq.

CD Package
Megan Baker
22 x 28″

• Despite the references to Rock and Roll and Pat Benetar, the general style makes me think it’s from one of those Alanis Morissetteish angsty womyn bands, that sets feminist screeds to song, and in doing so, both reinforces all feminist stereotypes and inspires a new generation of chauvinism. Or maybe I just have some inherent prejudice against the color dark pink.
• This design is actually pretty melancholic and thought-provoking, which is funny considering that the songs “One way or another” and “I love Rock and Roll” …aren’t.
• Hey, and it comes with a free American Online CD featuring 10,000 hours (in one month) of free internet. That’s art you can use.
• Sadly, we’re missing the CD with the special “making of” features, and director’s commentary.

Class of ‘68
Amy Newton
82 x 49″

• Belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, pockets, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts, belts… wait, we interrupts this program for an important message from the President of the United States of America: Belts.
• There are 13 pieces here, all involving belts. Maybe a fourteenth is what it needs to truly communicate the belty message’s nuance.
• Most psychologists would look at this piece and become absolutely convinced that the artist’s father beat the artist as a kid. But beat with what?
• Sorry. That last comment was below the belt.
• The colors and glossy sheen used are very rare, mainly used only in these pieces, and, well, most garden gnomes.
• I’ve heard rumors that there’s a house in Austin, Texas where the walls and the very ground are tiled with these pieces of artwork, hundreds of thousands of them. Homeland security uses it to interrogate minimalists.
• I sifted through all the pockets, but all I found was 13 cents in change, a paperclip, and crumpled up receipt from Taco Bell.

Class of ‘68 detail
Amy Newton
82 x 49″

• Here’s a closer look at one of the Beltwork pieces, which uses the medium of belts and the canvas of pants! These may look like just a few belts, with some paint here and paint there, but it means far more than that. It’s a non-too-subtle histogram of U.S. belt export rates over the last 10 years. That dip in the middle was from when we outsourced much of our rust belt industry to Indochina. Now, however, with the US dollar at an all time low, our exports — especially belt exports –  are accelerating at an unmatched pace. Honestly, a pretty impressive bout of information to be contained within a single art piece.

Sculpture
Betty Gardner

• Wow, look at the size of her… eyes. At least that’s what I see. I see a beehive hairdo, a pair of Steve Buscemi bulging eyeballs, a pursed, whistling mouth and a French Fork beard.
• If this were smaller, you could put it in your pocket and the top could pop off to allow you to drink alcohol contained within.
• Either that or it’s just a giant, fat, grenade.
• Try to push this sculpture over all you want, it’ll just wobble back up.

Wall Installation
Stefan Robinson

• Mmm…. Rainbow Sherbet.
• Leonard Oakland gave his students permissions to doodle on the Westminster walls — because they were going to be torn down anyway — stepped out of the room for a moment, and came back to this. Darn creative types.
• It’s a scene from the classic novel, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Wallpaper, where a man has 11 brothers, who lock him in a room until he goes insane and starts hallucinating that the wall paper is trying to kill him.
• To a person suffering from synesthesia viewing this room feels like getting punched in the mouth, tastes like Zounds! flavor cotton candy, and sounds like Alvin and the Chipmunks warbling “Livin’ la Vida Loca” at 180 decibels.
• The pipe hanging from the ceiling represents the War in Iraq.

I know, I know. Not exactly a breaking piece of news worthy of the Drudge siren. It’s more like breathlessly revealing that, guess what, Stalin, of all people, was behind the assassination of Trotsky! And that OJ fellow? He might have had a hand – or at least glove – in the murder of his wife!

Jessica Davis guessed that I had written those three-page incendiary mere moments after it was discovered. It only took Galen Sanford and Jessica Carrier a few days to figure it out.

And I’m guessing even administration – Mandeville and the RDs – had a pretty good inkling of whodunit. They didn’t attempt to prosecute me because four others had, like Abraham’s ram, taken my place. The requisite quota of punishment was met, so there was no need to drag my paranoid, trembling self in.

So, it’s not like the following information is a surprising confession to anyone.

Nor is it necessarily a defense of the theses. It’s also not an apology. It’s neither bragging nor regretting.

Instead, it’s merely a record, on paper (or screen) of the events that unfolded on the night of October 31, 2006. It’s purely a correction on the misinformation you think you know, and elaboration on the information you do know.

This is a first person account of rise and fall of the prank that made both the local evening news and Sportsillustrated.com.

Granted, the prank happened over a year ago. The conversations are reproduced and stylized from my hazy memory. Exact accuracy is not to be expected. If you want to correct something, that’s what the comments section is for.

For those of you who already know of the 95 theses tornado of a saga, this will add facts to your assumptions.

For those of you who are going “95 what??” then buckle your seatbelt, release the parking break, and ignite the ignition.

You’re in for a wild, convoluted, ride.

More…

Ideas.

It began with a notion.

It accelerated with a convergence. If I hadn’t had a chance meeting with Josef Bookert on the Duvall Bridge one sunny September morning, it’s likely the 95 would be different.

But first, for the uninitiated, let me explain the character of Josef Bookert. And he is a character.

Josef is readily identifiable by two attributes: His long Jamaican dreads and his gleaming, slightly impish, smile. Josef smooth, easy-going, chuckling affability means that essentially everyone likes him. Only the sticklers, those who are cap-sensitive to the letter of the law, get their feathers ruffled.

Josef Bookert has probably done more to facilitate genuine community, to stamp the College Experience with his unique brand of awesome than Student Life and ASWU combined. He’s served on both, but it is his unofficial, and often unendorsed, activities that bring about the memories, the unmatched camaraderie, and occasionally, the scolding from administrative types.

Separately, Josef and I had come to a conclusion: Whitworth’s school spirit lacked spirit. It had no punch, no panache. At that time, the there was dorm spirit, stemming from the occasional dorm rivalry. Yet, these rivalries had flaws. While they united dorms, they divided the school. When the Mac smiley was grinning, BJ wasn’t. Dorm rivalries were often lose-win.

Ah, but a school rivalry. That was the kind of the thinking that paid dividends. I came from North Central High School, and our rivalry with upper-crust, snobby Shadle Park was one of the biggest factors in the reason I donned my red and black lettermen’s jacket with genuine pride. It united us across bounds of race, gender, class, and musical preferences.

There, on the Duvall bridge as I headed for Saga, Josef floated past the ideas that had been stewing, and gradually percolating, in his mind since Traditiation.

We needed a rivalry with Gonzaga. We didn’t respect EWU enough to justify hating them.

But Gonzaga? They were the jerks who dominated headlines every March. The media fawned over them, mainly because of their proficiency in getting a small orange rubber sphere through a ring. They regularly beat us – just barely – in the US News and World Report rankings. They thought themselves slightly better than us in most categories, as any good rival should.

Yet, we couldn’t just start a rivalry by announcing one in a letter to the editor in The Whitworthian. We needed them to strike against us.

But how?

By offering them a provocation they could not refuse.

Josef outlined a plan. As with all great terrorist organizations, this one was divided up into cells. One cell would sew a massive pirate flag. They would blitz Gonzaga one night, put it at the top of one of their flagpoles, and padlock it to prevent it being taken down.

Josef wanted my help with another cell.

In the tradition of Martin Luther, Josef said, we are going to write nine point five reasons why Whitworth is better than Gonzaga, make a bunch of copies and tape them on the Gonzaga campus the same night as we hung the flag.

Just nine-point-five? I said. Why not go for the full traditional stock of 95?

Well, that’s a lot of writing, isn’t it? Josef said.

A challenge of quantity as opposed to a challenge of quality? Oh, I was all over that.

To the typing-machine!

Writing.

The express purpose of the theses was not to, necessarily, be humor. I was not to outline an actual persuasive case that we were superior to Gonzaga.

Instead, the theses had to serve two purposes.

1) They had to make Gonzaga Students spittingly, frothing-at-the-mouth-angry. Angry enough to trick them into doing something stupid. Like striking back.

2) And they had to be so mind-numbingly absurdly stupid that Gonzaga would look absolutely ridiculous for getting mad about them.

Thus, the final product had a schizophrenic feel to it. Some lines were genuinely funny, saying “Hey, man. We just playin’.” Others were downright cruel, meant to prod at Gonzaga’s insecurities and obvious flaws. They were meant to be, above all, inflammatory. And some, as Bill Robinson, pointed out in his e-mail, were just plain stupid.

(Frustratingly, many people missed that these were supposed to be stupid. I’m guessing these people watch Airplane! and say, “Wow. That Leslie Nielsen sure isn’t very smart. I’m surprised someone that stupid gets acting jobs in Hollywood, much less be allowed to fly a commercial airliner.”

There were a number of different sacred cows the theses were meant to slaughter, grind up, cook, and serve back to Gonzaga on a sesame seed bun. In this case, taboos were meant to break.

First, Gonzaga’s pride. Basketball.

2) Our Basketball team has never totally choked in the sweet sixteen.

3) Our men can grow real moustaches, the kind you can wax and hang stuff from.

Second, there was some sort of meme going around with the absurd notion that Gonzaga students would drink alcoholic beverages on occasion. Sometimes, they would even indulge so much that they would become “intoxicated,” and commit foolish acts. No mockery of Gonzaga would be complete without mentioning the drunken, slovenly Gonzaga student.

45) When asked why he decided to drink alcohol in moderation, the Whitworth student replied, “Alcohol has caused so much pain in so many families that I couldn’t bear to get caught up in that lifestyle. Plus, I like to be able to wake up where I choose each morning.” The Gonzaga student responded by throwing up and passing out on the linoleum.

76) Most Whitworth parties require guests wear a formal dress or snazzy tuxedo. Most Gonzaga parties require guests to wear a lampshade.

Of course, throughout the entire process, I was thinking: What would make me angry? If Gonzaga unleashed their own version of the 95 theses on Whitworth, what would make Whitworth want to break out the artillery and storm the castle? Simple. Make fun of B-Rob. You mock our president, and it’s on.

Fortunately, Gonzaga had their own version of a university president: Father Robert Spitzer. A couple outrageous lines about proclaiming Bill Robinson’s superiority and Robert Spitzer’s inferiority would cause Gonzaga blood to boil. Inspired by the basic Chuck Norris joke formulas at this time, these theses followed this basic outline:

20) While Whitworth President Bill Robinson is strong and ruggedly handsome, with a cleft chin and chiseled features, Robert Spitzer is weak and sickly, with a small bladder.

This trend continued over about 15 more theses.

21) Bill Robinson spends his weekends fighting bears and dragons. The only thing that Father Robert Spitzer fights is his own crippling self-doubt.

22) As a small child, Bill Robinson plugged a hole in a dike with his finger, saving all of Holland.
Robert Spitzer couldn’t even plug the massive holes in the logic of his doctoral dissertation: A Study of Objectively Real Time.

The one’s that got the most controversy, however, dealt with Catholicism, a major part of a Catholic university. Apparently, religion is a pretty big deal to some people. To me the idea of a religious war in today’s day and age was hilarious in its pure absurdity. To my knowledge, no member of the 95 theses prank had a single anti-Catholic sentiment.

Yet, we had to address Catholicism in the theses. After all, Martin Luther did in his Theses. Most of the Catholic jokes were pretty tame. I mean, how many priest molestation jokes do you hear every day from stand up comedians.

By my count, only ten theses, out of a possible ninety five, dealt with religion.

52) We would make fun of some kind of disconnect between what the priesthood teaches and what they actually do, but we can’t find any examples of this.

93)I heard if a Jesuit bites you… you become one…

With each thesis I grew more frantically paranoid. When I finally printed the theses, I titled the document, “C.S. Lewis Notes” and printed only 100 at a time before switching computers or profiles. If I was going to go get caught, I wasn’t going to be because some I.T. guy traced me back through the printer history.

As a wiser and older man, I look back on some of the theses – some I’m not going to reprint – and realize they could have been better. A few distracted from the theses’ general purpose. A few turned the controversy in the wrong direction – arguing over semantics rather than the prank itself.

But it wasn’t just the text that made it incendiary. It was the execution.

Escalation.

With the rough draft of the document completed, we had prepared the match to light the fuse to bring about an explosion.

The question, of course, was how big would that explosion be? To continue the metaphor even further: We needed a master demolitionist.

We needed to find a prankster’s prankster. We needed to find a few people absolutely expert in the Art of College War. We needed somebody clever, somebody stealthy, somebody both mentally and physically agile.

And where else would we find such a creature, but at the Ninja Theme House?

Meet Beau Chevassus and Matt Park. Behind the Ninja masks and mime makeup, sit a pair of devious minds. Whenever a prank happened on campus, the first thing you’d do is to look for their fingerprints .

Beau and I were confronted with a devilish dilemma. Should we keep the size of the group small and safe? Or should we risk getting caught by inviting enough people to make the prank downright catastrophic?

After much tossing and turning, fretting and sweating, we made our decision: We’d make the prank a huge one, despite the consequences. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.

One by one, we began to take aside the creative, the daring, and the slightly foolhardy. We’d give them just enough information to tantalize. “I could go on,” we’d say, “but you must swear to secrecy.”

But a few days before, Beau spammed an encrypted e-mail on the prank proposal to a cluster of friends – most in Mac – telling them where and when the whole mess would go down.

The password, predictably, was “ninja.”.)

The Long Night.

Oct. 31.

Halloween.

And exactly 589 years after Martin Luther sticky-tacked his version of the theses to a fateful door in Wittenberg.

There we stood in the Ninja Theme house.

Our accomplices that surrounded us – a troupe numbering more than fifty (or seventy if you believe some accounts). – read like a Who’s Who of Whitworth leadership. We had RAs, SGCs, a Dorm Senator, and of course, ninjas of all variety.

One RA brought his entire hall, counting this as his hall activity.

Every person set to work. We pulled out reams of blue tape and masking tape to begin compiling the 12,000 pages into sets of 3. Some begin painting and sewing sheets of red and black, alternate Whitworth flags to festoon our enemy’s campus.

Several illustrated Illuminated Theses on butcher paper, taping them to large metal Spokane Teacher’s Credit Union signs we found in the Back 40.

We cobbled together hundreds of miniature red flags bearing the Whitworth “W,” intended to stick them in the ground. We also had in our arsenal several “Sponsored by ASWC” bumper stickers, and one Childs Smiley face Halloween costume.

Maps of Gonzaga were passed around, as operational strategies were frantically diagrammed. At precisely 3300 hours, we would strike from dozens of different angles, starting on dozens of different areas on campus. Some would be dressed as ninjas, while others would wear licensed Gonzaga paraphernalia. A few would be disguised as Pizza Pipeline employees, theses stowed away within their pizza boxes, in order to gain access to Gonzaga’s dorms.

I said a few solemn words, something about the duty to one’s country and school, people divided up into cars – and in a flash, were off and gone.

As for myself, I didn’t have the guts to go on the actual prank. I stayed behind in the Ninja Theme house cleaning up, doing dishes, and watching the clock tick-tock, sliding past 3:30, 4:00, 4:30.

I could only imagine what the others were up to.

A few words from Beau Chevassus:

Have you ever had so much adrenaline pumping through you that everything flew by in slow motion? This is the Uh-Oh Moment—that period in time where everything comes to a standstill, and you are able calculate the 95 different possibilities of how that situation will turn out for the worst. I had several Uh-Oh Moments that Halloween night. My Ninja Sense tingled at every leaf rustle that echoed off the Gonzaga buildings. “Is that campus security or a portly-shaped shrubbery?”

At the end of that night my spirit chortled with delight, and my nerves were raw. Raw indeed. No massively coordinated, nocturnal prank is complete without several shots of panic-induced epinephrine. I got my fill that night.

No, it was not the first time I was dressed as a Ninja at 3:00 am, but this time national security wasn’t on the line. My main purpose in the prank was to gather as many trusted cells as possible and communicate The Brass’ intentions. After prepping at the Ninja Theme House, each group of Whitworth students was to infiltrate Gonzaga, work their magic, scream at a given time (which turned out to be incredibly eerie), and sprint off campus. Simple.

That night after posters were painted, pep-talks given, watches synchronized, and last rites declared, we piled into our respectable clown cars. My cell included Matt Park and Mark Schuldt, who were also disguised as Ninjas. We parked a stone’s thrown away from the Gonzaga campus, and we hoisted the Pro-Whitworth tarps and canvases onto our backs. We dodged and darted our way, from shadow to shadow, leaving a wake of confused storm troopers and disabled tractor beams. One giant canvas was draped across a hedge, while another was taped to the back of a baseball diamond’s backstop. As we flew across campus, we saw 95 Theses posters slowly accumulating on doors, walls, and statues. Blue tape was used… yes these were thoughtful pranksters. The most impressive canvas we hung (a giant cartoon of a scowling pirate) was stretched between steel girders 30 feet above the ground on the west side of the McCarthey Athletic Center. I distinctly remember the pitter-patter of feet softly scurrying under us three as we clung to the side of building. I wondered if we should call out our spotted owl signal, but the risk of a security guard and not a fellow conspirator, was too great.

Ultimately we did have some confrontations with Gonzaga’s campus security—two run-ins to be exact.

Once was when we were paralleling Nevada and a security patrol turned on his lights and sped off towards us. “Meet at my truck!” I fluttered through a suppressed whisper. *Poof*. A flicker of shadow was all the bewildered security guard saw. Ah, these were professionals.

We were within an arms reach the second time we were detained. This was well after we heard the triumphant Whitworth battle cry of our comrades bounce off the slumbering dorms. The Whitworth cells were speedy indeed, but our Ninja trio had one more tarp to hoist.

There is a certain Gonzaga building next to division, an office I think, that has a giant mound of rock leading up to the rooftop. We jumped the gap between the rock and the roof in the dark (what’s Ninja espionage without jumping an alleyway?).

After hanging the giant “W” over the edge of the building in such a way that every commuter on Division that morning would see it, we scrambled down the inky cliff face. As we got into my truck, we were doused in the headlights of Gonzaga security. At this point, I thanked my lucky [ninja] stars it was Halloween. The Pavlovian security guard was conditioned to accept abnormal-looking characters on October 31^st.

Still, there was something suspicious about these three who were dressed as 1980s pop culture phenomenons.

Thus he sat and watched.

Those of us from the Ninja Theme House were practitioners of an ancient technique we demonstrated and shared; it is called Kasumi, essentially “The Art of Deception.” Immediately this Kasumi coursed through our veins. “Act like fools!” I hissed. Mark, Matt, and I immediately jumped out of the truck and executed the cheesiest Ninja poses we could muster, dancing and frolicking about in his headlights like drunken pixies.

It worked perfectly.

The security guard stepped out of his car and went about checking locks on doors, too above these hoodlums to acknowledge their immaturity.

We quickly and silently piled back into my truck. Before this Uh-Oh Moment, I had never turned my truck’s ignition as nonchalantly as I did at that time, despite the “Go! Go! Go!” my comrades were whispering.

The night was a success.

Yes aspects were stupid, and no the prank wasn’t perfect. However for a covert event that massive and complex, I purr like a kitten when I recall how well-executed it was.

In every good prank, there is nothing vandalized or hurt… except for egos. I am proud to say I was a part of the poke that Gonzaga’s ego felt for a long time.

A few words from Josef Bookert:

The night was one to be remembered forever. My partner in crime, Taylor Counts, and I prowled the roads calmly, as if we were humble pedestrians returning home from a movie. We had previously instructed our friends and collaborators to strike within a seven minute time frame, and everything went off without a hitch. Let me reconstruct the scene:

Cool wind rustled the fallen leaves past quiet and dark buildings, a flag pole clicking its pride before the COG, the sound of our feet scraping the lonely pavement. A beep from our watch, then chaos. Out of the shadows came the laughter of fifty plus scurrying Whitworthians headed in every which way in eerie synchronization. They taped the 95 thesis with a gusto and speed only seen in the midst of mischief. Ninjas climbed up buildings, over rooftops, taping the soon to be infamous list in every cranny they could, on every stature, on every door.

Groups congeal near lawns as unorganized leaves began to take the shape of W’s. Long white bed sheets were strung on the gates and entry points, painted with certain theses exploding in red and black. Taylor and I merely watched in awe as the campus fell to our silent riot.

Our plot was thrust full swing into the darkness of Halloween, and, where once stood an institute of Jesuit pride, now settled the maelstrom of hundreds of white lists and absconding ninjas. The streets and walkways of Gonzaga flooded with a swarm of pranksters for a mere seven minutes, leaving behind a controversy covered on the 11:00 O’clock news the next night, lead story.

Taylor and I walked back to the car in silence, leaving behind a nigh-crime scene to echo through the rumors of prank history. Score one for Whitworth, dear readers, score one indeed.

Fallout.

Even in spite of the events of the night before, the sun rose the next morning. For a few moments, it seemed as if nothing had changed. Whitworth still buzzed with the ho-hum hum of the regular: the scamper of squirrels, the clatter of falling pinecones, the muddied mumble of groggy students grumbling about the quality of dining hall food.

But gradually the juicy details of the 95 theses began to drip-drip from the grapevine. “Did you hear?” students said. “Did you hear what happened over at Gonzaga?”

Most of the gossip came straight from the loose lips of our co-conspirators, a bit smug from the festivities the night before.

I didn’t mind. Public opinion seemed comfortably on our side. Maybe all my paranoia, all my fretting and sweating and fingernail-chomping, was all for nothing.

Then came the game-changer. An E-mail from Bill Robinson entitled “Go Bulldogs.”

In that moment I lost all interest in eating anything ever again. Had I been caught? No, generally the e-mails you really need to worry about are ones from Bill Robinson or Dick Mandeville labeled “untitled message.”

This particular e-mail was merely a repudiation of the prank, whoever was responsible. That didn’t necessarily make me feel better. If you listened closely to the e-mail, really pressed your ear against the screen, you could hear the public opinion of the prank flushing inevitably down the crapper.

As Robinson goes, so goes Whitworth. People like to joke about how popular Robinson is at Whitworth – heck, the 95 theses made a point of highlighting that – but Robinson really does wield an extraordinary amount of influence at Whitworth. He’s the most effective PR man I’ve ever seen, and usually king of diffusing potentially explosive situations.

(Just think about his expertly-worded e-mail during the lead-up to the 8^th of May. While Robinson couldn’t placate the extreme elements, he didn’t need to. His e-mail pacified those in the middle and in doing so sucked the steam from the movement. Thus, the 8^th of May was hardly a 5^th of November.)

However, in this case, the e-mail didn’t diffuse anything.

It catalyzed it.

In a fell swoop of text, Robinson may have sabotaged both of our ends. Our goal was to provoke a rivalry. Robinson’s goal, presumably, was to try to stem anything from getting blown out of proportion. Honestly, we didn’t want the theses to be a big deal at Whitworth. We wanted them to be a big, earth-shattering call-to-arms deal at Gonzaga, but not at Whitworth. Gonzaga’s retaliation was to be the thing that Whitworth concentrated on and got angry about.

The e-mail, however, informed every single student to the prank at once. In doing so, it launched an enormous storm of controversy. The exact type of controversy we wanted… at Gonzaga.

Without some kind of e-mail, news of the event would have spread word-of-mouth. Eventually, presumably The Whitworthian would have done a story on it, but by the time it was published students would have formed their own opinion about it. Ideally, then Gonzaga would retaliate, and only then would the students get up in arms.

As it was, the well was poisoned. Those who actually had the work ethic to read the actual theses came to it expecting to find a horrific, offensive, blasphemous, lame set of facts. “They were an affront to our respectable institution!” most students thought before they’d laid eyes on a single thesis. The inconsistent, intentionally – and sometimes unintentionally – lame 95 didn’t stand a chance.

Knowing this, I went deep into hiding. I adopted an official position on the theses for those who asked. “Well, I thought the idea was good, but some of the theses just went too far.”

Went too far. That was a phrase I grew quickly tired of hearing. Another one was “I’m a great fan of a good prank.” The question always hung: What pranks, exactly, have they been a fan of? The 95 theses didn’t do a lick of property damage.

Nobody was really even inconvenienced.

What was more interesting was hearing everybody give their honest opinion on what they read. Usually, nobody is going to walk straight up to me, look me in my eye, and say “I hated your column this week. It was real dreck.” If they don’t like it, they just don’t say anything. I usually have to judge success on how many compliments, if any, I receive. But this time, I could hear my fellow comrades talk about how weak they thought much of the 95 were.

I would have been downright fascinated, but I was far too busy with a little emotion called “complete and utter fear.”

Meanwhile, in the very heart of Gonzaga.

Whitworth students discovered the details of the prank gradually. Gonzaga students, on the other hand, woke up literally surrounded by primary sources.

There was a time when we wouldn’t have been able to know what they were thinking.

There was a time when we would have had to guess at the comments they made.

There was a time, in other words, before the Internet.

That very morning Gonzaga students rushed to record the reaction to the prank with their very best Friend: Facebook.

One particular Facebook group, “95 Theses Shows How Stupid the School Is” gained 600 members in about 5 days, according to a Gonzaga Bulletin article.

The creator of the Group, one David Tobias, even went so far as to write a rebuttal to every single thesis we wrote.

And here was the kicker. The rebuttal was entirely serious.

For example, to the line “The pope may be infallible, but Bill Robinson is infallibler,” Tobias wrote. “Infallibler isn’t a word.”

Curse his unholy dictionary skills!

He also replied to the line “Whitworth Prep is so exclusive that YOU probably have never even heard of it,” with the straightfaced rebuttal: “No such school exists.”

Well, yeah. That you know of.

Meanwhile, in the comments section, it was looking promising for reprisal. “They defaced Bing!” one commentator said of the smiley face lovingly placed on the crooner. The comments cried for Vengeance! Revenge! Retaliation!

It was times like those that made us want to steeple our fingers and cackle, “Everything is proceeding according to plan…”

There was one factor we hadn’t counted on, however: A sanctimonious, anti-Catholic handpuppet named Obadiah Bible Boy. Obadiah began commenting on the 95 theses Facebook group, saying odd and absurd things, even posting, on his profile, an odd conspiracy theory about the Catholic Pope.

Obadiah, of course, was a character that Beau Chevassus had created. Chevassus meant it to be satire, presumably to point out of how ridiculous anti-Catholic sentiment was in this day and age. If you knew Beau personally – or even knew Obadiah personally – that would have been clear. But the uninitiated, unaware of Beau’s comic sensibilities or Obadiah’s offensive proclivities, took it at as the mad rantings of a hopelessly-confused and bigoted Whitworth student.

Tobias deleted the Facebook group and somebody – nobody quite knows for sure – reported Obadiah’s account to the Facebook administrators. Only real people, it seems, are allowed on Facebook.

I mention this seemingly-tangential aspect of the prank’s fallout to make a sociological observation:

It’s fascinating to see how hard it is for people to detect satire when it’s coming from the “Other.” Tobias seemed to have such a low opinion of Whitworth that Obadiah Bible Boy’s rantings had to be the serious religious bigotry. He expected Whitworth students to be so stupid that it was entirely likely we believed that “infallibler” was a word. That’s not an indictment of Tobias as much as it is human nature.

Democrats tend to believe the most absurd stories about Bush. Republicans tend to believe crazy tales about Clinton. Obadiah believed the most wild conspiracy theories about the Pope. We rarely give the enemy the benefit of the doubt.

Sadly, for whatever reason, Gonzaga retaliated only with words. All the anger, the uprising, the schemes of revenge discussed on Facebook, were for naught. Maybe Gonzaga lacked the creativity. Maybe they were just lazy. Or maybe they figured out that the whole thing was a just a scheme to restart the rivalry tradition.

We succeeded in the “making them incredibly angry part.” There was fist-shaking a plenty. We succeeded in creating a catastrophe that got plenty of press. That included a Local TV news story that editorialized heavily, “What happens when a college prank… goes to far? Tonight at 11!” And in our proudest moment, a positive mention on the Sports Illustrated Website, “Score a point for Whitworth… There’s nothing quite like spoofing the most important religious doctrine of the 16th Century to poke fun at your rival.”

But the final goal, spurring retaliation, never happened. Writing can guarantee an emotional reaction, albeit unpredictably. But it can’t always guarantee action.

Never under estimate the sheer power of the enemy’s laziness.

Consequences

There’s no way you can pull off a prank with 50 plus people and not expect to be caught. Someone, somewhere, for some reason, will talk.

In this case, it was Kyle Pflug. During a meeting with RD April McGonigal, she asked him if he was involved in the prank.

He told her the truth.

That’s the pesky thing about involving honest people who do their job.

“Never involve an RA with a prank,” is a common sense rule as old as the Hammurabi Code. It’s not because they’re unethical. It’s because they are ethical. And “truth” and “duty” are often higher values for them than “not getting in trouble.”

Kyle was sent down to one of those iconic meetings with Dick Mandeville. Masterminds Josef Bookert and his roommate, who didn’t want somebody to punished for something they came up with, accompanied him. (Personally, I was more than willing to let others take the rap for my misdeeds. I was more than thankful for it.)

(For some reason Scott Donnell joined the group as well, despite the fact that Scott Donnell literally was only informed of the prank a few moments before it happened. Of all 50 people involved in the prank it’s likely that Donnell may have been the least involved.)

Yet, even under questioning from Dr. Mandeville, himself, the 95 Theses Four refused to reveal who wrote it. While the Gonzaga Bulletin story said “The person responsible for writing the “95 Theses Why Whitworth is Better Than Gonzaga” has been identified” I remained, at least officially anonymous.

There’s a certain swelling of admiration that comes from seeing a friend given an opportunity to rat you out, and then refusing to take it. That’s loyalty. That’s admirable.

After some time, the controversy faded. As usual, Finals and Winter Break heals all wounds. Other controversies – controversies about wounds deeper than a three-page flyer could inflict- would arise the next semester.

Regrets? We had a few. There are a few theses that make me cringe to this day. Not as much because of their offensiveness, but because of their unintentional lameness. As with anything, there are always small aspects that could use improvement.

But I guarantee you: For most of the 50 people who participated, whenever the phrase “95 theses” are mentioned in the future, they’ll smile to themselves and think: “Those were the days.”

And those precious memories – of the explosive results of the potent mixture of immaturity and obsession – are some of the most valuable treasures of a college experience.

At least at Whitworth. I can’t speak for Gonzaga.

_______________

Aspects of the prank that didn’t make the final cut.

Dry-Ice Bombs: A dry ice bomb is a pretty basic feature of a college prank. From the beginning, several dry ice bombs were supposed to explode on the other side of campus to both cap off the nights festivities and throw Gonzaga Security off our trail.

Reason rejected: I pleaded constantly to not involve anything explosive in the prank. I wanted to keep it both legal and disaster free. My pleas were taken into consideration, but ultimately rejected. The Dry Ice Bomb plan went forward. Fortunately, on the night of the 31^st, the bombermen ran into a problem. Even though it was Halloween night, the holiday of dry ice, they couldn’t find a chunk to work with.

Thank goodness.

Drunk Scarecrow: One of the most classic Gonzaga points of mockery is the rather basic notion that they like to throw back a few every once in a while. Often to the point of passing out and vomiting, sometimes at the same moment. We wanted to communicate this nuanced message in a visual form.

Here was the plan:

We’d find a suitable fountain or birdbath. Then we’d – like Moses on the Nile – transform the water into dark green Jello, with around 100 Jello packets. We’d sprinkle in a variety of lucky charms and carrot chunks. Finally, we’d take a scarecrow, dress him in the finest Gonzaga sweatshirt, and plop his head into the tainted fountain.

To the uninitiated slightly blind observer, it would look as if some poor Gonzagan Soul had “tossed his cookies” into one of their finest fountains.

Vomit humor at its most sophisticated.

Reason rejected: Two reasons. We couldn’t find a fountain that would work to our specifications and second, we were worried that dumping Jello. There are some mighty fine lines between Prank, Vandalism, and Jail. There are some things worth going to jail for. Incisive commentary on the notion that Gonzaga students may not exactly be teetotalers is not one of them.

Pirates vs. Ninjas: The Cover Story: Of course, Gonzaga security would be a bit suspicious to see a bunch of Ninja’s running about willy-nilly. In other pranks, Whitworth students have used a fake Frisbee golf game to mask their escapades. Unfortunately, in this case, we didn’t have time for such an alibi.

Obviously, Ninjas running around are suspicious because you don’t expect to see them.

But what if we could make it so ninjas were expected.

With that concept, the “Pirates vs. Ninja” day was born.

I hacked out a bunch of crappy posters – authentically crappy – promoting a contest: “Which is better? Pirates or Ninjas. This Halloween, dress as your favorite. The numbers will be tallied in the dining hall at 5:00! Be there!”

And this next phrase was key: “Late that night, we’ll hold a Pirates vs. Ninja Capture the Flag Game! Be there!”

The posters were to be posted around the campus before the prank. Ideally, security would have seen them and turned a blind eye to any Ninja or pirates shenanigans.

I even added a gmail account at the bottom: piratevsninjagu@gmail.com (owned by me) to lend it authenticity.

Reason rejected: No one wanted to go through the tedious process of actually driving to Gonzaga and putting up posters. In the end, however, we didn’t need such an elaborate scheme. Apparently, simply the strategy of “running at a reasonable pace” was enough to defeat Gonzaga’s security’s force.

Giant Tractor Tire: When you have a successful prank formula, you stick to it. Back in the day, before their youthful idealism had been replaced by weary cynicism, Matt Park and Beau Chevassus pulled off the classic “put a giant 300 pound tractor tire,” in front of the BJ main doors prank. That tire still resides, anti-BJ spray paint and all, in the Back 40.

We tossed around the idea of taking that tire, repainting some profound quip on it, and leaving it somewhere conspicuous the Gonzaga campus.

Reason rejected: Frankly, giant tractor tires are unwieldy creatures. The thought of foisting the tire onto the back of Beau’s truck made visions of flat tires and pulled back muscles dance in our heads.

—

Want to check the primary source: The 95 Theses.

First of all, this list is useless if you can’t listen for yourself. For your convenience, I’ve posted a link to a YouTube video of each song as it is on the album. Some of them are official music videos, while others are just set up by fans so that people can hear the song for free. I also have to give you a caveat – I realize this list is every bit as subjective as my Top Ten Albums lists are at the end of each year. These are songs that I love desperately, but I realize that not everyone will enjoy them as much as I do. If you disagree with me, that’s great! Post your suggestions in the comments. I will admit right up front that there are a couple of genres that I have missed. Specifically, I can’t stand country music and I don’t think there were very many great rap songs in the past four years. Again, if you think one of them deserves to be on this list, write it in the comments. Prove me wrong.

One final note before we dive in – It’s an absurd idea to try and narrow your iTunes library down to the ten best songs of any era, especially a full four-year span. It is absolutely insane. But I have to recommend it – read this column, agree or disagree with me, and then go make your own list. I’d love to see it, and hopefully we can all discover some great new music together.

Anyway! On to the list!

10. The Decemberists – Sons & Daughters (unfortunately, I could only find a live version. It still gives a pretty good impression of the song, though)
The closer to The Decemberists’ 2006 album “The Crane Wife” is the opener to my list. It really is the perfect closer; from its mandolin-led ensemble of acoustic instruments to the way it builds and its final, hopeful refrain, repeated as if the choir is trying to convince itself: “Here all the bombs fade away.”

9. The National – Start a War (I have to apologize for showing you scenes from The Notebook; it was the only way I could get the studio version)
This song rumbles like an earthquake, and lead singer Matt Berninger’s voice and melancholy lyrics are at the epicenter. The quiet intensity of this song makes the speaker’s broken relationship all the more poignant, and the progression makes his admission even more heartbreaking: “You were always weird, but I never had to hold you by the edges like I do now.”

8. The Rocket Summer – So Much Love
I will always remember where I was when I heard this song for the first time. I was driving back from Best Buy after picking up The Rocket Summer’s third full-length album, 2007’s “Do You Feel.” I had anxiously unwrapped the album in the parking lot and flipped it on. “Do You Feel” opens up with some immediate rocking, and I knew after one track that this disc would be Bryce Avery’s finest hour. He didn’t disappoint. The next track, “So Much Love,” is everything you could ask for in a fun summer song – a sweet horn solo, a gigantic piano lick, and some inspirational, simple, and somehow profound sing-along lyrics. Above all, though, it’s just a blast. You can imagine Avery jumping around the studio, yelling at the top of his lungs: “You look like the songs that I heard my whole life coming true!”

7. The Killers – When You Were Young
When I first heard this song, my first thought was, “Yeah, this is pretty good. But it doesn’t sound like The Killers.” I was right about one part. The Killers listened to a lot of Bruce Springsteen before recording 2006’s “Sam’s Town,” and The Boss’ influence shines through (especially in lead singer Brandon Flowers’ performance). What I was wrong about, however, was how much this song would grow on me as I kept listening to it. This would have been hands down the best straightforward rock and roll song of this period, if not for the song coming in at number five.

6. Gwen Stefani (feat. Akon) – The Sweet Escape
Every couple of years, there is a new undeniably catchy pop song that captures the ears and hearts of America’s music critics. Not just pop music consumers either; these songs are loved by snobbish elitists and 13-year-old girls alike. There were a few great ones to choose from in this time period (including Justin Timberlake’s “SexyBack” and Kelly Clarkson’s “Since U Been Gone”), but “The Sweet Escape” was the finest. Akon is pretty dispensable on this one, but Gwen Stefani’s use of a sweet retro-sounding sample and some 1930s-era horns proved that she was more than just B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

5. Foo Fighters – Best of You
Believe it or not, Foo Fighters have been at it since 1995. In their tenth year, they released an album called “In Your Honor.” More than any other song on this list, I have to implore you to watch the video. It perfectly sums up the themes that must have been running through Dave Grohl’s head while writing this song – joy and angst, agony and ecstacy, passion and pain, despair and hope. This song expresses more raw emotion than most of today’s rockers would dare to write about, and it does the job in four minutes and sixteen seconds.

4. Sufjan Stevens – Chicago
This seems about right for the best song on the best album to be released during my college career. “Chicago” charmed indie rock fanatics and soundtrack composers alike (see “Little Miss Sunshine”), and it made a genuine low-level celebrity out of Sufjan. There are so many highlights on his 2005 album, “Come On, Feel The Illinoise,” that it was difficult to choose one. But with the xylophone intro, soaring strings section, and Sufjan’s softly warbling voice directing it all, “Chicago” was the biggest and best of them all. It seems to be the least likely line for an anthem, but there it is: “I’ve made a lot of mistakes.”

3. Band of Horses – The Funeral
When Band of Horses first recorded this song, singer/guitarist/songwriter Ben Bridwell didn’t even want to put it on their debut album, 2006’s “Everything All The Time.” Bridwell thought “The First Song” or “The Great Salt Lake” would be the radio hit. But it was this one which, like “Sons & Daughters,” is remarkable for its simplicity. “Every occasion, I’ll be ready for the funeral,” Bridwell chirps over crunching guitars and crashing cymbals. If only every song about loss could be this reverent while simultaneously expressing so much anguish.

2. Arcade Fire – Rebellion (Lies)
Arcade Fire are an enigma, and they like it that way. This song is partially about hiding “underneath the covers,” but also about exposing the mythology of parents’ rhetoric. The themes that seem melodramatic on much of their 2004 album “Funeral” actually work to great effect here. The thumping heartbeat of the song, coupled with ornate instrumentation and the growing urgency in Win Butler’s voice make this song one to remember – and, perhaps as important, one to play really, really loud.

1.The Format – If Work Permits
Nate Ruess has just about the most distinctive voice in indie rock, and he makes use of it at all volumes here. Starting out with the sound of crickets and a finger-picked acoustic melody, Ruess unfolds two stories: one about an abused friend who becomes scared of love, and one about the speaker’s roller coaster relationship. As the song builds and unfolds, so do the stories. The moral? Any kind of love means making yourself vulnerable, but that doesn’t mean you have to be afraid.

Thanks for listening! I hope you’ve enjoyed this read as much as I’ve enjoyed all of the lists that Cory has written so far. Stick around next week for the tenth and final Top Ten list of this series; it’s going to be a good one.

It was a Saturday morning and I was walking across campus. It was early, around 8 am, so I did not see any other students about. I was walking along the road behind Ballard, when B-Rob himself came bounding around the corner in full jogging attire. I gave him a polite wave and a smile, and as he passed he said, “Hi Rod.”

I was puzzled. It took me a moment, but I turned, perhaps to say, “Uhhh, that’s not my name,” but he was already gone. The man is a gazelle.

And that is how I figured it out. He does not really know all those names, he just walks around campus rattling off common names into crowds, “Hello Peter. Hi John, how are you Mary? Good to see you Amy,” and everyone assumes he is talking to someone else. He made the mistake of calling me Rod when there was no one else around, because if there had been another person around, even a woman, I would have assumed that her name was Rod.

I could be wrong however, because I must confess, I have considered the possibility that B-Rob accidentally mixed up my name with my father’s. Yes, my dad’s name is Rod, and as far as I know they have never met, nor have they ever been in the same room. But if that is the case, I would be quite impressed.

This week’s list is the Top Ten American Political Moments of 2004-2008. I researched a good 10-12 news magazine and newspaper sites about major events in the political field in the past few years and, wouldn’t you know it, the only thing anybody felt like talking about were scandals. I’ve tried my darndest to avoid them as much as possible, but some have still made it on the list. What I do believe I’ve done is pick moments that were either incredibly unique in American history or affected the course of politics somehow.

I look forward to hearing your comments. I’m totally fine with people calling my lists stupid and wanting to disagree with them 100%. But after last week, I feel that I have to make one appeal: please tell me why. Saying “you’re dumb” is dumb. Saying “you’re dumb, and here’s why” is awesome. I imagine that, informed or not, rational or not, communist or not, everybody’s got some opinion on politics. It’s not the most friendly of topics to discuss. All I ask this week is that we keep our comments as balanced and well-informed as possible.  And if we fail at that, well, at least it’ll be fun.

Political Moment #10: Donald Rumsfeld resigns. He may have been the scapegoat, but even so he wasn’t the most outrageous choice for kicking out of Washington. Just too many things seemed to be reported as going badly under this guy’s tenure. The Generals (well, 8 at least) turned against him. The Abu Ghraib and prisoner abuse scandals arose. He said there were WMD’s, or at least he thought there were. And if that all wasn’t bad enough, he even used a machine to sign consolation letters to families of KIA troops. One or two of these things arise and you can probably survive it. But put them all together, and November 2006 marked the end of the second longest SecDef tenure in American history.

Political Moment #9: Nancy Pelosi elected as Speaker. The news likes to throw out a few just-for-fun “first’s” every once in a while, like “today the state of Wyoming elected Mick McGraw, the first Australian-American dog catcher in a town under 20,000 west of the continental divide. A proud day in American History.” This one was a big one though. First female Speaker of the House. That’s a decent milestone for America. And she promised big things to come too. She promised “100 hours” would be spent on change. She promised that she understood the voice of the American people and would support a change in strategy in Iraq. In the end though, she pretty much failed each and every time to implement any of the change she claimed the election was about. After the first round of failures, polls began to show that America was just as tired and un-approving of Congress as they were of the White House. Scary, because after those two there’s not much left.

Political Moment #8: Infusion of Religion and Politics. For a while one of the biggest divides in political parties seemed to be that all the church-huggers followed the Republicans while the Democrats just kept alienating them. That’s turned around a bit. For better or for worse, the majority of candidates in the primary elections this year have had some connection with their religious background. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist pastor, making a surprisingly strong run at the Republican nomination, supposedly going for the aforementioned “base.”  Barack Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright has been the hottest glitch in his campaign. Mitt Romney attempting to wade through the murky waters of a non-traditionally Christian religion. And Hillary Clinton, pretty much still clinging to the standard Democratic stereotype of “even if she is religious, voters don’t seem to believe it.” Religion and campaigning isn’t a new thing, but the religious vote seems to be shifting lately and it’s interesting to see how each campaign reacts to the change.

Political Moment #7: The CIA Leak Hearings. This one’s been around for a while too. Quick recap: back in 2003, CIA agent Valerie Williams, a.k.a. Valerie Plame, had her name printed in the Washington Post as a CIA covert operative. Oops. The hearings though keep coming, with everyone from Scooter Libby to Dick Cheney to Tim Russert to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein making an appearance in the medlam. What dangers exist toward current and future operatives because of this leak, and will we ever know for sure anyway? Many journalists say no dangers exist, many government officials say a lot exist. Check the hearings and decide for yourself.

Political Moment #6: Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s flop. In October of 2004, two weeks before the election (which at that point was pretty even) the Lady Kerry made a comment about Laura Bush in which she said “I’m older, and my validation of what I do is a little bit bigger. I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job…since she’s been grown up.” One little problem: Laura Bush was a school teacher and librarian for 10 years. In contrast, rather than attack the comment, Bush simply said (paraphrased) “we all make mistakes” and let it be. Heinz-Kerry later apologized, but too late. One campaign had the potential first lady alienating teachers, stay-at-home-moms, and non-heiresses to ketchup fortunes. The other campaign had the First Lady choosing not to fan the flame of controversy. With only two weeks to go, did this make a difference in the election? I tend to think yes.

Political Moment #5: President Mahmoud and the US. The good news is we initiated the first, official diplomatic contact with Iran in around 25 years in 2007. The bad news is, we’re still having trouble agreeing on things. They’re just minor issues though, like whether or not the Iranian military is participating in terrorist attacks, and whether or not Israel has a right to exist, and whether or not nuclear disarmament is taking place, and whether or not the Holocaust happened…but hey, we’re talking again, and that ain’t nothing.

Political Moment #4: Republicans and the 2006 Elections. Boy, could the elephant-clan shoot themselves in the foot any more that year? I already mentioned Rumsfeld getting the hook. Add to that Jack Abramoff and the Indian Tribes, Mark Foley and the dirty emails, Duke Cunningham and the bribes, Tom DeLay and campaign finance. It’s no wonder the Republicans got crushed in the elections. Usually only one or two screw-ups happen for both parties, but this seemed to be the year for Democrats to reign supreme.

Political Moment #3: Dan Rather Resigns. The resignation isn’t the political part so much as what probably caused it. On September 8, 2004 on 60 Minutes, Dan Rather released a report based on documents obtained from the National Guard that President Bush’s service was not exactly what it was all cracked up to be. But only a few days later most of the “experts” who were cited in the original report came forward saying they were either misquoted or had reservations that weren’t addressed. Once again, an attack on the Bush’s only months before an election deflated with a bang. Though no one officially admitted it, Rather’s failure to get the facts straight most likely led to his resignation a few months later.

Political Moment #2: The Troop Surge. It started out pretty much as everyone feared it would: with no affect at all. Last year the President announced a 30,000 troop surge would be sent to Iraq to quell sectarian fighting. The surge was mainly possible by an unusually high retention rate among soldiers (which is something the troops deserve way way more credit for than they are getting in the press). The violence seemed to do nothing but continue to escalate for the first few months, but by November the number of incidents and deaths due to the violence had been halved. It was down so much that the President even recalled 5,000 troops and brought them home, the largest such event of the war. Did the violence stop because the insurgents are just waiting for the troops to leave? Or is the surge working like it’s supposed to? We’ll know for sure in a few years. The big question for right now though is does it still make the Republican’s handling of the Iraq War an election issue, or does it get pushed aside now that it looks like its working?

Political Moment#1: McCain’s Comeback. 3000 years ago when the 2008 Presidential campaigns began McCain was the natural frontrunner for the Republicans. But then, the whole issue with the “base” started bubbling up. He lost a lot of his supporters with his position on immigration, and slowly and continuously the war chest began to shrink. Nearly broke and out of the race for good, he could do nothing more but keep the “Straight Talk Express” running as long as possible. It worked too. Months later, the Republicans looked around and realized they had no one else even close to a viable candidate. McCain was back in the race, and won the nomination.

Two more lists to go. Look for a surprise guest column for next week’s list. Have a great week.

Television is a varied enough medium that trying to declare any one show the best or most influential runs into a host of problems. Should the genre be limited — best comedy? Best drama? Should quality be the standard for selection, or influence? What role should popularity play? How important is originality?

I’d like to open the topic for discussion. To kick off debate, I’ll throw out two unsupported declarations for the frontrunners in my mind: Twin Peaks and The Simpsons. So: Attack! Defend! All in the spirit of lively discussion.

It is usually diagrammed thus:

Students in Core today were told to envision global climate change the same way – considering the risk/benefit analysis of believing global warming is a real phenomenon. It’s stupid, and I’ll explain why.

There are four options from this angle. Just like in the four boxes above.

1. You don’t believe in global warming, and global warming is false.

2. You believe in global warming, and global warming is false.

3. You believe in global warming, and global warming is true

4. You don’t believe in global warming, and global warming is true.

Logically, we are told, the first option is not that bad – you drive your hummer, the earth thrives. The second option is also pretty decent – you try to conserve the environment, but it doesn’t really help much. Maybe it’s a slight inconvenience. The third option is helpful – you try to save the planet, and in so doing, you save humanity! The fourth option, of course, is very bad – you harm the environment, and due to your contributions, the planet goes kaput.

This is all very well and good, but Pascal’s Wager A) is stupid if you use it the way people usually do, and B) does not apply if you use it correctly.

A) Here’s how it’s stupid: Try the same exercise, but take any life-threatening story you read in one of those grocery store checkout magazines about killer pterodactyl zombies or something (as a side note – I couldn’t remember the name of that magazine, so I did a quick google search for “Jesus, prophecy, aliens” and was taken aback by the number of legitimate, serious Christian websites that popped up).

1. The pterodactyl zombies exist, but you don’t believe in them

2. The pterodactyl zombies don’t exist, and you don’t believe in them

3. The pterodactyl zombies exist, and you believe in them

4. The pterodactyl zombies don’t exist, and you believe in them

By the same risk/benefit analysis, it’s pretty obvious that you’re better off believing the pterodactyl zombies exist. It’s safer.

The truth is, though, you can’t make something true (like global warming) just by considering which options are the most risky.

The same, by the way, is true of the God/not God argument – with an infinite number of possible gods (including the Almighty God of Cheese, who punishes those who don’t eat their daily amount of dairy product), Pascal’s Wager becomes much more lively! It almost becomes better not to believe in any gods, for the sake of not angering all the myriad of other possible gods by accident, if you pick the wrong one.

Since I don’t have a good image to demonstrate this, I drew one in Paint:

As that diagram so clearly indicates… the decision becomes a lot more complicated when you factor in more than two basic options. (The boxes on the left are different gods – Zeus, Krishna, Allah, and the boxes in the middle say either “Ouch” or “Yay!” depending on whether they exist and you believe in them or not).

B) Pascal actually argued that it is impossible to prove or disprove God using reason, and therefore one is better off considering the risk/benefit situation. While there are many criticisms to this argument, the point is that we CAN prove or disprove global warming using reason.

When there is evidence out there, a proper application of Pascal’s Wager is no application at all – and once again, any application runs into the risk of the same problem. There are an infinite number of claims which reason cannot prove or disprove (zombie pterodactyls?), and to make policy decisions based on any one of them… well, that’s absolutely ludicrous. Shame on the Core 350 team for even bringing this up.

The key to this list is the word “greatest.” Not “funniest,” not “favorite,” not “most-awesomenest.” You can recognize a movie as being great even if you hated the thing. Great can mean it fulfilled it’s duty as a movie, or great can mean it went beyond mere entertainment. It’s up to you. So keep that in mind and if you’re inside this weekend not playing in the sun for–hopefully–no more than five minutes at any given time and feel like dropping a comment, by all means do so. Meanwhile, I’m going to play frisbee.

Honorable Mention #1: 16 Blocks. This might be the only top ten list this movie ever comes close to seeing.  It really wasn’t anything overtly special. But it had the two premises that make me almost drool with excitement when it comes to movies. The first is ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances that decide backing down isn’t an option. The second is the kind of macho heroism that is best summed up in one of the main characters’ lines right before he dies in the movie: “If anyone asks, tell them I was just trying to do a good thing.” How can you not love cheesiness like that?

Honorable Mention #2: Crash. Half the time I hated this movie because it seemed to show humans as purely disgusting bigots. Then I loved it because it shows some truly, definably good people. In the end, I decided this is how I feel about Crash: It made racism easier to understand. How come we always assume people are racist, whether or not we know them? It’s the only accusation in America where everyone is guilty until proven innocent. But Crash did a great job of showing how circumstances can bring out racism and that it’s not necessarily just an innate thing. It just made racism easy for me to understand.

Movie Number 10: Casino Royale. When last we saw Bond, he gave us three things: a villain who could change his DNA, an invisible car, and Halle Barry. Was this a formula for termination or what? Plus they still hadn’t figured out how to accomplish the impossible and replace Mr. Desmond Llewelyn (Q) after he passed away. But then, MGM pulls a brilliant move and takes us back to the beginning, giving us the keys to the origins of not just Bond, but of everything that made Bond “Bond:” why he likes it shaken, not stirred; why he lost all respect for women; why he turns and shoots the movie screen before every movie. The movie itself had a slightly weak plot (Bond plays in a poker game to defeat a terrorist), but the numerous fight scenes (including a seven minute free-running sequence in the opening) as well as one make-you-dry-heave torture scene more than made up for it. Most importantly, we saw Bond get back to being a quick-thinking, stealthy secret agent rather than the superhuman, comic book hero that he was becoming. The franchise was saved.

Movie Number 9: Brokeback Mountain. When you first heard about this movie, wasn’t one of your first thoughts “Boy, this out of left field.” I’m just going to assume that this was the first time the gay cowboy theme was ever pitched to the generic audiences (in other words, somewhere other than Bourbon Street.) First of all, I will admit that I saw it. Second of all, I will state that I fast-forwarded through the..um..tent scene. But I would really love to have a wide variety of opinions on this because when the credits finally rolled all I could think was “Wow. That was a bad movie.” Not immoral, not disgusting, just old-fashioned bad. I thought the plot was slow. I thought there were dozens of directions they could go that they just sort of walked by awkwardly. And weirdest of all, I thought they didn’t portray the homosexuality as anything but two guys who chose to be that way. But hey, this was definitely a unique and interesting flick and it gets a nod at #9.

Movie Number 8: Evan Almighty. I have no problem with gratuitous violence or lots of language in movies. I don’t really like sex scenes, but it’s easy enough to fast forward and you almost never miss any part of the plot. Still, I appreciate a movie that doesn’t think it has to drop a four letter word every five minutes to be good. Don’t you remember how many movies we had when we were growing up that our parents had no problems with us seeing? Richie Rich, Mighty Ducks, Cool Runnings, Free Willy. They don’t make any movies that fit those categories anymore. Evan Almighty was a nice trip back to that genre for me. The actors all looked like they had a blast playing their parts, we got to see John Goodman come back and play a funny big-guy role, and it had animals. Plus, Morgan Freeman’s God character went from the frustrated, lonely, man-at-the-end-of-his-rope motivation from the last “Almighty” movie to a giggling, teaching, savior answering the prayers of both those who call on His name and those who don’t realize they need to. Twice a year we see Denzel or Nick blow something up, but we hardly ever see this. Nice work Hollywood.

Movie Number 7: An Inconvenient Truth. I do not prescribe to the authoritarian epistemology, so this movie fell flat on its face for me. I need facts. I need details. I need something that I can go study and tweak and apply. Al Gore gave none of that. His facts were conjectures. His stories were irrelevant. His movie contradicted itself a bunch. And yet it’s still popular as heck. The worst part though was he didn’t have an answer. The whole movie seemed to have two purposes: a) tell you that global warming sucks and we should probably do something, and b) if you had elected me I would’ve been able to fix the problem by now.  Frankly, I thought Leo’s movie did a 10,000 times better job not only of showing us what the specific problems were (and the origin of those problems) but giving us steps we can take to fix it. But Inconvenient Truth has become the basis for the Green movement and will probably be what history looks back on as what started the Saving-The-Planet campaing. Even if you hated it, you have to acknowledge the effect Al’s movie had on this country, and that’s why it gets a spot on the list.

Movie Number 6: Batman Begins. Batman Begins was to the comic book franchise what Casino Royale was for Bond: a lifeguard pulling a dying entity out of the water right as they’re going down for the third time. Every other comic book movie series was getting decimated. The old Superman series, Batman, X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, Elektra, Daredevil—by 2005 we were tired of the unbearable cheesiness. But then Batman Begins gave us what we had been asking for. We wanted movies with more than a single, two-minute battle scene. We got it. We wanted character depth and emotion to be an element of the movie, but not the entire plot. We got it. We wanted a story with a beginning, middle, and end. We got it. We wanted Stan Lee out of the producer’s chair. We got it. Hardly ever will franchise do-overs be even close to the success and acclaim level the originals achieved. This one passed it at ludicrous speed.

Movie Number 5: Napoleon Dynamite. What a stupid movie. I loved every minute of it. The best part of Dynamite is it’s just so gosh darn quotable. Not since Dumb and Dumber has America watched a movie and then simultaneously and unanimously just inserted the quotes into our daily vocabulary. Remember the first day you heard someone say “sweet” and you didn’t need to be reminded what they were referencing? Remember the day after you saw the movie with your friends and you were sitting in the cafeteria and at least 7 times before finishing your meal someone in the building screamed out “gimme some of your tots!” Middle-Schoolers around the country traded their newly-learned cuss words for a simple, slumped-shoulder “gosh!” Looking back, though, I can’t believe that the Napoleon dance didn’t do for school dances in the 2000’s what Thriller did in the 80’s and Bye Bye Bye did in the 90’s.

Movie Number 4: Hotel Rwanda. We’re about one generation removed now from when the African colonies began to gain their independence, which hopefully means that the generations from now on will see Africa not as that backwards continent but as both a continent that needs our help and a continent that really is beginning to figure itself out. I think you and I personally are in the middle stages of this transition, and this movie is one reason why I think so. You may not have joined the Peace Corps after seeing Hotel Rwanda, but didn’t it do just a little something for you? Didn’t you finish this movie and really, truly, simply think for a while? Weren’t you confused and emotional and drained? This was more than just a movie. This did something to people. We didn’t just “say ‘oh that’s terrible’ then go back to eating our dinner.” At least I hope we didnt.

Movie Number 3: Cinderella Man. The first part (which only lasts about 25 minutes but is so powerful it feels like it lasts two hours) is washed-up boxer Jim Braddock doing the best he can to pay for food and heat and water for his wife and three kids in the middle of the Great Depression. Ron Howard portrayed this era perfectly, with Hoovervilles, soup lines, robbery out of desperation, men giving up and leaving their families, and the suddenness and helplessness that occurs when disease finds its way into your home.  At one point in the movie, the difference between sending his kids away and keeping them healthy was $1.19, and Braddock couldn’t afford it. But then, we switched to the second part: the underdog fighter getting one more bout in the ring to “put a few more months between his family and the street.” Then that one fight turned into two, which turned into a full-time job, which turned into a chance at the heavyweight title. The boxing in the movie was real (no “Rocky/Apollo” shadowboxing here kids) and painful, and went almost step for step with the actual fight 75 years ago. Like I said before, I’m a sucker for movies about ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, it had the added bonus of being true.

Movie Number 2: Blood Diamond. Honestly, did anyone else know about the conflict diamonds or the Kimberley Process before this movie? I saw Blood Diamond because I thought the previews looked awesome. When it was over, I felt like a New Yorker in 1945 watching reels of holocaust victims at the picture show and wondering “wait, is this just entertainment or are they showing me actual footage?” This movie finally got us to do something about conflict diamonds. Since it came out, the number of conflict diamonds is dropping and Sierra Leone, at peace for about 6 years now, has held their first free elections in history where power was willingly handed over. Don’t you wish we could give all the humanitarian problems this kind of kick-in-the-butt attention? And I wasn’t wrong about the other thing either; the movie was awesome.

Movie Number 1: Transformers. I always hate it when VH1 used to come out with their “Greatest Songs Ever” list and it didn’t include anything older than two years. So, if you feel like docking me a point or two because the best movie on my list is also the newest one, I understand. However, I stand by my pick. It’s been quite a few years since we’ve had a turn-your-brain-off, jumbo-size-my-popcorn, catch-the-midnight-showing, summer blockbuster hit. And didn’t it feel swell? Couldn’t you watch those little cars and planes and tanks transform back and forth over and over again for hours? And the music score…some of the greatest movies of all time made the leap from fantastic to legendary simply because of their score. Transformers may end up being one of those movies. Its just an overall fantastic movie. Now all they have to do is make a sequel that doesn’t ruin it…

 Spring has come, so have fun out there. See you next week.

The CD Player
The gigantic machine known as “CD 2” is the only working CD player in the station. It looks like it was probably a shiny, new instrument somewhere around the year 1980. Now it has been reduced to a temperamental, often malfunctioning device that flashes obscure neon green messages instead of playing the desired song.

The Microphones
If you have a radio show with two people, you will need to make use of two mics in the booth. The second microphone is a fickle contraption that takes some getting used to. It is best to hold down the buttons to keep the second mic on so as to avoid a strange broadcast of a one-sided conversation because only one DJ can be heard.

The Phone
Perhaps if you are lucky enough to have a listener, he or she might call in. This is an extremely exciting event and a milestone in your radiobroadcasting career. That is, if the caller is someone besides your mother calling in to request “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.” And yes, that did happen to a new DJ on her first show this semester.

Receiving a phone call is easy enough if you don’t put the call on the air. However, if you want the conversation to be broadcasted, then be aware that it is virtually impossible to hear what the caller is saying through the DJ headphones. Radio technicians have tried to fix this inconvenience, but have not yet been successful.

Because of this it is wise for a DJ to keep a smattering of generic phrases handy that could be used as a response to anything said by the caller. Some of these might include a candid laugh followed by, “Alright, we’ll get that song on for ya” or “I love this song too! Let’s take a listen…”

Defeating the Deafening Silence
No matter how hard you try, there are going to be some awkward pauses in your first couple of shows. Perhaps “CD 2” will make some strange clicking noise when you push play, or your iPod will not be hooked up correctly. However it happens, the important thing to remember is to remain calm. Find some other means of playing a song either via computer, iPod or the CD player.

The second thing to do is turn your error into a creative opportunity. Turn on the mic and thank your listeners for taking part in moment of silence, or, after playing the song, comment how that particular artist is known for his contemplative, simple, and silent beginnings to his songs.

Defeating the Deafening Noise
For your first semester of radio you will be required have a “Format” show. This entails playing music from a select number of CDs chosen by the music director. The music is recently-released, new music that most people haven’t heard of (or at least I haven’t). Usually you can count on the tunes that are recommended to be pleasant-sounding, but there is the occasional blaring, heavy metal song with a roaring vocalist that will cause you to sit up straight in your chair and figure out how to turn it off. The best way to save this situation is to fade out of the song, giving it a natural-sounding ending and then quickly put on another–hopefully better–song.

What if no one’s listening?
This is a fear shared by many DJ’s. However, fear not! KWRS is played in many bathrooms around campus. It is also featured during primetimes in several dorms. And it is quite possible that people will start coming up to you asking, “Hey, did I hear you on the radio?” You can also make a poster to advertise your show and expand your listener base to more than your family and the random bathroom listener.

Being a DJ is more work than you might think and requires a certain level of courage and innovation to make sure any listeners are taken on a smooth, enjoyable ride. At the end of the show, a hard-working DJ feels like his efforts have not gone to waste. He knows he has completed a task feared by many and that if nothing else, mom has heard her favorite song.

[Note: edited to conform to site formatting. Apologies to the author for any oddities this may have generated. --Ed.]

Many of you know me as “Daniel Walters the Writer” or “Daniel Walters the Warren Senator” or “Daniel Walters the Super Smash Brothers player (usually as Kirby)”.

But few know me as “Daniel Walters the artist.” Yes, I’m quite the art man, from my first masterpiece “Happy Mothers Day in the Macaroni Medium” and my magnum opus, “Helicopter shooting at a giant alien,” done on a Whiteboard canvas in the Sharpie medium.

Which makes me the perfect tour guide, to show you the artistic wonders of the Junior Art Exhibit.

Remember, the intent of the artist is not what is important in art. What is important is what we see in art; how art can truly show us what lies in the depths of our subconscious, within our soul.

I will look past the layers off oil and tempera and find the true meaning of the artwork.

Then, gentle reader, you will be enlightened.

Charlie Monte
Death’s Unwanted Dute
3×3′

• This is what the cover of H.P. Lovecraft’s horror novels would look like if, instead of being deathly afraid of octopuses, he was afraid of ducks.
• If you are foolish enough to eat a day-old Beef Baja Chalupa from Taco Bell and then chase it down with a few shots of vodka, THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE! Be warned.
• I’m not exactly sure what curious substance the Hellduck is drinking. But I like to think it’s Capri Sun: Berry Blast.

Bryan Putnum
The Engine-Master (Train-Car 1 of 5)
31 x 23″

1. This is King Kong in 30 years when he becomes a Hobo.
2. He’s got the whole world in his hands. And he’s deciding when — not if, but when — to eat it.
3. At least it’s a Christian monkey. I wonder what his stance is on evolution.

Bryan Putnum
Me and My Hood
20 x 17″

• If Kenny from South Park survived the rats and electrocution and decapitation and velociraptors and disembowelment, this is what he would look like in Junior High.
• Personally, with that shade of coat, I’d prefer the velociraptors. Zing!
• Oh, he’s even got a little Adam Morrison moustache. Awwww.
• This is one of those cautionary tales where the rest of Salk Middle School makes fun of the “Purple Coat Kid” for his titular coat. Then, one day, he just snaps and makes all of their eyes bleed with his mind.

Bryan Putnum
Jonah considers the Armadillo
31 x 23″

• I’ve never seen anyone look at an armadillo with such scornful condescension before. “Oh, how you disappoint me, armadillo. I had such high hopes for you. I thought you were different. But no, it turns out you’re just like all the rest.”
• Actually, in Arkansas, instead of a state lotto, they have one specific Armadillo that, if you turn it in to the local convenience store, you will net 30,000 dollars. Sadly, this one says “Sorry, you are not a winner” on the bottom.
• Instead of Peace Sign, his medallion is apparently one of those Pine Tree Air Fresheners. Cheaper than deodorant.
• Odd how his head sorta looks vaguely like the armadillo. “Ah, you look down on the armadillo, young padawan. But from a certain point of view, it is you who are the armadillo.”

Elizabeth Johnson
Muse
20 x48″

• A camera took a picture of this picture of a painting with a camera. Mind. Blown.
• That print in the background is both featured on the wallpaper of my grandma’s house, and the toilet paper.

Elizabeth Johnson
Brave
40 x 50″

• Gah! I hate this super-abstract artwork where you have no idea what it actually is. I mean, yes, this ambiguous blocky white shape reimagines the very boundaries of art, and causes the viewer to question the state of his soul, or even the nature of reality — but if nobody can tell what the shape is supposed to be, there really can’t be a unity of understanding.
• Oh, wait. It kinda looks like a camper.
• You know how in Voyage of the Dawn Treader the painting of the ship on the wall transports Eustace and his mates to a magical land of wonder? I’m thinking this painting is similar, but instead of being a portal to the magical land of Narnia, it leads to a gas station in Billings, Montana.

Elizabeth Johnson
The Earth Laughs in Flowers
15 x 22″

• The title is “The Earth Laughs in Flowers.” It’s an important warning against excessive Opium usage.
• Sometimes a font gets so hippy, that it just impairs readability.

Kristina Adams
Stash Tea Box Redesign
5 x 2.5 x 3″

• This piece really speaks to me. It says: “Tea. Tea! TEA!”
• I like this new fad of “Drinkable Artwork.” Not since the Munch’s “The Scream” was melted down and mixed with Vodka has artwork been so delicious.
• I’m envisioning a scenario where the artist has this masterpiece almost completed, steps out to go to the Bathroom, and comes back to find her roommate daintily sipping a cup of Chai Spice. “Oh, I just made myself a cup.” Her roommate says, “I hope you don’t mind.” The artist just looks on in horror.

Bradley Wakefield
Last Winter Sucked
22 x 30″

• One of my pet peeves is when I sit down to write and nothing but bicycles comes out.
• The last paper I turned in composed entirely of tiny bicycles got only 73 percent, for “not using proper APA citation.”

Brad Wakefield
Perspectives
11 x 17 “

• In a creepy bizzaro dimension, ants come out of trumpets instead of music. Also, mice eat cats and “Underworld: Evolution” is considered the height of cinematic achievement.

Brad Wakefield
Chromatic Conifer
22 x 31″

• This is what cheery trees would look like if God, instead of using gentle words and the most delicate paintbrush to create them, he used a shotgun.

Aden Coleman, Kaitlin Trott
Beasts of the Shallows
18 x 14″

• It’s the first day of school for Grimy the Klep’toth demon. Unfortunately, he won’t be able to reach the school bus when his foot is stuck in a bucket and he’s stuck in a surrealist world that he did not make. Meanwhile, Stephen the TapeEel demon is just stuck in his own little world, not giving a thought about the problems of Grimy.
• TapeEel demons are so selfish. Get over yourself, guy.
• In even bigger news, it took two people to draw it.

Aden Coleman, Kaitlin Trott
It’s Their Day
18 x 14″

• This is exactly what my wedding is going to look like. Including the transparent grass.

Charles Monte
Paranoia
25.75 x 60.75″

• I’m guessing the artist turned in this project, and then, an hour later, was wracked by the inescapable notion that he forget something. But what?
• Oh, yeah, the guy’s face.
• Noses are hard to draw anyway.
• Or maybe he did have a face, but it’s being blurred out to protect his identity. That’s also why his voice sounds so weird.
• He’s about to turn a corner and run *SMACK* into his doppleganger. Wacky Hijinks will ensue.
• The blank face symbolizes the War in Iraq, obviously.

Mandee Edwards
Unsaid
24 x 18.5″

• You know, I’m beginning to suspect that these much ballyhooed “LEONARDO DECAPRIO NUDE PIXXX!” is just DeCaprio’s head posted on some random model’s body.
• Some people get a small cross tattooed on their arm. I can respect that, but it’s not nearly as hardcore as getting the entire Torah — in original Hebrew — on your torso.

Mandee Edwards
Sailor Jag
8.5 x 10.5″

• This is what happens when you don’t plan out the size of your frame beforehand.

Mandee Edwards
Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting
14 x 14 ”

• And with that single blow, the iPod People’s Civil War began.

Chelsea Sweetin
Invisible

• This is what genocide looks like in Pinata Land.

Chelsea Sweetin
Leaving

11 x 7.5″

• Similar to the Dawn Treader ripoff above, this is like one of those Books From Myst, but instead of transporting your to Channelwood Age, you go to the “TriCities Age” where you have to solve complicated puzzles involving Wheat.

Anna Collins-Wakeman
Seemingly Impassible
5 x 20 ”

• One of those “prank” books you can get from Spencer’s Gifts.

Anna Collins-Wakeman
Inactive
4.5 x 2.5 x 3″

• Personally, I keep “Strawberry Jam” or “Apple Butter” in my jars at home instead of, say, Evil Itself.

Thomas Robinson
10 Water Extracts
12 x 16 ”

To see these these images individually, go to http://gallery.ecola.us/thumbnails.php?album=114

• Don’t tell anyone, but Thomas took all of these stock photos from Corbis.com. The real art was removing the watermark.

Camas Lamson
Some Beach
36 x 20 ”

• This is the kind of talking furniture that Pee Wee Herman’s Great Aunt would have.
• Put your feet up on this coffee table, and it will eat your leg.

Value Village
The essence of Couch
1 1/2′ x 7′

• Perhaps the most pervasive and compelling piece sits in the center of the room. At first, you don’t realize it’s artwork it all. It almost assumes the form of ‘couch,’ a common household feature that the common man pays no attention too. But upon examining the sculpture — made out of such inventive materials as “uphoulstery” and “hubris” the layered genius becomes clear. Function and form intertwine, while the floral print speaks of the contradiction between nature and artifice. This piece of artwork — clearly the deepest in the entire show — insightfully probes at human nature — our flaws, our arrogance, our fallibility, our own lack of self comprehension — but yet, at the very edges one faded idea remains: Hope. Truly a stunning work of the sublime.

It’s not easy. As usual, everybody seems to know what “the typical Whitworth student” is, but few can actually point to examples. Everybody, in their own way, is an exception to the rule.

Probably most interesting are some of the video features, featuring real, live Whitworth students giving their opinions on what makes Whitworth, Whitworth, and not, say, Whitman.

So what’s your  take on Whitworth Culture? What are it’s strengths, and problems? As the school changes, what should we try to preserved at all costs?

President:

Obe Quarless

Executive Vice President:

Kalen Eshoff

Financial Vice President:

Kendra Hamilton

Among other interesting notes, Seth Flory is the Off-Campus Senator. Check the link for full results.

It just means you shouldn’t.

Here are a few final thoughts on the candidates.

First of all, this is the year of the “K” sound. You’ve got a choice of Kalen or Carl or Kendra or Quarless or Cleary. Cacophonous, no?

For president I’m leaning toward Obe, but slightly.

Cleary is very slick.

I’m not sure how I feel about that. A persuasive person is good to have on your side. If he’s on your side. I’m a person who can’t stand catchphrases, when there should be arguments. Cleary is more specific than most candidates in the past 3 years. But not quite specific enough for my taste.

I don’t think this lack of specifics comes from Cleary trying to be evasive or lacking creativity. It just comes from his lack of experience with ASWU. He doesn’t quite know what’s been tried before or how to solve the problems that have happened.

As Caleb Knox pointed out in the comments section, a lot of Quarless’s ideas are either unworkable or expensive. Outdoor Basketball Courts probably cost a pretty penny. Or a hundred thousand ugly ones.

Quarless also lacks Cleary’s silver tongue.

But here’s the thing that hasn’t come out in the debates or the posters or the voters guide or the analysis thus far: Obe is a great listener. He doesn’t just listen, he asks.

The Sports Event Coordinator positions is one of those positions you can do without getting help or advice from others. You can forge your own path. But, nevertheless, during many meetings Quarless asked the ASWU what they thought about his ideas. And here’s the kicker: He listened to them. He took their advice.
That’s a sweet quality to have in a president.

Cleary’s inexperience and vague rhetoric make him an unknown quality. But Quarless’s reading of the student body has been dead on and that makes him a pretty good choice for President.

For the EVP position, I’ll vote for Kalen, obviously. My only concern is her RA background. ASWU and Student Life should be separate. Sometimes they should even butt heads. If the student body is upset at the decisions that Student Life has made the ASWU needs to address that. The RA’s boss is Tyler Pau or Dick Mandeville or Kathy Storm. The ASWU member’s boss is the student body.

As long as Kalen values debate and discussion and judging ideas critically more than simply an undisrupted community she’ll do fine. There have been quality RA’s, like Andrea Naccarato, in her position. (Except Andrea was the BJ rep, so she had background.)

For FVP I think the choice is pretty simple.

In any other year, Carl Chan would be a perfect candidate. He would have made a better FVP than Jeff Hixson or Luis Lopez, or maybe even Denise Hewett. But he’s not running against Denise or Jeff or Luis.

He’s running against Kendra. Kendra Hamilton was handcrafted by God specifically for this position. If there was thing clear from the debate last night, it was that Hamilton was in her element. She had knowledge of her position like no other, and wielded it like a rapier.

I don’t know what it says when the platform of the Financial position gets you the most pumped up.

—

In this case I won’t make a full out for-sure predictions, or even try to guess the spread. I’ll just give percentages. (Not percentages of the vote, rather, chances of winning.) So I still could be wrong, but I’ll only be wrong to a certain percentage.

I like to hedge my bets. In the end, much of it will come to down to who had the best ground game, I’m not really sure of that.

Chances of Winning

President:

Peter Cleary: 55%

Obe Quarless: 45%

Executive Vice President:

Kalen Eshoff: 100%

Financial Vice-President.

Kendra Hamilton: 75%

Carl Chan: 25%

Interestingly enough, this may be one of the first years where having ASWU experience will actually help. In the past you could just start a whisper campaign: “My opponent was on ASWC!” And they’d be sure to lose.

But now, ASWU has a reputation as being a mediocre organization. That’s an improvement. I don’t think it’s necessarily because ASWU has done something new and incredible. It’s because they haven’t tried to enact any stupid organizational changes this year.

Now let’s me go over my analysis.

I really can’t decide whether Peter or Quarless will win. Cleary has a slight edge, I think, just because of his campaigning. Nothing impressive by itself, but the pure consistent ubiquity of his advertisements is a strength. And Cleary’s ads evolved. His “letter to the voter,” while plagued by the same busy background of most of his ads, was downright genius. Like I said, he’s a pretty effective politician. If he wins, I expect this will make peers and administration love him, but make the press skeptical.

The press is a bit cynical by nature. They’ve heard the phrases and flattery before.

Obe may get a few points from The Whitworthian endorsement, but not many. The Whitworthian has, historically, been a pretty weak predictor for who will win the election. Most people who know Obe will probably vote for him. While not everyone will think that Quarless’s ideas are flawless, they know he’s a pretty darn experienced candidate. Take away Cleary’s smile and flattery and Obe will win on pure merits. However, Obe hasn’t been able to communicate these merits effectively over the din of Cleary’s advertisements.

I also assume that older students will tend to vote for Obe, rather than Cleary. Why?

Two reasons.

First, Cleary has an advantage for those on campus. He lives in Stewart, and has peppered the dorms with advertisements. For those who live off-campus, however, Obe Quarless is a name they’ve heard for years. Ever since the audience demanded an encore to his steel-drum performance during the climax of Warren Peace, he has name recognition with the older crowd.

Secondly, I think older students are less susceptible to vague slogans. They want specifics. (Although whether or not they like the specifics Quarless is offering, may change their mind.

But if this was the opening round of the NCAA tourney, I’d seed Cleary 8th and Quarless 9th. If Obe wins, it’s not exactly an upset.

For EVP, Kalen Eshoff will win unless suddenly Barack Obama declares his candidacy for Executive Vice President of Whitworth. I don’t see that happening.

In the FVP race I’m guessing Hamilton has the advantage. I think the undecided voters will break for the candidate with more experience. Plus, in the second half of the race, Chan just hasn’t had the same campaign momentum in the first half. While Hamilton has new posters and a flyer taped to every doornob, I haven’t heard much of a peep out of Chan.

Those are my guesses. What do you think?

Can’t figure out the differences between the candidates this year because of vague posters and platitudes?

I’ve got you covered.

PRESIDENT

OBE QUARLESS

Grade: Junior.

ASWU Experience?: Yes, he was the Sports Coordinator. Also has been in music ensembles and has played football.

Campaign Themes: Empowering the common student. Increasing ASWU’s profile. Instilling pride in the student body.

Endorsed by: The Whitworthian.

Criticism of Opponent: Cleary is not familiar with ASWU, and not familiar with the greater student body has a whole.

Specific Ideas:

• Create a dedicated area in the HUB to post large meeting reports.
• Hold ASWU meetings in dorm lounges, to increase student exposure.
• Get Two-Ply toilet paper for campus bathrooms.
• Build Outdoor Basketball courts.
• Since televisions stations in 2009 are only going to broadcast in digital soon anyway, dorms should purchase HDTV’s for their lounges.
• Provide punch cards so students can get Pirate Points for attending sporting events. Later, they could exchange these cards for prizes.
• Have All-Student E-mails come from specific clubs, instead of simply from “Dayna Coleman”or “ASWU Announces.”

PETER CLEARY:

ASWU Experience: No, but is an Small Group Coordinator.

Grade: Sophomore.

Endorsed by: Carl Chan

Campaign Themes: Communication, Communication, Communication. Bringing East and West campus together. Getting things done. (Less talk. More rock.)

Criticism of opponent: Quarless is a weaker communicator.

Specific Ideas:

• Help bring together the East and West sides of campus by holding combined PrimeTimes, and then advertising the crap out of them.
• Hold an event where students could express their concerns to administration.
• Develop a survey process to figure out what students would like addressed.
• Invite members of the Spokane community to Whitworth in a community involvement fair.

FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT:

KENDRA HAMILTON:

ASWU experience: Yes, most of any candidate. Has been Stewart senator, Boppell Senator, and (for a little bit) Financial Vice-President.

Endorsed by: The Whitworthian, Seth Flory.

Campaign Themes: Experienced candidate. Says she will streamline financial procedures accountability and making them more

Unallocated money should be: Maximized, because unallocated money is money that regular students can access.

Criticism of opponent: Carl Chan never asked the current FVP (Kendra) about the FVP position. Carl Chan lacks as much experience as Kendra.

Specific Ideas:

• Run meeting once a month to teach students how to access ASWU funds.
• Compile all of the financial documents for clubs into one easy streamlined packet.
• Considers revising the ASWU constitution to allow money in dorm budget accounts to “roll over” to future years, allowing, say, Warren to save up for a Pinball Machine.
• Increase checks and scrutiny into use of funds. For example, maybe people shouldn’t be spending ASWU funds on lunches for their own belly.
• Train club treasurers to be able to treasure properly.

CARL CHAN:

ASWU Experience: No, but has extensive accounting experience. Also worked at Washington Mutual for two years, as a teller, so he knows his way around the Benjamins.

Endorsed by: Peter Cleary (but Cleary also, later, kinda endorsed Kendra. Wuss.)

Campaign Themes: Making it easier for new clubs to form.

Criticism of opponent: Kendra isn’t as much of a team player, a people person, as Chan is.

Unallocated money should: have a certain amount of money set aside, in a “lockbox” as it were, for starting new clubs.

Specific Ideas:

• Make it easier to start new clubs, by giving them more support, and setting aside funds expressively for that purpose.
• Deal with people rather than their positions. For example, instead of trying to deal with “The Whitworthian” he would try to deal with “Jasmine Linabary.”
• Allow clubs to send more than two All-Student E-mails a week.
• Would also suggest having the All-Student E-mails come from specific clubs, instead of just “ASWU announces.”

Executive Vice President:
Kalen Eshoff: 93%

Financial Vice President:
Kendra Hamilton: 42%
Carl Chan: 40%
Mark Baker: 17%

Now let’s go back to my post-primary analysis:

I’m willing to bet, however, that between Mark and Chan, it was quite a nail biter.

Yep. I was wrong. The only nails that were bitten where Chan’s. Bitten in overwhelming victory. That shows how much my speculative powers are worth. (Although, once I’ve made an Official Prediction, it’s never been wrong for student government elections.)

I also thought it’d be pretty close between Obe and Tyler, which it was.

Luis’s percentage looks pretty bad, but consider that he had two ASWU candidates (Obe and Tyler, basically) to run against. Luis and Obe and Tyler’s probably took a certain amount from eachother’s bases.

Now here’s the  interesting thing.

Kendra only had a 2 percent lead on Chan. Now that there’s all Mark Baker banished back to the shadow, his voters have been freed, and are floating about willy-nilly. 17 percentage points can make a lot of difference, as Chan and Kendra — both pretty experienced with numbers — know.  Who will Mark’s votes go to?

It’s even more drastic for the Presidential race. There’s 32 free percentage points for the takin’. Honestly, I don’t know exactly how those will be dealt out.

Seth Flory’s made his endorsement (Kendra Hamilton) and both Peter Cleary and Carl Chan said they would like to work with each other.

So here’s my question to Tyler, Luis, and Mark: Who should the people who voted for you in the primaries vote for now?

This is my first experience LiveBlogging. Beware. I am a slow typer, and an inaccurate one. Here’s a live blog of the ASWU debate. Since I’m typing stream-of-consciousness live, It’ll be a bit raw.

9:33: Obe has chosen to stand up, instead of sitting down. Important move. Cleary points to his posters in the back. Nice touch.

9:34: Cleary says “kay” a lot. Once you notice, you can’t unnotice. Cleary points to his powerful alliteration abilities to try to persuade us to vote for him.

9:36: Eshoff points to the Organization/Relational dichotomy of the ASWU position. She can achieve both of those well. She mentions “turning visions into reality.” Still no word on what those visions are but that’s to be expected.

9:38: Hamilton positions herself as a kind of Patton, sweeping in and saving the ASWU. This seems fairly accurate to me. Hamilton “is a good man in a storm.” Even though she’s, you know, a woman.

9:39: Carl Chan is going on his spiel about dealing with persons not positions. Dealing with Jasmine, rather than the Whitworthian. I’m not sure I like that. There’s a danger with the backroom dealing and persuasion, rather than conducting business out in the open.

9:41: A gay straight alliance club question right away! Hooray! These are all good.

Cleary knows his stuff. He just deftly gave a summary of the complicated issues in the Gay-Straight Alliance’s history. Somebody reads The Whitworthian. He also refers himself as a “politician.” I think that’s accurate. He supports the position that people have taken, as a compromise. His personal views have not said, purposefully. As a theology major, I’d assume Cleary has personal views one way or another.

9:43: Eshoff has chosen to sit for her questions, allowing others to do the same. She wants people to seek out conversations regarding issues like Homosexuality.

9:45: Kendra has some knowledge of the issue, because as FVP she helped start the club. Kendra seems to support the club, and likes that they split off from the national group.

9:46: Obe says that there wasn’t as much of an interest in past years in giving an outlet for the kinds of issues the Open Conversation: Orientation club would deal with. I think 1989 would disagree with him, personally.

But you know what’s Obe’s good with? Parallel structure. That rocks. He also gets a good laugh by mentioning the “Spandex Optional” club.

9:49: Chan is playing it very safe. He’s speaking languages of percentages, rather than vision. The questioner, meanwhile, says that, in some ways, the candidates scooted around the position, but Zerkel encourages the questions to move on, despite Eshoff offering to answer followups.

9:50: “How do you plan on training and preparing people for their job, if you haven’t already had the job?” That’s a question brought to you by Tyler Hamilton.

9:51: Kalen Eshoff mentions she’ll have a “steep learning curve.” Hmm. I wonder if she’s already read the Whitworthian Endorsement editorial?

9:53: Question: Will you still be active if you lose?

9:54: Heh. I think Kendra ran for Stewart Senator specifically because Jeff Brown didn’t do a good job.

She also “loves that the Whitworthian comes to every meeting” because it keeps them accountable. I think it’s the free sandwiches.

9:55: Obe says he likes to see the churning of gears at Whitworth. He likes to learn about the things going on around campus, and that’s why he attends ASWU meetings, and will continue to. Michelle Bess claps.

9:59: Chan says “I’ve only been to one ASWU meeting, and I think I’ve been missing out.” Awwww. Yet, Chan says he would not attend as many meetings if he loses. Honesty!

10:00: I don’t know how many of you watch “The Wire” but Cleary’s speaking style reminds me so much of Carcetti, the Council President. Articulate– almost amusingly so.

10:01: Question: Will the system be hierarchical or not? Kendra: “It is not a heirarchical system.” Period. Also, heirchical is a hard word to pronounce. Kendra says, the job should not overlap, people have seperate jobs, it was never intended to be hierarchical.

10:04: Obe: Let’s bring out our strengths. Let’s bring out our frontline. Let’s not hide it in the back. Yet, Obe feels that it is good to criticize, sometime.

10:05: Kalen, I think: President is an ambiguous role. Basically, we’ve got to live together, or we die alone. :LOST:

10:07: Peter Cleary wants to bring a “servant mentality.” Sounds familiar? That’s a Donnellism. That’s good or bad depending on what your opinion of Scott’s job is.
Peter said they got compensated equally. That is incorrect. The president gets paid the most. That is, technically, correct. While the president has the biggest potential for getting paid (around 40 percent of tuition, off the top of my head, though I could be very wrong) all positions are paid, approximately $6853. That’s about $175 more than last year. And, $5430 more than what I get paid.

10:09: Tyler Hamilton again: What is your experience working with other positions? This is a very boring question.

10:10: He was Sports Events Coordinator. No real new information. He did use the phrase “direct game plan” which is fitting, for Sports Events coordinator.

10:11: Cleary uses the words, “connecting” and “relationship.” Take out your buzzword bingo card and mark it.

10:13: Question- Why should we vote for your opponent? Most likely, nobody is going to be gutsy enough to say, well, you shouldn’t.

10:14: Kendra and Carl sitting in a Tree. C-O-M-P-L-I-M-E-N-T-I-N-G (eachother).

10:15: Obe: I’ve had some nice conversations with Cleary.

10:16: Cleary: Ditto.

Then they totally make out. Well, basically. Obe is nice.

10:18: My Question: Where are you strong and your opponent weak. Carl: I am willing to work with other people, Kendra isn’t as much of a team player as I am. I am willing to listen and eager to learn.

10:19: Cleary: I’ve started at the ground running. I am the strongest candidate as far as being able to communicate.

10:20: Obe: I’m crazy for going for president. It’s a tough job. I feel that Peter is insufficient in two levels of experience. Peter is not familiar with ASWU and not familiar the with the greater student body as a whole. It’s imparative a strong senior leader is in that position.

10:21: Kendra: I don’t like running against somebody. I do feel I am very qualified. I have six weeks of experience on the job. One thing Carl didn’t do, was keep up with ASWU at all. Carl didn’t ask me about the FVP position, which would have been good. “I don’t want this to be another ‘tick’ on my resume.”

Good show, to all the candidates to actually answering a tough question,

10:23: Hey, it’s Tyler Hamilton again: How do you communicate with BJ?

10:24: Cleary: He’s FROM BJ. He would remedy the disconnect by going dorm to dorm with prime time. He would also attend Traditiation. (Technically, he can’t because he’s a BJ alum.)

10:25: Obe: It’s funny you say BJ. He went around talking to BJ. BJ resident thought that it ASWU was part of GU. Obe wants to solve this disconnect by conducting the ASWCmeeting in the dorms.

Eh. That might be a bit complicated.

He would also create a dedicated center in the HUB which is continually updated with up-to-date information. He says, let’s inform students about why the Pop Machines are where they are.

10:29: Mark Baker: How can you represent the students beyond the financial nitty-gritty stuff.

Kendra: Would like to make unallocated money more accessible to more students. Many students, she says, don’t know how to get at the copious amounts of money available. She would run meetings once a month explaining how to requisition funds.

Spoiler: These meetings would probably be boring.

Kendra would like to amend to allow students to get at the money easier.

Hmm. I’m not sure if I want people to be able to spend my money without jumping through hoops.

Chan: I would ensure that money is being spent correctly.

Basically: Right action. Right thought.

Would like to invite students who have an idea of the new club to have an idea how to do it. Carl Chan is using Mark Baker’s lacrosse team struggles as an example.

Sad, Bakers gone from candidate to cautionary example?

10:35- James: How do you distinguish ASWU from Student Life.

10:36- Kalen answers first, which is good because this is basically a question she needs to answer. Kalen: My goal is for the Senators to be very visible in their dorms, and engaged with the resident teams, and hold senators accountable.

10:37: Kendra: People in government are supposed to be representative of the students there. Wants senators to use the RAs to gauge the campus. There’s a lot of confusion between the two. Kendra laments how Senators aren’t allowed to plan primetime. She suggests Senators help fund RAs.

Honestly, RA’s don’t get nearly enough.

10:41: Obe: ASWU is not as direct as student life. Both of them combined complement each other.

The candidates haven’t been defining the differences as much as defining the similarities.

10:42: Cleary: Student Life is Student Life.

Ooooh. Tautology.

Cleary: ASWU is the student voice. See the relationship between Dayna Coleman and Dick Mandeville. Student life tells people what their options are, ASWU, the student voice, lets people try to change these options.

I’d say Cleary wins this questioning period.

10:46- Question: How would you increase unity on campus between Whitworth mainstream culture and the counter-culture? Now that is a question.

10:47: For some reason, Obe is talking about growth. He is answering the setup to the question, but not the actual punchline — mainstream culture versus counter-culture.

Obe: Student government has to try harder, they’ll have to reach the new dorms that are being built. Student government shouldn’t be

10:49: Cleary: More than anything else, rate of growth is the highest concern. He encourages us people to talk to the Board of Trustees. The man is articulate.

1 0:51: Kendra brings it all back to the actual question. Too bad the presidents didn’t answer it, though the growth rhetoric was interesting. “Nobody wants to say anything rude or obnoxious or stupid,” Kendra says. And then she ruins all of that wonderful rhetoric by saying “Building bridges.” Now Kendra is talking about the American Diversity Credit. “You have to allow a forum, if you’re actually going to discuss any of that stuff.”

Like some kind of FORUM at WHITWORTH?

10:55: ASWU has taken pivotal steps in addressing these steps. “There should be division on the college campus,” Kalen says. Niceness, she adds, shouldn’t trump honesty.

Now she’s speaking my language. College is about conflict. It’s a good thing.

English, if you’re curious.

10:58- Chan: Clubs and organizations can help with these cultural differences. For example, the Hawaiian club and Open Conversation: Orientation clubs.
10:59: Cleary comes back to actually address the question. I would like to take lessons from larger schools, to see what works for them.

Well, the answer is: It doesn’t work at larger schools. There’s not a sense of unity at most larger schools, just a whole lot of niches. Sometimes it’s niche against niche and which niche you’re in determines your rep. And don’t even try to switch niches.

Observations:

Favorite words and phrases.

Obe: “Definitely.”

Peter: “Communication.” “Kay?”

Kalen: “Did I answer your questions?”

Strongest debaters:

Peter, but he’s vague. He did seemed the most prepared and the most researched. It’s clear that he’s read recent Whitworthians and has a phenomenal memory.

Kendra, by far. She outstripped the executive candidates on many questions, and gave a major burn to them in the last question. She knows more about ASWU than any other person there, and it showed. Her strong demeanor served her well.

Candidates: If you have any thoughts or comments on what you said, post them in the comments. That’s what the Internet is all about!

So tell me, what’s the difference between you and your opponent? Don’t worry. You can actually say you’re better than your opponent. Because if you aren’t, well, you shouldn’t be running.

By now you should know quite a bit about your opponent. I’d encourage you to go beyond pure resume reviewing. Examine ideas and philosophies.

This one probably was the hardest yet, simply because of how vague the theme was. Some of my rejected candidates ranged from stock market moments to beauty pageants. In the end, I based this list on topics that the average person could at least give the standard eyes-pointed-to-the-side, head-nodding, “oh yea” recognition sign to without thinking about it too much. Here’s what I had to say, let’s see what you think:

Honorable Mention: Facebook. Hellllooooo college. How did we ever get enough guts to talk to a complete stranger before profiles let us hold entire conversations with people without ever meeting them? And so much for trying to hide your secret relationship from the rest of the facebook world—newsfeed sold you out. What a novel little piece of homework-obstruction facebook has been, eh? Except it launched in February ‘04, so it doesn’t quite qualify for the official list. So close…
(Hmm…and as I’m typing this, “facebook” still has little red squiggly lines underneath it. How long before this becomes an official word already?)

Entertainment Innovation #10: Sudoku. As I hold the envelope to my head, I see “musical instruments, pies, and puzzles.” I open the envelope and read “Groups of things that will never be re-invented.” We already have word searches, crosswords, and the jumble. What else is there? Not much until 2005, when free online game sites began to advertise this weird Japanese game with as many different versions as ways of pronouncing its name. Only three years later, the game has moved into the coveted Puzzle Section of the Sunday paper, right next to the impossible-to-solve crossword. You may have mastered the art of the Sudoku, but have you tried “Samurai Sudoku” yet? It’s even more addicting.

Entertainment Innovation #9: Meerkats and Penguins. I don’t think anyone would’ve been surprised in 2004 if someone said “Hey, two animals are about to dominate television documentaries for the next couple of years.” I mean you hear that and you’re thinking whales, or tigers, or eagles, or horses or, heck, maybe even a mongoose or big-horned sheep. But a meerkat? Other than Timon, what exactly do meerkat’s have to offer us as far as entertainment goes? But darnit, those documenters did a great job not only of picking these animals, but of showing the intricate, spooky, harsh, even murderous lifestyle those little critters have. No sooner did meerkats come onto the small screen then penguins arrive on the big one as well. March of the Penguins was, well, exactly what it sounds like—penguins marching along the ice to go breed. Once again, I know this was fascinating because I watched it and I loved it, but I can’t get the concept out of my head as being so wierd. The fact that animals were big in entertainment was nothing new. But whoever decided on meerkats and penguins struck gold.

Entertainment Innovation #8: Ken Jennings’ Streak. “Most of this firm’s 70,000 seasonal white-collar employees work only 4 months a year.” The correct answer was “What is FedEx?” But this Jennings guy actually said “H&R Block.” What a dummy. Oh well, good thing he had won the previous 74 games for $2.5 million (it ended up being $3 million after playing the tournament too.) The money obviously is huge. But how does someone go five days a week answering some 75 questions/day and not screwing up enough to get kicked out. You’d think somewhere around game #45 he would’ve had a head cold, or a question about flan, or a buzzer that didn’t work and the streak would’ve ended there. But nope, he just kept getting to use the coveted “I was right and you were wrong” phrase to everyone who stepped into his path. Two-point-five million dollars. How a brain has room for that much genuine knowledge of so many different topics, now that’s hard to understand.

Entertainment Innovation #7: Live Earth. Well…ok, the concerts were awesome. The acoustics in Antarctica weren’t bad, I finally figured out why Caleb Knox likes the Foo Fighters so much, it was all on TV and the internet so we could hear whoever we wanted whenever we wanted. Yea, it was interesting I guess. Alright fine, it was a flop. For one, the ratings stunk. In the middle of July, no one was sitting inside watching concerts on TV. But the big problem everyone had with this event when it was all over was how much it seemed to hurt the environment instead of help. Some areas combined to produce around 3,000 times more pollution than would’ve been produced on a normal day. Everyone from Al Gore to the stagehands seemed to be traveling in limousine convoys and private jets to and from the concerts. And, most spooky of all, no one seems to know where the money from the ticket sales went to. The worldwide concert to save the planet wound up annoying more people than it convicted, and tore the atmosphere up something awful along the way. Oops.

Entertainment Innovation #6: Chuck Norris Facts. The luckiest man on the planet is the guy who thought it was a good idea to tease of Chuck Norris, because thankfully good ol’ Walker seemed to like them just as much as we do. Heck, we even made them up on our own. Let’s hear your favorites folks: Chuck Norris’ tears cure cancer—too bad he never cries;      Chuck Norris has counted to infinity. Twice;      Chuck Norris once swallowed a turtle whole. When he *$%&@ it out it was 6 feet tall and knew karate;      Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door;      Chuck Norris doesn’t churn butter—he roundhouse kicks the cows and the butter comes straight out. And my personal favorite of the ones my friends and I created at 3:00am in Mac one day: Chuck Norris would do anything for love, and he would do that.

Entertainment Innovation #5: Wii. Congratulations Nintendo, you’ve finally managed to create a game console that pulled me away from my SuperNES. Although I firmly believe that the game is rigged to not let you hit a backswing 90% of the time in tennis, the Wii is fantastic. Old games combined with new. Controllers combined with virtual reality. Mario combined with Mii. Since the fifties television has been promising us jetpacks, meals in pills, and virtual reality games. One down, two to go.

Entertainment Innovation #4: Entertainment crackdowns. We were kept on a pretty long leash for a while there, but starting in 2005 the range began to dwindle a bit. First, the FCC. Yea, they had to do something about television after the annoyingly-infamous wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl. But wow, did they mean business. $325,000 every time a naughty word, image, body part or action shows itself on the telly. On top of that, the RIAA finally got around to capturing the scourge of society known only to the innocent townsfolk as music piraters. No more sharing music, no more ripping CD’s and making backups. If you want music, you will buy it and you will like it. They even tried, in pure Dr. Evil fashion, to sue a radio station in Russia for 1.6 trillion dollars. It’s good to see such a concentrated effort on such a worthy cause. If they had won the money, maybe they could have spent it on planting all the trees to make up for Live Earth….swish, two points.

Entertainment Innovation #3: SNL Digital Shorts. This really was a good idea in my mind. SNL was starting to lose some of its luster, and few of us (especially college students) are spending our Saturday nights watching TV anyway. They had to do something to get their fan base back again. Answer: the digital short. A short skit that can be filmed ahead of time, taking some of the pressure off the newer cast members and able to add elements that a traditional live skit just can’t do physically. Plus, for all of you who missed the original showing, just download it from the internet and watch it as often as you like. How many of us don’t have at least “Lazy Sunday” or “Dick-in-a-box” or “Iran so far” memorized at least a little bit? Good job SNL, this was a fantastic idea.

Entertainment Innovation #2: The Return of the Discovery Channel. All through high school what used to be an amazing channel covering everything from Aztecs to UFO’s pretty much turned itself into the American Chopper Channel. Rather than go with the tanking, however, they turned things around and in 2006 began showing pilot and new episodes of MythBusters, Deadliest Catch, Dirty Jobs, Unsolved History, Shark Week, and Man vs. Wild (which is still cool, even after the controversy.) Not to mention Planet Earth on a HiDef television might be one of the greatest spectacles anyone will ever create, movie or TV. While the main networks stick to their standard staples of cops, lawyers, doctors and single people living in coffee shops, it’s nice to see some TV that requires you to leave your brain turned ON to enjoy.

Entertainment Innovation #1: Harry Potter Comes to a Close. The general consensus of the Deathly Hallows seems to be that the first 9000 pages were great, but the final 30 ruined the series somehow for most people. Either you loved the ending and hated the epilogue, or vice versa. I’m a vice versa boy. We just spent six books hearing about how powerful Voldemort was and how Harry was an uncommonly worthy counterpart. We spent six books waiting to see who would meet their fatal doom and who would miraculously survive. Most importantly, we spent six books waiting to see just what would happen when Harry and Tom Riddle finally, FINALLY go wand-to-wand. And what did we get? Exactly what 100% of six-year-old girls polled were hoping we’d get. The battle we were waiting for turned out to be a war of words, and only secondary characters met the ultimate fate. No series of intricate blocking or scripting and no onslaught of spells. Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione fell in love and got married and had kids and lived happily ever after and, oh mommy, it was just such a wonderful story! For one reason or another everyone was disappointed. Now, in all fairness, was there any possible way for J.K. Rowlings to actually meet the high and varying standards we all had in our heads? Probably not. But still, I wanted my battle scene.

Enjoy the weekend everyone. I look forward to hearing any additions you may have.

That doesn’t include foreplay, of course. To gather this data, the women in these playful situations were given stopwatches, which seems to be an interesting way to go about it. I’m not sure if the men knew that they were being timed, but either way I’m sure there would be lively repercussions!

Well, if the data are to be trusted… (and the article cited “Dr. Irwin Goldstein, editor of the Journal of Sexual Medicine,” a man with a brilliant career counselor) there’s a nifty fact that will allow people to evaluate their sex life. I think that’s all I have to say about that…

Peter Cleary

Obe Quarless

—–

Cleary and Quarless. Nobody would have predicted.

Well, technically, Obe predicted it exactly in a conversation I had with him in the dining hall tonight. The guy knows the student body.

They were the two candidates to offer the most specific suggestions and plans for next year on the Forum. The electorate craves substance people! Hopefully in the next few days the substance will get even substancier.

Other than that, they had markedly different campaigns. Cleary’s campaign was a series of reruns to effective campaigns of elections past. But his campaign was also the biggest (both in quantity and size) and the most professional of any of the candidates. The man rocked the name recognition. He also did the door-to-door thing. (I often forget how effective this technique can be. The door-to-door personalized schmoozing, let’s call it the “B-Rob,” still has a few years left on it before the campus outgrows it. Everybody likes a candidate who says he genuinely cares about *you*.

Obe’s campaign was more under the waves than Cleary’s. His facebook group didn’t go online until last night. His single poster was simple and honestly, not horribly compelling. (Isn’t that a crazy coincidence that the Capital letters of Opportunity Belief and Empowerment spell “OBE?”.)

Yet, the man had a reputation, far more so than Cleary. Everybody knows Obe. For those who didn’t, Obe hit up each Prime Time, dressed in a snappy suit and a smile. The guy reeks with genuine affability. Some politicians seem smarmy with manufactured earnestness. Not Obe.

Besides Luis, he was the one candidate to have actual experience on the ASWU. And this year’s basketball team, it couldn’t have been a better year to be a Sports Coordinator.

For those reasons, he beat his opponents like, well, a Steel Drum.

So how about the people who didn’t make it to the second round?

Tyler Hamilton wanted a ASWU position so very badly. But I’m not convinced he really wanted the Presidential position. Hamilton’s skills — his organization, his connections, his work ethic, his encyclopedic knowledge of the ASWU constitution — all lend themselves to the Executive Vice President position. But not to the President.

The fact that Hamilton took applications for both positions made it seem like he just wanted a position, whatever it was, on the ASWU. His campaign centered on the fact that he wanted a position on the ASWU. It likely seemed to many students that he only applied for the President position because, well, President is higher than Vice-President, right?

Combine that with having to balance coming back from China. The first 24 hours of the campaign are the most important, and Hamilton missed taking advantage of them. His front-runner status, gained by being so well known, rapidly dwindled as other campaigns gained steam.

Hamilton had to judge campaigning with schoolwork, but his campaign seemed pretty lackluster. It lacked passion. It lacked direction. It lacked professionalism, but also humor. And it lacked, well, luster.

Hamilton’s posters consisted of a large picture of himself. And not the senior picture kind. It was more of those “wacky” Facebook pictures, you know, the kind you worry your employer will find. (Scott Donnell won in spite of his wacky picture last year, not because of it.) For some reason, the slogans were taped on with construction paper, instead of being printed directly onto the poster. As I’ve pointed out, the slogans were a little confusing. “Conditioning” isn’t what I would expect to see on a campaign poster, alliterative though it may be. And following “Approachable” with “Able” just sounded awkward.

And let’s not forget the sophomore disadvantage, which may have played a small part.

Hamilton is clearly a talented person, especially when he sets his mind to something. But while his mind may have been set to win the election, it didn’t seem like his heart was in it.

Luis Lopez, meanwhile, had a marked disadvantage, one we’ve discussed extensively on this blog. Lopez ran on experience, but his most recent source of experience was his greatest vulnerability.

Also, Lopez’s black and white 8 1/2 by 11s may have worked if the other candidates hadn’t used larger color posters. It’s sort of like how everybody looks ugly standing next to Michael Vander Giessen. People judge you on your surroundings.

Honestly, I think Luis Lopez has great potential to be a leader on campus, and to serve the Whitworth community. But being a leader doesn’t necessarily mean being a part of ASWU or Student Life. My sophomore year one of the biggest leaders in Warren Hall was Nik Hoback. Nik wasn’t a senator or an RA, but he did have something many others lacked: a crazy commitment to making Third West the best hall, and Warren the best dorm on campus.

Leadership isn’t about title. Leadership is about a cocktail of creativity, commitment, and craziness. Those are the people who make college memorable. Not the people who’ve mastered parliamentary procedure. Lopez really cares about the campus. He’s just got to find his niche, the perfect way to serve. When I read the job description for Opinions Editor I told myself, “Now that is the most perfect job for me I’ll ever see on the Whitworth campus. That’s my Cinderella slipper.”

Once Lopez finds his Cinderella slipper, he’ll find his happily ever after.

Executive Vice President:

Kalen Eshoff

(Write-in candidates may appear later, but they’ll have to go through the application process first.)

This analysis is pretty easy. Kalen won because of her fantastic implied campaign slogan: “Who else?”

(Kudos for her for still campaigning. She’s one of the candidates who’s answered more Forum questions than most, despite the fact that, well, she didn’t have to.)

The bigger, looming question is will the write-ins run? Matt Monahan (and Mitch Williams) has a Facebook group dedicated to running for ASWU positions. With his group at 139 members, Monahan probably got the most amount of write-in votes. But the question is, will he accept the torch? The Facebook group is filled with non-sequiturs, historical errors, and lines like, “We are here to ensure certain liberties; Faith, Fulfillment, Friendship, Fellowship, Flagship, Fame, Fortune, Fortune 500, Feminism, Fraternity and Freedom.”

Alliterative, if not especially insightful.

Supposedly started on April 1st, there’s a question to whether Williams and Monahan are entirely serious. Let’s just say my satire sense is tingling. But if not Monahan, then who? And does any write-in have a chance against the freight-train momentum of Eshoff?

Financial Vice President:

Carl Chan

Kendra Hamilton

Oh, Carl Chan. You are an enigma, wrapped in a conundrum, placed inside a lock box of impenetrability. And apparently, you have quite a band of acolytes.

I didn’t follow Carl Chan’s campaign all that much other than, well, the fact that, apparently, he can. Be your FVP. Chan uses a bit too many exclamation marks on his Facebook group for my taste, but one thing stands out: He’s worked for Washington Mutual for two years. I don’t know exactly how he did — he may just be casing the joint for one last heist — but a business background’s got to help with the nitty-gritty financial crap the FVP has to deal with.

Unfortunately, Chan hasn’t posted on the Forum, so we don’t know his budgetary philosophy. Ideally, in the next few days, we will break out the thumbscrews and waterboarding equipment and convince him to talk.

(Note: In a inspirational show of sportsmanship both Carl Chan and Mark Baker joined eachother’s facebook group. It definitely warmed my heart-cockles.)

If Kendra were to have a campaign slogan that accurately summed up the state of the race it would be: “Kendra Hamilton for Financial V- oh wait, that’s right. I already am Financial Vice President. So chew on that, suckers.”

Kendra’s campaign revolves around, well, is that fact. The start of her campaign was pretty slow, — her posters were a bit “Microsoft Publisher Template” for my tastes — but her front-runner status was enough to bring her to Stage II of the race.

And it can’t hurt to have your former opponent — who you beat in the ASWU race — drop out of the race and endorse you because, heck, you’re just so gosh-darn qualified.

Now the battle begins.

Chan will have to present a compelling case why we shouldn’t just go with the competent person who already has the training. Currently Kendra’s leaning a bit heavily on the “I already have the training bit,” which may give Chan an opportunity to present his litany of other, arguably superior, qualifications. But for now, Kendra’s the candidate to beat.

Just as Flory’s endorsement of Kendra helped her nab the primary win, Flory’s undorsement of Mark Baker probably hurt him a bit.

Mark Baker was qualified, but in a field of qualified candidates somebody has to take the fall. Although I’m not quite sure why Carl Chan beat out Mark Baker, I think Baker’s posters had something to do with it. Most posters aim for a “commanding but genial” look. Mark’s had more of a “trippy 1970’s album cover look.”

Mark had some important things to say about problems with previous FVP, such as the runaround the Lacrosse team received. But I don’t think that message spread as effectively as Chan’s extensive qualifications.

I’m willing to bet, however, that between Mark and Chan, it was quite a nail biter.

—

For the full list, including senators, go to the ASWU blog at whitworthian.com.

Opportunity.

Caring.

Reliable.

Belief.

Think. 

Positive.

Connecting.

Qualification.

Conditioned.

Do.

Interested.

Experienced.

Experience.

Empowerment.

Talk.

Integrity.

Principled.

Achieving.

Motivated.

Persuasive.

Dedicated.

Capable.

Passionate.

So here’s the budget for this year: Click this PDF. Let’s pretend that ASWU gets the same amount of money next year as 2007-2008, and minimum wage didn’t rise. How would you change the budget, if at all?

The problem is, we need a rubric.

Give us your promises. Give us your plans.

So here’s the challenge: At the end of the first semester, what are the top three things you will have done? (or at least tried to have done)

Remember, bonus points for specifics, minus points for using the phrase “building bridges” without laying out any kind of architectural plan.

In what seems like a classic slasher flick, the list of potential EVP’s has been pared down from seven to a mere solitary one.

They were picked off one by one. A few, like Amanda Plumb, just never decided to run. Others, like Luis Lopez and Tyler Hamilton, discovered that running for two positions at the same time, while they’d get double amount of posters, might become a problem if they happened to win both. And then Vi dropped out — wanting to spend more time in informal leadership, and Corey Newman decided he’d rather have a guaranteed RA position (with free room and board) than a possible EVP position.

So what are we left with? Kalen Eshoff… or Kalen Eshoff.

It’s interesting how this year is the opposite of last. Last year was about candidates deciding at the last moment they want to run. This year is about the list dwindling.

The irony here, of course, is that Tyler Hamilton may have a much better shot of winning the EVP position (and I’d argue he might be stronger in that position) than the Presidential position.

But for now, when there’s only one candidate, there’s only one choice.

Sorta. What’s going to happen is that several people are going to write in their friends, and quite possibly Rick Astley, for EVP during the primaries. Then Katie Zerkel will have to go through the arduous process of calling each write-in candidate up, one by one, to find out if any of them actually want to run for the position.

Eventually, one of them will. And if they don’t campaign, Eshoff will probably walk away with it.

That’s not good. Not because Eshoff isn’t qualified — she is — but because students need to be given a choice. The quality of the debate depends on it. It’s also important that Eshoff raise her ideas, float her opinions, and give her prescription for what the campus needs. If she has an opponent who actually campaigns, and she still wins, she’ll have — to a certain extent — a mandate for her ideas.

If she doesn’t, we’ll be stuck still asking the question: “What do students want from their execs?”

This is why I support somebody — anybody — running as a write-in candidate.

If you have nominations, write them in the comment section.

Obviously, this is a view probably more cynical than mine was even then. But still, one of the great challenges ASWU faces each year is justifying their existence. Most years, a time rolls around, usually around February or March, when the ASWC tries to reorganize themselves or something to have a reason for living.

Go through the Whitworthian archives, or even read a few articles from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, or the 90s. The ASWC was different then. It was influential. It was downright powerful. It didn’t just request changes on campus, it made them.

Now, I’d be the last person to wish more power upon the ASWU, but the fact remains: It’s not nearly as important as it used to be.

Most real candidates, even conservatives, campaign on change. Sometimes that means going back to an original , some times that means the same but better and sometimes that means a complete rewrite.

So here’s the questions: Does Whitworth need ASWU? What is the present state? What is its present role? Where are the flaws and failures, and what are the successes and triumphs? Does ASWU need fixing, or finetuning, or is it fine just the way it is? From your position, how will you bring about that change?

I will start my explanation by saying, that I started exploring the opportunity to become FVP knowing I am fully capable of doing the job. I have the particular skills and experience necessary to fill the position. Once I knew that Kendra Hamilton was running for the position there was no escaping the fact, that she is in every regard more qualified than myself. She has two additional years of ASWU leadership experience, and a more thorough understanding of accounting practices. The real trump card is Kendra’s successful transition into the FVP position following Luis’ resignation. If Kendra were to retain the FVP position, there would be less uncertainty about financial issues during next year’s first few weeks of activity. Also, ASWU’s phenomenal administrator, Linda Yochum, would be saved from the need to train a new FVP, during what is the most stressful time of her year. There is no way around the fact that Kendra is the best person for this job, and if democracy works the way it is supposed to, she will win this election.

The FVP position is very unique. It is the only elected position that functions like an actual job. As it has been discussed on the Forum, the responsibilities of the FVP are more defined than other positions, because they need to be if legal issues are to be avoided. Though everyone that is elected to ASWU has certain responsibilities that require skill and motivation, the FVP position is the only one that requires exactness and a formal education. The consequences for skipping the weekly newsletter or failing to get a 40% response rate on a constituency report don’t compare to the consequences of mishandling accounts or misplacing funds. This is not to diminish the importance of the senators, reps, and other executive positions. These other positions are above all else about political representation, and the only way to find who is best qualifies to represent the people is an election. In an election of this sort, the differentiating skills and experience of the candidates are not as important as their ability to represent a certain constituency. Even though Katie Zerkel is incredibly organized and has three years of ASWU experience, she probably shouldn’t be allowed to represent Mac.

My point with all of this is to show that the FVP position falls soundly into the realm of objective evaluation, where the other positions are much more subjective. This is why I feel it is my responsibility to withdraw from the race, as I am not the best candidate, and I can not perform the duties of this position as well as Kendra. Were I involved in a race for any of the other positions, I would not disqualify myself based on comparative advantages, I would wait for the people to decide, but in the race for a position dealing with many absolutes, I must make way for the better candidate.

It shouldn’t be hard to infer from these claims that until Kendra entered the race I deemed myself the best candidate. When I told a friend why I was planning to drop out of the race, she had the wisdom to ask me something to this effect, “What if she doesn’t win? Wouldn’t it be better if you won instead of someone less qualified then either of you?” This almost made me stay in the race, but then I started thinking about the different demographics of support each of the candidates will be drawing from. I recognized that Carl, Mark, and Kendra would all be pulling from very different groups. If I were to stay in the race any vote in my favor would detract from one of these three. Most likely, the majority of the votes I’d pull would be coming away from Kendra, as my realm of activity overlaps with her realm more than those of the other two candidates. Even if I am totally wrong in this evaluation, I could not risk damaging Kendra’s chances at winning this election. Furthermore, being out of the race allows me to ask those who would have supported me to now support Kendra.

But his decision to run for ASWU president has resulted in a large amount of muttering and criticism. Some of that criticism has been polite and thoughtful, such as Quincy Peredya’s comments on my Exec Teaser Trailer post. Others have been rude, like Publius’s comments, now banished to the depths of the Internet memory hole.

The concerns are these. Luis, from all reports, had trouble managing the Financial Vice President position. Publius, an unreliable source, admittedly, said “Reports of misplaced funds and accounting errors were the impetus for his resignation.” Still, in Lopez’s own words: “The reality is I am ill-equipped and, in truth, under-qualified to perform the abilities of my job to my best ability.” (I’ll ignore the irony of Lopez saying that he didn’t have enough ability to do his job to his best ability. Those sort of mistakes are easy to make, and largely irrelevant.)

From conversations I’ve had with people, everybody loves Luis. Everybody thinks he’s a stellar individual. Yet, most people I’ve talked to are also concerned about the fact that Luis decided, halfway through, that he wasn’t qualified for his previous position. Clearly, some of this criticism is unfair. The presidential position and the financial vice-president position are radically different. I would be a pretty lousy ASWU president, but a far worse — almost apocalyptically worse — financial vice-president. It’s a Math thing.

Yet, it does not seem that Luis has addressed this criticism head-on. It’s the elephant in the room, trumpeting and stamping its feet, but while Luis seems to just be saying to not “focus on” the elephant. He’s talked about how frustrating it is that people bring the elephant up, but never directly repudiated the criticism.

On his facebook group, he says: “With my resignation within the immediate memory of many, I feel that there is too much overt focus on that one singular event. What people should recognize is the full picture.

When people go to the voting booth, this is an issue that will undoubtedly be at the forefront of many minds. If Luis is to win, he’ll have to answer these concerns effectively, and directly.

Here’s a couple questions for Luis. They’re pretty tough questions, but being ASWU president is all about answering tough questions.

1. Obviously, Publius is a jerk, but his accusations are out there, peskily floating about. Are Publius’s anonymous accusations true? Did you make accounting errors and misplace funds? Were you “perpetually cranky and depressed?” Was the workload of the FVP position too much for you to handle?

2. Can you get more specific on why you resigned? The Whitworthian article and resignation letters weren’t very specific. This will be helpful for students to to detirmine how much relevance your resignation bears.

3. How is the Presidential position different from the FVP position? Is it easier? More difficult?

4. You’re campaigning, largely, on experience. How will your experience as FVP (and senator and rep) change the way you’ll govern?

5. Historically, the ASWU President job is the most criticized on campus. The criticism can range from subtle, to downright venomous. It will appear occasionally in the Whitworthian, but more often, behind closed doors. How will you handle this?

On your facebook Election page you post “I plan on implementing some clarity into the FVP position. Previous Vice Presidents have been allowed to manipulate the system by not having the qualifications and consequently not being able to perform. Once elected this will all change. After all, the money is the students money and I believe the students should have more involvement in the allocation of those funds or at least the ability to influence them. Therefore clarity in interpreting financial statements as well as cash flows of government activities is highly important.”

“Previous Vice Presidents have been allowed to manipulate the system by not having the qualifications and consequently not being able to perform. Once elected this will all change.

1. First, which Vice-Presidents (and it you does say Vice-Presidents plural) have been allowed to manipulate the system and were not qualified?

2.  What do you mean by “manipulate the system?” How would you stop this from happening?

3.  How did you know they weren’t able to perform? What specifics are you thinking of?

4.  How will you change this, preventing people from being able to “manipulate the system?”

5.  It almost sounds like you believe there were poor financial decisions this year. If so, what?

6.   How will you give students the ability to influence the way funds are allocated?

And so it begins. Never, in the history of man, has so much blue tape been used by so few.

But so far, out of the blocks, the most impressive campaigning has been done by Peter Cleary. Oh, the sheet hung by Kalen Eshoff is the largest advertisement so far and is professionally done. But the most dramatic splash had been made by clearly been made by Cleary.

First let’s talk posters. His poster is designed, dare I say it, well. While the substance is minimal (more on that in a second) it certainly looks nice. There’s no “jaggedies” around the photoshop of his head and the text looks hip without seeming cliche or desperate. (Yes, fonts say a lot.)

More importantly, it’s HUGE. I used a poster of a similar size for my campaign for Warren Senator. It cost me 50 dollars. No word on how much this poster cost. Size, naturally, matters. The other posters around it just look sad in comparison.

As far as content, Peter’s going the “alliteration” method of persuasion as opposed to the “rhyming” method of persuasion that Carl Chan seems to be using. Peter for president because he’s Persuasive, Principled, and Positive.

He also uses three very short sentences. “Think. Talk. Do.”

If votes are currency, The Facebook group is the ATM. And, besides an unofficial group for Tyler Hamilton, Cleary’s is the first ASWU President group up, I believe. (Carl Chan and Mark Baker have groups up as well.)

Peter also has a smattering of Bright Orange T-Shirts, Katie Zerkel style, asking us either to vote for him, or Act on Aids. (I didn’t get a close look.)

He also has claimed the overhead projection, looming over the HUB, with his gigantic mug. It’s a rerun of his poster. I’ve only seen one version of his poster yet. We’ll see if more show up later.

So far Cleary’s campaign isn’t creative, it’s all stuff that’s been done before. But it’s being done effectively and — most importantly — quickly.

It was vital that Cleary made a strong impression from Day 1, because (in my opinion) he lacked the name recognition that a Lopez, Quarless, or Hamilton. He’s also the one executive candidate who hasn’t been on ASWU (I’m counting Hamilton because he’s been to practically every meeting this year.) To his credit, however, Cleary has attended a meeting.

But I didn’t know much about Cleary, other than he dresses a little like Scott Donnell, has hair like Scott Donnell, and his rhetoric sounds very Scott Donnell.

Like this, from Cleary’s facebook page: “I’m so excited to serve you all in a personal way. Oftentimes I feel like executive members of staffs are unapproachable. My dedication is to being completely personal. I’m excited to make your voice known across our community through the power of relationship. Relationship with you, with B-Rob, and with everyone else in between.) Personal relationship is the theme here, right down to calling William P. Robinson “B-Rob.”

Now, that’s not a bad thing. Donnell obviously won the election and was, arguably, the most successful president we’ve had in 3 years. But I’m sure that, over time, Cleary will distinguish himself more.

To help him do that, we have a few quick questions from his rhetoric so far. If you’re reading this, Peter, feel free to answer it below.

1. Let’s talk goals. You say: “I have seen too many organizations never get anything done b/c they just talk too much. With me as President, next year’s ASWU won’t be all talk. We’ll think about what you want, talk about how we can best voice your concerns, and then DO it. No hesitation. No looking back. And you’re gonna love seeing your ideas in action. Guaranteed.”

What do you mean by “No Hesitation” and “No looking back?”

2. You place a very strong amount of importance on “doing” rather than talking, and imply that ASWU has been all talk this year. If you were president this year, where would there have been action, where there has been only talk?

3. What are some ideas you’ve heard from students this year that you will put in action next year, that they’re going to love?

4. One of your big selling points is that you’re “persuasive.” Besides getting votes, who will you persuade, and what will you persuade them of?

5. You say you “don’t cut corners.” Where have corners been cut in the past, and how will you avoid cutting them? (Correct me if my reading of the implication is wrong.)

Thanks, Peter.

Good luck!

As Scott Donnell said during the interview for the accountability report: “My role is one of the more ambiguous roles on campus.”

Cory Marshall addresses this problem in the comments to a previous post: “Obviously we students of Whitworth have no idea what we want out of our executives, but we sure love commenting on what they do,” Cory says.

Part of that’s because the requirements for many of the positions (besides FVP) are vague. The responsibility sheet does not get much more specific than “Have X number of office hours a week.”

The role of president has looked VERY different under the command of Scott Donnell, Jeff Hunter, and Fa’ana Fenene. They’ve all found their own style, their own groove. The question is: What should the role be.

So, what are the responsibilities of the role your running for? What is the difference between President, the EVP and the FVP? What are their roles? How does, say, the EVP differ from President?

Knowing what the job entails is the first step to being qualified in doing it.  Show me you know the purpose of your job — why it even exists. I’m looking for specifics here, people.

I’m hoping the Forum can help change that. I’ve given each candidate a forum account. Each day, I will ask a broad question of the candidates. If they have the time or inclination, they will respond in the comment section. Ideally, we can get into the *specifics* of qualifications, vision, and leadership style.

If you have  a question for the candidates (or a specific candidate) , or an observation on the elections, or a coherent defense or criticism of a candidate, post it in the comments to this post. Hopefully, the candidate will answer.

President: Tyler Hamilton. Hamilton wears the unique mantle of being the most “insider”choice in the election, despite the fact that he’s never held an actual ASWU position. Yet, he’s attended almost every ASWU meeting in his two years at Whitworth. In other years, being seen as “typical ASWC” may have been a disadvantage. But this year, ASWU just doesn’t inspire the same amount of hatred that it did when I was Senator.

Plus, Hamilton got a legit head start. Before he left for China, he e-mailed a number of his friends announcing his run, and asking them to, starting the 31st, wear Blue Bandannas to show their support for Hamilton’s presidential run. It’ll be interesting to see how the “Gang colors” thing works out, but it seemed effective, albeit expensive, when Zerkel used a similar ploy last year.

However, Hamilton’s sophomore status may hurt him. One of the reasons Seth Wall’s presidential run never took off in 2005, despite less than ideal other candidates, was because he was but a sophomore. People were tempted to vote for him, but figured that, hey, they could always vote for him the next year. (Seth didn’t run that year, however. He was Duvall Senator.) It’ll be interesting to see how Hamilton and his opponents address this in coming weeks.

Executive Vice-President: Kalen Eshoff.

Originally, I had written a rave about how successful Vi Nguyen was at her job this year, and how she had the election sewn up. However, I underestimated one little snag: She isn’t running.

So instead, odds are on Kalen Eshoff, a two-year RA. As Donnell showed last year, the contacts that a two-year RA has can make for an unstoppable campaign. RAs are some of the most well-known people on campus, especially among underclassmen (who play a critical, often underlooked role.) And RAs have won the EVP position before as well. Andrea Naccarato, a former Warren RA won, and received generally positive reviews.

Financial Vice-President: Kendra Hamilton. Kendra Hamilton lucked into this one. Kendra’s still in the “honeymoon” period of her position, but thus far hasn’t done anything too controversial. (Though it’s taking an awful long time to get the actual unallocated amount, but that’s not Kendra’s fault. It’s a very complicated financial reset thing, where ASWU is no under the financial umbrella of the school instead of being their own entity. Like I said, complicated.)

And if both Kendra and Tyler win, then you have President Hamilton and Vice President Hamilton.
FVP is the one ASWU executive position the school actually couldn’t do without. It’s the most important position and often the most time-consuming. Yet, it’s also the least glamorous. I’m not sure if winning the FVP election is actually a “win.”

Those are the people I believe are currently ahead, before campaigning really gets going. Disagree with my analysis? Think they’ll be some upsets? Post in the comments.

1. Sense of Humor.

2. Posters, Name recognition.

3. Professionalism.

4. Issues.

A funny — or even psuedo-funny — irreverent campaign would beat a polished professional earnest campaign every time. (There was also a sort of unfair sexism. Females had a lot of trouble getting elected because many high school males were reluctant to vote for a girl and half the high school females hated any given other high school female. That was high school for you.)

College elections, for whatever reason, are different. Some people actually care about electing the Best Person For The Job, a standard which places much less importance on a good one liner. In high school, many kids would vote for the weird candidate just for ‘laffs’. College voters, however, can be frighteningly serious and frighteningly earnest.

Here’s how, from my three years of watching Whitworth elections, college voters seem to order their priorities. This is how people do vote, not how they should vote.

1. Positive Name Recognition. People say it’s all a popularity contest. At Whitworth, that’s pretty accurate. The limitations on posters and the blink-and-you miss it campaign season make it difficult for anyone who doesn’t already have an established name to make an impression. Whitworth is a small campus. Popularity matters as much as, if not more than campaigning.

Last year Scott Donnell won not only because he was one of the most popular people on campus, but because he had many other of the most popular people on campus actively campaigning for him. He had at his beckon a host of RAs, one of the best tools for spreading positive name recognition a guy could hope for.

Let me stress the positive aspect of positive name recognition. When Phil Ryan went up against Jeff Hunter, Ryan probably had more name recognition. Yet, his negatives were pretty well advertised. He’d, infamously, done a poor job as BJ senator and received a hearty amount of scorn for unsubtly letting it slip that his opponent was thirty years old.

Criticizing your opponent is the greatest crime in Whitworth politics.

Of course Jeff Hunter’s age meant he had more difficulty relating with the average Whitworth student. And of course the fact that neither Scott Donnell or Kyle Pflug had attended an ASWC meeting before running should be discussed.

But it’s suicide for a candidate to address their opponents flaws directly.

That’s why we have debates that resemble Resume Readings or side-by-side impromptu speeches more than anything actually argumentative.

And that’s why the blatant attacks by Publius will actually help Luis more than hurt him. (In fact, if I thought Luis was the devious sort I’d think that he wrote it. He didn’t)

What are effective are whisper campaigns started by allies of the candidate. If in the inevitable Saga table discussions about the candidates somebody says, “Ooh, I don’t know. I heard that Jake Johnson has failed three classes. Do we really want such a slacker in such a pivotal position?”

Like much at Whitworth, the real debating, the real substance, goes on behind closed doors.

Professional Posters

To the masses that don’t know your names, posters can be important. If the rules weren’t so strict, the candidate who could cover the campus with posters without annoying anyone would have the advantage. As it is, candidates have a fairly pitiful number of posters they can actually put up. Quality, not quantity.

Crappy posters cost votes. That includes posters taped up with glaring, hastily-placed blue tape strips. Yet, each poster should have a bit of meaning to it. Fa’ana Fanene’s warm, homemade posters beat Jessica Carrier’s professional but heartless posters. They have to be quality — conveying seriousness — but have personality — conveying humanity — as well. The easygoing, personable schlub will beat the uptight hyperefficient snob every time.

Qualifications

Qualifications matter, slightly. If somebody has an blatantly unqualified personality it can hurt them. If they’re too touchy, too bombastic, too offensive, or too shy students may quietly vote against them. But how many years they have on the ASWU doesn’t seem important enough to skip the scale. In past years, when the ASWC had a more negative reputation, not having served on ASWU was actually a plus. One of the reasons Hunter got votes is he seemed like an outsider. He had experience running small businesses, a refreshing difference from the lifetime student government politicians.

Issues

Issues often don’t matter because they’re never brought up. There’s rarely an obvious difference between candidates on their policy. One wants to BUILD bridges, while the other wants to build BRIDGES. Part of the problem here is matters of policy often don’t get plumped until the debates, which usually only happen the day before voting. As a result, the debates don’t have enough time to really sink in. And only about 40-50 people even attend the debates, most of whom have their minds made up already.

(Whitworth used to have debates and speeches conducted in front of the entire school, during Forum. That would be cool.)

So in brief, there are two major ideas that keep coming up:

First, there is a big difference in utilitarianism between “that which causes the most good for the greatest number” and “that which benefits the majority.” Utilitarianism does not call for people to sacrifice the interests of the minority – it tries to keep the playing field as level as possible. In some situations that probably means causing a slight inconvenience for 49% of people, while causing a slight improvement for 51%. In other cases, it could be an enormously good thing for 90% of people, and a really bad thing for 10% – but the cost/benefit analysis thing does not imply sacrificing the interests of the minority unless it is for the sake of an overwhelmingly good thing for the majority (like sacrificing a half dozen people to appease the aliens that would otherwise kill everybody).

The second mistake has to do with Ayn Rand’s objectivism/egoism. People confuse it with egotism and/or practicality. I think of the difference like this:

Egotism = “I am all that matters.”

Egoism = “I am most important.”

There is an important distinction there. One of the central tenets of Objectivism is this:

“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

So sacrificing others for one’s own benefit is fundamentally evil from this moral viewpoint. That is one important thing that needs to be clarified in class, especially when I hear things like “This guy is, like, the ultimate egoist because all he cares about is himself, and he doesn’t care who he harms to get what he wants.” That is not an example of an ethical egoist. Have a good spring break everybody!

Update: Chelsie Hall is not running either.  

Update: Vi Nguyen is no longer running. That makes Corey and Kalen the only candidates for EVP.

Note about future posts: Unless I hear differently, candidates can’t actually comment on issues about their candidacy until March 31, because of stodgy election rules. For other people not bound by the bonds of ASWU bylaws, however, comment away!

Also, Mark Sherridan may not comment on any election posts because he’s not real.

(Please excuse the picture problems.)

ASWU PRESIDENT

Obe Quarless

Major: Music Education

Experience: Sports Event Coordinator (2007-2008)

——

-

Peter Cleary

Majors: Economics, Theology

Experience: Small Group Coordinator (2007-2008)

——

–

Tyler Hamilton

Majors: Psychology

Experience: Small Group Coordinator (2007-2008) and 2 years of active attendance at ASWC/ASWU meetings.

—-

Luis Lopez

Major: Political Science.

Experience: Village Representative (2005-2006) Boppell Senator (2006-2007) Financial Vice President

—

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Kalen Eshoff

Major: Psychology

Experience: Resident Assistant (2006-2007 and 2007-2008)

–

-

Corey Newman

Majors: Spanish and Political Science.

Experience: Executive Secretary and Baldwin-Jenkins Representative.

—

FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT

Carl Chan

Major: Accounting

Experience: Future Business Leaders of America President, [of his local high school chapter, presumably] Washington Mutual Bank Teller.

—

Mark Baker

Majors: International Business, Chinese.

Experience: Club President.

–

-

Kendra Hamilton

Majors: Economics, International Business.

Experience: Current FVP, Boppell Senator (2007) and Stewart Senator (2006-2007)

—–

In sermons widely circulated in the media, Wright has called the September 11, 2001, attacks retribution for U.S. foreign policy, cited the U.S. government as the source of the AIDS virus, and railed against a racist America.

Now, forgive me if I am misguided about the entire state of our nation, but are these statements really that inflammatory? Only in a nation obsessed with patriotism and nationalism could someone be so crucified for honest remarks. Of course, the issue is not really with the remarks themselves or even Wright but rather their association with Obama and his political campaign. What saddens me about this whole situation is that Obama has distanced himself from Wright, rather than affirming his statements. I would have much more respect for Obama if he truly sought to transcend “politician” status and spoke honestly, rather than seeking to garner more votes.

Personally I would agree with Wright. Was 9/11 caused by America’s foreign policy? I would say absolutely yes. Do I think that the United States is a racist country? Not overtly, but certainly covertly. We thinly veil our prejudices and simply self-segregate—by moving out to the suburbs or going to private liberal arts colleges—and thus avoid uncomfortable racial interactions.

I suppose what frustrates me about this whole “controversy” is that I feel like a huge number of Americans hear Wright’s sentiments, and they resonate—they certainly do with me.

This is my first post here on the forum, and it is quite possible that I am simply talking out of my proverbial arse. I would be delighted to hear your thoughts about this topic and please share criticism, suggestions or anything else you have to say.

Note: Obama will be giving a speech tomorrow morning and will be discussing this situation. I will write some more once we hear what he has to say.

Here is the post. I shall provide helpful commentary.

I, Publius,

A search on the Whitworth Student directory reveals no students named Publius. We have a Porsha and a Pietro, but no Publius.

am on a mission: To bring truth to the 2008 ASWU elections.

Just truth? What about justice and the American way? The American way always gets short shrift in noble missions like these.

Heed my advice as a resource of substance deriving from the collective concerns of well-informed Whitworth students.

Ah! He or she represents the Collective Concerns, the tortured souls of Whitworth students past, present and future who roam the earth in search of those who have wronged them.

Some candidates are simply not qualified for the positions for which they are running.

Honestly, I think it’s time people stop picking on Obama. He’s a courageous man full of hopes and dreams and love!

I believe transparency is the defining characteristic of truth and so I intend to shed light on this matter.

Transparency? Is that why this is an anonymous blog?

Well-crafted judgment is needed on behalf of the individual for a knowledgeable vote.

Either that or a 20-sided die.

I will be a reliable tool in helping you craft your judgment as students.

Heh heh. You just called yourself a “tool.”

Do not be apathetic in the voting process. Do not vote based on popularity.

People who vote for the least popular candidate invariably lose.

Do not make excuses based on your academic major, lack of interest in student government, or lack of free time.

“But Publius, I am but a humble Kinesiology major! What do I know of the affairs of state!”

My anonymity is necessary to freely speak about the candidates.

The last person to speak controversial words about ASWU elections was drawn and quartered. The person before that turned the key to his car ignition, and was blown apart by a brutal explosion. The others have been erased from history, their names removed from Stalkernet and their faces literally airbrushed from Facebook pictures.

My intent is not malicious nor will I use personal attacks.

Nerd.

Commentary will be targeted at the executive positions for ASWU and the qualifications and experience of the candidates vying for these positions. I want the best possible leadership for Whitworth University and so should you as students.

Between now and election day you should expect several more postings on the candidates.

I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your name.

-Publius.

Yes, but what’s your last name?

Seriously, why do people think they need to snipe from the shadows? Why can’t they just walk out and say, “Hi! My name’s Dave, and here is my opinion?”

For all we know, you could be an executive candidate, or the close friend of one, trying to sabotage someone’s campaign. Or maybe Mark Felt or Joe Klein.

That’s the problem with anonymity. No one can really trust you. No one should trust you. Honestly, what do you have to hide?

 Enjoy…

10: World Picture Network, June 19, 2006. Cloud Formation taken over Washington/Northern Idaho

9: South Florida RNC, October, 2005. “Python Bursts after Eating Gator.”

8: Ted Chamberlain, June 13, 2006. “Cat Chases Bear up Tree”

**By the way, for all the basketball fans out there, this is proof that Cougars rule and Bruins drool**

7: Carolyn Cole, LA Times 2003. Refugee Girl in Liberian Civil War

6: Hector Emanuel, Time Magazine. “Tragedy.” (Blacksburg, after VA Tech Shootings).

5: APP, “African Storm.” Khartoum, Sudan

4: David Leeson and Cheryl Diaz Meyer. Iraqi citizen and American Soldier

3: Todd Heisler, “Heading Home.”

2: Oded Balilty, Lone Jewish Woman vs. Israeli Forces as they remove illegal West Bank Settlers

1: Smiley N. Pool, 8-30-05. New Orleans, LA.

 Good Luck on Midterms next week. Only five more days til spring break!

• Polluting
• Genetic engineering
• Obscene riches
• Taking & dealing drugs
• Abortion
• Pedophilia
• Causing social injustice

Pardon my cynicism, but this list reads like the output of a particularly rushed and inept Core 350 discussion group. “Oh, oh, don’t forget section B of the scenario! His Holiness will totally ding us five points if we leave out stem cells.” “Right, right… Which issue of the KJV Researcher was that again?”

I don’t disagree with the relative seriousness of most of the issues on here — no one is going to argue against the inclusion of pedophilia on the list, for example. (Please, no NAMBLA apologists.) But… isn’t all of this sort of covered already? I mean, obscene riches? Awesome, your thesaurus has an entry for greed. Barring genetic engineering, these aren’t exactly new innovations in modern sinning. And speaking of genetic engineering, we owe our earliest understanding of the genetic process itself to Catholic priest Gregor Mendel. Modern genetic engineering is merely Mendel’s treatise “Experiments in Plant Hybridization” (or, in the much more fun original German, Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden) writ large.

But getting back on track, for those of us who can’t quite remember who Kevin Spacey killed when or for what, here are the original “Seven Deadly Sins” as established by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century — along with their original prescribed punishments, courtesy the Times of London:

• Pride: Broken on the wheel
• Envy: Put in freezing water
• Gluttony: Forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes
• Lust: Smothered in fire and brimstone
• Anger: Dismembered alive
• Greed: Put in cauldrons of boiling oil
• Sloth: Thrown in snake pits

I’ve been having a lot of conversations about the nuts and bolts of humor lately, and a core element of its DNA is specificity. That, and the comedy rule of threes. But boy, oh, boy, is this new list a specificity goldmine. Social injustice? Pollution? Come on, Catholic Church, you used to be a badass.

In interviews about this new development, Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti has been quoted in multiple articles as stating that 60 percent of Catholics in Italy don’t go to confession. Is this all a plan to guilt-trip the priesthood back into job security, or is spelling everything out like this truly necessary for today’s modern Catholic?

* * * * * * *

“My parents were pretty critical when I was growing up. My mom was a dietician, so she knew exactly what was in everything. My dad once told [my sister] that she had tater tot legs. And one time he called me Big Butt Bertha. He swears he didn’t, but I distinctly remember: Big Butt Bertha. I’ve had a butt complex ever since.” College female

“Tell them, dear, that if eyes were made for seeing, Then beauty is its own excuse for being.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, “The Rhodora”

Vivian: You’re late.
Edward Lewis: You’re stunning.
Vivian: You’re forgiven. (Pretty Woman)

“Am I less of a lady if I don’t where panty hose?
My momma said a lady ain’t what she wears but what she knows…
But I’ve drawn the conclusion, it’s all an illusion
Confusion’s the name of the game
A misconception, a vast deception,
Something got to change.” India Arie, “Video”

“Modesty that is too apparent is not real.” The Mystical Way of Chuang Tzu

Beauty: from L. bellus “fine, beautiful,” in classical L. used especially of women and children, or ironically or insultingly of men. (www.etymonline.com)

“It’s hard to say why one person will have cosmetic surgery done and another won’t consider it, but generally I think people who go for surgery are more aggressive, they are the doers of the world. It’s like make-up. You see some women who might be greatly improved by wearing make-up, but they’re, I don’t know, granola-heads or something, and they just refuse.” Dr. Ronald Levine, Dir. of Plastic Surgery Education at the University of Toronto, 1990.

“It never fails to make me laugh how you get so mad at me
The way I watch you when you move, you get so mad at me
You try to make me look away but I’m taken by the view
The perfect vision of my dreams, what I see when I see you.” Brandon Heath

One blogger said of a woman in a yogurt ad, “we’re all supposed to find her ludicrous and repulsive. Tagline for the light yogurt ad: ‘Forget about it. Men’s preference will never change. Fit Light Yogurt.’ The F-Word. Just another one of those messages that helps to tell women that their bodies are not OK.”

The Bearded Woman
Each time she noticed, / she had meant / to pluck the three baby hairs, / but the days were short; / her fingers touched her chin / then forgot. / Thus fatigue grew curling into wisdom. Jane Hirshfield.

“I only wanted to be closer to you.I thought I had something to prove.
Instead I fled with my superstitionbecause you are a woman.
The self-centered strutted crowd the side walk,
parade and pose with phones and paper cups.
You walk like truth through a world of fictionbecause you are a woman.” Brett Dennen

“Women are being pressured to see plainness or being ugly as a form of pathology. Consequently, there is strong pressure to be beautiful in relation to the allegedly voluntary nature of ‘electing’ to undergo cosmetic surgery…. Women who refuse to submit to the knives and to the needles, to the anesthetics and to the bandages, will come to be seen as deviant in one way or another.” Kathryn Pauly Morgan, “Women and the Knife: Cosmetic Surgery and the Colonization of Women’s Bodies”

“I’ve been noticing gravity since I was very young.” Cameron Diaz

“Cinderella’s on her bedroom floor, she’s got a
Crush on the guy at the liquor store
Cause Mr. Charming don’t come home anymore and she forgets why she came here.” Sara Bareilles

I searched for “beauty” on Google images. Nine of the first ten images are of women. Of the full body shots, not one is fully clothed.

“Mao Ch’iang and Li Chi were considered by men to be beauties, but at the sight of them fish plunged deep down in the water, birds soared high up in the air, and deer dashed away. Which of the four knows the right kinds of beauty?” The Mystical Way of Chuang Tzu.   

[note: there was a misplaced bold tag affecting the rest of the page; the paragraph breaks got lost in the edit. Apologies if any formatting is off now. --ed.]

Technically, this list has no “Top Ten” qualities to it. For one, it’s entirely improper—not to mention, a little morbid—to pick whose death is better or worse, more or less important than others. Even if you could narrow down ten people, ranking their deaths is hardly a savory task. Rather this list is a random compilation of recognized persons whom have passed away since September 1, 2004. The people on this list are organized alphabetically. The only necessary quality for making this list is that they are recognized by the average street-walker. I have tried to include representatives from as many aspects of life as possible, as well as varying levels of the “influence” these people had in our world. So, while reading the List of “Famous” Deaths of 2004-2008, I ask you again to consider this question: how is our world different now that this person is no longer with us?

Yasser Arafat, d: 11-11-04. Was he an Islamic Terrorist, or a leader for the ignored, oppressed Palestinians? Was he changing his ways near the end of his life, or did peace have no chance while he was Chairman?

Red Auerbach, d: 10-28-06. The Branch Rickey of Basketball, Mr. Auerbach integrated the game of basketball and turned it into a team sport.

Chris Benoit, 6-24-07. What made this WWE wrestler kill his wife and son, then hang himself? Was it the effects of a life of extreme wrestling, or was it the result of a lifetime of steroids in his system? Or was it simply an anomaly?

Benazir Bhutto, d: 12-27-07. The first woman to lead a Muslim State and head of the Pakistani People’s Party. “Bhutto” seems to have been synonymous with “democracy” in the increasingly dictatorial nation of Pakistan.

James Brown, d: 12-25-06. Mr. Brown was not only a remarkable musician whose work sprawled across a dozen different genres, but he helped continue Reverend King’s message of non-violence in the 1960’s as well. “Don’t Be a Drop-Out.” “Say it Loud: I’m Black and I’m Proud.” “Violence Ain’t the Way to Go.”

Johnny Carson, d: 1-23-05. Mr. Carson was one of those celebrities that no matter how badly he screwed up, the public didn’t seem to love him any less. Though I hardly remember him, I can respect this level of adoration.

Bobby Fischer, d: 1-17-08. In the Cold War, Mr. Fischer and his aptitude for the game of chess was no less important to America than Herb Brooks and his US Olympic Hockey Team. Ironically though, when it came to his political loyalties, Mr. Fischer couldn’t seem to stay on anyone’s team.

President Gerald R. Ford, d: 12-26-06. He pardoned President Nixon, he sat in the oval office when Vietnam fell, and he failed to curb inflation. Maybe that’s why after his death the country celebrated his college football skills more than anything else.

Betty Friedan, d: 2-4-06. It may not be as necessary anymore for feminists to make waves to gain equality but apparently, in the 1960’s, it was. What do you think America would look like if Mrs. Friedan had not been so abrasive for women’s rights?

David Halberstam, d: 4-23-07. Mr. Halberstam was one of a handful of reporters who managed to convince America through his reporting that Vietnam was not going as terrifically as the government was telling us. We’ve been debating the role of the wartime media ever since.

Leona Helmsley, d: 8-20-07. She helped build New York City, and didn’t care who she stepped on in order to do so.

Sir Edmund Hillary, d: 1-11-08. Sir Hillary was probably a member of the first group to ever reach the summit of Everest (I like to think Mallory made it, but who knows). What he did with wits and bravado, the average businessman can now do with $10,000.

Saddam Hussein, d: 12-30-06. Though I loved the picture, I’m not entirely certain I believe we captured Mr. Hussein hiding in a hole. It’s irrelevant though. What is relevant is exactly what we’ll think about his execution fifty years from now.

Steve Irwin, d: 9-4-06. Mr. Irwin was one of those celebrity activists whom we all knew would continue his work whether or not the world loved him and paid attention to him. That’s why we all loved him and paid attention to him. Stupid stingray.

Coretta Scott King, d: 1-30-06. Of course we all remember her for her marriage to Reverend King and for her Civil Rights work. What we all forget is that she moved beyond race and fought for gender equality, against apartheid, against orientation discrimination, for HIV/AIDS prevention, and for animal rights as well.

Evel Knievel, d: 11-30-07. What exactly was firing within this man’s brain that made him want to do those ridiculous stunts? And how did he survive Caesars and the Snake River Canyon? And when can we see someone like him do it again?

Kenneth Lay, d: 7-5-06. The heart attack was undoubtedly nothing but a coincidence in timing, but more than a few of Mr. Lay’s securities fraud victims felt he still got off way too easily.

Madeleine L’Engle, d: 9-6-07. Hurray for fifth grade! It’s rare for any child to make it out of the public school system without experiencing a little wrinkle in time *wink*wink*.

Arthur Miller, d: 2-20-05. Here’s a true story for you. Arthur Miller was walking down a NYC street when he saw an old schoolmate serving hot dogs. The schoolmate said “hey Art, long time no see. What have you done with your life?” Art said “well, I’m a playwrite,” and the schoolmate hotdog vendor said “hmm, playwriting, I should’ve gone into that.” No, I’m not jabbing at Mr. Miller. I love his plays, and I just like that story.

Slobodan Milosevic, d: 3-11-06. Though arrested for embezzlement and corruption during his tenure as Yugoslavian President, it’s the war crimes and genocide that make us cringe when we consider this man.

Pat Morita, d: 11-24-05. Didn’t it just blow your mind when Mr. Miyagi finally stopped frustrating poor Daniel-san and all the chores he forced him to do suddenly transformed into karate skills?

Buck O’Neill, d: 10-6-06. Mr. O’Neill was probably one of the greatest baseball hitters ever, but we confined him to the Negro leagues. He never seemed to hold a grudge though, and became baseball’s first black manager and scout.

Rosa Parks, d: 10-24-05. It’s possible the scene on the bus which Mrs. Parks is so notorious for was planned ahead of time. I personally think this makes it an even cooler story and I kind of hope it’s true. As she puts it though, she was tired of the humiliation and, for reasons unknown to her, she just decided not to move. To say Mrs. Parks was a catalyst for civil rights is no exaggeration at all.

Pope John Paul II, d: 4-2-05. Few people have had the chance or the position in history to protest against the Nazi’s, against Apartheid, and against the Iraqi invasion. For many Catholics in the world, not even death has stopped His Excellency from imposing an influence.

Thurl Ravenscroft, d: 5-22-05. You know who he is even if you’ve never heard his name. Mr. Ravenscroft sang “You’re a Mean One, Mister Grinch,” played the part of Kirby in “The Brave Little Toaster,” and gave Frosted Flakes’ Tony the Tiger one grrrreat voice. Excuse the pun.

Christopher Reeve, d: 10-10-04. My personal favorite Christopher Reeve moment came in a Super Bowl commercial. In the ad, a lecturer is discussing the successes of stem cell research. At the end, Mr. Reeve walks out onto the stage on his own. The ad was a potentially spooky prediction considering that only a few years prior to his death Mr. Reeve began to inexplicably regain motor function. Had he not died suddenly, what new lessons of paralysis may we have learned?

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, d: 9-3-05. Mr. Rehnquist served his position for 19 years, one of the longest tenures in history. The last five presidential tenures didn’t allow anyone to choose a Chief Justice before President Bush’s second term; how long before the next one gets to?

Terri Schiavo, d: 3-31-05. It’s a sad truth that most of the important life lessons can’t be taught until someone becomes a victim. What did Mrs. Schiavo teach us? To think about your legal wishes for what your family should do when your time comes, and put these wishes into some legally binding form. Your loved ones can desire what is best for you and still disagree 100% on how to help.

Wally Schirra, d: 5-3-07. One of the original Mercury 7 astronauts and the only astronaut to fly in all three of NASA’s original programs. Mr. Schirra also helped perform the first ever space rendezvous, a necessary step in reaching the moon.

Luther Vandross, d: 7-1-05. I’ll go on a limb and call Mr. Vandross one of the best R&B singers ever. For my money it doesn’t get any better than when he sings Never Too Much.

Kurt Vonnegut, d: 4-11-07. The man who made even the WWII Germans feel a little victimized thanks to his incredible skill at writing “determinism.” His headstone should read simply “Kurt Vonnegut: So it goes.”

Caspar Weinberger, d: 3-28-06. Former Secretary of Defense and an integral player in the Iran-Contra Affair and the Strategic Defense Initiative. Most of his secrets and government plots probably followed him to the grave.

General William Westmoreland, d: 7-18-05. The voice of air strike and guerilla warfare in Vietnam, General Westmoreland led his army using the old school strategic and military tactics of Normandy and Argonne. Unfortunately, Ho Chi Minh was hardly old school and Vietnam was hardly Argonne.

Simon Wiesenthal, d: 9-20-05. Religious and Political leaders for decades have debated the question of forgiveness based on Mr. Wiesenthal’s story. What do you think? Should he have forgiven the officer? We should also recognize Mr. Wiesenthal’s contribution to capturing Nazi officers and cabinet leaders, most notoriously Adolf Eichmann.

Boris Yeltsin, d: 4-23-07. Though Russia suffered a political and economic collapse under his tenure, Mr. Yeltsin was the first elected President in Russian history. Even more important, he was the first leader to willingly step down and hand over power as well.

XXXXXXX, d: ? Finally, let us recognize the average Joe and Josephine whom we lost these past four years. Our relatives; our soldiers; our civil servants; those who meant the most to us, and yet will receive little historical recognition outside of our photo albums and address books. Death is a sad, fearful, and dreaded moment. It is also a time of remembrance and celebration, and every life is worth celebrating.

I hope this wasn’t too off-putting or depressing. Next week I’ll choose a more upbeat topic.

For my Essay Writing class, we were told to find quotations about something that was interesting to us personally, so I selected education. I was searching for quotes and ideas from the presidential candidates because I thought they would have something interesting to say, when I discovered something truly disheartening.

Education is the forgotten topic in the 2008 election.

What follows is based on quotes, because that was the purpose of my assigment. And yes, I realize that it may be categorized as a rant, but something has to be said. And if you have links to the candidates’ complete, detailed education plans, please post them in the comments.

Wu Tingfang said that “education is like a double-edged sword. It may be turned to dangerous uses if not properly handled.” Teaching is giving weapons to students. Weapons to cut down injustice, cut out pessimism and saw down the forest of ignorant decisions.

“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence,” Robert Frost said. Graduating from high school is the greatest accomplishment of a student’s life. If that student has learned the content from his or her teachers as well as the ability that Frost speaks of, then that student is fortunate indeed.

H.G. Wells said that “human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” By all accounts, the public school system in America is facing a catastrophe.

So then, the only question on our mind must be: Why? Why is the value of education so low? Why does it prompt people like American humorist Evan Esar to quip, “America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week.”

Esar is being facetious, but his quote is more true than not. We’re willing to laugh at  former NBA player Latrell Sprewell who says “I’ve got a family to feed” and turns down a 21 million dollar contract extension, but we’re not appalled to learn that the average salary for a public school teacher in America is 45 thousand dollars. For the amount of money that Sprewell turned down, 465 teachers could be paid for a year.

“I don’t want to send another generation of American children to failing schools,” says Illinois senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama. “I don’t want that future for my daughters. I don’t want that future for your sons. I do not want that future for America.”

He’s right. Who could want that future for America? Who wakes up in the morning and says, “You know, life is great, but I really wish my children could go to a failing public school.” Obama is setting up a straw man, and he has not been held accountable. Thus far in the election, debates have circled around hot-button issues, which are also worthy of debate. Iraq. The economy. Immigration. Or, less importantly, the race, age or gender of candidates.

Oh, the other presidential candidates aren’t off the hook either. John McCain says that “we should let [schools] compete for the most effective, character-building teachers, hire them, and reward them.” Hillary Clinton promises to “cut the minority dropout rate in half,” “recruit and retain thousands more outstanding teachers and principals,” and “provide opportunity for 1.5 million disconnected youth.”

This is all well and good. But how? Certainly, educational reform is necessary. But where is the money coming from? I want the candidates to tell us. I want them to have more than vague aspirations, but a definite plan for the students of today and tomorrow. I want them to argue about how to pay teachers and how to provide for school districts. I want them to fight tooth and nail about vouchers and busing. I want them to pull out test scores, studies and anecdotes to show that their case is just, and their plan is the one to lead America into the future.

I feel like we as future educators are turning into the parable of the Little Red Hen, trying to ask, “Who will help me plant the wheat?” “Who will help me harvest the wheat?” “Who will help me cook the bread?” What is it going to take?

Will voters finally show up when educators ask, “Who will help me eat the bread?” And when that day finally comes, will they come running? Will their children be a priority? Or will the country be willing to continue lowering its expectations, until we have, as G.M. Trevelyan suggests, “produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.”

In conclusion, I’d like to quote “On what teachers make,” by slam poet Taylor Mali:

He says the problem with teachers is, “What’s a kid going to learn
from someone who decided his best option in life was to become a teacher?”
He reminds the other dinner guests that it’s true what they say about
teachers:
Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.

I decide to bite my tongue instead of his
and resist the temptation to remind the other dinner guests
that it’s also true what they say about lawyers.

Because we’re eating, after all, and this is polite company.

“I mean, you’re a teacher, Taylor,” he says.
“Be honest. What do you make?”

And I wish he hadn’t done that
(asked me to be honest)
because, you see, I have a policy
about honesty and ass-kicking:
if you ask for it, I have to let you have it.

You want to know what I make?

I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could.
I can make a C+ feel like a Congressional medal of honor
and an A- feel like a slap in the face.
How dare you waste my time with anything less than your very best.