(Image of Mallory Shear-Heyman by Jim Lo Scalzo via The Center For Public Integrity)

The Center for Public Integrity is in the process of publishing a multi-part series on campus assault. Their initial findings are chilling, and accurately summarized as "High Rates of Rape, Closed Hearings, and Confusing Laws:"

One national study reports that roughly one in five women who attend college will become the victim of a rape or an attempted rape by the time she graduates. But while the vast majority of students who are sexually assaulted remain silent - just over 95 percent, according to a study funded by the research arm of the U.S. Justice Department - those who come forward can encounter mystifying disciplinary proceedings, secretive school administrations, and off-the-record negotiations. At times, policies lead to dropped complaints and, in cases like [Kathryn] Russell's, gag orders later found to be illegal. Many college administrators believe the existing processes provide a fair and effective way to deal with ultra-sensitive allegations, but alleged victims say these processes leave them feeling like victims a second time.

Kathyrn Russell was a student at the University of Virginia. She was allegedly* raped by another student and initially went through the normal channels to try to get help:

Days before filing her complaint, Russell learned that the local district attorney wouldn't press criminal charges - a typical outcome. Experts say the reasons are simple: Most cases involving campus rape allegations come down to he-said-she-said accounts of sexual acts that clearly occurred; they lack independent corroboration like physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. At times, alcohol and drugs play such a central role, students can't remember details. Given all this, says Gary Pavela, who ran judicial programs at the University of Maryland, College Park, "A prosecutor says, ‘I'm not going to take this to a jury.'" Often, the only venues in which to resolve these cases are on campus.

Out of options, Russell pursued her case through the with the campus based process. The Center then describes how these panels work from school to school.

Internal disciplinary panels, like the UVA Sexual Assault Board, exist in various forms on most campuses. But they're not the only way schools handle rape allegations. For decades, informal proceedings run by an administrator have represented the most common method to adjudicate disciplinary matters. Typically, an administrator meets with both students, separately, in an attempt to resolve a complaint. Occasionally, they "mediate" the incident. Officials find such adjudication appealing in uncontested situations. If a dean elicits a confession, says Olshak, of Illinois State, who headed the student conduct association in 2001, "We'll be able to resolve the complaint quickly, easily, and without the confrontation of a judicial hearing." Resolution, as in formal hearings, can mean expulsion, suspension, probation, or another academic penalty, like an assigned research paper. By all accounts, informal processes take place almost as frequently as formal ones ; at UVA, for example, the administration has held 16 hearings since 1998, as compared to 10 informal meetings.

And these proceedings can turn out positively for student victims. In January 2005, Carrie Ressler, then a junior at Concordia University, near Chicago, reported being raped by a football player after attending a party in his dorm. On January 19, within hours of the alleged assault, the police arrested the student athlete; by October, he'd pled guilty to battery for "knowingly [making] physical contact of an insulting nature," court records show.

At Concordia, Ressler's report landed on the desk of Dean of Students Jeffrey Hynes. The morning of the arrest, the dean summoned her to his office. "He told me he'd be telling the perpetrator he needed to leave by choice," she remembers Hynes saying. "If not, he'd be expelled." Within days, the athlete had left Concordia. Hynes declined to comment on Ressler's case.

"The dean acted in my interests," Ressler says. She recognizes, though, that the informal adjudication served the university's interests, too. "I got the sense from the dean that the school wanted to keep this case hush-hush."

Resolving the cases speedily and quietly are in the school's best interest, from a publicity and liability standpoint. But what happens when this emphasis on discretion begins to help the assailant?

More formal proceedings are sometimes no less shrouded. College disciplinary hearings, unlike courts, lack the trappings of transparency - campus spectators. Advocates can't attend unless serving as "advisers" to students. Only integral participants like board members or administrators have any clue when a hearing occurs. "They're secret because they're closed," says S. Daniel Carter, of Security on Campus Inc., a watchdog group.

Administrators see it differently, arguing that there are important distinctions between "secrecy" and "privacy." They can't open up internal proceedings - formal or informal - because that would amount to granting access to private educational records, which FERPA prohibits, they say. But that doesn't mean they're operating in secret. "Not providing private information to the rest of the world is respecting confidentiality and respecting FERPA as a law," says Mary Beth Mackin, assistant dean of student life at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. And while proceedings remain hidden to outsiders, administrators maintain they're conducted so students feel they're as open as possible.

Lisa Simpson would probably disagree. Her allegations of rape at the University of Colorado at Boulder blew open a scandal of sexual assault allegations against football players and recruits in 2004; three years later, her Title IX lawsuit brought against CU ended in a $2.85 million settlement in her favor. Yet she found CU's judicial process a mystery. In December 2001, Simpson, then a CU sophomore, alleged she was raped by five football players and recruits during a beer-soaked party. They claimed she was a willing participant. Within days, Simpson's rape report made its way to CU's judicial affairs director, Matthew Lopez-Phillips. During a meeting in his office, she recalls him relaying how a panel of students, faculty, and staff would adjudicate. At the time, CU's official conduct code stated that alleged victims would generally be expected to participate in the process by "providing testimony at the formal hearing of the accused," among other things.

But Simpson never appeared before a panel. No panelist interviewed her about the report, or the victim impact statement she filed. Even after her five-year legal battle against CU over its response to her case - a battle that sparked a broader investigation, as well as systematic reform - she has no idea what transpired before the panel, or if it actually even existed. CU documents obtained by the Center show one accused student underwent a formal hearing as a result of Simpson's report; three others had informal, administrative proceedings. But some CU documents on the panel remain sealed by protective order, and only one includes a list of 17 possible panelists. Court records have revealed the identity of only one panelist. "For all I know," Simpson says, "it could have been a panel of athletic coaches."

The report returns to Russell's experience. Bound by the school's repeated admonishments that all proceedings were confidential, she and the student she accused were to both come before the panel and present their case. The person she accused had this to say:

Russell and the alleged assailant agreed on initial details - they ran into each other at a bar; he ended up at her dorm; she offered him an air mattress to sleep. But they painted different pictures of what transpired next. The man, Russell said, grabbed her from behind, ignored her pleas to stop, and "used [me] for his sexual need." Russell, the man countered, "tacitly agreed to have sex," demanding a condom, and never saying no. "Not all my actions would in a day-to-day situation be considered kosher," he wrote in his April 23, 2004 defense. "But none of my actions broached or even swept near the arena of rape."

So, something was amiss. He just didn't think it was rape.

Interesting.

I wonder if he would have seen things differently if, instead of looking for the absence of a no, the cue to continue sexual activity was universally understood as an enthusiastic yes. However, Russell didn't realize how deeply ingrained this type of thinking is until the panel came back with its decision. The report continues:

Kathryn Russell didn't think much about her school's policy until things went badly. At the hearing, board members asked questions making her wonder about their training - "Did it occur to you to perhaps leave the room?" "Why not just shut the door [on him]?" Sources familiar with the UVA board's training describe it as extensive; in 2004, the school required members to undergo a day of preparation featuring a videotape and reading materials, as well as sessions with outside experts on campus sexual assault. One previous board member describes Russell's panelists as open-minded and thoughtful. But the panel also judged her complaint using a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which the Education Department ruled, in one 2004 case, is higher than Title IX authorizes - and which victim advocates argue is illegal.

In the end, the student Russell accused was found "not responsible" for sexual assault. The board instead slapped him with a verbal reprimand. "We … believe that you used very bad judgment," Sisson declared. The case resulted in one of nine "not-responsible" verdicts the UVA board has handed down over the past decade, as compared to seven responsible ones.

"You can have a bad sexual experience but not be sexually assaulted under the university's definition and standard of evidence," says the prior UVA board member.

Russell saw it differently. "It was just a charade," she said.

Russell isn't the only one who found herself pressured into accepting an unsatisfactory decision.

In November 2003, Mallory Shear-Heyman, then a sophomore at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, underwent a confidential mediation after reporting being raped in her dorm by a fellow student. Mediations became popular in disciplinary matters involving sexual assault earlier in the decade, and remain common today - despite controversy. In 2001, the Education Department deemed mediations improper partly because they carry no punishment. And while mediation is generally considered effective for resolving interpersonal conflicts, the department - and many critics - argue that it falls short in instances of sexual violence. The reason: an intimidating element exists between victims and their assailants because, like other serious assault, sexual assault is a violent act "In some cases," the department states in its guidance document, referring to sexual assault cases, "mediation will not be appropriate even on a voluntary basis."

But Bucknell administrators defend their use of the practice, which they now call "voluntary facilitated dialogue," precisely because it only occurs at the request of an accusing student, with the willing participation of an accused student. Any power imbalance, they argue, is evened out by the presence of two administrators - one male, one female - guiding the conversation and assuring a comfortable setting. "Our students have really been key spokespeople for indicating they want some sort of option to have this dialogue," says Kari Conrad, judicial administrator for sexual misconduct. "We feel confident in keeping this process as a responsible response."

Shear-Heyman remembers Bucknell officials portraying the off-the-record session as an attractive way to confront the accused student, "as if it were the best option ever." Confidentiality, they relayed, would allow for more open and honest discussion. She was presented with a waiver, which specified that "information first disclosed during mediation may not be used in any subsequent internal University proceeding."

But Shear-Heyman wouldn't grasp the waiver's implications until the accused student, she says, implicated himself. Bucknell records show the student apologized to her in instant messages, admitting "b/c you got hurt, yes," what had occurred was rape. She says he repeated the admissions before the two deans who participated in the mediation - Gerald Commerford and Amy Badal. The waiver did not prevent Shear-Heyman from pursuing outside remedies. But the deans, she says, gave her the strong impression that she couldn't use what had occurred in the session - on or off campus. When she later considered pursuing criminal charges, she says, the deans claimed not to remember the accused student's alleged admissions.

In response to the painful facts pulled into sharp focus by the study, Feministing points to The Campus Accountability Project, a joint effort by SAFER and V-Day. The Campus Accountability Project has set a three year time frame to gather data on the school sexual assault policies, reach out to activists looking to challenge unfair policies, and prepare a new report based on their findings.

*Here, allegedly is used only because no conclusion was reached in this case in the court of law.

Sexual Assault On Campus Shrouded In Secrecy (First In A Series) [The Center For Public Integrity]
Campus Sexual Assault: A New Report And Reform Effort [Feministing]
Campus Accountability Project [Safer.org]

Earlier: What's Being Taught In College Rape Prevention Programs?

According to The Times of London's Luisa Metcalfe:

The lure of meeting a dashing, über- intelligent Ivy League educated male like Barack Obama, Jake Gyllenhaal or GG's aspiring Dartford College [???] student Dan Humphrey - along with financial incentives and the promise of an elite education - is encouraging an increasing number of female school-leavers to shun Oxbridge and apply to America's top universities

We all know the sole draw of certain U.S. institutions is not resources, international stature or, God forbid, education. It's about snagging one of your very own Ivy League gentleman — the most prestigious form of M.R.S. degree. (Nevermind the British men who might come here too. It's a feminine invasion!) So what are these Adonises really like?

Adam Peterson acknowledges that this propensity for superiority is a downfall of his fellow Ivies, "the greatest thing they need to battle is losing the common touch. When you go to a dinner party and someone tells you how they speak Russian, Arabic and spend their time in Timbuktu, it will probably be an Ivy Leaguer. And it's not inter-personally attractive."

But seriously, you could consider it a refreshing change that men too are said to lose their attractiveness if they lack a "common touch." It's better than the idea that the women who actually enroll as equals alongside these geniuses face a life of working overtime to not intimidate potential mates. While I was at one of these august institutions, I wrote a somewhat uneven piece on guys who went off campus to impress girls on the basis of their SAT scores, and the women who went out of their way to do essentially the opposite. A few years later, I remain hopeful that power-couple-hungry mutual elitism can trump gender hierarchies. So, my British sisters, come on down.

Ivy League Men Attract Female Students To The US [Times of London]

You'd think an all women's college like Wellesley would be relatively free of this kind of asshat behavior, but the case of Jeremy Pham, a Dartmouth student in an exchange program at Wellesley, goes to prove that boys really can't handle single-sex schools, even if the sex is female (however, he certainly shows that you can learn valuable life lessons from opposite-sex peers, in this case, mostly about how not to act). A couple of weeks ago, he noticed a post on Wellesley FML (Fuck My Life, a message board for whining, basically) that read: "I'm the only guy of a campus of 2,300 girls but I'm still not getting any." Despite the fact that he is not the only guy at Wellesley, Pham assumed that the poster was impersonating him. On November 21st, he responded by posting an angry message on Wellesley's general discussion forum. In it's crap entirety, here is Pham's tirade:

I don't speak much, since I'm pretty reserved by nature and I'm never really around either (I'm always doing projects at the other school in Cambridge). But since Wellesley girls apparently insist on writing false posts under my name, as well as treating my friends that visit here like crap just because they're not 5'9 and don't possess the male-dominated social space of the MIT fratboy that's fucking the shit out of you nightly, I present to you...what normal, rational people think of you girls:

1) You are all a bunch of whores. No, seriously. The stereotype that Wellesley girls obsess over men is so true that it's not even funny. Go to a normal school like Dartmouth (where one of your girls won't leave after 4 terms because she wants to milk the place for all it's worth) and you'll see that nobody there obsesses to the degree that the people in the 5th percentile here do. Consequently, you all make poor decisions. Which is why people on the Internet laugh at you. Which is why people on the Internet will laugh at you even more when I make a reddit post detailing my experiences here.

2) You are all undeserving of the education and opportunities you have received. The sense of entitlement here is actually kind of incredible. Just to make sure it just wasn't me, my friend visiting right now notices it too. And he's much more outgoing, friendly, and chill than I am. But he's not 5'9, so sorry girls. But there are some insecure dudes littering the streets of Commonwealth for your amusement.

3) You are all too easy. Some of us refuse to participate in the orgy of sexual tension here because we want to be respected for who we are, not what we are. Of course, for others, it's as easy as dropping the MIT/Harvard moniker. I mean, what idiot thinks a meaningful relationship can develop out of a superficial encounter at a party? Seriously, WTF. At my school, there aren't that many relationships. But at least we're honest about the fact that most of us are just merely infatuated with the other party, and not actually "in love."

Do not make up shit under false pretenses. Do not treat my friends like shit. Do it one more time, and I will sue you. It's so funny that there's this Wellesley Community discussion group thing going on, but if you girls can't do something as trivial as leave me alone to do my own thing, you guys have no shot at forming a cohesive community. No fucking chance.

And I'll just sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude.

Aside from the misogynistic rage Pham has been harboring, he also displays a fundamental confusion as to whether Wellesley girls are "whores" or too picky. I suppose he means they are whores because they aren't interested in him - or his average-height friends. It's actually rather uninspired. Lacking anything better to criticize, he goes the "slut" route, which is always odd when the general complaint is that he feels neglected. And this is just one example of just how shockingly un-self-aware this guy is. Probably the funniest - read: crappiest - bit is when he speaks to the "sense of entitlement" at Wellesley, while bemoaning the fact that his "friend" didn't get any during his visit. While it's obvious what he feels entitled to (sex for him and his buddies) I'm not sure what Wellesley girls are supposed to be demanding. Perhaps the right to choose who to fuck? Those whores!

But the Pham-saga doesn't end here. Naturally, many Wellesley women were annoyed by Pham's message, which was posted on a board that can be viewed by both students and faculty. In a surprising moment of clarity, Pham thought it best he apologize. But even that didn't go so well:

Let me first begin by apologizing for my tone and perhaps the language that I used to address some of my own feelings as being one of the few, if not only, males on campus. It isn't easy for me to be accepted in the Wellesley community. Wellesley has been be a wonderful learning experience and many people here have been welcoming to me. At the same time, hearing "What are you doing here?" when walking through the halls and being judged solely based on my looks can be hard for me. I hope you can understand that.

The "apology," in which he continues to blame Wellesley women for being shallow bitches, goes on for quite some time. He vacillates between praising the intelligence of the student body, and whining about the horrible treatment that has made him so bitter. And then there is this:

A college community is the perfect place to learn from one another. I have learned that many people do care about community and how I as "a man" can fit into it. This was my original hope when I wrote my first post. I do care about this community and do want to learn different points of views about a multitude of topics. But to do this, we need to respect each other. I hope that we can equally show each other some kindness and respect.

I can only be a productive and positive member of this community if we work together. But it can be hard when I feel ostracized here.

He ends with a request that everyone comes together to "continue building community" and forget the whole I just called y'all a bunch of whores thing. Not a perfect apology, but not nearly as bad as what came next. The blog What Estrogen captured a screenshot of Pham's status, which went up shortly after the "apology" was posted to the message board. He must have forgotten that Wellesley students can view his Facebook, because he posted this:

alright so because someone wrote some false post about me on the intarw3b at wellesley, i wrote this post calling them all entitled whores and whatnot; clearly as a troll (and to some extent, you have to admit that that is true) on the open forum @ wellesley and there was a SHITSTORM of responses. while the whole community is out protesting and acting all butthurt, i'm just sitting around lol'ing.

you fuck with me, and i'll plant a dagger in your ass. simple as that.

How contrite. But, like any good Crap Emailer, Pham is nothing if not voluble. Later the same evening, he dumped this steaming pile of shit on the message board:

[I'm really sorry…]
...for ever coming here. And calling all of you whores. Clearly, some of you are still very upset about my Community post, but I have learned a lot about the difficulties that a woman faces every single day in America. It brings a tear to my eye (metaphorically) to know that some of you are very passionate about women's rights, but I feel that your energies are misdirected. Sure you will deal with me and eradicate me from this campus in style, but your problems will still be there. Your inability to get to the root of the issues that plague our world will still be there. While other guys give me fist pumps and brag about their conquests at this school, I must endure the brunt of your criticisms so that you may all be united under the banner of activism.

And it worked perfectly.

There are real instances of women here actually being alienated from the rest of the Wellesley community. There are real cases of rape and belligerent boyfriends. My hope was that you would all unite to chastise such an extremely contemptible figure so that these issues cannot be ignored. Because honestly, what's the difference between saying thoughts behind your backs, and posting them live? There is no intrinsic difference. And yet, the perception differs, and so I wanted to explore that today. My hope was that some of these alienated women on campus can venture out of their rooms and be embraced by a community that's trying to flame me relentlessly. If I had written something benign, only a few people would have acknowledged it, and that would have been that. Nothing like controversy to stir up the day.

While I was writing the apparently insufficient apology last night, the police officer came into my room to make sure that everything was okay. I chuckled and told him that everything was okay. He wanted to offer me protection from the perhaps inevitable fallout from my polemic. Later, he read my letter and told me that it was cool, and it was the best I could have done...

Also, controversies like this happen all the time. Given the knowledge that the ACLU has my back and that I'm protected by the First Amendment, and the fact that friends who were journalists at other schools attempted similar stunts (with surprising degrees of success that resulted from open dialogue), I figured that this could turn out to be pretty sweet. And just so you know, nothing will happen to me. So for those of you seeking administrative intervention, you are only wasting your time. And for those of you seeking media attention, by all means. But understand that it'll also mean that I get my facetime, and you just can't spin a 2300 gang up on a lone campus figure in any positive way, especially given that I was trolling (even then, you wouldn't need that requirement). Also just so you know, assault or throwing water at someone's face is not protected by the First Amendment (or any). Of course, the event was trivial enough as it was, but if things escalate...

And do any of you honestly believe that I hold these misogynistic views? Please. Get real here. I hold a degree from the best trolling school of all time. I was pissed that you guys used my identity though. And to be honest, this whole debacle IS kind of hilarious. Let's be honest here. It's pretty damn hilarious.

Take a minute to let that sink in. Pham was only calling a group of 2,300 women whores because he was hoping they would band together to stop rape. The only thing I find hilarious about this whole fiasco is that Pham actually thinks someone will believe his "I was just trolling" bravado and congratulate him for his bravery. Sex and the Ivy astutely compares Pham's sudden change of tune to a horrible plot twist, borrowed from the school of M. Night Shyamalan. A few hours later, he realizes that people actually read his Facebook status, and so he issues another "apology" for threatening to penetrate his haters with daggers (you can read it here; I'm getting sick of quoting this guy). This apology is somewhat better, although after all that he has already said, it's impossible to take it seriously. This is only reinforced by his Facebook update the following day:

Jeremy Pham thanks his friends and appreciates the outpouring of support from all people all across the nation. I have never been prouder to be a Dartmouth student. Thanks ACLU. Jeremy Pham also wonders just how the orgy of cattiness will proceed. Jeremy Pham also thanks Kerry and her friends for the death threats.

In case it wasn't already clear, calling a group of women catty whores is not exactly the best way to get them to sleep with you, or even to build some sort of activist "community." It may also have gotten him expelled from the exchange program. According to a tipster, Pham "is no longer at Wellesley," and was recently escorted out of his room. This has not been verified, but the Wellesley student reports that Pham could be facing possible suspension from Dartmouth for violating the honor code and "using obscene language that suggests sexual harassment."

Dartmouth Student Jeremy Pham Will "Plant A Dagger In Your Ass," Thinks Wellesley Women Are "A Bunch Of Whores" [Sex And The Ivy]
JPhamgate 2009 [What Estrogen]
Wellesley FML [Original Post]

Law professor Gail Heriot says, "I had seen articles that suggested that some colleges and universities were discriminating in favor of men and against women in their admissions processes." She and her fellow members of the Commission plan to subpoena the admissions records and policies of 12 or more institutions to determine if such discrimination is occurring. Some, however, think there's no need. Jennifer Delahunty, dean of admissions at Kenyon College, says, "Is there evidence of this? Who has it? Where is it?"

As NPR's Claudio Sanchez points out, one of the people who has such evidence is Delahunty herself. In a 2006 New York Times op-ed, she wrote, "The fat acceptance envelope is simply more elusive for today's accomplished young women." She went on to describe an impressive female Kenyon applicant whose admission was still up for debate. She explained,

Had she been a male applicant, there would have been little, if any, hesitation to admit. The reality is that because young men are rarer, they're more valued applicants.

Here Delahunty seems to be outright confessing that Kenyon gives male applicants an edge. Why? She says,

At those colleges that have reached what the experts call a "tipping point," where 60 percent or more of their enrolled students are female, you'll hear a hint of desperation in the voices of admissions officers.

Beyond the availability of dance partners for the winter formal, gender balance matters in ways both large and small on a residential college campus. Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive.

So favoring men is at least partly a numbers game. But Tom Mortenson of the Pell Institute says gender-imbalanced colleges are also bad for education. He tells Sanchez,

The people who work on these campuses say that boys frankly are not at their best where they are outnumbered two to one by girls. It's probably not a healthy situation for either gender.

It's tempting to suggest that boys who "aren't at their best" with too many chicks around might like to call the wahmbulance, or just cool their heels and wait for the day when they make more money than women for doing the same job. But given the recent focus on men's college woes (the president of the University of Alberta drew fire last week for declaring herself an "advocate" for underrepresented white men), it's worth examining whether or not gender "balance" is a good thing to strive for. It may not be particularly high-minded, but I can understand why straight women might balk at attending a college where they greatly outnumber men — a highly skewed dating pool can lead to some unpleasant social dynamics, not to mention reduced options. Then again, there's no reason women can't date outside their colleges, and the idea that a post-secondary education should also provide mating opportunities may be an outdated and damaging one. Maybe it's time we stopped thinking of college as a place of sexual awakening, and simply focused on learning.

So do students learn better in a mixed-gender setting? In primary and secondary school, there's some evidence that single-gender education has benefits, and many who attended women's colleges swear by the experience. On the other hand, there is something to be said for an educational experience that mimics the real world — but gender aside, colleges may be moving farther and farther from this goal.

Ultimately, the gender makeup of selective colleges may be a moot point. As college costs rise and real income falls, the "traditional" college experience is becoming out of reach for more and more students. Probably more important than the gender balance of a place like Kenyon is the growing gap between those who can afford Kenyon and those who can't. While some colleges had begun beefing up their financial aid prior to the recession, many are now in dire straits and forced to relinquish need-blind admissions. It's worth examining whether female applicants are suffering discrimination, and the underlying reasons for boys' educational problems deserve study as well. But the biggest problem facing America in the coming years isn't going to be about who gets into what top college. It'll be about who never had the money or support to apply in the first place, and couldn't attend even if they did get in. And unfortunately, this underrepresented group is growing.

Do Colleges Favor Male Applicants? [NPR]
Women Push Back [Edmonton Sun]

Related: To All The Girls I've Rejected [NYT]

According to Edison Bernardo DeSouza of Brazzil Magazine, on October 22, tourism student Geisy Arruda showed up to class at Uniban, near Sao Paulo, wearing a pink minidress and "heavy makeup," which apparently prompted her fellow students to go completely insane. Two hundred of them gathered outside her classroom to gawk at her, and when she left to go to the bathroom, men followed, physically fighting with her and trying to take cell phone pictures between her legs. A professor then tried to hide her in another classroom, but 700 students massed outside, shouting, "Let her out Professor, we want to rape her." As she finally left, escorted by police, some students took videos, including the one above, where you can hear chants of "puta" or "whore."

Uniban chose to respond to the situation by expelling Arruda. And rather than doing so by contacting her directly, the university decided to take out an ad in Sao Paulo newspapers Sunday titled "Educational Responsibility - Education Is Made With Attitude Not Complacency," explaining that it was kicking out Arruda because her dress and actions provoked "a collective reaction in defense of the school environment." Uniban's lawyer Josias de Souza helpfully added that Arruda was responsible for her harassment, explaining, "she always liked to provoke boys, the problem was not with her clothes, but the way she acts, talks, crosses her legs, and walks."

Arruda says she was initially told she'd be allowed to return to class with a security escort, and she's rightly outraged at how Uniban has handled the attacks on her. "I was the victim," she says. "How can I be expelled? It's absurd." From the outside, the whole situation does seem absurd, and not in any sort of amusing way. Reuters quotes an online commenter who says the hysteria over a mere miniskirt was "pure hypocrisy ... Once February and the Carnival comes round everyone will be naked and no one will find it abnormal." The Toronto Star points out that "although Brazil is known for its skimpy attire, especially in beach cities, most college students dress more modestly on campus – commonly in jeans and T-shirts." Indeed, most of the students in the video above appear to be dressed in jeans, but that doesn't give them the right to attack Arruda or threaten her with rape. And psychologist Ana Fraiman, interviewed on a Brazilian television show, doubts whether moral outrage over Arruda's skimpy attire was even the real issue. She says,

What we saw here was a case of mass hysteria, a false moralism. This situation simply dragged the students into it because this fact was probably more interesting than the classes they were taking.

Since Uniban is apparently one of the worst universities in Brazil, this last statement sounds pretty apt. A clearer dress code, as recommended by Minister Nilcéa Freire of Brazil's Special Secretariat of Policies for Women, might make future incidents less likely, but even that is debatable — Arruda didn't cause her harassment and assault with her short dress any more than rape victims provoke their rapists with sexy clothes. Rather, she appears to have been at the center of a deeply sexist mass hysteria, one that Uniban is only feeding by blaming her. The university should be trying to root out the prejudices and pent-up rage that caused hundreds of students to turn on their classmate — instead, they're sending the message that women who wear short skirts deserve to be called "whores." Perhaps now that the international press is paying attention, Uniban will change its tune, but it's going to take a lot more than a dress code or security escort to make the campus truly safe for Arruda, or for any woman.

Miniskirt In Brazil School Results In Riot, Expulsion And Federal Action [Brazzil Magazine]
Brazil Student Expelled After Row Over Short Dress [Reuters]
Brazil Student Expelled After Wearing Mini-Dress [AP, via MSNBC]

Kristy and Katie started out at Marietta College in Ohio , N.R. Kleinfeld of the Times tells us, but transferred to Rutgers' Newark campus during their junior year. They hoped to obtain journalism jobs in New York City after graduating in May or 2008, but the job market has made that virtually impossible, and the twins are now in the same position as many of their peers; straddled with thousands of dollars in student loans and a degree that isn't taking them where they'd hoped it would.

Kristy currently makes $800 dollars a week as a bartender. Katie, on the other hand, was fired from her bartending job "after landing in Cancun to begin a vacation. Her boss said she played the music too loud." Times commenters, reading the piece, seemingly wanted to fire her from this article for taking a vacation in the midst of what is played up to be the job search of her life, which I suppose is a somewhat fair argument.

At one point, Kleinfeld notes that "their dream is to work together in sports reporting or have a TV show, but they are flexible. They talk of teaching piano, or inventing, say, a lipstick-case microphone." The first time I read this, I laughed, hard. The second time I read it, I rolled my eyes. The third time I read it, I just sighed and felt a bit sad. It's not bad to have dreams, mind you, but these women are 24 years old, and the lack of reality in their grand plan strikes me as a bit tragic. Not only because it seems like their family is somewhat rooting for them to fail and come home to Ohio, but because, in many ways, they represent the lack of preparedness that many students have upon leaving college and striking out on their own for the first time.

There should be a required course for everyone during senior year of college called "Nobody Owes You Anything," wherein your professor informs you that the economy is terrible, the job market sucks, and your degree is no longer an instant ticket to a dream job. The course should also force students to come up with a backup plan (or several) should they find themselves in a position where they have to make ends meet while waiting for their big break to arrive. The Barry twins are trying to do this on their own, and while the article makes them sound enthusiastic and creative (Katie plays her sax in Times Square for business cards), they don't come across as terribly well-prepared. "I need a life coach to come in and tell me what I'm doing wrong," Katie admits.

And so the Times leaves us with this tale of two suburban girls, still struggling to find their way, paying nearly $3,000 a month in rent (along with their brother and his roommate), drinking Starbucks at every turn, and trying to figure out how to make it in the big city. It's a piece that pokes a little fun at everyone who watched a romantic comedy about makin' it in the big city and believed every word of it. It should be good for a few laughs, at least, but in the end, the reality of it kicks in, and suddenly it doesn't seem so funny after all.

Jobs Wanted, Any Jobs At All [New York Times]

The film, which aired on PBS last night, stars Rocky Otoo, 17, who lives in the Bronx with her mother. Her mom works in a beauty supply store and is known as Auntie Yaa. Although Rocky's a stellar student who edited her school's newspaper, starred in its musical, played basketball and has a full college scholarship, her mother thinks she's insolent and insufficiently respectful. Rocky thinks her mother is old-world and doesn't understand her.


Her father, meanwhile, has returned to Ghana to take over the chiefdom of his community. Rocky looks forward to staying with him, because she feels her father understands her better.
However, she soon clashes with her father, too, and feels out of place. It takes her a while to begin to feel at home; when she does, she begins to understand her mother a little more.


Once home, Rocky starts at a picture-perfect college that's as white as they come. (Dickinson.) She's the first person in her family to go to college, and her parting with her mom is emotional. The culture clash between her mother and the well-intentioned college orientation woman is kind of painful.

And yes, Rocky's roommate is fascinated by her hair. Which she touches.


By the time Rocky comes home for vacation, she and her mother seem to have come to an understanding. In the two years since the film was made, Rocky has apparently thrived: she's become a women's and gender studies major, is an officer of the African American Society, on the step team, and a regular contributor to a campus feminist magazine. In other words: the kids are alright. The entire film, by the way, is now online.

Related: Bronx Princess [PBS]
Full Description [PBS]
Film Update [PBS]

Writing in an oddly-conceived edition of the London Times Higher Education Supplement, titled "The seven deadly sins of the academy," Kealey (vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and author of Sex, Science and Profits) takes the topic of lust. He writes that "lust between male scholars and female acolytes" is inevitable and that "the fault lies with the females." He continues,

The myth is that an affair between a student and her academic lover represents an abuse of his power. What power? Thanks to the accountability imposed by the Quality Assurance Agency and other intrusive bodies, the days are gone when a scholar could trade sex for upgrades. I know of two girls who, in 1982, got firsts in biochemistry from a south-coast university in exchange for favours to a professor, but I know of no later scandals.

It's a little hard to parse Kealey's logic here — does he mean that girls bear the responsibility for relationships with their professors because they have all the power? The power to report an inappropriate relationship to the authorities? The power of their youth and hotness? The power of their sheer desire? Because, at least according to Kealey, oh how those girls want their professors. His evidence: Tom Wolfe. He writes,

[G]irls fantasise. This was encapsulated by Beverly in Tom Wolfe's novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, who forces herself on to JoJo, the campus sports star, with the explanation that "all girls want sex with heroes". On an English campus, academics can be heroes.

So what are the beleaguered heroes to do in the face of such all-consuming female lust, so undeniable that it appears even in a novel by a man? Resist, sort of. Kealey says,

[M]ost male lecturers know that, most years, there will be a girl in class who flashes her admiration and who asks for advice on her essays. What to do?

Enjoy her! She's a perk. She doesn't yet know that you are only Casaubon to her Dorothea, Howard Kirk to her Felicity Phee, and she will flaunt you her curves. Which you should admire daily to spice up your sex, nightly, with the wife.

It's nice that Kealey advises his readers not to actually have sex with their students. And I wouldn't expect male professors to totally avert their eyes from attractive girls in their classes. But I'm not convinced either that these girls are wielding awesome power, or that their behavior stems from their professors' "heroic" status. Sometimes flirting with the professor — or anyone in authority — can be a cry for attention. And sometimes young people who cry out for sexual attention actually need another kind, from a trustworthy mentor who can help them develop an internal sense of self-worth. Let's hope that the female students Kealey has "enjoyed" over the years got this kind of attention from someone else.

The Seven Deadly Sins Of The Academy [Times Higher Education Supplement]

Can I just say: I hate posting calories in any context. I hated it when they started posting them in New York's chain restaurants and I really hate that now colleges are apparently doing it. As someone without an eating disorder, seeing the calorie counts instantly makes eating into something clinical and strips it of some of its pleasure - so I can only imagine the effect it could have on someone whose attitude towards food was already disordered. I am evangelically of the opinion that in order to eat right, we need to take the morality out of food. It's not sinful, it's not wicked, and it's not bad. Food is a pleasure and we need to treat it as such - not as an enemy.

Rant over, I get why states - and now colleges - do it. People will make "smarter," more informed choices, goes the thinking. Those who didn't know that a doughnut was bad for you - or that (as we're always told) said doughnut has fewer calories than an enormous bagel with cream cheese - might take note. But I suspect, going by my own experiences, that a lot of people will still buy that bagel - and just feel worse about it.

College students, as we know, are already vulnerable. Young women are particularly suceptible to the pressures that lead to disordered eating, and young men fall prey to the same forces. As Newsweek tells us, the issues may not be as clear-cut as in the past, but they're still very serious.

Dr. Richard Kreipe, a specialist in adolescent medicine whose research centers on eating disorders, says that while he has seen fewer cases of classic eating disorders like restrictive anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa in the past several years, the number of patients with eating disorders not otherwise specified (EDNOS) has "almost doubled" nationally in the midst of America's obesity epidemic...Since 2000, the number of college students dieting, vomiting, or taking laxatives to lose weight has jumped from about 28 to 38 percent, according to the American College Health Association's annual surveys. Well-balanced caloric intake, with regular meals and physical activity-not dieting-is the best way to avoid obesity, says Kreipe, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center. That's why, in his view, calorie information doesn't benefit students. "Nutrition is not a simple thing that can be distilled down into a label," he says. "There's a tendency for people to overinterpret what a specific number means."

The problem, as ever, is that the focus still seems to be on "weight," rather than "health." Take the Freshman 15, which has always been treated as a hackneyed bad-uncle joke, but when weight is the scariest thing in the world, it becomes sinister. It arises, the article claims, from the "loss of structure" that college students experience; junk food, beer, anxiety, beer, dining hall portions and beer can also contribute. Living with other people can make young people self-conscious and, in some cases, fear of the fabled freshman weight gain may push vulnerable students to the other extreme.

The piece makes a very important point: this weight gain and disordered eating are by no means mutually exclusive - indeed, they're increasingly common partners.

"People are concerned about the fat kids being fat and the thin kids having anorexia...But people aren't concerned about the disordered eating among the overweight kids." For under- and overweight people alike, eating disorders can lead to a host of health issues, including electrolyte imbalances, fertility problems, impaired brain development, bone loss, and, in severe cases, death. The study also showed that disordered eating behavior leads to further weight gain over time.

Experts in the article suggest alternatives, like nutrient density scores, that would "distinguish between items like a Coke, which is high in calories but low in nutrients, and avocado, which is rich in both calories and nutrients." My question is: why do they have the Coke at all? I'm not suggesting that cafeterias need to be macrobiotic, but it's not a college's responsibility to provide junk food for students - especially when it's invariably available at vending machines and bookstores elsewhere on campus. Penn State has "healthy dining halls" and one of Yale's colleges, (her daughter's) has been taken on by Alice Waters as a bastion of mass-slow-food. But shouldn't this be the rule, rather than the exception? Not to play the ugly American card, but it's absolutely true that European dining halls don't carry the same variety of junk - and certainly don't provide calorie counts. I understand that colleges walk a constantly-shifting line between guidance and hands-off supervision, and that calorie counting probably seems like a small, harmless way to make a difference. But I'm guessing, especially in this population, the negative effects will outweigh the poisitives - and it's a trigger that can easily be avoided. And, at the end of the day, at least in my experience, anyone who loves food is going to do everything she can to avoid eating cafeteria food anyway - and that's something they should be able to fix.

Rethinking The Freshman 15 [Newsweek]

Friedman writes,

At about this time every year, adult anxiety about sexual assault reaches a tipping point and gives way to an avalanche of advice to young women from campuses, commentators, and parents alike: Don't hook up! Don't dress provocatively! Watch your drink! Actually, don't drink at all! Always stay with a friend! Don't stay out too late! Don't walk home alone! Etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam.

And every year, it fails to work. A 2007 Department of Justice-funded trend analysis of rape studies over time revealed that rates of rape haven't declined in the past 15 years — in fact, they may be increasing.

Even though I know that, for my own safety, I need to be aware of the potential threat of assault, it frustrates me that managing the threat is so often treated as women's responsibility. Though I found The Gift of Fear's tips on avoiding assault and stalking useful, I didn't like the implication that it was women's job to keep themselves safe from the inevitable threat of men. Many take the pragmatic view that rape is endemic and women should just accept the curtailment in their lives that's necessary for self-defense. But the older I get, the more jealous I am of men's freedom to walk around by themselves at night, and I think I can protect myself while also acknowledging that I shouldn't have to.

The fall that I entered graduate school, a number of women were groped on the street late at night. The gropings grew in frequency until finally a woman was attacked by a stranger who broke into her apartment. The police eventually arrested someone in conjunction with one of the incidents; all the other cases are still open. Instead of hearing about more arrests, we heard that most of the women groped have been wearing skirts, and that the assaults would likely die down in the wintertime when girls covered up and the nights dipped below freezing.

I found this link with the weather rather telling. Too often, we're asked to accept sexual assault as though it's an act of God, something that just happens, like rain. It's our job to carry an umbrella to avoid getting wet. But rape and other forms of assault are acts of men (and sometimes women), and we should be trying harder to stop them at the source. Friedman offers the following suggestions:

Schools would stop telling girls to mind their liquor so they don't "get themselves" raped and start teaching young men that alcohol is never an excuse to "get away" with anything. They would offer bystander training, so that all students on campus know what it looks like when someone's sexual boundaries are being violated and what to do if they see that happening. They would teach students that the only real consent is the kind that's freely and enthusiastically given, removing the "she didn't exactly say no" excuse that too many rapists hide behind. And their campus policies would support prevention, recovery, and justice, not dismissiveness, victim-blaming, and denial.

Ending sexual assault still seems like a pie-in-the-sky idea, even to me. I'll admit that the first time I saw "Stop Rape" graffitied in an alleyway in my college town, I let out a bitter laugh. But maybe I'd feel less like that if the schools I went to had been better at "taking responsibility for rape prevention off of the potential victims and placing it where it belongs — with the potential perpetrators and with the adults and institutions whose job it is to keep young people safe." And maybe if colleges — and everyone responsible for teaching young people — followed Friedman's suggestions, then the women who come after me won't have to live in fear.

Combating The Campus Rape Crisis [The American Prospect]

Earlier: The Gift Of Fear: How To Prevent Another Gym Rampage

In Sunday's NY Times Magazine Kirn writes,

The reason that most thinking Americans consent to our modern procedures for advancement (and the reason some seek to correct their "cultural biases," in the words of Sotomayor, with policies like affirmative action) is that we esteem the ideal on which they're based, namely that of equal opportunity. [...] From the first time I raised my hand in kindergarten, eager to prove that I'd memorized my alphabet, to the day I sat down with three sharpened No. 2 pencils to demonstrate my mastery of analogies on the SAT, I held it as self-evident that being created equal was just Step 1 in the process of proving myself somewhat superior. I eagerly gave myself over to this program, because I believed that its principles were just and that any benefits it conferred on me would be deemed legitimate by all, and especially the students I'd surpassed.

Here he handily encapsulates the prevailing middle-class liberal attitude toward meritocracy — the secretly but deeply held idea that some people are always better than others, and what's important is finding a "fair" way of determining who's the best. As Kirn points out, the SAT certainly isn't it — the test would have ranked him above Sotomayor, even though she graduated from Princeton with the highest honors while he spent his time there practicing "shoddy, pretentious dodges."

The "cultural biases" Sotomayor mentions are well-documented. Black students, for instance, have historically performed worse on the SAT than white students, perhaps due to entrenched negative stereotypes about black achievement. A disturbing graphic related to this gap went up yesterday at Sociological Images (Gawker found it last year). The graph purports to show which books "make you dumb," by correlating favorite books listed by university students on Facebook with the average SAT scores of their universities. At the high end of the graph — books that purportedly make you smart — are Lolita, A Hundred Years of Solitude, and Crime and Punishment. At the low end are the Bible, Fahrenheit 451 (reading books about burning books make you dumber?) — and The Color Purple, True to the Game, Flyy Girl, The Coldest Winter Ever, and Their Eyes Were Watching God, all by black writers. The graph's methods are totally unscientific, and the readers of the books aren't differentiated by race, but "Books That Make You Dumb" does offer a crude graphical representation of a possible bias in the SAT: people who like books by black writers, whether these books are classics like The Color Purple or more contemporary "urban fiction," seem to do less well on the test.

This supports the notion that the SATs don't really test one's "aptitude" (which Kirn defines as "some quotient of promise and raw mental agility thought to be crucial to academic success and, by extension, success in general"), but rather one's comfort level with a certain dominant (read: white) culture. One solution to this is affirmative action, or, as Kirn states more broadly, periodicially "amending" our "systems that seek to rank human beings according to "merit.'" But maybe the problem is that we have such systems at all. Obviously not everyone should be a judge or a firefighter, and we need some way of making sure people are good at their jobs before we give them power over others' life and liberty. But do we really need a way of determining beforehand who will be good at the job of being a college student? Does our current admissions system, in which the best schools try to pick the best students, before most of them have even taken a college class, really make sense? What would happen if everyone got the same college education?

Of course, educational inequalities start long before college. My brother and I both graduated from the Los Angeles Unified School District, one of the most problem-plagued in the country, but we both got IQ tested at an early age (I was five) so that we could attend well-regarded "magnet" schools. I loved the schools I went to, and I've always assumed that I escaped a lot of nerd-shaming by being in classes with other nerds. But I also (and I'm far from alone in this) suspect that the schools I went to perpetuated existing class and race divisions in LA, and that kids in general might be better off if magnets didn't exist.

Segregating students by ability or by aptitude, at any level, not only presumes that it's possible to perform the segregation fairly, but that there is a reason to do it. Some people argue that the reason is to challenge smart students who might otherwise get bored and not achieve their potential, and this argument has a certain amount of value. But another argument, less often openly articulated but perhaps even more broadly believed, says that good education is a scarce resource, and that we should allocate it to "good" students — because they may make better use of it, but also because they may in some way deserve it more, as Kirn once believed he did. No one deserves better education than anyone else, though, and our methods for determining who will use their education the best are deeply flawed. Isn't it time not only to question how we're testing kids for "merit," but why we're testing them for this at all?

Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Aptitude [NYT]
"Dumb" Vs. "Smart" Books [Sociological Images]

Earlier: These Books Will Make You Dumb [Gawker]

Stephen P. Morgan, 29, who is suspected of killing Wesleyan student Johanna Justin-Jinich (left), turned himself into police at a Cumberland Farms convenience store in Meriden, Connecticut, about 10 miles from the campus, according to MSNBC. A little after 9 p.m. last night, Morgan came into the store and scanned the newspapers, which had his face on the cover. He asked the clerk, Sonia Rodriguez, who didn't recognize him, to call the police. Morgan walked outside to wait for the police and Rodriguez didn't realize anything was wrong until police officers threw Morgan to the ground and arrested him. He is being held on $10 million bond and is due in court this morning.

Justin-Jinich had filed a harassment complaint against Morgan in 2007 while they were both taking a summer course at New York University called Sexual Diversity in Society, reports the New York Times. She notified the university that he was calling and emailing her repeatedly and the school notified the police. The police report says he sent 38 harassing e-mails that were "insulting" and "unwanted." In one he told her, "You're going to have a lot more problems down the road if you can't take any fucking criticism, Johanna." She did not press charges, and Morgan left town. Police are trying to find out if they knew each other in Colorado, as they are both from the state.

In a creepy detail, it turns out that, immediately after the shooting on Thursday, police talked to Morgan and took his contact information but didn't realize they were talking to the suspect until hours later when Justin-Jinich's family mentioned his name. The assailant had entered the bookstore where Justin-Jinich was working, put on a wig, and shot her seven times. Sources told MSNBC that the shooter used a pulley system like a dumbwaiter to get from the main floor to the basement of the bookstore, where he dropped his wig and gun. He then milled around with students as police arrived and then walked away, leaving his car in the parking lot. It's not clear if he stayed to watch reactions to the crime, or if his car was blocked in by emergency vehicles. In the car, police found Morgan's journal and laptop; in the journal, he wrote about a plot to rape and kill Justin-Jinich and then go on a shooting spree on the Wesleyan campus, possibly targeting Jewish students.

Greg Morgan, the suspect's brother, said he had not shown signs of anti-Semitism in the past, and police say they don't think Morgan was part of a larger anti-Semitic group. Morgan has no criminal history and his family said they were "shocked and sickened" by the murder. His sister Diana Morgan issued a statement before his surrender saying, "Turn yourself in right now to avoid any law enforcement agency, wherever you are, to avoid any further bloodshed. We love you, we will support you in every way, and we don't want anyone else to get hurt."

Although Justin-Jinich grew up in a Jewish family and her grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, she identified as an agnostic. She attended the Westtown School, a Quaker boarding school in Pennsylvania before enrolling at Wesleyan, where she was a double major in Iberian studies and an interdisciplinary major in history, philosophy and literature. "She was just a wonderful kid, very smart, very loving," said her former stepmother, Karin Radcliffe.

Police Arrest Suspect In Conn. University Slaying [MSNBC]
Lives Of Student And Her Stalker Collide On Wesleyan Campus [New York Times]

Earlier: Women's Rights Advocate Murdered At Wesleyan

At around 1 p.m, Justin-Jinich, a Wesleyan junior, was working at a cafe inside Broad Street Books in Middletown, Connecticut, when a man wearing a long wig came in and shot her five times, reports the Los Angeles Times. Justin-Jinich of Timnath, Colorado, was pronounced dead at the hospital and police have identified the suspect as 29-year-old Stephen Morgan, who they say has no known connection to the university. A surveillance photo of the shooter taken inside the bookstore was released, and police say he is still armed and dangerous.

Several people witnessed the murder and police found a wig and weapon used by the gunman. The New York Daily News is reporting that Morgan was Justin-Jinich's ex-boyfriend, and that he used the disguise to get close enough to shoot her. However, police won't confirm the two had a relationship, or that the gun found was the murder weapon.

After the shooting, a SWAT team practicing nearby quickly closed off the downtown area and the Wesleyan campus was locked down, according to the Hartford Courant. In an email sent by the university at 5 p.m., students were told that they should "return to their normal activities" as the gunman was most likely not on the Wesleyan campus, reports the student newspaper The Wesleyan Argus. Many students assumed the suspect had been caught, and people were seen roaming the campus. Two hours later, though, students received emails and voice messages saying they should stay inside for the rest of the evening and cancel large gatherings, including a candlelight vigil the students had planned to remember the slain student. Authorities said they had uncovered evidence that "heightened our level of concern" but didn't say what the evidence was. This morning, police said they believe that Morgan is still in the area. The university has advised students to stay in their dorms and told staff to stay home today. Classes were already cancelled because it's a "reading day" to prepare for final exams.

Friends described Justin-Jinich as witty, smart, and popular and told the Courant that her passions included writing, her work in public health, and women's issues. She had volunteered at various Planned Parenthood offices in Colorado and Connecticut and had a summer internship lined up on Capitol Hill with a women's organization.

Justin-Jinich's friend Leah Lucid, who has known her since freshmen year and was planning to room with her next year, said she had been up past midnight talking in her dorm room the night before. "She's a really loyal friend; a really loving, passionate person about life and about her friends and family," Lucid said. "She was the most giving and loving person I have ever known. I'll remember her loyalty and her warm smile whenever I saw her and her very funny voices she would make with me."

College Student Gunned Down [The Los Angeles Times]
Wesleyan: Alleged Shooter Stephen Morgan Still In The Area [The Hartford Courant]
Suspect Identified In University Shooting [The Wesleyan Argus]
Student Shot And Killed Near Wesleyan University; Gunman At Large [The Hartford Courant]
Student Slain On Wesleyan Campus; Armed And Dangerous Suspect On Loose [The New York Daily News]

While there is nothing wrong with enjoying a little Twilight or Harry Potter here and there, Ron Charles argues that this is all college students are reading. Instead of reaching for well-thumbed copies of Sylvia Plath or Allen Ginsberg, our nations undergrads are buying "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" or even worse, Tucker Max's terrifyingly popular "book" "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell".

This latest iteration of the old "kids today!" gripe is mostly based on anecdotal evidence, but Charles does have some numbers to back up his claims. Charles relies on data from the Chronicle of Higher Education about the best selling books on college campuses, which are "mostly about hunky vampires or Barack Obama." He connects this trend to the recent upswing in conservative students:

A new survey of the attitudes of American college students published by the University of California at Los Angeles found that two-thirds of freshmen identify themselves as "middle of the road" or "conservative." Such people aren't likely to stay up late at night arguing about Mary Daly's "Gyn/Ecology" or even Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

According to Charles, the decline of card-carrying liberals has led to a generation of "vampire-loving boneheads" (because being politically moderate and enjoying Stephanie Meyer automatically makes someone an idiot). It seems that even literature students are rejecting Melville in favor of escapist fantasy. Professor Eric Williamson says, "There is nary a student in the classroom — and this goes for English majors, too — who wouldn't pronounce Stephen King a better author than Donald Barthelme or William Vollmann."

Full disclosure: I am currently an undergrad, working toward my BA in American Literature, and I am not entirely unfamiliar with the situation described by Charles. His fears that students are no longer getting their politics from contemporary books may very well may be true. However, like Mike Connery, writer for Future Majority, I'm not sure that this means students are entirely rejecting either great books or progressive politics. Connery says: "I don't know that there is a fiction writer out there right now who speaks to this generation's political ambitions. We're still waiting for our Kerouac." Could it be that there just hasn't been a great novel that speaks to our generation in the way that Hemingway and Kerouac once spoke to theirs? I certainly hope that this is the case, because if it turns out that Tucker Max is the true voice of America's youth, then we might as well give up and wait for the coming apocalypse.

On Campus, Vampires Are Besting The Beats [Washington Post]

Related: Students Pretty Much Expect B's For Breathing, Twilight's Stephanie Meyer Admits Her Writing Sorta Sucks

Times writer Max Roosevelt reports on a recent UC Irvine study, which shows that a third of the students think they deserve a B just for going to class, while 40% think they should get one for doing the reading. Vanderbilt University dean James Hogge says, "Students often confuse the level of effort with the quality of work. There is a mentality in students that 'if I work hard, I deserve a high grade.'" University of Maryland senior Jason Greenwood basically says exactly that:

"I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade," Mr. Greenwood said. "What else is there really than the effort that you put in?"

"If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?" he added. "If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher's mind, then something is wrong."

It's hard not to yell, "um, what about learning??" at this kid, which is pretty much what Michelle Cottle of The New Republic does in her blog post on the Times piece. "Not to state the obvious," she says, "but I don't want a brain surgeon who graduated at the top of his class because he had perfect attendance. I want one who is an artist with a scalpel."

Us too! But are kids' unrealistic expectations solely the result of what Cottle calls "all those well-intentioned self-esteem-boosting messages that anxious parents, educators, and coaches feel compelled to spout in this era of making every child feel like a winner all the time"? Or are we being too hard on kids as well as too soft on them? Sure, too much self-esteem boosting can make someone overconfident and lazy, but too much emphasis on grades can make them — well, obsessed with grades. The UCI study author gestures toward this conclusion, pointing out "a heightened sense of achievement anxiety" among today's students. Maybe if getting a C wasn't so unacceptable (and if you had or knew competitive parents in high school, you've heard the "how will you get into a good college now?" rant), kids wouldn't demand a B just for showing up. Maybe if we taught them that grades were a reflection of learning, rather than just a means to an end, they'd concentrate on their scalpel technique instead of the letters on their transcripts.

Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes[NYT]
An A for Effort? Talk About a Lousy Idea [The New Republic]

According to Time, Jack asked Obama — then an undergrad at Occidental — to sit for some photographs for her portfolio, which she dug out. She mostly remembers thinking he was pretty cute — and, really, who among us doesn't? — but little else about the shoot. To help job her memory, we channeled the collegiate Obama for what he was really thinking.

You'd have told him no matter what cheezy pick-up line he was using.

Guys like that always know you think they're hot.

And they always think that means you want them. Sometimes it's even true.

Obama was nothing if not prescient. He owes a debt of gratitude to Clinton and Bush for making it acceptable to have gotten high and run for President.

I can't say I'm mad Michelle made him quit.

Damn strategic shadows.

A little ice will help!

I think I'd have to see both in order to decide.

Oh, I think we're about done here.

Obama: The College Years [Time]

Earlier: Obama — Not You — Is The Person Of The Year