However, AU is nowhere near representative of the typical American voter. Or the typical American, for that matter.

My home state of North Carolina has been getting a lot of national press for its controversial Amendment One: a bill that states “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized.” It is now the 30^th state to adopt such legislation, which effectively shuts the door on gay marriage, domestic partnerships, and civil unions. This amendment has been criticized by Governor Bev Perdue, Senator Kay Hagan, former Charlotte mayors Harvey Gantt (Democrat) and Richard Vinroot (Republican), the Chair of the NC Libertarian Party J.J. Summerell, even President Bill Clinton, among so many others, for being vague, poorly constructed, and having a wide range of unintended consequences. Amendment One takes away the rights of unmarried women in cases of domestic violence and stalking cases. People can lose legal custody of their children.

Sounds pretty messed up, right? Fun fact: you can marry your cousin in North Carolina… just not your gay cousin.

So when thousands took up to the streets, flooded Facebook, and shared their stories of how the Amendment would directly harm their and their neighbor’s lives in protest, I felt North Carolina taking a great step forward in the fight for human rights. Everyone seemed to be talking about “voting against.” A huge wave of youth optimism rose up and I felt faith and confidence that my state would continue on its slowly but increasingly progressive path. That is, until about 10pm May 8^th when it was formally announced that the bill had passed.

This made no sense to me. Absolutely none. There were infographics on how the bill would affect even straight couples! How can people dispute infographics?! The facts are literally drawn out for you.

But then I looked at which counties had voted which way, and sure enough, the metropolitan areas of Raleigh, Charlotte, and Greensboro (as well as some university-bearing counties in the mountains) has voted against – and the rest of North Carolina voted for it.

Some church leaders, Reverends, and religious community members spoke out against Amendment One very openly. “Vote against discrimination, vote against hate,” says Reverend William Barber, the head of North Carolina’s NAACP. Many embraced the sentiment that Christianity is based on the ideals of loving thy neighbor and encouraged other Christians in their community to vote against. Or, at the very least, acknowledge that this amendment clearly violates the separation of church and state.

But then, there is the other side of the spectrum: those who are aggressive, angry, and appalled to see gay marriage even be a debate-worthy topic. The highly influential Reverend Billy Graham of the Charlotte-based Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and a man who has openly stated he “doesn’t recommend interracial marriage” said in a statement, “At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage  … The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment … Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected.”

It is even more deeply disturbing to realize the advocates for this bill are people like Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, who openly encourages fathers to “beat the gay” out of their sons. “Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? ‘You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.’”

But surely those are just the extremists? Sadly, no: in an exit poll, Joe Easterling of Wake Forest declared, “I know that some people may argue that the Bible may not necessarily be applicable, or it should not be applicable, on such policy matters. But even looking at nature itself, procreation is impossible without a man and a woman. And because of those things, I think it is important that the state of North Carolina’s laws are compatible with the laws of nature but, more importantly, with the laws of God.”

That’s the typical North Carolinian voter, at least according to the passage of this amendment. And yet still, how is this not offset by the outcry of well-informed, passionate voters?

According to Public Policy Polling, there was “widespread voter confusion about what North Carolina’s Amendment 1 seeks to accomplish. Just 36 percent of voters answered correctly that it bans both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. An additional 26 percent thought it banned same-sex marriage alone. Meanwhile, 10 percent of voters thought a “yes” vote on the amendment would legalize rather than ban same-sex marriage, and 27 percent weren’t sure what it did.”

So what does this all mean? It all reminds me of the fascinating idea behind voter ignorance, or as Charles Rowley and Friedrich Schneider call it, rational ignorance, wherein voters choose “comforting beliefs” as opposed to accepting new and factual information which might challenge their beliefs. In essence, if a voter is presented with the facts, and those facts fundamentally contradict their most steadfast beliefs, they not only reject the facts and choose not to seek more but also hold more strongly to their preconceived notions.

I do not know what percent of voters who supported the bill were Christians (though it can be assumed a pretty high amount since 79% of North Carolinians are Christians), but according to this argument, the fundamentally irrational voters could have been presented with all the information about how this amendment will affect marriage and unions, families, children, women, and straight and homosexuals alike, but because it contradicts their core beliefs about homosexuality and religion, they chose to reject the facts and vote for Amendment One. Furthermore, because their religious leaders are the most outspoken, they will accept this extremism as rational thought instead of the information their leaders condemn.

This could be a debate about the separation of church and state, but I gave up on that rational thinking a long time ago. Instead, I present an argument that the majority of North Carolinian voters choose rather to live in comfortable ignorance than a discordant truth.

It should not surprise me that this is the case. In so many ways, this is the political culture I have passively accepted. I’m so proud of the efforts of my friends and family members who made this election the highest voter participation since before the 2008 Presidential election. I haven’t entirely abandoned hope that the amendment will be repealed within the coming months, and this will be just another sad hiccup in the grander scheme of equal rights.

But until then, I hang my head in shame of my home state, of the hateful and powerful influence of extreme religious leaders, and of voters who would rather nod along to their comfortable status quo than accept the facts that Amendment One will ruin the lives of so many of their fellow North Carolinians.

Photo by Willamor Media via Creative Commons License.

Well, you’re not the only one who thinks that.  For over a decade, union leaders in Dominican Republic and United Students Against Sweatshops and students on campuses across the nation have protested and collaborated together to form a mainstream garment company called Alta Gracia.  Alta Gracia is the first ever living-wage union made apparel initiative to hit the college logo market.

A living wage constitutes the ability for the worker to be able to provide food, clean water, clothing, shelter, health care, child care, and education for themselves and their families.  Under the WRC’s (Worker Rights Consortium) calculations, Alta Gracia’s required basic wage is 4,189 Dominican Pesos per week ($115). Such wage is considered the living wage minimum with the inclusion of overtime pay, production incentives, and any other pay enhancements on different occasions as well. The legal minimum wage for apparel workers, in contrast, is 1,246 Pesos ($34) per week. To put it in perspective, a living wage is considered $2.83 per hour while the legal wage is $0.83. The living wage is 340% of the normal Dominican apparel wage.

Alta Gracia also serves as a business model for the apparel industry.  It provides a positive incentive, proving that living-wages and respect for workers’ unions is feasible and attractive to consumers.  Merchandise from Alta Gracia costs the same as, wholesale and retail, other brands. Also, because it cuts in on the limited retail floor space in college bookstores of less responsible brands (Nike, Gildan, Adidas, your AU sweater), it raises awareness for those brands to meet higher labor rights standards in order to remain competitive. In response, NYU, UCLA, Duke, and other prestigious schools have purchased substantial amounts of merchandise from Alta Gracia in their bookstores. AU, it seems, likes to take baby steps.  Roughly 10 percent of American’s bookstore is fair trade.

Thus, AU students have been collectively pushing for a more progressive agenda.  Clubs like the Fair Trade Alliance written multiple policy memos and petitions, and met with multiple managers only to land back to square one.  Fair Trade Alliance, supported by numerous clubs around campus, simply calls for 50 percent of the merchandise in the bookstore to be Alta Gracia’s.  Yet, the bookstore and the bureaucracy of AU’s administration have only lagged the process and remained unresponsive half the time.  It may seem as though it’s simply a fad that college students will “outgrow” over time, but it’s not.  This isn’t simply a change of brand throughout a bookstore, but rather an action that will change the lives of workers and shift companies away from the traditional business concentration–cheap labor.  Hence, let’s embrace Alta Gracia’s phrase, “Changing lives one shirt at a time”

Like Alta Gracia on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter. Learn more about getting involved with Alta Gracia’s Common Threads movement here.

Photo by keishka via Flickr//Creative Commons.

The Potala Palace is the center of religious and social life. It houses thousands of ancient Buddhist scriptures and the remains of former Dalai Lamas. Before his exile, the palace served as the 14th Dalai Lama’s residence. Currently, the Chinese government allows a limited number of monks to study and work at the palace. Every year, the palace is visited by hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from China, Tibet and other countries.

A child visits the Potala Palace with his father. Although they both wear western clothing, the boy observes traditional Tibetan practices by wearing his hair in a single ponytail, wrapped in bright red string.

Despite the heavy military presence, Tibetans continue everyday activities. Outside one of the many shops near the palace, men wait to sell yak butter and flowers to pilgrims on their way to worship. Yak butter is used as oil for candles in the palace, and each pilgrim is expected to bring their own butter to light.

The mixture of traditional Tibetan and western clothing in this street scene speaks to the Tibetan people’s continued observance of their history and culture while embracing modern styles. Though many young people purchase their clothing at Lhasa Department Store, the main retailer of western clothing, small traditional clothing shops still line the city streets.

An alleyway stands deserted during a lunar eclipse. Its residents have all gone to the temple for the night’s festival.

In the background of this market scene, a People’s Liberation Army security camera records the bustle, watching for signs of unrest or possible protest. Due to governmental censorship of all information leaving Tibet, the exact number of such protests, including self-immolation, is unknown. At least 32 self-immolations in protest of the Chinese occupation and human rights abuses have been confirmed since mid-March 2011.

A woman outside the post office sells preserved honey from a wicker basket. Blocks of honey are added to traditional Tibetan yak butter tea. Yak products including meat, milk, and butter, comprise a significant portion of the Tibetan economy.

With more than 1,600 eligible voters, many of whom no longer teach at the university, the vote came in 379-284, a victory for professors who have been struggling with low pay, no benefits, and no job security. Through the initiative, AU adjuncts became the third school in the DC area to join the Service Employees Local 500, in addition to George Washington University and Montgomery County Community College.

Several student groups and leaders rose in support for the unionization efforts. As part of the Student Worker Alliance, Ethan Miller, author of this article, produced a video where AUSG President Tim McBride endorsed adjunct unionization. The SWA on campus collected over 200 signatures from students and presented the petitions, together with a letter of support, to every department head, the deans of each school and University Provost Scott Bass. Students also held two flashmobs in the week leading up to the vote count, culminating in a demonstration in the provost’s office.

Questions arose whether an increase in adjunct salaries would result in tuition hikes. However, even if adjunct pay doubled, it would still make up less than three percent of the university budget. After the vote, AU administrators agreed to recognize the union and not challenge the election results, alleviating supporters’ concerns over AU’s potential reactions.

Other unionization efforts on campus have encountered far more obstacles. In 2007, the University contested shuttle bus drivers’ efforts to join Teamsters local 922 through extensive legal proceedings. Despite this, shuttle drivers unionized. But in 1996 the university successfully employed suspect tactics to prevent operating engineers from collectivizing. Other workers have unionized successfully, such as janitorial staff and food service staff, personnel employed through Aramark and Bon Appétit, respectively.

While many colleges, especially public institutions, find themselves in a financial bind, American does not. The budget for fiscal year 2012 projects a roughly fifteen percent growth in expenditures when compared to the budget for fiscal year 2011 of $479,200,000. And while the overall budget for adjunct salaries has also grown slightly in the last few years, the hiring of additional adjunct faculty has outpaced such improvements. Salaries for part-time faculty make up less than two percent of the total university budget, while salaries for the top five highest-paid administration figures have soared in the last five years to near $3 million combined. Full-time tenured professors make up to $156,100 a year.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, more than forty percent of the professors at AU are adjuncts. Many adjuncts at the university are paid as little as $2,000 per course, receive no health benefits, and retain little job security. However, motivations for collectivization were not simply financial. Many adjuncts feel isolated from the university community. Erik Cooke, an adjunct in the Philosophy and Religion Department, said adjuncts “often feel very marginal to the conversation.” Part-timers, until recently, had held no positions within the Faculty Senate or any other university governance structures.

Adjuncts across the country face difficulties similar to our adjunct professors. A 2010 study on the conditions faced by part-time faculty at two-year and four-year institutions, published by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), reported that only 28 percent of adjuncts receive health benefits through their colleges and one-third receive less than $2,500 per course. Almost half say they make less than $15,000 annually from teaching.

These conditions have led many to challenge their status through organizations like the New Faculty Majority Foundation, the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor and the Modern Language Association, all focusing on uniting contingent faculty.

Years ago, the majority of adjunct professors were professionals who taught on the side, a short-term arrangement where teaching was not their primary income. But with full-time, tenure-track positions at colleges and universities increasingly rare, many newly minted PhDs are going straight from graduate school to teaching as adjuncts. Because of this, adjuncts remain qualified, valuable faculty members who receive the short end of the financial stick. Hopefully, unionization will afford adjunct professors the compensation they are undoubtedly due.

Anne McLeer, Director of Research and Strategic Planning for SEIU Local 500, said that by voting to unionize, “American University adjuncts are now joining the many adjunct and contingent faculties across the country who are refusing to allow themselves to be treated as a second tier.”

Photo from USAS.org

Sally Shelton-Colby, former diplomat, has worked all over the world—literally. After her Fulbright in Paris, she worked for the US Senate and then for the Department of State as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Latin America. Shelton-Colby moved back to Paris to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, then moved to Mexico to work with President Vicente Fox’s anti-corruption program. She returned to Washington to teach in the School of International Service. AWOL’s Ashley Dejean sat down with the world traveler to discuss international relations and vodka.

Can you talk about your work with the Bureau for Global Programs?
One of my assistants told me my middle name has got to be “I never met an issue I didn’t like.” He was right about that, because there’s nothing I’m not interested in. All of the technical expertise in AID who worked for me: the economists, the doctors, the egronomists, the environmental scientists, the human rights experts—we all provided this technical assistance to the 84 aid missions around the world. So one minute I’d be worried about HIV/AIDS in Russia, the next about climate change in India, the next about education reform in Egypt. So the range of issues and countries was fantastic, and I loved every minute of it. The higher up you go up the professional ladder, the more responsibilities you have. So sometimes I felt I was doing nothing but management: personnel issues and budget issues and so on.  The people working for me were having all the fun developing the education and agriculture and economic programs, etcetera. But I absolutely loved it. During that time I spent a lot of time in the Middle East, I was practically commuting to Egypt. I spent a fair amount of time in Russia, as well. I’ve been blessed to have had a fair amount of wonderful jobs that I’ve learned from. I always encourage students not to take a job that’s going to be easy, find the job that’s going to be hard. Look for the job that’s just a little bit beyond your grasp, because that will stretch you intellectually. Most of us are happier when we’re learning and growing intellectually.

And then you worked with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development?

The organization that oversaw the Marshall Plan after World War II subsequently morphed into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. It’s composed of 33 of the most industrialized countries in the world, and there’s a staff of about 2,500 economists and other sets of skills that try to coordinate the economic and social policies of the 33 members. It develops best practices and norms for the member countries, and any non-member countries that want to adopt those practices. For example, it works on a broad range of issues: fiscal policy, monetary policy, economic policy, agriculture, governance, education, health, and so on. I was Deputy Secretary General, and I was responsible for the development portfolio, governance and regulatory reform. Again, it was a huge amount of management.

You said you were frustrated when you worked with Mexican President Vicente Fox on anti-corruption. What do you mean by that?

I got very frustrated because the Mexican legal system is badly in need of reform. So we would discover evidence of corruption, it would go into the judicial system, and judges would do nothing because they were in the pockets of the politicians. So the constraints of an inadequate legal system got to me, and I finally decided to give it up.
One day I was being driven to work and my driver was really irritated because he had been listening to the news while he was waiting for me. The radio broadcasted a story on the cabinet’s salaries. He was just irritated that they were getting paid so much. Some enterprising journalist had requested, under the Freedom of Information Act that we had helped get passed, and here was my driver irritated about this news. He said, “I’m not voting for that party next time, I’ll vote for the opposition.” And I thought, this is democracy at work. This is one small example of something we were doing. Here was someone who had never voted who was now energized to take a part in the process because of a law that we helped get passed.

What about your famous Reagan story?

It was when the National Endowment for Democracy was established during the Reagan administration. Since I was the youngest person on the board, and a woman, I was pushed to the front of the receiving line at the White House to shake hands with the President at the launch. So President Reagan walked in, and I was at the front of the line, so we both put our hands out, and he was talking to me. Then what seemed like hours passed, and he kept holding my hand and talking to me. After a while the Congressman behind me began to giggle quietly and the Senator standing behind him started to giggle, and I could vaguely hear the head of the AFL/CIO standing behind him start to sort of make some noise. I tried to relax my grip, but he didn’t relax his. So I retightened my grip and he kept talking. I think even the audience was tittering at that point. This must have gone on for four or five minutes—a long time, particularly when it’s the president of the United States. To this day I do not know what he said; I was too focused on the handholding. How do you extricate yourself from the grip of the president of the United States? To this day that Senator still teases me about it.

Can you tell me about your work with human rights in the Panama Canal?

The chairman of the House Committee on the Merchant Marine called me into his office. I had been testifying about the need for political change in Nicaragua, and we had been putting pressure on the Nicaraguan government to open up a very closed, controlled system. I was also involved with the selling of the Panama Canal. I strongly believed if we wanted access to the Panama Canal, we better return it to the Panamanians. This Congressman said, “The Panama Canal Treaty is up for approval in the Senate, and it needs approval legislation, which has to go through both chambers of Congress. So you need to take this message back to the administration, you need to make a choice: you keep beating up on my friend, President Somoza of Nicaragua, and you don’t get any legislation for the Panama Canal Treaty or you stop beating up on him, and you get the implementing legislation. So I took the decision back, and it went all the way to the White House. The decision was to put the priority on the Panama Canal Treaty. We then softened our pressure on Somoza, and the rest is history. The center in Nicaragua threw its lot in with the Sandanistas, and war resulted. These are the kinds of really tough decisions you constantly make in government. You have to always keep in mind, what is in the US national interest. All these years later I wonder if we made the right decision. I think we did.

Looking back, what things do you see differently?

I feel conflicted about humanitarian assistance. I now am feeling that I should not have argued for suspending humanitarian assistance to a “bad guy” government, because people should not pay the price for the sins of their government. So I think as one gets more experience in life and thinks about these issues, one’s opinions often evolve. Looking back, are there things that I think the US should have done differently? Yes, Egypt is a big example: we should have leaned much harder on Mubarak. We should have threatened to reduce military assistance, even though that was the price US paid for Camp David, the peace between the US and Israel. But I wish I had pushed harder.

Tell me about your late husband, former director of the CIA during the Nixon administration.

I have this story: We went to the Soviet Union for our first trip. He sent a note ahead to the KGB to say he was coming, as a courtesy. We flew into Leningrad, this was at a time when food was very scarce. We’d skipped lunch, and we were going to the ballet that night. Afterwards, we had a midnight train to Moscow. We ran to the station after the ballet, thinking we could get a sandwich at the station. But there was no food for miles. So we got into our couchette and we hear a knock on the door. There at our door was a six foot tall Russian grinning from ear to ear, holding in his hands two bottles of vodka. Turns out he was our KGB handler, who heard we were thirsty. We had a very nice evening.

Photo by Lori McCue.

These words echoed through the megaphone and onto the American University quad as Nicole Wisler relived her experience as that scared girl. She and many others were protesting the university’s decision to pass up a grant application that could have provided $300,000 to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Wisler’s story illustrated the need for such programs. She explained that while the student who assaulted her understood the most basic definition of rape, “it’s rape if she doesn’t say yes,” he didn’t know the full meaning of the word or its implications.

“He used all kinds of force and very coercive measures to try to convince me to say yes because he thought that this would equal consent, even if it was out of fear for my own safety,” Wisler said.

After saying no and pushing back, she explained to him that if he had sex with her, it wouldn’t be consensual. If he had sex with her, she would take action against him. He continued to pursue her, but finally stopped. Wisler believes he realized she was being serious­—it finally sunk in that his actions fell under the definition of sexual assault.

Wisler’s story is only one of many. It’s estimated that about 1 in 4 college students are raped or are survivors of attempted rape. According to the 2008 Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, 6.8 percent of AU students—a number that rounds to about 400—experienced “forced sexual touching or fondling.” And 4.1 percent—roughly 200—experienced “unwanted sexual intercourse” in the previous year. The survey, administered to 37 classes, claims to represent the undergraduate student body in terms of “gender, racial and ethnic composition, and class status.” Next year, the survey will be conducted again.

On that chilly March day last year, protesting students occupied the quad before marching to confront Gail Hanson, Vice President of the Office of Campus Life. Hanson had refused to sign the application for the Campus Grant funded by the Office of Violence Against Women (OVA), a component of the Department of Justice. Without her signature, AU would not be considered for the funding. Hanson said that other university officials higher up than her, like University President Neil Kerwin, had concerns about the grant—namely that it would require mandatory sexual assault education and failure to take part in the education would result in a stop on the student’s account.

Thus, the application students had been working on for months, keeping university officials like Hanson in the loop through the entire process, never made it to the Department of Justice. Campus Grants were eventually awarded to 26 universities, totaling $7,231,923. Many of these grants were given to universities with a significantly more conservative culture than AU, yet these university’s gave the necessary approval.

As previously reported by AWOL, students provided Hanson with an alternative document to sign, asking for her to guarantee that the university would meet major goals outlined in the Campus Grant application with university funds. After editing it heftily, she signed the bottom fifth of the document. Hanson did not make any firm commitments; however, she did agree to meet with students in a forum “if possible.”

A Recent History of Sexual Assault Controversy at AU

During the 2009-2010 school year, The Eagle received some fairly bad press for two contentious articles regarding sexual assault. These articles ignited a discussion about sexual assault on AU’s campus.

A column entitled, “‘Sex’-perimentation defines Welcome Week” described The Eagle’s perspective of a drunken hook-up, but Women’s Initiative said the scenario “normalize[d] sexual assault” and Students for Choice said the article described “an explicit rape.”

It’s three in the morning. You have it inside you right now. It kind of hurts. You’ve had one too many cups of jungle juice. You think his name is Andrew, but you’re not really sure. You thought you would never be that girl, but there you are, in your drunken haze.

The rest of the article continued to explain that the girl should not consider this boy to be relationship material or feel guilty about her “drunken romp” because “everyone does it.” An editorial in response to the article’s controversy described the outrage as “confusing.” Rob Hradsky, Dean of Students, then gave AU students a quick lesson on the university’s sexual assault policy in a Letter to the Editor. He explained that “sexual assault is a more accurate description of this scenario” than a “drunken hook-up.”

Put simply, if someone is under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, as the article portrayed, they cannot give consent. If both parties can’t give consent, any sexual activity can be defined as sexual assault.

Fast-forward to March 2010, almost exactly a year before the VAWA grant protest, when AU found itself in the national spotlight, thanks to Alex Knepper’s column in The Eagle. In “Dealing with AU’s anti-sex brigade.” Knepper described date rape “as an incoherent concept” and stated that if a girl gets drunk at a frat party and goes home with a guy, she’s asking for it.

Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an  anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of putting a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.

The rest of the article’s tone was equally antagonistic and provocative.

The column sparked an outcry that received national attention, prompting The Eagle staff to apologize for publishing the article and to revise its editorial policies. Needless to say, the controversy surrounding both articles and the discussions they stirred revealed a lack of understanding in the campus community, suggesting a need for an increase in sexual assault and rape education.

Student Efforts against Sexual Assault

Student efforts to address issues surrounding consensual sex and sexual assault started long before last year’s protest.

In fact, since 2004, AU students have participated in Take Back the Night, an international event aimed at ending sexual violence. Last year, Anna Sebastian was so moved by the event she became one of the planners.

“I attended Take Back the Night last year as a freshman and was incredibly moved by the experience,” Sebastian wrote in an email. “I found solace in the community created within that space and I can honestly say it was a life-changing event for me. I looked into get more involved with it almost immediately afterward.”

The event, held on April 9, was among several others in observance of Sexual Assault Awareness month. Another effort students have been working on is the Clothesline Project. For this, statistics, testimonials and moving messages are written on t-shirts and displayed around campus.

Carmen Rios, the current director of Women’s Initiative, created the (con)sensual campaign in 2009, which “works to create safe spaces for dialogue on consent, educate college students about consent and their sexual rights, and encourage young people to integrate consent into their sexual practices.”

Nefertiti Abeja is directing the campaign this year and is currently working on making it more relevant and applicable to AU’s student population. She’s also been working to make the campaign more inclusive.

“We’ve been focusing on queering consensual because when it first started, this was never intentional, but it always tended to take this very heteronormative spin,” Abeja said. “You know, girl at a party, possible male attacker, and so it’s kind of addressing consent in queer relationships.”

Sexual Assault Prevention & Resources for Survivors at AU

Although AU still is not applying for the Campus Grant this year, the protest did not fall on deaf ears. The university has made significant progress in addressing sexual assault issues.

Before the end of the semester of the protest, the part-time sexual assault health educator position became a full-time position renamed Sexual Assault Prevention Coordinator.

On November 1, Daniel Rappaport, AU’s Sexual Assault Prevention Coordinator, and Courtney Brooks, coordinator of the Women’s Resource Center, became victim advocates for students. In this position, they are not required to report instances of sexual assault. Students who seek their support have complete confidentiality.

“Our responsibility is to meet with [students] as many times as they want, as frequently as they want,” Brooks said. “We can accompany them through the legal and judicial process, we can go with them to get off campus resources. The whole point of having a confidential advocate is so they don’t have to go through the process alone, they don’t have to have these conversations alone, they don’t have to figure out where to go. Our job is not to put them in one direction, but to present options and support them through that no matter what.”

Even statistics reporting how many students approach them with instances of sexual assault are confidential. Anna Sebastian, co-director of Women’s Initiative Stopping Violence Against Women, says this is a step forward for the community.

“The university has definitely made progress regarding their sexual assault policies since last year,” Sebastian explained. “It appears that a sexual assault education component will be included in the new student programming for the upcoming class. This is a wonderful step forward, but, at the same time, to think that we did not have this before is a humbling factor to this victory.”

University officials have been working towards including a Sexual Assault Education component in next year’s orientation. Exactly what that will look like is unclear.

“I can say that in terms of more, we absolutely intend for sexual assault to have its own piece of orientation,” Rappaport said. “We’re still looking around to try to make what we feel is the best choice for right now and doing the best that we can under the circumstances, but it’s not going to be a five minutes sort of deal. It’ll be it’s own piece of orientation. I’d like for it to be an hour.”

AlcoholEdu has included a brief section dealing with sexual assault for the past three years.

Rappaport fairly notes that, “considering it being the circumstance of an online education piece, it was pretty good for what it was worth. Do I think that that is all of the education students should receive coming in? Absolutely not.”

Gail Hanson is also on board and agrees that educating students in their first year is important. She has concerns, however, about guaranteeing the program’s effectiveness and students’ information retention.

“When you get to the last session, I say it’s like drinking out of a firehose,” she said. “You’re blown back from all the stuff. Imagine tucking into that thirty minutes, an hour on sexual assault that focuses on what defines sexual assault, what constitutes consent and maybe something on bystander information. That’s in a day and a half of hourly information briefings.”

Despite Hanson’s concerns about overloading students with information, she understands the need for education about sexual assault to begin at orientation.

“Everyone says ‘Orientation, it has to be at orientation.’ Well it does, but what it has to be is effective,” she said.

One student shared her own story during orientation because she thought it was important to give incoming students exposure to the issue of sexual assault. The forum Hanson agreed to attend “if possible” occurred in September. During this forum, the student who shared her story spoke out because she was offended it was listed under the university’s progress, but she made the decision to share due to the university’s lack of progress.

While the university isn’t quite ready to check orientation education off its list, it is likely that next year’s incoming class will receive at least some level of sexual assault education—whether it’s adequate remains to be seen.

Another effort called Green Dot, a bystander intervention awareness program, is gaining traction. “The basic premise is green dots are good, red dots are bad,” Rappaport said. “A red dot is anything that contributes to violence or culture of violence, any action, behavior, conversation that promotes violence. Whereas green dot is the opposite. Any action, behavior, word, discussion that shows intolerance for violence and promotes a culture of safety.” These dots are a symbolic way of mentally visualizing actions, words and other behaviors that create either a safe or more hostile environment.

The program is about awareness and empowering observers to take action when they see a potentially harmful situation.

“Everyone has obstacles to intervening. We’ve all seen situations where ‘Do we act? Should I act? What should I do? I don’t know.’ And then the situation will go on or something’s happened and we tell ourselves whatever we need and for the next five days we’re like ‘Oh, I should’ve done this, I should’ve done that.’”

Rappaport says a “reactive green dot” or a response to a potentially negative situation can either be directly confronting someone, encouraging someone else to confront them or simply distracting them from the situation. Examples of distractions he lists are asking where the bathroom is, saying you thought you saw the police or spilling your drink on the person.
“So it’s not changing the world, but the idea of green dot is to change the culture by these small, tiny incidences,” Rappaport said.

All RAs have gone through bystander intervention and Green Dot training.

“We partnered with housing and dining programs in January and they set aside an entire day of the RA training program to put the RAs through the bystander intervention training,” said Michelle Espinosa, Associate Dean of Students. “It’s a seven hour workshop that they go through. It actually teaches them the skills of when you are intervening as a bystander, what you can do and how you can do that.” Espinosa says a training session with some of Greek Life is planned during Sexual Assault Awareness Month in April.

Brooks and Rappaport were also the driving force behind an educational event geared towards Greek Life and athletics, which occurred earlier in April.

“We’re bringing in Don McPherson, he’s a former NFL player and college football hall of fame member and he works directly with men on the prevention of relationship violence,” Brooks said. “For all students, but particularly he good at working with athletics and Greek Life because that was his experience, so he can speak to that experience from his time as a student all the way into adulthood.”

Greek Life and AU athletes were required to attend this event, which Brooks hopes helps facilitate conversation and build bridges with these communities.

“I wasn’t in Greek life in college,” Brooks said. “I went to an institution that did not have Greek life. And so I don’t necessarily understand that language. [McPherson] does, and it’s important to have someone here who can address that. So we’re really hoping that will craft a new conversation on campus and really open the door to have a dialogue because I think a lot of time these particular groups are stereotyped and marginalized for either being perpetrators or creating a culture of silence, and I think a lot of time people feel isolated because of that and feel like they can’t be part of a conversation. We want to change that and break down those walls.”

To further facilitate education and discussion, the Wellness Center has peer educators who work closely with Rappaport. Members of this group, Peer Educators for the Elimination of Relationship and Sexual Violence (PEERS), have received 40 hours of training based on the curriculum that’s used for student advocates at the University of Maryland and conducted 15 workshops for various groups on campus.

Rappaport also works with the Men of Strength (MOST) group on campus.

“It’s a place where we look at men, masculinity, violence, sexual violence, and things like that,” he said. “It’s as informal as it sounds. That’s a great way to allow men who are at different points not only to learn more, but get involved in terms of dating violence.”

Public Safety officers also received basic first responder training from Rappaport over spring break.

“He did some basic baseline training in terms of first responder,” Espinosa said. “For more of a customer service slash advocate role. And the Public Safety officers are in an interesting situation in that respect because they want to be an advocate, they want to support the victim who might be reporting. They also need to be very cognizant of the criminal aspect that might be in play there. So they have to kind of walk that thin line. Daniel did some training with them to talk about the language that we use when we’re working with a victim who’s just responding and just reporting something in.”

Faculty and staff will also be required to take an online sexual harassment training program starting fall 2012.

While many steps have been made, Rappaport notes an obstacle that still needs to be addressed: getting to a hospital that has a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, or SANE program, which specially trains nurses in examining and collecting evidence in instances of sexual assault.

“We definitely can improve on transportation to Washington Hospital Center in addition to discount vouchers,” Rappaport said. “Public safety is more than happy to drive students there, but obviously that creates other obstacles, and that’s something we constantly are working on improving.”

Brooks noted there’s always room for improvement.

“Even if we think we’re doing it well, we want to go in and we want to look at it and figure out how can we make it better,” Brooks said. “Our responsibility is to never to be satisfied. We always want to keep pushing it to the next level because the individual’s experience of being supported and feeling advocated for in the process is so critical. It can really impact how they heal from the process.”

Provoking Change

While some of these changes would have come about with or without the protest, and there’s still progress to be made, last year’s loud call for improved resources and education made an impact. Hanson said the university has been conscientious of the protesters’ agenda.

“I certainly understood what their priorities are,” Hanson said. “I think we’ve done a good job of marching along that priority list and paying attention to most of those things and doing them on our own resources.”

But Hanson says they’re still seeking student input for ways to improve.

“We’ll probably have another open meeting this spring,” Hanson said. “Probably during Sexual Assault Awareness [month] and we’ll see what students think of what’s in place and where we have opportunities to do better, but I think we’re doing reasonably well.”

Despite public backlash against the protests last year and other more recent disruptive, non-violent action, the university’s response to the protest displays the effectiveness of these democratic, time-tested tools. Some argued these voices were disrespectful, but using these tactics appropriately can prove a successful method to initiate change, inform the public, and bring about much-needed discussion. While the university didn’t sign the grant and may not be addressing the grievances brought up during the protest as quickly as some would like, student voices were taken into account, and their agenda is moving forward.

Illustrations by Hannah Karl and Carolyn Becker.

If you like the Avenue of the Americas…

Located on R Street NW in a two floor apartment building, Fondo del Sol is an artist-run community museum dedicated to exhibiting the works of both Hispanic and African artists from Cuba, Chile, Ethiopia and Haiti, among other nations. Some artists’ work on display includes that of Juan Boza, a prominent Afro-Cuban artist, Cuban-American artist Ana Mendieta, Georgian artist Vladimir Kandelaski, and Lopez Marin, another Georgian painter. It is a museum that displays art found nowhere else in the DC area. The museum operates from 12:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m. Tuesday–Saturday, where student admission is only one dollar and music is played while you view the unique exhibits.

If you enjoy the Smithsonian art galleries…

Check out the Phillips Collection on 21st and Q Street, which displays a great collection of modern art. The museum’s exhibits include works by Impressionists Claude Monet, Paul Gaugin, Edward Degas and Pierre Auguste Renoir. Several Van Gogh paintings are on display, as are works by Henry Matisse, Picasso, the abstract shapes of Wassily Kandisky and the color walls of Mark Rothko. Museum hours are Tuesday–Saturday 10 a.m.–5 p.m., Sundays from 11 a.m.–6 p.m., and extended hours on Thursday from 5 p.m.–8:30 p.m. The museum charges an admission fee on weekends, but offers student discounts. It is an easy metro ride and a great way to see some world-renowned art.

If you want to experience a moving memorial for victims of injustice…

Get informed about the violation of human rights in China at the Laogai Museum. The Laogai Museum opened in 2008 and documents the human rights violations through the suffering of millions of Chinese citizens in the laogai prison labor camps. The museum begins with Mao’s dictatorship in 1949, continues with the upheaval and jailing of political dissidents during the Cultural Revolution, and proceeds through the laogai (a slogan for the criminal justice system that translates to “reform through labor”) instituted during the reign of Deng Xiaopeng and his successors. Photographs of prison executions and profiles of prisoners, both deceased and currently imprisoned, illustrate the forced torture, beatings and humiliation Chinese prisoners have suffered under the laogai system. There are sections of the museum devoted to the oppression of religious figures like Catholic Chinese bishops, and members of ethnic minorities like Rebiya Khadeer, whose videotaped accounts of prison life comprise a portion of the display. The most moving portion of the museum is the model of a six-foot-tall, three-foot-wide solitary confinement cell, a replica of those still used today in the Laogai prison labor camps. The museum is open Monday–Friday from 10 a.m.–6 p.m., and on Saturday from 10 a.m.–5 p.m. It is free of charge (though donations are suggested) and is located on the corner of 20th and S Street.

If you’re interested in Jewish history, visit…

The National Museum of American Jewish Military History on R Street memorializes American Jewish veterans and their contributions to the defense of freedom. The museum’s exhibits profile the contributions of Jewish women as soldiers and nurses along with the leadership of Major General Julius Klein, who served in both World Wars. It also includes a hall of Jewish military heroes stretching back to the Civil War and a memorial for Jewish US citizens killed during the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The museum is free and open Monday–Friday from 9 a.m.–5 p.m. and on Sundays by appointment.

If you’re interested in unique stories in economic and trade history…

Take a trip to the Textile Museum. At first look, textiles might seem like a boring subject for a museum. However, textiles can reveal a culture’s history, legends and way of life. The museum’s current exhibit, “Dragons, Nagas, and Creatures of the Deep,” runs until January 2013. It looks at the role of dragons in various Asian cultures from the Miao people of southern China to the Georgians of the Caucus Mountains. The intricate cloth designs tell visitors about the historical legacy and cultural expression of these people. The museum is located on S Street, and admission is free. It is open Tuesday–Saturday from 10 a.m.–5 p.m. and Sundays from 1 p.m.–5 p.m.

Illustration by Carolyn Becker.

According to Jessica Waters, assistant professor at American University in Justice, Law and Society, contraception is becoming a state issue largely because of the Affordable Health Care Act and the upcoming election.

“I think some of this is part of the primary season,” Waters said. “When we have Republican candidates playing to the right and playing to their most conservative base and you have a couple of Republican candidates willing to take that stance…that’s part of it. Part of it is just politicking.”

Additionally, states have been introducing fetal personhood measures, which would codify the fetus as a person. “They propose initiatives that are written so broadly that there are questions as to what they should cover,” Waters explained, saying with attempts to define what a fetus is, “We’re seeing other things get swallowed up. I think that’s purposeful.”

Such a measure was passed in Oklahoma this year, and similar measures have been rejected in Virginia and Mississippi. Elizabeth Nash, the state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute, argued the fight for contraception has already become a state issue because of these fetal personhood measures. She rattled off a list of states that have become particularly unfriendly to the right to choose.

“Kansas, Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Indiana, and now Mississippi, Utah and Virginia,” Nash laughed. “Okay, there’s half the country.”

Last year saw a record 92 provisions in state laws that restrict abortion, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute. The locations are noteworthy because in most states Republicans gained power of state governments in 2010.

“What does seem clear is those who oppose reproductive health have clear conservatives at the state level and they have a lot of success. Now they’re turning their sights on family planning,” Nash said.

In the 2008 election, abortion continued to be the centeral social issue, but contraception was not. In 2006, former Governor Sarah Palin said, “I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues.” In the 2008 election, Palin amended her statement to say she believed in abstinence only education, but to offer alternative solutions as well.

Because of the Affordable Health Care Act, contraception will continue to be an issue in the 2012 election. Waters explained this election has shifted into a debate about health care reform as a whole.

“People may not understand the intricacies of health care reform,” Waters said. “They understand ‘I have sex and if I have sex and it’s unprotected, I might have a baby.’ People have views on that. So they’re sound-bite issues, they’re easy issues, they’re hot button issues and they’re ones you can play to your base.”

According to Waters, the comments from the past few months are not new. In February, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee met to discuss the Obama administration’s controversial decision to require employers to provide birth control to employees. The panel was all-male, which brought harsh criticism from the feminist community. A woman named Sandra Fluke was unable to speak because her testimony was not submitted on time. When she was invited back to speak, she became a scapegoat for slutty college students everywhere.

Conservative radio sensation Rush Limbaugh said of Fluke on his radio show, “She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.” Limbaugh’s show has lost 140 advertisers since he first made those comments.

Many other Republican commentators have denounced the use of birth control, demonizing contraception as just as harmful as abortion. Besides a complete lack of knowledge about how to use birth control (hint: it’s not like a condom—you don’t take it every time you have sex), the language is problematic because it could restrict women under the poverty line from knowing about contraception.

“Do I think we’re going to see something where there’s an outright ban on birth control? No. Do I think that we will see continued efforts on who has access to it, particularly for low income women? Yes,” Waters said.

Seven years ago Serbelio worked 12 to 14 hours a day in a frutería, a home appliances store, in El Salvador. He only earned around six dollars each day, less than a dollar an hour. Decent jobs were hard to come by in such an unstable economic environment, and to make matters worse, the cost of living was near that of western industrialized countries.

“A pound of beans could be as much as $1.50,” he says in a small and humble voice. The wages at the frutería proved too meager, so he looked for new opportunities in the United States to resolve his family’s financial struggles.

Northwest Washington DC became his home. Upon arriving, he struggled to overcome the same barriers many Hispanic immigrants seeking to prosper in America confront: learning the language, finding a job and finding a place to live. These problems were interlaced, as businesses weren’t hiring those who didn’t speak English.

“Wherever you go, whatever you want to do, they ask you how much English you know,” he says frankly. To overcome the “obstáculo” of language, as he calls it, Serbelio studied English at a local church two days a week for a couple of years. Non-native English speakers are especially vulnerable to the whims of a sputtering economy, and lots of small businesses, including restaurants, are tightening their purse strings. Serbelio describes how to land a job: “You apply and apply and finally… you get lucky,” he said.

Petits Plats, the restaurant where he now works, is quiet. The lunch crowd has left and the bussers are breaking down the dining area. Outside, Connecticut Avenue bustles and the sun gleams down on the arched roof of the metro tunnel. He does not have any children or a partner, but his face turns solemn as he says his mother was recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

Every month for the better part of a decade, Serbelio has sent around 60 percent of his wages to his family back home. Until recently, this was more than adequate, but the medical bill for his mother’s cancer was over $4,000 dollars last month alone. He admits the dificultad in providing for a family so many miles away, but he’s still grateful for the work opportunities this country has provided him. Serbelio is conscious of the countless other Salvadoreans back home who didn’t have such an opportunity.

If Serbelio was not in the US, but still at home sweating away his days at the frutería “she would die because no one is going to pay for that,” he says quietly.

The community at Petit Plats is a tight one. The kitchen staff is very cordial and more than willing to offer insights into the life of immigrant workers. In the restaurant’s back entrance, a shy employee lingers alone, not confident enough in his English to participate in the conversation. Through the encouragement of his fellow workers, the man agrees to share a little bit about himself, for the sake of this article.

Adán is a dishwasher. This is his fifth month in the United States. And he insists on remaining anonymous. Adán, a 29-year-old Salvadorean, is still acclimating himself to the culture of Washington, DC. He is no stranger to restaurant work, as he’s had had several jobs in restaurants in his homeland of San Miguel. But the work here is different.

“In El Salvador, the waiters had to do everything,” he says. “They take the orders, bring the food out, and bus the tables.” He doesn’t see the need to divide the positions so narrowly between food runners, waiters, and dishwashers. It isn’t indignation in his voice, but frustration at being reduced to a menial laborer.

In El Salvador, Adán began working part-time at the age of 12, hoping to one day be able to afford an education. His family is from the campo, or the rural areas, an underrepresented population in modern El Salvador. An education is a luxury out of reach for Salvadoreans with Adán’s socio-economic background. However, Adán was fortunate, and at 18 years old, he matriculated to the Universidad del Salvador where he studied the Spanish language and literature. This lasted only a short while because his family needed him to return back to work.

He had a variety of occupations and worked steadily, applying for scholarships and grants to attend school again—then the 2007 global economic crisis hit. Adán’s father lost his job along with many of his assets because of weak consumer spending. When asked to explain what had happened, he puts it simply, “nobody was buying our products.” By products, he means maíz, or corn. It was time for Adán to begin a new life, and the United States provided that opportunity. With an understanding smile, he says, “Cuando vienen las personas de otros países, es debido de las obligaciónes que tienen que emprender.” (When people come here from other countries, it is because of greater obligations that need to be upheld.)

Five months separated from the only country he’s ever known and Adán is beginning to feel a profound distance from his old life, “When you leave, the years in the country you left tend to fall behind,” he says slowly.

Serbelio’s tale, as well as Adán’s, is unique. However, both represent something greater than just themselves: a generation of young men, toiling day after day in the hope that their families, living in distant worlds, will be able to prosper.

Despite the fact that Hispanics make up only nine percent of the District’s total population, according to the US Census Bureau, it is important to remember workers, more often than not, are commuting from residences and living quarters throughout the metropolitan area. In Montgomery County, Latin Americans comprise around 17 percent of the population, and the majority originate from Central American countries such as El Salvador. This is the result of the Salvadorean Civil War that began in 1980 and lasted over a decade. It was the second longest civil war in Latin America, after the Guatamalen Civil War.

During the war, thousands of civilians were killed at the hands of military death squads, the most notorious instance is the El Mozote Massacre, which took place in 1981. The violence drove wealthy landowners and agrarian workers alike to cities in the United States. Since then, a network of chain migration has continued to DC, either through familial ties or the awareness of a large Salvadorian population already based in the area. Whatever the exact reason, DC area hosts over 100,000 people from this small country wedged on the Pacific coast between Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

The kitchen crew prepares for the next shift, and a few local foodies twirl their forks around the last few morsels of pan-seared salmon and wine sauce. Today, the civil war of El Salvador is decades removed. Adán speaks of his future, and what is in store for him. Serbelio, who at this point has been standing in his declared territory behind the bar, listening to our conversation, interjects, “Oh, he’ll go back after he’s saved a couple hundred thousand dollars… won’t you, Adán?”

Illustration by Hannah Karl.

Just got back from study abroad? Struggling to express your transcendental experience with words? Need a great closer for your travel blog? Consider AWOL’s handy, travel-sized abroad experience template to deflect the onslaught of nosy inquiries from friends and family. Just follow the steps below and let AWOL provide the informative, detailed, and sometimes condescending description for you!

First, pick the location that best describes where you went (if it’s someplace too obscure, don’t worry—it’ll fit somewhere):

European city        Middle Eastern country        China/India        Failing state        Africa

Next, just circle whichever option in the narrative fits your unique experience the best:

“Hey! So I just got back from being abroad! My trip was so [rewarding • amazing • life-changing] and gave me so many important [perspectives • life-lessons • new experiences]. It’s tough to describe because it’ll be hard for you to [understand • relate to • sit through the story of] the fantastic trip I had. Life was so different there.

In the United States, our lives are stressed and hectic, but there they focused on the important things like [culture • overthrowing governments • staying alive]. I wasn’t anxious about my schoolwork like I am at home because there, learning isn’t about grades or papers. It’s about  the experience. I studied so many new subjects like [art • Marxism • Molotov cocktail hurling].

I spent my nights roaming the [cities • dorm halls • pastures] instead of the AU Library. My fellow Eagles and I reflected on our encounters with culture over local favorites served from [Pierre • Ahmed • Comrade Igor], the friendly server at the [pub • hookah bar • Starbucks café] nearby. There we could even drink alcohol, because to them, our maturity isn’t reflected by the age on our [license • passport • fake ID]. We took so many amazing [weekend excursions • safaris • pub crawls] throughout the area, something we aren’t able to do in the United States because Americans don’t care about [public transportation • culture • young people]. Here, all we needed to do was hop on a [train • bus • Sherpa], and we could be encountering a totally different culture and meeting new people. Try experiencing that in the United States!

I spent most of my free time doing my best to immerse myself in the culture. I often admired the [magnificent cathedrals • exotic mosques • quaint grass huts] from [the top decks of tour buses • the backs of alpacas • my computer’s GoogleEarth application]. It was difficult to adapt to many different things, especially [the language barrier • the scarcity of snacks • mosquito nets]. I always got the feeling that people there were so much happier with their [democratically elected government • socialist regime • tyrant] than we are because they love parades! Sometimes people get so excited that the [street cleaners • police • national army] have to [clean up big messes • push the crowd back • shoot off fireworks]!

I spent a lot of time shopping for [authentic • hand-made • mass-produced]souvenirs of national significance like [scarves • tapestries • key chains].

Everyone there was so interesting, and it’s amazing how they [speak English all the time • get by without English • arrest me every time I speak English]. I know the opinion is that people there are really [elitist • lazy • impoverished], but I know now that they are really [intellectual • cheery • oppressed]. Even though I lived in [a dorm with other Americans • an apartment complex for students • a hostel], whenever we ventured outside, we were always really [outgoing • engaging • obnoxious] and willing to meet new people. I feel like I’ll never be the same until I walk those [cobblestone streets • venues of the local bazaar • cowpaths] again, where the people just seem to understand me better and the culture is so much [richer • poorer]. My experience was so [original • extraordinary • personal] and life-changing, that if you go, I’m sure you’ll have the same great experience.”

Illustration by Hannah Karl.