With Commencement now behind us and the summer in full swing, I wanted to reflect a little on the “unique situation” of our particular Commencement. Despite where you stand on the issue, what we should all be able to agree on is the popping of the Wash U Bubble that took place by all the student activity. Many agreed with the protest and many thought it disrespectful, but to come to either conclusion required engagement with the issue and familiarity with the material, namely the work of Phyllis Schlafly. I do not pretend that this is the first time the bubble has been popped; I have been at Wash U long enough to see the campus during the primary season as well as an election itself, and I know full well our political capabilities. This “popping” however goes beyond politics, I believe that the popping that occurred in respect to the Schlafly issue (though close to home with it involving our election) required a far more intense engagement with the issue than mere politics of an election year requires. For us, to hear the latest political news is as easy as turning on CNN or Fox or even just going to yahoo.com where the news ticker on the side lets us know what the three remaining candidates have said recently. But Phyllis Schlafly is not in the public’s eye, and hasn’t been for some time now. That means that for people to understand who she is and what she represents they have to do more than turn on the television, they have to actually do research. And that is exactly what many people began to do, from both sides of the issue.

The bubble will be something to work against in the future and perhaps a site like this can help in the effort by engaging the alumni population of Wash U on issues that may not directly address the WUSTL community. I know that after four years of desperately trying to increasing attendance at my group events and four years of going to very few forums outside of my own, that this is a tricky issue. Perhaps the answer is in relating national and international issue to the Wash U community, one example that comes to mind is the excellent work of the green groups this last year in raising awareness of sustainability issues. Perhaps another part of the solution is distancing the forums from the lecture hall experience; this has been accomplished with the addition of sustenance and audiovisual aids. Yet another solution is doing just the opposite and collaborating with academic departments to make the events mandatory for students in specific classes.

But these solutions don’t really get at the heart of the issue, the idea that our community is only concerned with our community and that only issues relating to that community are important to us. Hell that is even true when looking at the popping of the bubble in regards to the Schlafly honoring, students protested because it had to do with our school and our commencement. But on the other hand this view has the unfortunate side effect of being too pessimistic. To be concerned with something that involves our schools national reputation is much more of a bubble pop than to not care at all. In reality it is the apathy of students that we must work against the most. And in regards to apathy, appealing to what interests the apathetic is the best way to work against that apathy. Therefore the solution is just what was suggested above, appeasement.

So to conclude I say thank you to those who continue to struggle against that bubble and work to make Wash U a less apathetic place. The job is difficult and the rewards are small but when something like the honoring of Phyllis Schlafly comes around, the results are obvious.

If you want to add to this website, please email us with a guest post or post comments on the discussion board. Guest posts are anonymous, but must be respectful in tone. In addition, they must offer positive feedback, constructive criticism, or a unique observation about the University.

We’re hoping to compile alumni perspectives on all aspects of University life. Be part of the movement to improve Washington University in St. Louis. Who knows, maybe we’ll have wireless internet (that works) one day!

Regardless of any notion of a “political spectrum,” Schlafly’s ideas are quite extreme. They’re extreme enough for the Women’s and Gender Studies Department to boycott the ceremonies and for students, faculty, and staff to join together in one of the most organized and determined protests in the last four years. At this point, it doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with her views. And it doesn’t matter if you believe the University should allow anyone of any political ideology to receive recognition.

The Chancellor needs to take a page from Northwestern’s playbook and rescind Schlafly’s offer. The Chicago Tribune quotes Northwestern President Henry Bienen’s letter to Reverend Jeremiah Wright: “In light of the controversy surrounding statements by you that have been recently publicized, the celebratory character of Northwestern’s commencement would be affected by our conferring of this degree.” It’s likely the first for Northwestern, and a similar action at WUSTL may be the first, but it’s the right move.

The Chancellor needs to recognize the utmost priority of the commencement ceremony: to honor the academic achievements of students at Washington University. Schlafly’s views are in direct conflict with the ceremony, and the protests are justified. Yet the Chancellor does not need to submit solely to the student opposition. He can save face with the Board of Trustees by explaining his desire to present the award, but the need to change plans because the protests caused by her presence are not appropriate for the ceremony.

There is still time to end this debacle before it starts. The Washington University Alumni Council urges Chancellor Wrighton to rescind Schlafy’s honorary degree offer. There are many legitimate reasons why the University should not give her one. Above all, students deserve a peaceful, distraction-free ceremony.

May 9, 2008

Chancellor Mark Wrighton
1 Brookings Drive
Campus Box 1192
St. Louis, MO 63130

Dear Chancellor Wrighton:

As the undergraduate members of the Board of Trustees Honorary Degree Committee, we want to express our disappointment with the choice to award Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree at the 2008 commencement ceremony. The selection process was ineffective in providing a complete picture of the nominees, and the environment was hostile to dissent. We recognize our role in representing our peers, and we accept partial responsibility for the insufficient scrutiny of all nominees. However, throughout the two meetings of the Honorary Degree Committee and discussion of Ms. Schlafly, her prejudice views were never brought to light.

The committee’s recommendation of Ms. Schlafly was based on a complicated voting system. Voting occurred in two stages. In our first meeting, we ranked our preferences from approximately thirty names. The nominees were ranked based on the first balloting, and the top five were collected in a slate. We voted yes or no on the entire slate. An objection by one student was met with hostile opposition. The block of five names was then approved unanimously. We implore you to clarify the University’s official statement on the nomination Ms. Schlafly. The explanation of the selection process suggests a unanimous vote on each nominee and disregards the balloting process. It endorses the widely held misconception that every member of the committee voted in favor of Ms. Schlafly.

Ms. Schlafly’s views, specifically those opposing a woman’s place in academia, are contradictory to the mission of Washington University and inappropriate for recognition at the commencement ceremony. We believe the selection of Phyllis Schlafly was a mistake. The undersigned students have reversed their decisions and urge you to do the same.

Sincerely,

The undergraduate members of the Board of Trustees Honorary Degree Committee

Hui Amy Chen
Amelia D. Keiser
Neil K. Patel
Aaron Robinson
Rachel L. Tucker

An issue that I have only begun to analyze and make observations on is that of the Honors system here at Wash U and the award system in general. The idea of celebrating achievement is honorable in it of itself and should be something we strive to do. But how we honor achievement is a question that cannot be taken lightly. With every “best” we celebrate we are also denouncing a multitude of “not bests” which directly translate into how theses students will interpret their performance at the university.

Let me explain this through an example. In a smaller department where on any given year there might only be two to three theses writers, the awarding of a prize to the best thesis will provide for the awarded a short sense of additional accomplishment while suggesting to the other one or two Latin Honors recipients that their work is lacking in some way. Do we want our students who may be graduating with Magna or just Cum Laude to feel a sense of inadequacy with the work they’ve produced?

But I want to take this discussion even further. I would like to suggest the establishment of such awards along with the structure of the Latin Honors program in general is a defeating aspect of the Wash U, and perhaps collegiate in general, experience. Your GPA should be enough to award you the recognition of graduating with honors. If it isn’t, what does it mean then? What does four years of successful comprehension and application mean if not the recognition of honors?

The exploration of the honors program as well as the extreme variance in the awarding of honors needs to be reexamined by the university. But beyond that I would like to commend those who actively decided not to pursue a thesis. Those individuals recognized earlier that their collegiate success is not dependent on a systematic grading scale that is as arbitrary as the language used to describe it. I want Wash U to return to the idea that just graduating, that is just completing four years at an advanced research academic institution, is more than enough for recognition.

And yet it remains inadequate.

See major coverage with stories in the New York Times (Elite Colleges Recording Record Lows in Admissions), Bloomberg (Harvard Rejection Rate for Applicants Reaches Record), and the Harvard Crimson (Other Schools Admit Few).

It has been a record year for admissions – colleges are tougher to get into than at any other point in their history. When WU’s numbers come out, they will undoubtedly break records as well. However, it is unfortunate that Wash U will not be making the current college admissions news cycles which highlight the low admissions rates of “elite schools” because the University has not released these numbers.

A similar thing happened with improved financial aid policies early this year. Only after nearly all our peers offered better financial aid packages for students did WU release an announcement to provide grants and no loans to those whose family earns less than $60,000 a year. WU received minimal press coverage.

A buck short, a day late.

The Washington University Alumni Council believes the University should strive to time these information releases with our peers. There is value in being in the same press coverage as the University of Pennsylvania, Duke, Stanford, and Harvard.

The Washington University Alumni Council (WUAC) is an independent group that seeks to empower alumni to express their views on University events, policies, and future plans. The alumni consensus that develops will be a powerful tool in impacting the future direction of Washington University in St. Louis.