]]> http://www.awolau.org/2011/11/30/troy-davis-revisiting-a-conversation/feed/ 0 http://www.awolau.org/2011/11/30/youre-my-first-asian-race-as-a-sexual-conquest/ http://www.awolau.org/2011/11/30/youre-my-first-asian-race-as-a-sexual-conquest/#comments Thu, 01 Dec 2011 03:19:19 +0000 Emily Kate Edwards http://www.awolau.org/?p=2522 On the streets of Bangkok on another hazy August afternoon, couples pair off—getting groceries, picking their kids up, heading home. During the day, Bangkok is busy, dirty and loud—but it looks more like New York City than the scenes of Hangover 2. At night, swarms of prostitutes fill the streets and entice the throngs of tourists to visit their various clubs. Without a doubt, the majority of the tourists in the area at this time of night are white males, ranging from early 20’s, to late 50’s.

They flock here from America, Australia and Western Europe for a vacation of a lifetime to buy love for a few hours from women who epitomize their fantasies. Clashing with the images earlier in the day of happy, average Thai couples, the sight of boorish, disturbingly sex-driven white men buying an experience from young, beautiful Thai women raises the idea of race as a fetish. These men depict race as an experience—something to buy for a night. Interracial couples exist in Bangkok, but there is a certain demographic of couples who are clearly not engaging in each other’s lives out of love. It is for conquest.

The men in Bangkok are tallying a sort of “hook-up bucket list,” by fulfilling their fantasy. While Bangok may seem a world away, the idea of a race-based hook-up exists at American. A white freshman girl at AU, who preferred to stay anonymous, said during her college experience she’s “always wanted to hook up with a black guy.”

The idea of race as a sexual conquest is nothing new. The slave trade in America reached an all-time high in the 1830s, as did the rape of female slaves, according to Dannell Moon in an article about the history of rape. The perceived notion of black women being “sexually promiscuous” predates slavery in America, dating back to European exploration of Africa, according to David Pilgrim in his essay, Jezebel Stereotype.

“Those who travelled to Africa found natives and misinterpreted their different dress as lewdness,” said Pilgrim. “White Europeans saw African polygamy and tribal dances as proof of the African’s uncontrolled sexual lust.”

During American slavery, many male slave owners would rape their female slaves with the same misconception that  African women, because of their body types or other physical features, wanted to have sex. Since these women were property of the slave owners, rape was entirely legal.

The sexualization of race is nothing of the past and not exclusive to white men exploiting women of color. For instance, there is a specific role that many Balinese men find themselves accidently undertaking: gigolos. These “Kuta cowboys,” as they are called, make a living offering female tourists—primarily from Australia, Europe, America and Japan—the fun, exotic and passionate experience of having a Balinese boyfriend. Typically, the “cowboys” find older, seemingly wealthy women, and offer them the appealing idea of having an abroad love affair. Sometimes these flings materialize into long-distance relationships in the form of women wiring money back to Bali. While there are plenty of relationships that evolve, most of the time the women are interested in the idea of having a trip to paradise, complete with an exotic fling with a local surf instructor.

While interviewing another AU student who preferred to remain anonymous, she mentioned a guy approached her while at a party. “After some small talk, he basically told me that I was pretty… for a black girl. It was just like,” she hesitated. “Why was it necessary to define me that way?”

The same girl also mentioned how one time when she was dancing, a friend approached her and said he wanted to dance with a black girl.

“We were friends, but it was still upsetting; he had a preconceived notion about the way I would dance based on my race,” she said.

Like sexual exploitation of African slaves, in 1965, Calvin C. Hernton wrote Sex and Racism in America, where he describes white women’s sexual attraction to black men as an “honest curiosity, infatuation.” He says she’s “simply fascinated by his ‘black mystique’ (his mystery lends a measure of intrigue to his person), she may find the Negro ‘exciting’ due to his being seen as ‘exotic.’”

Hernton explains that this implicit racism is so deeply embedded in our society that one may not even recognize it as “racism,” but rather an attraction. The attraction, he argues, is rooted in the slavery-era taboo of interracial relationships. This includes stereotypes of the race, that state “‘black’ seems to be the summit of masculinity—it takes blackness to bring out the ‘femininity’ in otherwise frigid or near-frigid white women.”

Danielle Evans, a literature professor at American University who specializes in anthropology and African American studies, countered that the act of racism is not always black and white.  “I think it’s really dangerous that we often think that only bad people are racist, or that it’s only racism when the person committing the offense intended to hurt somebody,” she said.

Mariel Kirschen, Deputy Director of AU’s Women’s Initiative, looked at the issue from a different perspective.  “A lot of people think this is only offensive to women, you think of things like guys having ‘yellow fever,’ but it happens to guys, too,” she said. “Our society says that men shouldn’t be offended by things like this, because it’s something that makes them more attractive to the opposite sex, but really, you don’t want to be attractive by your ethnicity. You’re making further racial divisions, and it just reinforces stereotypes.”

Kirschen continued, “My friends have a bucket-list of things they want to do before they graduate, since we’re all seniors, and on that is stuff like have sex in a bathroom, etc. but some of them things like ‘hook-up with a Blasian [bi-racial, black and Asian],’ and by doing this it A) singles them out by their race, B) it objectifies them and C) it sexualizes that race.”
Race is so casual to our generation that saying something like “You’re my first Asian” is taken lightly, even as a joke.

Interracial relationships have different social implications than the “bucket-list” type of desire because this type of experience is purely sexual. It is something that a person only wants to experience as a sexual experiment.

Evans also mentioned the role stereotypes play in this mentality. She believes even a positive stereotype is inherently racist. “A stereotype is inherently reductive, so no, it can’t ultimately be positive. There might be things that you appreciate about a person, once you’ve gotten to know them, that were shaped or influenced by their racial or ethnic background,” she said. “But you have to get to know the person, and get to understand their particular experience of race, before you can know those things.”

Conquest should be defined as an act in which an effort to pursue a potential “hook-up” based on the illusion that someone of another race  is some exotic, mystical or more sexual creature. In the words of Suheir Hammad, a famous spoken-word artist, “don’t seduce yourself / with my ‘other-ness’ my hair / wasn’t placed on my head / to entice you into some sort of mysterious, black voodoo… don’t build around me your fetish / fantasy.”

The fetish fantasty insults the person who is being stereotyped as a hook-up, but not actually to date. Consider those women who would be bought for their exoticism—the similarity between the assumption of Thai eroticism and hearing someone say that they have always wanted to have sex with a black man is striking.

“Stereotyping is a way of erasing complexity, and also of assuming that you have the authority to make up a person’s story instead of allowing them the agency to tell it,” said Evans.

Illustration by Max Gibbons

Tourists meander through the square conspicuously, politely asking protesters if they could join them to pose for a picture. People wander around to look at the signs, assess the food tent and gaze with a mix of incredulity and admiration at these freedom fighters, or, more accurately, the ragged, sleep-deprived faithful.

Some of the college students in McPherson Square sleep in the tents with the protesters on weekends, only to return to classes and daily lives at universities. A few admitted that they already had jobs lined up after graduation. Since the movement is often portrayed by the media as a conglomeration of personal reactions to a sluggish economy, it is puzzling that students who are largely unaffected by high unemployment and its consequences choose to participate.

“It’s about solidarity,” one responded. “Just because we have jobs and career prospects doesn’t mean we should forget the people who have been left behind by the system.”

“The system’s fucked up,” another added, noting that it clearly doesn’t take a layoff to see that.

Youth aren’t necessarily hitting the streets advocating self-interest. Protesters are grasping for control over the future of the economy to level the playing field for the next generation.

AU professor and social movement expert Cathy Schneider is excited by the prospect of a powerful youth movement in America. However, getting people out on the streets is only the first step. In terms of sustaining the movement and actually beginning to change the system, she explained, a movement needs to have both a visible and structural presence. In other words, activists must not only work to get their message out, they must also have a forum in which to spread it.

Occupy Wall Street has a visible presence in national media, but Dr. Schneider would advise the movement to create a structural presence by identifying candidates who are likely to support and implement the goals of their movement. Even if they choose not to become a political party, which would be ineffectual in our strictly bipartisan system, movements need to stay engaged in the political scene to enact change. She recommends studying the Tea Party’s example: with candidates who supported their platform, they were able to influence the national political discourse. “Let’s see if we can occupy the Democratic party,” Schneider says.

Campus activism follows some of these principles of social movements. Student Activities lists 194 student groups and organizations online. Most universities nationwide brand themselves similarly—if we don’t have a niche for you, you can create your own! Jump through these bureaucratic hoops and submit enough signatures, and you can join the ranks of the Student Activities database.

Student leaders who are trying to build a revolution—not just a résumé—should apply the same strategies that Dr. Schneider suggests. Movements at the university level also require visual and structural strategies. Many clubs on high school and college campuses are focused on awareness. Yet awareness is only half the battle.

“It’s important on a university for people to become aware,” Dr. Schneider explains. “But if you want to have an impact, you need to have a clear policy of what you want people to do.”

AU purports to cherish political activism. It is a part of AU’s institutional identity. On the other hand, we are not taking to the streets en masse. Most people see the occupiers, and silently agree that the system is “fucked up,” but we’d rather not join them. We’d prefer a warm shower and a comfortable bed to a thin tarp blowing in the wind as winter encroaches on Washington. Awareness groups populate the quad every day, shouting about donating a few pennies to victims of famine or a flood, but we’re just on our way to class.

Perhaps the first system that needs to be changed is the mindset of our local campus communities. The “A New AU” campaign, while not directly linked to the Occupy protests, addresses essentially the same issue of structural inequality. The campaign calls for increased decision-making powers for students to hold university administration more accountable to the needs of the student body.

“The basic thing is,” one movement leader explains. “We are students. We are the clientele, the customers of the university. We attend it, we are the ones that it should be catering to, and right now, that’s not happening.”

Here is where the A New AU campaign diverges from the Occupy Movement: victimization at the hands of corporate greed is not a choice. Enrolling and paying tuition at a private university is very much a choice. That is not to say that students should not mobilize against unjust practices because they have already signed a check to the institution, only that the institution is not designed to be a democracy. Ideally, students should have a voice in the policies that affect them and the ways their money is spent. Student activists have this power to make changes in university politics that benefit the entire community.

Student leaders on campus and student leaders who are occupying Wall Street may have admirable, well-directed ideals that are easy for the public to support, but they face a serious gap between support and commitment. Campus activism has been reduced to brainstorming sessions and events that demonstrate excellent leadership and initiative on an application, but fail to demonstrate enough passion in the real world to create real change.

Illustration by Max Gibbons

“No a La Mineria” or “No to the mine.”

In theory, this large development project — a cement mine financed by Guatemalan and Swiss companies — should provide jobs and money to the Guatemalan people. To the people of Las Trojes II, however, international development means imprisonment, intimidation and contamination of water and food sources.

While Las Trojes II lies thousands of miles from DC and is just one small dot on a map, the town’s story matters to us. Hundreds of AU students study international development and hope to become leaders and contributors to the field. The community members of Las Trojes II are calling out to them for help.

This January, I was fortunate to travel to the community with a group of AU students on an alternative break trip. As part of the trip, we expected to meet with just a few community leaders to hear their perspectives on the effects of the mining project, but were stunned to see the entire community greet us instead; more than 100 mothers, daughters, sons and grandfathers surrounded us to share their testimonies through tears and frustration.

We learned that prior to the commencement of the mining project, the community was self-sustaining. People had been growing their own fruits for centuries and had access to clean, fresh water. In our eyes, they were living in poverty, but to them, living in peace on their own land was enough.

When the mining project began, however, their lives changed rapidly. Intimidation tactics began as soon as the community started organizing in opposition to the project, which was rapidly destroying the town’s land and compromising its water supply. Community members were jailed and beaten in the company’s attempts to silence them.

The Guatemalan government has done little to support or protect the community, which remains in opposition to the project and is now looking to the international community for help and recognition. After hearing about the community’s heartbreaking situation, we knew that more than anything, their story must be told so that communities like theirs can avoid suffering the abuses of misguided development projects. We left with an overwhelming sense of responsibility.

This community’s story is a revealing example of the gap between the ideals of international development and what it actually means for those living on the ground. Unfortunately, it is often too easy for multinational companies to disregard the rights of people and get away with it, especially when companies operate in countries like Guatemala, where impunity rates are as high as 99 percent. While development projects such as the Las Trojes II mine are designed to further develop the country’s infrastructure, they often become the catalysts of repression, violence and — in extreme cases — death.

Some AU professors are attempting to highlight the perils of such development projects. Professor Maria Clark, an adjunct professor specializing in international development, said she attempts to teach her students about the complexities of international development. According to Clark, unless governments have adopted guidelines of good practice, there is little communities can do to stop oppression and intimidation at the hands of foreign companies. Recognizing an even grimmer point, Clark said governments today are especially eager to demand minerals and to initiate mining projects. As long as development guidelines continue to be disrespected, human rights violations will increase.

Real international development takes experience in the field. Learning how to improve broken communities takes more than reading case studies in a textbook. AU students who hope to change the world need to take advantage of the opportunity to look at international development practices through the eyes of communities like Las Trojes II. Only then can we begin to help communities that desperately seek recognition.

Illustration by Margaret Hayford.

One reason AU’s campus stands out among the others is the fact that it is a designated arboretum and public garden. And according to AU Architect Jerry Gager, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of a university’s positive use of physical space: “The combination of innovative, well-designed buildings and equally prepared grounds adds to a student’s academic experience at the university and is beneficial to all community members.”

Considering the professed importance of utilizing physical space, it’s interesting to note the extent to which universities have been bound by convention. As centers of learning, universities ideally function as incubators of creative thought and youthful energy, and should naturally overflow with creative and avant garde expression. But this all takes place in a setting that, often, neither encourages nor reflects this creativity. Besides now offering a broader range of subjects to more diverse student bodies, universities have not changed much in decades — least of all architecturally.

Universities are driven in part by profit, and ancient knowledge and everlasting prestige sell well. Beige color palettes and stoic classical architecture imply a businesslike seriousness, which may be appropriate for training the next generation of policy makers, businesspeople and analysts.

AU’s design has its roots in the 1893 Chicago World Fair’s Columbian Exposition, whose “White City” inspired the university’s classical architecture style. As the university grew in the century following its founding, new facilities reflected changing trends. Hamilton Hall is a Gothic stone construction from the 1930s; the former SIS building, now the East Quad Building, is in the 1950s International style; Bender Library is a 1970s product of the Brutalist movement in modern architecture.

AU is continuing to grow. According to Gager, the integration of more open public space into buildings — seen in the wide open atriums of the new SIS building and the Katzen Arts Center — and the introduction of environmentally conscious designs are the latest trends in campus construction.

But should we not demand actual creativity from the university, rather than adherence to trends? Judging by the “make-or-break” mentality of campus tours, looks do matter. There is a thriving world of experimental design out there, and universities, with their massive endowments and guaranteed tenants, are in the perfect position to take advantage of it. Universities can afford to test new styles that promote a creative, productive atmosphere, and could even act as spring boards for innovation into the mainstream market.

AU has been active in pursuing high-quality campus improvements; the new SIS building features LED lighting in the garage, natural lighting throughout the building, photovoltaic panels to make electricity from sunlight, a solar ventilation preheating system which cuts down on heating costs, and a rain garden to return storm water to the ground. The office of the University Architect reports that the building is in the running for several awards for its innovative energy-saving design — and Katzen has already been the recipient of several design awards.

Energy-saving architecture is crucial, and AU should be lauded for implementing more sustainable design, but the design envelope can always be pushed further. As the university prepares to expand with a new East Campus across Nebraska Avenue, it should consider embracing new ideas and styles that are not only popular and sustainable, but aesthetically impressive, innovative and effective. When we look around campus now, we see bland vestiges of long-gone architectural movements. In 50 years, when we look at the coming East Campus buildings, will we see mere remnants of a past “green” fad? Or will we see buildings that remain as striking, practical and beautiful as they have always been?

Illustration courtesy of AU.

If you paid attention in high school, these are just a few of the lessons you should remember. They are also lessons that ring rather hollow after even limited interaction with people who actually use drugs and alcohol. If any of it were true, almost everyone in college would have fried eggs for brains and many would be dead several times over.

The hyperbolic approach to drugs and alcohol that American high school students experience is just one example of how American culture has utterly failed to grapple with the reality of drug use. From AU policy to even our own progressive community, the damage caused by hyperbole and misinformation surrounding drug use is indisputable, tainting activist causes and perpetuating stereotypes. In order to counteract mechanisms of misinformation, it is critical to demonstrate how institutional and cultural approaches to drug and alcohol use are harming our society.

AU’s Campus: High and Dry

According to the 2008 Core Alcohol and Drug Survey performed at AU, as many as 43.3 percent of undergraduate students reported having used marijuana in the past year while 14.4 percent reported having used a drug other than marijuana. Twenty-three percent of undergraduates characterized themselves as current marijuana users.

If these numbers are accurate, it is worth noting that out of an estimated 1,400 undergraduate marijuana users, only 102 drug violations were reported at AU during the 2009-2010 academic year. Robert Hradsky, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students at AU, said the university tries to “take an educational rather than punitive approach” to drug and alcohol use.

Shane McCarthy, Co-President of Students for Sensible Drug Policy at AU, agrees, saying that SSDP has been largely successful in making the judicial process here “more accountable to students and more proportional to the violation that happened.”

Where McCarthy said there has not been a significant policy improvement is the question of implementing a Good Samaritan Rule, which would allow individuals who alert AU officials to the possibility of a drug overdose to not suffer any judicial consequences.

Students surveyed argue that AU’s dry campus policy is both ineffective and has numerous unintended, harmful consequences. Hradsky explained that because most students in the dorms are underage and the university is required to adhere to the law, it’s simpler from an enforcement perspective to ban student alcohol use at AU entirely.

One graduate student in SPA expressed incredulity at the dry campus policy, saying the policy — instead of allowing small groups of friends to stay in the dorms to drink — pushes students to take rides from strangers to off-campus locations, where they will need a ride back. He went on to say that even a look at the LA quad during Welcome Week reveals the “utterly bizarre and dangerous result of the university’s dry campus policy.”

For his part, Hradsky clarified that organizations have the ability to legally offer alcohol at events on campus. In addition, he says AU wants to encourage students to make responsible decisions, and to this end, the university has created educational programs including a requirement for incoming students to take a drug and alcohol class before starting school.

Just Say “Yes!”

Since the 1960s, drug use has played a significant role in the activist culture of the left. Because of this, negative stereotypes pervade how people view college students who pursue both activism and drug use, causing people to dismiss them as “hippies” or just stoned college activists. This perception, however, masks the complex and evolving role that drug use plays in college progressive culture broadly — and specifically at AU.

One major question: what is it about drug use that makes it especially attractive to activists on the left? One SIS sophomore believes the connection may be that both activism and drug use “are manifestations of an intrinsic drive to challenge the status quo, to be unafraid to try new things, to be compelled to find better solutions and to discover a sense of peace.”

According to a junior in SPA, the connection is even more direct because drug use is itself a revolutionary act. He explained that drug use is “such a positive act of rebellion against untruthful social standards and the oppressive drug war, that it makes what should be a normal every day thing an act of revolution.”

Many other activists pointed to it as a critical part of building an effective activist culture. “Partying and drug use help form bonds between people, which can then be relied on when trying to recruit people,” said Mary Schellentrager, AU alumna and former CASJ Collective member. “It is only one way bonds of friendship can be formed, but is often the most effective way.”

Anti-Drug Activism

Other college activists see drug use as much more of a burden than boon to progressive activism. Many express concern that the stereotype of the “stoned hippie” makes it difficult for college activists to be taken seriously.

Mark Andersen, the co-founder of Positive Force DC and a well-known straightedge activist in the District, also directly questions the assumptions that drug use is somehow a revolutionary act or a critical part of activism.

“If you want to have a good time, then fine. People have been getting high, intoxicated or whatever for almost as long as human history. Just don’t claim that it’s revolution,” Mark opined in an interview with AWOL. “If revolution comes about from what we consume rather than what we create, then I think we’re lost.”

It’s the Person, Not the Drug

The reality of drug and alcohol use does not justify the extreme rhetoric surrounding it. Drugs are neither inherently good nor bad.

In a response to an email query, AU Psychology Professor Alan Silberberg explained, “What determines whether you see persistent drug use — despite its potentially devastating effects in terms of relationships, employment and one’s arrest record — is not the drug, but the person who is using the drug.”

What this means is that we need to confront the realities of how and why drugs are abused and not romanticize their benefits.

For the US, this means ending its devastating War on Drugs and beginning anew with the understanding that in order to deal with the negative effects of drugs, it needs an entirely different social health-based approach.

For AU, this means ending the dry campus policy and implementing a Good Samaritan Rule in order to prioritize student safety over strict enforcement of anti-drug and alcohol use rules.

For AU activists, this means recognizing that while responsible drug use has its place in activism, it is not the sole instrument of revolution.

Illustrations by Margaret Hayford.

It may sound innocuous, but the Court’s decision could have grave implications. On Sept. 24, and in the months since, the law has been invoked against activists in the US. A total of twenty-three activists from Minnesota and Chicago have been subpoenaed and had their homes raided by the FBI for alleged links to foreign terrorist organizations. Several of the activists were engaged in work related to Colombia, Palestine and labor solidarity. Some were members of a group called the Anti-War Committee.

As part of the subpoenas, they were ordered to appear before grand juries to testify about any knowledge they had about the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, both designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the State Department. So far, all have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, and refused to testify.

The fiasco has cast light on what has become an increasingly dangerous environment for voices of dissent in the US. A recent report by the Justice Department described some of the more disturbing realities dissenting advocates face. “The FBI extended the duration of investigations involving advocacy groups or their members without sufficient basis,” according to the Justice Department, and their “names were maintained on watchlists as a result and [their] movements and interactions with law enforcement were tracked.” Perhaps more alarmingly: “in some cases, the FBI classified some investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its ‘Acts of Terrorism’ classification.”

Indeed, on Jan. 13, 2011, Democracy Now! revealed that an FBI informant had infiltrated the Anti-War Committee. The agent, “Karen Sullivan,” didn’t just inform, but even helped organize the group.

Grand juries of the type invoked against the Minneapolis and Chicago activists have historically been used against the activist community. “The Nixon Justice Department began using grand juries as a very specific kind of tool: to go after activists,” said Phyllis Bennis, a veteran peace activist. “They would empower a grand jury, and begin investigating very broadly—fishing expeditions,” she said, “and they would subpoena the people they wanted to get rid of, who were problems, who were organizing protests, et cetera.”

If any contact with terrorist organizations is considered to be aiding terrorism — as the Supreme Court seems to believe — then a whole host of other problems arises. In These Times reporter Jeremy Gantz recently noted that the African National Congress was listed as a terrorist organization until 2008. He wondered whether that makes terrorists out of former anti-apartheid activists and the Nobel Committee that awarded Mandela the peace prize.

Gantz also cites op-eds from Hamas spokespersons that were published in papers like the New York Times and Washington Post. Are these flagship American newspapers guilty of terrorism as well?

Our government says that the terrorists we’re fighting only understand violence. To keep this narrative intact, it’s in their interest to disrupt and silence activists who suggest otherwise. It’s worth noting that US Attorney General Eric Holder argued in favor of the Supreme Court ruling, and has been a party to the continuing subpoenas. That suggests this is more than just a court decision, but a tactic actively pursued by the Obama administration.

In the Nixon era, those who refused to testify were granted immunity, thus undermining their Fifth Amendment protections and allowing them to be jailed for up to a year for refusing to testify — effectively neutralizing them. Perhaps the goal of today’s campaign is also to silence activists. “It’s about this kind of chilling impact, which is clearly at least part of the strategy,” Bennis said. These groups have already been infiltrated and informed on, which suggests the goal of the subpoenas is intimidation, not information-gathering.

The Supreme Court ruling represents an escalation of our nation’s war against terrorism. Not only are we waging war against enemy countries; by harassing peace activists, we are waging war on people who simply want to end war. It’s not just Muslim-Americans who have to face intimidation, detention and surveillance anymore. So where will it stop?

It’s in the hands of those willing to speak out. “If they don’t have to pay a political price for this, they’ll keep doing it,” Bennis said. “I think we have to keep doing our work, and not allow ourselves to be intimidated by this kind of attack.”

AU President Cornelius Kerwin has a salary that most non-profit leaders can only dream of. In a sector where many employees are pinching pennies to get by, Kerwin takes home $760,774 a year in salary and other benefits. Other AU executives bring home big bucks as well; Donald Meyers, vice president for finance and AU’s treasurer, makes $608,295 a year. Considering that AU students spend more than $50,000 per year on their education, Kerwin’s salary could cover the expenses of more than 15 students.

Doesn’t this seem odd? As a not-for-profit educational institution, AU is exempt from paying taxes, according to section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code. But the way AU manages its money, employees and assets makes its non-profit status almost meaningless. Our university resembles a for-profit corporation more than it does a non-profit organization.

The economic inequality within the university community is striking. While executives take home paychecks that push seven figures, AU students graduate with an average debt of over $36,000, according to collegeboard.org. Some AU employees are also low on the economic totem pole. Shuttle bus drivers are currently the only group directly employed by the university — excluding faculty — that is unionized.

During a unionization drive in 2007, the university used big business-type intimidation tactics to prevent the unionization of their employees. According to a 2007 article that appeared in The Eagle, fliers appeared in the drivers’ break room, warning that drivers’ benefits would decrease if they voted for a union. Even after the union was established — following an election that was manipulated by the university — AU continued its efforts to break it up, spending thousands of dollars to appeal the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to certify the drivers’ union.

In recent years, AU has also taken up a mission that appears to go beyond education: real estate investment. A December article in The Washington Post detailed AU’s involvement with property management, something the article states is very common among universities. David Taylor, President Kerwin’s chief of staff, was quoted in the article as saying that AU “[manages] lots of properties now.” In fiscal year 2010, the university increased its property holdings by about $25 million, bringing it to a total of over $467 million.

AU’s style of property management has left some local entrepreneurs bitter. Businesses such as Balducci’s and Morty’s Delicatessen have already abandoned their university-owned locations. Michael Cadeaux, owner of Cadeaux Hair Salon, formerly leased from the university until he moved his business to Maryland. In the Post article Cadeaux said, “It’s a big corporation there. The university just is very greedy.”

Why does the university exhibit such corporate behavior? One possible explanation requires no more than a quick review of the membership of the Board of Trustees, which includes current and former executives of  Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Chase and FedEx.

Additional insight into AU’s money-grubbing can be found by examining other universities. Corporations such as Nike and Reebok have huge presences on campuses across the country and subcontractors such as Sodexho and Aramark are allowed to follow their own union-unfriendly policies while providing janitorial and food services. Universities and corporations are entering into relationships that make them indistinguishable. Wages remain low while universities maximize their financial gain. National trends also show tuition rising as executive salaries increase.

AU is violating the spirit of its 501(c)(3) status. Though we don’t have shareholders or stocks to sell, the university is a money-maximizer just like any corporation. If the AU administration wants to restore its “commitment to social justice” and take the lead in rehabilitating the true non-profit status of universities, it must get back to basics: take union-neutral positions in organizing drives; hold subcontractors accountable for their own actions; and return its revenues to its students and employees, not to administrators’ paychecks.

Illustration by Margaret Hayford

The Great Recession of 2008 hit the United States in a perfect storm: a bold increase in government spending could have brought the nation out of crisis, but politicians and citizens distrusted significant government involvement in our economy. As a result, a weak stimulus package has left an employment crisis that continues almost unabated.

Our generation faces a daunting future. What if future economic downturns are exacerbated by this same inability to act? Indeed, those who oppose government economic intervention continue to exert hegemony over the US political landscape. But the coming years may see their voices drowned out by younger ones. The emerging Millennial generation – young people born in the 80’s and 90’s – may not be inheriting the anti-government attitudes of our elders.

A Pew poll conducted in March of 2010 asked respondents how they felt about the federal government’s current direction. They were given the options “angry,” “frustrated,” or “content.” They were then asked if they felt they had paid “more than their fair share” in federal taxes or if the amount was “about right.”  Of Americans who defined themselves as “angry,” 61 percent felt that they paid more than their fair share, while 44 percent of “frustrated” respondents felt the same way.  Only 26 percent of “content” Americans felt that they were overtaxed.

Pew conducted an identical poll in October of 1997 – in much better economic times – and found much broader resistance to taxation.  A similar proportion (63 percent) of “angry” Americans felt that they paid more than their fair share in federal taxes, but significantly larger proportions of “frustrated” (55 percent) and “content” (41 percent) respondents felt this way.

These two polls suggest a change in collective American consciousness. One might expect to see more resistance to taxation across all categories in 2010 given the severity of the recession. Instead, Americans have at least in some small part become more receptive to the idea that government can help the economy.

Are we the reason America is reconsidering? Perhaps. A 2009 Rasmussen Report asked respondents whether they preferred capitalism or socialism as an economic system. 53 percent of Americans picked capitalism, but Americans under 30 were sharply divided. Millenials were evenly split, with 37 percent favoring capitalism, 33 percent choosing socialism, and 30 percent undecided.

And although it may seem that people our age might be the least invested in programs like Social Security and Medicare – given that we are unlikely to be the immediate beneficiaries – some Millennials defend these programs. According to SPA junior Aaron Goldstein, young people have “a huge stake” in the Social Security debate. “We are paying into it,” he said, “and we want to make sure the same system is in place once we get there.”

Goldstein is president of the Roosevelt Institute at AU, which is one chapter of the student-led think tank’s nationwide network. Goldstein was invited to testify at a public forum in June before the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; various think tanks, policy experts, advocacy groups and concerned citizens were invited to lend their voices to the debate around Social Security within the context of growing public debt.

Testifying on behalf of the Roosevelt Institute – and as a voice of the Millennial generation – Goldstein expressed Millennials’ concern for the future of Social Security and other programs, stating: “Millennials reject the notion that cutting programs is the only effective way to rein in the growth of our public debt,” and that “young people think of Social Security as an essential aspect of the fabric of American society.”

The Roosevelt Institute has also crafted a “Blueprint for Millennial America,” a comprehensive policy recommendation crafted with the interests of America’s youngest voting generation in mind.

The Blueprint for Millennial America initiative challenges young Americans to envision what they want America to look like in the year 2040, and seeks to empower the Millennial generation by identifying the policy structures and reforms necessary to realize this vision. A key element in this discussion is the future of Social Security and welfare programs in America.

Goldstein envisions a future in which the social safety net is replaced by a “social trampoline” – a trampoline that “doesn’t just catch people near the ground, but bounces them back into high-functioning roles where they’re capable of succeeding with the quality of life that they deserve as Americans.

As more and more Millennials reach voting age, we will be able to exert more influence in American politics. Can we chart a more progressive economic future for our country? There’s reason for optimism. Young people played an instrumental role in the 2008 election of President Obama, and by the year 2020 well over a third of the electorate will consist of Millennials. In Goldstein’s words, “political candidates are going to have to listen to us – we are going to have a voice in this.” If so, maybe the next recession will turn out a little differently.

Illustration by Ellie Yanagisawa.

Back then AWOL was contraband, with “Trapped” funded only by a $1,500 grant from the Center for American Progress (CAP) and $400 out of the pockets of a devoted editor who couldn’t afford it. Since the AU Media Board hadn’t yet approved us, we weren’t officially permitted to distribute on campus. Cleaning staff were instructed to throw away non-approved publications and many copies of that first issue of AWOL ended up in the trash. We relished our underground status, but few people read the magazine.

Two years later, things couldn’t be more different. We were approved by the Media Board in the spring of 2009 and became a recognized entity of AU. No longer is AWOL run from a private bank account, nor do we need to accost strangers in MGC in order to circulate our publication.

What does Media Board recognition mean? It means we have to follow AU’s inclusion and non-discrimination policies and follow University bureaucratic protocol when organizing events. The University legal team has to sign off on all contracts in our name. It also means AU’s lawyers will stick up for us if we get into trouble. And we can use University resources and facilities and distribute our magazines wherever we’d like on campus, assured that our work won’t be unceremoniously dumped into recycling bins.

Oh, and this year, it means we receive $9,395 from AU, on top of about $2,900 from CAP.

A $12,295 budget is larger than we ever dreamed of and it’s allowing us to drastically expand our reach both on and off campus. But as a publication that values its independence, roguish origins and dedication to critical inquiry, we feel compelled to ask: What does this money mean for our editorial independence? Where does it come from? What strings are attached? What will — and won’t — AU let us do with it?

***

“The bottom line is you’re editorially independent, which is part of the way we govern student media on campus,” Student Activities director Karen Gerlach told us.

But our freedom of expression is not guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment states that government can’t restrict free speech; private educational institutions aren’t bound by it. “For private schools, their stance on free speech is more a reflection of their educational and societal philosophies than something merely compelled by law,” said Mike Hiestand, consulting attorney for the Student Press Law Center. As voluntary members of a private organization, we must submit ourselves to its rules or risk expulsion. Some schools have embraced the First Amendment spirit. Yale University, for instance, has a written agreement with its students and faculty to protect free speech.
AU doesn’t have this, but AU’s Academic Regulations on Student Media emphasize that AU “encourages the student media to practice the fullest possible freedom of expression commensurate with University policies.” And it seems that AU is willing to put that philosophy into practice.

A former editor of The Eagle who wished to remain anonymous due to the regulations of his current job recounted his experience for us. “I wrote quite a few critical stories during my time at AU, many of them about specific offices and officials,” he wrote in an email, but “never once did the University leverage its financial relationship with The Eagle to preempt a story, or threaten to cease helping us once it was printed.” (In addition to its on campus office space, The Eagle receives a line of credit from the University so it can begin printing each year before ad revenue begins coming in.)

Moreover, even after The Eagle printed a controversial column last spring on date rape that prompted outrage from much of the student body, senior University officials reiterated their commitment to free speech. In a letter to the University community, Vice President of Campus Life Gail Hanson and Provost Scott Bass wrote: “AU also has a commitment to freedom of expression. Consistent with that commitment, individuals have the right to express their opinions — even opinions we find offensive.”

***

Gerlach also explained that AWOL’s money comes from activity fees, not AU funds. “It’s all decided on by the Media Board,” she said. “They decide where allocations go, so administratively we have no control over how much funds you get to use toward your publication.”

This academic year, every student paid a $73.50 activity fee. Fourteen percent of that amount fuels the organizations that comprise the Media Board: ATV, WVAU, American Literary, AmWord, The Talon and AWOL. That’s about $114,000 allocated at a yearly meeting, based on the consensus of media organization leaders.

The process is entirely student-run, which is encouraging to organizations wary of offending the AU establishment. Additionally, “We do no prior review of content,” Gerlach said. That is, AWOL is not forced to have Student Activities review what we intend to publish. But that alone doesn’t guarantee us free rein.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) rates U.S. colleges and universities on their free speech practices. Based mostly on the length and — in their opinion — restrictive nature of AU’s harassment policies, FIRE gave AU a rating of “red,” the worst there is.

Harassment isn’t the only way we can go wrong. Among other procedural infractions, the Media Board constitution cites “mismanagement of budget and/or staff” and “unethical practices” as potential grounds for impeachment of publication staff. The Media Board also has a formal process for filing complaints against whole publications. If the review process finds that a student media outlet has violated the Media Board constitution, punishments range from official written reprimands to the prohibition of “future financial allocations to the offending medium.” That is, our $9,395.

Publication heads can also be impeached if they are found to have violated the Student Conduct Code by Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution Services (SCCRS).

This means that AWOL must follow the Student Conduct Code. Though we could advocate against it, if writers or editors violate or admit to violating it in print they can potentially face SCCRS discipline.

***

While we don’t have impunity from institutional meddling, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that AU has a culture respectful of free speech and the autonomy of student publications. When the going gets rough, AU has held to this policy. For that they should be commended.

So what are we doing with our money? It can cost up to $3,000 to print an issue of the magazine, and this year we intend to publish three times. The remainder of the money will be spent on maintaining our website, buying software like Adobe Creative Suite and Microsoft Word for our new office computer, hosting magazine release parties and other miscellaneous expenses.

We’ll do all of it with confidence in our autonomy. The Media Board is an institutional structure that protects student publications by keeping funding decisions firmly under student control. It would take an outrageous abuse of power by any University official to successfully interfere in this process. •