Tentatively Agreeing With PETA in Their Argument With Wash U

The RFT reported on an argument between PETA and Washington University over the fact that Wash U is one of the few schools that still uses live cats and ferrets for their training with incubation tubes. The argument seems to be over whether the use of live animals is important for this training, with both sides offering different opinions, but I have some reasons for thinking PETA is probably right on this. Namely, I'm very skeptical that the American Heart Association would specifically state that they don't "endorse" the procedure and many other schools would choose not to use it if they really thought that it was a crucial component of training. The dominant mindset in much of society is that it's OK to use most non-human animals merely as a means to our ends, so it seems to me very unlikely that these other institutions would be willing to put their reputation at risk by doing something that impaired their training and potentially harmed babies.

Doing animal experimentation that benefits human health and well-being is a tricky ethical question,in my opinion, but using animals for training in a way that doesn't even improve human life is definitely a mistake.

Washington University Warned International Students Not To Participate in Occupy

A friend sent me this link of a message sent to international students at Washington Unviersity about the Occupy movement:

The Occupy Protests and Illegal Activities: Implications for International Students

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in September have since spread throughout the United States and around the world. St. Louis even has a small Occupy movement centered around Kiener Plaza, with support coming from students from local campuses, including Washington University. The Occupy protests, both here in St. Louis and elsewhere, have mostly complied with local laws and ordinances. However, the number of arrests for Occupy-related crimes has increased in recent weeks as local governments and police agencies seek to enforce laws and, in many cases, quell the protests.

The Occupy protests may appeal to students for several reasons. It may be that the goals of the movement resonate with students. On the other hand, students may view the movement with curiosity. Students may even see the protests as a way to experience the American political process firsthand. In our view, however, the decision to participate in the Occupy Protests must not be taken lightly.

In order to participate, one must accept the possibility of arrest. Even in St. Louis, Occupy Protest-related arrests have been made. Arrests can have severe consequences for American students. However, international students face an even greater level of risk. International students who are arrested may face long term immigration consequences, including the loss of immigration status and even deportation, depending on the circumstances.

And, with news coverage of the Occupy Protests being broadcast around the world in a 24-7 newscycle and on the internet, an international student may face problems back home. Governments, and even perspective employers, may access information from online sources regarding activites that would viewed negatively in the home country. For example, background checks increasingly rely on information from online sources.

For more information on visa regulations and the consequences of an arrest, please consult an advisor in the OISS.

Now, the letter makes some valid points and I don't think this message was intended to be threatening for the sake of shutting down political opinions, but it does seem to me to strongly discourage international students from participating and to do so in a way that doesn't really make clear what things would and would not be problematic. Obviously, getting arrested is a problem for people here on a visa. However, there could be ways of participating that don't, as the letter claims, carry, "the possibility of arrest."

I've noticed first-hand that a lot of international students were pretty disturbed by this letter, and have been especially afraid of getting involved in any sort of political activity (specifically citing the letter as a reason). This seems like a real shame for academia, a place that is supposed to encourage free thinking.

Wash U's Decision Not to Pay Bristol Palin $20,000 To Speak About Abstinence Looking Better All The Time

Remember when Washington University was going to pay Bristol Palin $20,000 to speak as an "abstinence expert" but eventually rescinded the offer after justified outrage from the students about spending huge amounts of money on someone who's only expertise was getting pregnant and being famous? And then remember how Dana Loesch and other conservatives freaked out about the fact that the Wash U student body made their own decisions about how they spent their money? Yeah, well it now seems like it was a pretty good call by the student government:

Sarah Palin is going to be a grandmother again. Eldest child Track Palin married high school sweetheart Britta Hanson two months ago, and now we hear that Britta is pregnant. The picture above of "Britta Pie," which was posted on a Wasilla friend's Facebook wall, confirms the news she's expecting. Britta looks to be several months along—perhaps more than two months?

...given the timing of Britta's pregnancy, the happy couple may want to tell Sarah Palin to shut up the next time she champions abstinence-only education or Bristol sermonizes against extramarital sex, lest the conception of another Palin grandchild and the rationale behind another well-publicized Palin marriage fall into question.

The couple had a small ceremony in May, and is planning on a larger one in the winter.

Now I don't really care about the Palins' personal lives and don't see any reason to criticize Track or his wife or do anything but wish them the best. However, I do think this is pretty good evidence that paying $20,000 to Bristol for a lecture on the Magic of Abstinence Education would have been a pretty embarrassing ordeal.

John Burns: Not Giving Bristol Palin $20,000 is Exactly Like Segregation

The tea party narrative of victimization is reaching new, unprecedented heights. If you recall, John Burns of American Majority and the St. Louis Tea Party tried to disrupt the free speech of LGBT activists, was involved in James O'Keefe's plot to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter on secret camera, and led a campaign against public transportation based on incessant lies that ended with a ridiculous publicity stunt where they claimed that the Mayor of Chesterfield was "harassing" them.

Burns also has a bizarre obsession with Washington University. He, along with James O'Keefe and Joseph Basel, secretly videotaped Washington University employees and then selectively edited the tapes to try (and fail) to convince people that the campus has an agenda against conservatives. He then accused the university of "malicious, retaliatory action" when the university asked his group to pay for the cleanup of hammer and sickle graffiti they sprayed around the campus as part of their gulag display. In paranoid rantings, he claimed that college administrators have "Stockholm syndrome" and that conservatives on campus have to be prepared for the university to come after them with "guns and night sticks and handcuffs..authorized to do violence against you." Considering his obsession with the belief that conservative free speech is somehow being oppressed it's also quite ironic that he has stated that one of the goals of the tea party is to purge all liberals from academia.

Anyway, since Dana Loesch has been made editor of Big Journalism, she uses the site as an opportunity to dole out Andrew Breitbart's money to her friends, no matter how disreputable those friends are. Enter John Burns. Burns, in an absurd rant, claimed that the decision by students at Washington University to not pay Bristol Palin $19,000 is exactly like the violent repression against African Americans that took place during the civil rights movement. Interspersing his Big Journalism post with photos from the civil rights movement, here's what Burns had to say:

So the message is, “Don’t bother coming, Bristol, or we’ll shout you down and riot because WE DON’T WANT YOU HERE!” This seems eerily similar to Southern intimidation and oppression of blacks during attempts to desegregate. It’s reminiscent of a scene from Forrest Gump, where a young black girl is harassed by a young white student and knocks her books out of her hands.

He continues:

Let’s not kid ourselves, here. what has transpired at Wash U is nothing short of bigotry and hate. These students weren’t protesting Bristol because she’s some evil mass murderer. No, they’re protesting her because they hate her. Yes. Hate. They hate everything Bristol represents, and they hate the fact that proponents of abstinence and others that share Bristol’s family-oriented culture suddenly have a beautiful, popular advocate – who can dance! They hate the fact that she makes being a goody goody look attractive and desirable.

It's pretty amazing how idiotic Burns' assessment is, though it is entirely in keeping with his paranoid hatred of academia. The issue with Bristol was, from the beginning, the belief on the part of the students that (1) there was nothing to indicate that she was qualified to speak on the subject of abstinence to a college audience and (2) she certainly wasn't worth the $15,000+ that she was going to be paid. I can say unequivocally that students, and particularly liberal students, disliked Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales far more than they disliked Bristol Palin. In fact, I doubt most students actually dislike her. But there's a reason that Bristol was disinvited and Rove and Gonzales weren't: and that is that it's obvious to any clear-thinking person that she's not qualified to speak to a college audience about this issue. In fact, I've heard from multiple students that the College Republicans were opposed to paying Bristol Palin that much money to speak.

Burns also, as I predicted yesterday on Twitter, broke out the absurd conservative talking point: ZOMG, it was originally reported that Bristol would get $20,000 but it's actually less money!!!!! Actually, it sounds like it was $19,000, since the cost of the other panelists is less than $1,000. From the student newspaper:

On Tuesday evening, Treasury voted to approve SHAC’s $20,000 appeal to bring in Palin and the three other members of the panel.

According to SU VP of Finance Eliot Walker, SHAC will now have to return the $20,000 and resubmit an appeal to fund the new panel. If the group’s new appeal is less than $1000, as Walker said is expected, SHAC can take its request straight to Walker for approval, as opposed to going through another round of a Treasury vote.

So yeah. Only $19,000 from Bristol as opposed to $20,000, while the other three speakers cost a maximum of $1,000 combined. Great argument there.

Burns also falsely reported that Van Jones was paid $20,000. First of all, Van Jones is actually an expert in his field and is an amazing speaker. But second, Burns is completely wrong as usual. Jones's usual speaking fee is $20,000, but the Student Union Treasury only allocated $5,000 for his talk at Wash U, and refused to allocate an additional $2,500:

“The speech was only $5,000 because we were able to call in a personal favor.”

The tea party might be finding ways to propel their absurdist rhetoric to new heights, but it's comforting to see that their lack of commitment to facts remains the same.

h/t Eric Boehlert

Washington University Alums Get Award From Sierra Club

Pretty cool:

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Three current Green Corps organizers - Kady McFadden, Todd Zimmer, and Jennifer Marienau - are among a group of students from Washington University in St. Louis selected to receive a 2010 national award from the Sierra Club.

Prior to joining Green Corps this August, the three were leaders of the Washington University Climate Justice Alliance. They have been selected to receive the club’s Joseph Barbosa Award, which honors club members under the age of 30 who have a demonstrated record of service to the environment.

The group is being recognized for their efforts to make their fellow students – and the general public – aware of the hidden costs of “clean coal.” In April 2010, the students organized a nationally recognized “Great Coal Debate” that featured Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, and Fred Palmer, vice president of public relations for Peabody Energy. The debate was moderated by Bryan Walsh, environmental correspondent for TIME magazine.

Six members of the group shared their organizing efforts at a June 2010 conference sponsored by the Sierra Student Coalition.

“I have worked with hundreds of students in the U.S. youth climate movement, and these students are some of the strongest, most strategic young people that this movement has ever seen,” said Lindsey Berger, Midwest regional organizer for the Sierra Student Coalition. “They have shown more dedication, more leadership and more results in the short period I have known them than some grassroots organizers do in years of work.”

The award will be presented Sept. 25 during the Sierra Club’s Annual Dinner in San Francisco. It comes with a $500 prize that the students will use to help fund a four-day symposium they are organizing titled “Global Energy Future” that will be held at Washington University in October.

The Great Coal Debate, put on last year, was probably the best organized student activist event I've ever seen. I don't know how they possibly could have done a better job making a powerful case against the continued use of coal to a huge audience. Todd and Jennifer were friends of mine, and it's bittersweet to hear about them kicking butt in other parts of the country rather than in St. Louis, but the good news is that there's still an amazing group of environmental activists at Washington University who have great things planned for this year.

New Series: Student Activist Radio Show

Hi all. I'd like to introduce myself as Kevin Wolfe, I'm a student here in St. Louis, and a friend of Adam's and often collaborate with him on various issues related to politics and the media.

Adam and I have started a weekly radio series that focuses on student activism across the St. Louis Area, as well as developments in local, state and national politics. The show will be streaming live at University of Missouri, St. Louis radio on Sunday's from 6pm to 7pm. However we've also created a podcast version of the show via blog talk radio.

In this week's show Adam and I interview Adam Hasz from Wash U's Green Action organization about so called clean coal initiatives at Wash U. As well as environmental activism across the state of Missouri.

Listen to internet radio with STL Activist Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Video of the flash mob at Wash U:


Links mentioned during the Show:
Stop Ignoring Week of Action
Van Jones Speaking at Wash U
Missouri Student Environmental Coalition

The Great Coal Debate (Video)

A debate on the role of coal in our country's energy future between Fred Palmer, Vice President of Government Relations at Peabody, and Bruce Nilles, Director of the Beyond Coal Campaign at the Sierra Club. Moderated by Bryan Walsh of Time. The debate is scheduled to start at 5 PM


If the above stream isn't working, click here to watch the debate.

(PS I'm not filming the debate, just using the live streem from Wash U Climate Justice).