Fashism
There’s a bit of firestorm in the comment section under the Whitworthian lead opinion article,”Express yourself with style, not sweatshirts.”
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:
Tuition Rate increase at near-record low?
Holy cow, the Whitworth just twittered (twitted?) that the rise in tuition (and room and board) is only going to be “4.69 percent“. That’s incredibly… low.
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.
Please, Don’t Blame the Pirates (a rebuttal)
The administration can be blamed for slow Internet speeds
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.
Why “The Vagina Monologues” is a horrible play — and why Whitworth should allow it.
At long last, it’s Whitworth’s turn to grapple with the Vagina Monologues controversy.
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.)
A Valentine for Singles: Roses are red. Deal with it.
Does anybody know what DAY it is?
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.
Vote “No” on ASWU reorganization proposal #234.
The prime responsibility of the ASWU, it seems, is to talk about how it should reorganize the ASWU.
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.
Newminster
The old Westminster building was like your grandpa. It was visibly deteriorating, the plumbing wasn’t in tip-top shape, and when it rained, you worried it might tumble to the ground. It smelled of old leather, trace amounts of pipe tobacco, and a hint of asbestos. The wear was evident, but just like your pop-pop, it had stories to tell dammit. Like the time it spent in the navy, when it moved to Spokane, and how it met this guy who was in “White Men Can’t Jump.”
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.