As the academic year and the “No Limits?” column draw to a close, I find myself reminiscing over the many topics covered by this column during the semester. In January, I set out to start a discussion in the Grinnell community about the financial challenges faced by the college. “No Limits?” has explored the endowment, need-blind financial aid, fundraising and alumni giving, net student revenues and rising higher education costs. While I will graduate in a few weeks and move on to the next stage of my life, Grinnell—and its financial challenges—will remain. The road ahead is filled with difficult decisions, but there are concrete objectives Grinnell can measure its progress towards.

The first order of business is increasing net student revenues (collected tuition minus financial aid). In order to preserve a need-blind admission policy and meet 100 percent of demonstrated financial need, Grinnell must attract more students that pay “sticker price.” This can be accomplished without diminishing the academic profile of incoming classes. The majority of our peer liberal arts colleges have higher percentages of full-paying students, which allows them to offer generous financial aid packages without draining other financial resources. In the near future, net student revenues should grow from its current 36 percent of the annual budget to over 40 percent (Amherst is at 43 percent). Grinnell must also reduce its discount rate (financial aid provided to students divided by collected tuition and fees) from a whopping 61 percent to the low 50s. This will alleviate annual budgetary pressure and allow Grinnell to offer comprehensive financial aid to those who need it.

Second, Grinnell must not deplete its endowment. The $1.45 billion endowment is the college’s most valuable resource and sets Grinnell apart financially from many peer institutions. The endowment must support Grinnell in perpetuity, but it will be increasingly unable to do so if it continues to fund 53 percent of the annual budget. This is problematic for two reasons: (1) It exposes the college to market vulnerabilities and, if the endowment value falls, the annual budget will disproportionately suffer; (2) It pushes the endowment toward short term, more liquid investments, which restricts its long-term growth potential. Further, our endowment receives far less in gifts than most other liberal arts colleges, constraining its growth even more. Grinnell must look to increase endowment gifts and reduce the percentage of the annual budget that is endowment-funded to around 45 percent.

Third, fundraising must improve substantially for Grinnell to remain competitive. Peer institutions dramatically out-raise Grinnell across the board, with higher rates of both total fundraising and alumni participation. The College has made significant changes to its alumni and development offices that will improve results, but Grinnell remains years away from closing its $22.2 million annual fundraising gap with Carleton. Short-term goals should be to raise $10 million annually and increase the alumni participation rate to 50 percent. Over the long-term, Grinnell must create an impetus for giving and lay the foundation for a large-scale fundraising campaign for capital improvements and program expansion.

Finally, Grinnell must manage itself prudently. It must continue to raise the college’s academic profile by recruiting talented faculty and staff and admitting high-achieving students. Efficient cost cutting is essential: higher education costs cannot rise forever and Grinnell must carefully allocate resources to core items. Most importantly, Grinnell must not shy away from challenges. Many changes will buffet higher education soon, including the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action, declining government support for Pell Grants, shifting racial and geographic population demographics and the emergence of online education. Grinnell cannot blindly defend the liberal arts model: it must lead, embrace change and adapt in order to thrive.

These issues will involve many serious tradeoffs. Sacred cows will have to be sacrificed and there will undoubtedly be resistance to change from various parts of the Grinnell community. But the fact that choices are difficult does not mean that choices do not need to be made. Strong leadership, fiscal prudence, widespread engagement and pragmatic vision will maintain and improve Grinnell’s status as a world-class institution and premier liberal arts college. We can succeed, and I hope we do.

Ishan Bhadkamkar ’13 is an intern with the Grinnell College Investment Office.

If you have read my column in the past, you know the last two weeks of school at Grinnell are weird. People write a lot of essays and study for many hours, but also seem to socialize and relax in a more intense and purposeful manner. I have a theory of why this more frenzied socializing occurs, not only because of the higher stress felt due to the increased workload and subsequent smaller pockets of time you have to socialize. It is also due in large part to the fact these last two weeks are the last moments your social group will exist exactly how it is. Summer changes things, and a new year means new living arrangements, new classes and for many, a slightly different friend group. Some Grinnellians won’t be coming back to campus in the fall at all. The chanting of a senior class year on a weekend seems to become more and more common as seniors realize along with the celebration that these are the last essays at Grinnell they are turning in, these are also the last days they will have with their friends on campus, as Grinnellians. So what to make of all this; how does one handle this increased pressure to both lay out in the sun with the people you have spent this whole year with before summer and a new year inevitably shifts things, and also hit up Burling like never before to knock out that research paper? I do not have any easy solution to this dilemma, but I do have some suggestions based off observation.

One phenomenon I have observed, as everyone on this campus has, is the reintroduction of beautiful warm weather. Is there not a more perfect capsulation of this dilemma of friendship versus schoolwork than all your friends sprawled out on blankets chatting aimlessly about life, while Burling looms in the background? The very act of hanging out with your crew is made so much easier when you guys have not only a dining hall table, or dorm room to gather in. As the weather gets warmer, the whole campus becomes your oyster. I truly believe that the amount of social activity on this campus doubles when the sun is out and it is warm enough to hang out outside. Back to the dilemma these deliciously balmy May days create. Why not both do homework and sun tan with your friends outside? This seems like an obvious answer. But at least personally, I have found that the increase in focus and effort necessary to complete lots of the work in these last two weeks of school, not to mention the increased need for a computer for writing essays, makes it hard to work on Cleveland Beach or Mac Field. Another barrier to being productive outside is the very fact that you are sitting with your friends and will most likely end up socializing. Perhaps then, the unfortunate but necessary solution for all this sun and all this work better completed inside is to just do this work inside.

When reality hits and you do end up giving in and doing this homework inside, you may give in to a phenomenon I have noticed occurring during these last two weeks: the transformation of status as social college student into casual hermit. Let’s imagine a scenario where a Grinnell student has lots of essays they don’t really want to write. This work becomes overwhelming and they don’t really know where the essays are going so they take liberal social media breaks. This leads to said individuals forcing themselves to stay in Burling until close as punishment for that hour and a half Facebook coma. Hell Week and Finals Week can wear down one’s willpower—the willpower both to stop procrastinating on Burling fourth and also to get yourself to shower and go to dinner with your friends.

But wait, these last two weeks, as I’ve said, are intense in that they are the last time your friend group will exist exactly how it is. Even if all of you all remain just as close next year, with no one graduated or abroad, it will simply be a new year and you won’t have the same inside jokes or crushes. It is extremely tempting for many, including myself, to use the increased workload and stress as an excuse to not see friends as much during the week. Yet the end of Spring Semester 2013 here at Grinnell College, the unique vibe the campus has, will never exist again. Not to be too dramatic, but remember to hang out with those people you appreciate right now, do the things you love to do here at Grinnell. Instead of scrolling Facebook alone when your brain just can’t find another JSTOR article, acknowledge that you are human and need study breaks. Take these purposefully and physically move locations from where you study to somewhere else. Get out on that loggia with music blasting, or stroll through the golf course (which is so beautiful right now) with a friend.

I overheard my girlfriend complaining about how she’s always getting UTIs to her friend on the phone. I didn’t know what she was talking about and am afraid to ask.  Is this just one of those mysterious “lady problem” things? Am I going to catch it?

- Caught or not?

Dear Caught or not,

UTI stands for urinary tract infection. It is not, however, a sexually transmitted infection. UTIs come from germs, often bacteria that get into the urethra and then the bladder. Both men and women can get UTIs; they’re simply more common in women because the urethra is shorter and closer to the anus. The symptoms of a bladder infection include: cloudy or bloody urine, which may have a foul or strong odor, low fever, pain or burning with urination and a strong need to urinate frequently. If you go to the doctor about it, they might take a urine sample to look for white blood cells, red blood cells, bacteria and to test for certain chemicals. Antibiotics are a frequently recommended treatment because there’s a risk of the infection passing to the kidneys, which can be serious. The good news is, there are several things you can do to prevent UTIs. No matter what parts you have, the best way to prevent UTIs is by keeping your genitals clean! Make sure you use the bathroom before and after sex, drink lots of fluids, and avoid clothes that will irritate your genitals (synthetic fabric, tight-fitting pants, etc). If you have a vagina, don’t douche and make sure you wipe from front to back when you use the bathroom. Stay safe!

Love,

SHIC

Dear SHIC,

I recently visited your office to buy some condoms, and was overwhelmed with the amount of choices there are! I’d like to try a variety of condoms to see which ones I like best, but my friends all have really strong opinions about certain brands that they say always break. I really want to experiment, but I’m scared of the condom breaking! What should I do?

Thanks,

Condom Cautious

Dear Cautious,

We understand, choosing the right condom for you can be a daunting task! As far as condom safety goes, though, the FDA approves all condoms that are available to consumers. No matter the brand, latex condoms that are labeled as disease preventative (not novelty condoms) are 87-97 percent effective at preventing STIs and pregnancy if used perfectly. That being said, condoms can get damaged through daily wear and tear! It’s always a good idea to check your condom for damage like holes or brittleness, and, of course, check the expiration date! To prevent damage, store condoms in a cool, dry place when possible. If you’re taking your condom on the go, don’t just throw it in a bag or even a wallet. Try protecting your protection in a condom compact, available at SHIC for just $1! You can also stop by the SHIC and have an educator demonstrate the correct way to put on a condom. Proper contraception usage is key to safer sex.

Of course, no barrier method will completely protect you from STIs or pregnancy. The fact of the matter is that sometimes condoms break. That’s why we encourage you to explore other methods of making your sex safer. Try getting tested at Central Iowa Family Planning and encourage your sexual partner(s) to do the same! While you’re there, check out the wide variety of birth control options CIFP has to offer, usually at a low price. There are a lot of things to consider when you are trying to have safer sex. Luckily for you, condom brand is not one of them.

Love,

SHIC

10. Don’t take the college provided mattress cover ($23) with you. At the end of the year your mind  may be playing tricks on you, but that thin covering was there when you moved in and it should still be there when you move out.

9. Make sure that all of the college provided furniture is still there when you move and that there is nothing extra. A furniture move charge will net you a $50 fine.

8. If you took out your window/screen during the course of the year, put it back in. However, know that most people put it back in wrong or damage it in the process, so if you removed your window it is likely that you may be facing a fine ($25 to put back in/$50 if broken).

7. Remove any tape, nails, hooks, etc. from your walls. The charge for removal of these items is $25. If the holes are large (or excessive in number) you may also be facing a repair charge in addition to removal.

6. Do not cover or tamper with your smoke detector. In addition to being illegal and a major fire safety hazard, this will earn you the largest fine of all ($500).

5. Sweep up any extra items lying on your floor (coins, hair ties, paper clips, etc.). If there are numerous small items left behind or spills/stains on the floor and furniture you may be facing a $30 excessive cleaning fee.

4. Take your trash/recyclables/donate-ables out. There is a $25 per bag ($50 if FM has to bag it) charge for junk left in your room and for junk left in the hallway, so encourage your neighbors to take care of their trash too!

3.  Start planning/cleaning now. Box up your winter items, take out large amounts of recycling, sweep up those dust bunnies, talk with your roommate about who is responsible for which tasks. Every little bit helps.

2.  Lock your door when you leave at the end of the semester and turn in your key to your RLC in an envelope labeled with your name and room number. You are responsible for damage others do to your room after you leave if you do not take these preventive measures.

1. Sign up for a check-out time with your RLC. You can review your yellow room inventory form together to ensure you are leaving your room in the same condition as when you moved in. This is the number one way to reduce/prevent fines. If you do not check out with your RLC, you lose the right to appeal fines assessed to your room.

Good luck on finals and I hope you have a happy, fine free move out!

Autumn Wilke, Jamaland RLC

We feel that the behavior of the College over the past year does not represent an adequate commitment to diversity, which is listed alongside high quality education and social justice as one of Grinnell’s core values. The President’s own webpage includes the intention to cultivate a community that includes a “wide diversity of people and perspectives.” Given the key role diversity appears to play in Grinnell’s institutional ideology, the issue deserves more serious attention than it has received in recent semesters. While we understand the essential place academic rigor must play in an institution of Grinnell’s caliber, the pursuit of academic excellence does not have to come at the cost of the College’s other core values.

The S&B would particularly like to draw attention to the issue of administration-student communication. Consistent to recent conversations about College diversity is a call for the President to hold town hall meetings to discuss the matter as a campus community. While members of the administration have acknowledged student concerns and attempted to address it through all-campus emails and meetings between the administration and concerned student leaders, we have seen no steps towards the scale of conversation that we experienced surrounding the issue of financial aid over the last two semesters.

In an interview with the S&B last week, Kington seemed to put the ball in the students’ court, urging them to visit his office hours and calling last week’s meeting at Nollen House “the first meaningful conversation I’ve had.” While we in no way wish to dismiss Kington’s office hours as a viable path for students to discuss a broad range of issues, when it comes to something that is so closely tied to Grinnell’s mission and that will directly affect such a large number of students, a campus-wide, public conversation should be a higher priority. At the same time, we must commend the President’s call for increased student input. While students are consistent in their demand for transparency, their stated agenda—as articulated in their posted literature, as well as in interviews with the S&B—has thus far contained no specific allusions to their actual vision for what the Office of Intercultural Leadership and Engagement should be doing.

While we support the functional existence of such an office, we feel this lack of specificity regarding the ways in which the problems in the Office are affecting students ultimately alienates much of the campus community from the conversation.

The administration must be held publicly accountable for the direction in which they plan to take the College’s commitment to diversity and this is not going to occur through private conversation. With this sentiment in mind, the S&B joins the many voices already making themselves heard around campus in requesting that President Kington schedule town hall meetings for next semester to give students the chance to voice their opinion about a matter that is intimately related to their ability to thrive at Grinnell. In anticipation of this kind of campus-wide conversation, however, we must also encourage students to work to articulate the specific ways in which they wish to see the Office of Intercultural Leadership and Engagement work for them.

When I was visiting colleges and universities as a high school senior, one of my visits stood out to me in the worst way possible. It was at a state school—very different from Grinnell’s atmosphere—but it was a small state school, one of the tiniest undergrad programs in New York. What I remember from that visit was this:
I was sitting in a café (much like the Grille) with a friend from high school that was on my overnight tour group. We were talking to then-current sophomores about a student that died on campus that semester from alcohol poisoning. And you know what? The sophomores laughed about it. They called him “a f**king idiot” because he had been binge drinking at a frat party (another phenomenon alien to Grinnell’s culture) and he was left on a couch by the people that lived there—because those students, the ones who lived in that house, never bothered to check if he was okay.
I recently shared this story with Travis Greene, our Dean of Students. His reaction was similar to mine: shocked, disturbed, saddened. And then, considering the newly acquired information about alcohol consultants coming to campus this fall, I asked him, how many instances have occurred at Grinnell since my first year where a student could’ve easily died from alcohol poisoning?
His answer: there have been repeated instances where it could have gone either way. Travis is speaking from his experience—he started working at Grinnell in the fall of 2008.
The way that our campus functions on the weekends, we are teetering on the edge. It’s as though we’re waiting for this to happen.
You might look back to the S&B article from the April 19 issue, with the front page spread about alcohol policy consultants coming to campus. The article details significant changes that the college and the Harm Reduction Committee (HRC) have implemented over recent years, such as strengthening the terms of the alcohol agreements, enforcing wrist-banding, beefing up ACE Security and implementing other policies to increase the accountability of event organizers and servers. But we are still hiring consultants to examine our policies and hopefully this decision will lead to some sort of positive outcome on the culture surrounding alcohol.
But consultants won’t be enough. It is the responsibility of these consultants, as well as the responsibility of the administration and myself as co-chair of the HRC, to address the holes within our policies. But who is responsible for consuming the alcohol?
It’s me. You. Us. The student body.
To think for one second that our extreme alcohol culture is solely up to the administration to fix is absurd. They are doing their best to take care of us and we consistently overstep what is acceptable. No student should be looking to drink so much as to black out and vomit over the weekend. Is this what we’ve set as our standard? We’re already at a point where we’re simply expecting a hospitalization to occur after bigger events; and on more than one occasion, even events that are less widespread in their appeal to the student body rack up multiple hospitalizations in a single night.
And yes, liability is a major concern. There is no administrator at any college that doesn’t worry over students dying from alcohol poisoning. While this fear may be extreme to us as students, we have also not yet had a student death due to alcohol poisoning in any recent memory (if ever). Should a student die from alcohol poisoning, what do you think will happen? Will the Harm Reduction Committee reconvene and write another policy? Will we hire more consultants to take another year or so to write a report about it?
Please.
That being said, we can change the culture surrounding alcohol. In fact, students are the ones with the most power to do so. Learn your limitations. Drink at a moderate pace. Carry a BAC card. Remember to drink water. No, just because a party doesn’t have alcohol there does not mean you have to leave so you can drink some more. Do what you need to do to keep yourself in check. Self-govern! Because not only will it help you retain your integrity after the weekend, but it will also help you protect yourself.

Signed,
Sivan Philo ’13

Students have the opportunity to live on a gender neutral floor if they have an interest in supporting and sustaining a community that is safe and affirming of all gender identities and expressions. Choosing to live in a gender neutral area makes a statement about the type of community you want to live in. The College can only assign physical spaces with a gender neutral label. From there, students must work to create the ethos that drives this safe space.

Since this program is an important part of the Grinnell community, we are interested in ensuring that students who choose these environments will do so deliberately, with an intent to uphold a gender inclusive space. Everyone who is passionate about this ideal is welcomed and encouraged to live in these areas, and we stress that these gender neutral floors are intended to create a safe space for trans* and gender-nonconforming individuals, and not necessarily to enable cisgender heterosexual couples to live together. Please keep this in mind as you select a room on Sunday at Room Draw. We remind you to be aware of the community you choose to live in, as you will be asked to uphold the standards of that community.

We’re excited that gender neutral environments have risen in popularity, and Grinnell is a leader in this regard. For this reason, we hope that residents in gender neutral communities continue to show their commitment to gender inclusive language, attitudes, and other aspects of residence life.

If you’re interested in additional information, or have questions about gender neutral communities on campus, contact [srcenter], [tag], [open], or us at [conneran] and [olsonsco].

— Scott Olson ’15 and Andrea Conner, Assistant Dean of Students

First, a disclaimer: today’s column is not about Salt ‘n’ Pepa, so please do not read on in expectation of an informative piece concerning ’80s hip-hop. Now you can’t say I didn’t warn you. Second, I have an important question for you. It’s really easy, I promise. Just give me a “yes” or a “no.” Are you ready? Okay, here it is: have you taken the Sexual Conduct Survey yet?

If you said yes, thank you and good job. I really don’t have anything else to say to you. Please accept my blessing and go frolic through a sunlit field made of gumdrops and children’s smiles and self-gov.

If you said no, we need to talk. And by talk I mean that I will systematically deconstruct all the possible excuses you have for not taking the survey and thereby prove that you should take it. But first, I want to address the one scenario in which not taking the survey is okay. In the case of a person who is a survivor of sexual assault/abuse, the survey could be triggering—if taking the survey would legitimately be a very negative experience for you, you should not take it. That is completely and totally alright. Of course, if you are a survivor and choose to take the survey, that’s totally alright as well. It is worth noting here that you can choose to stop taking the survey at any time, and you can skip any question you don’t feel comfortable answering. While everyone’s input is very valuable, it should not come at the price of distress on the part of those taking the survey. Moving on to poor excuses…

1)  “I didn’t know about it.” I hope this isn’t a real excuse, because I’m not sure that you can go to school here and not know about the survey. We received an email and a note in campus mail telling us to take it; posters were put up; a link was available on Pweb; people were talking about it—sending emails to classes and making announcements and having conversations and posting links on Facebook and Twitter. The survey was readily available and highly publicized; there’s literally no way you could have not known about it.

2) “I didn’t have time.” The survey webpage says that it takes “approximately 10 to 20 minutes to complete.” I absolutely refuse to believe that your life is too busy for you to spare twenty minutes of your time. Period.

3)  “It’s not relevant to me.” Do you go to Grinnell? Then it is relevant to you. The point of the survey, according to its webpage, is to “identify strategies to make [Grinnell] a more welcoming campus,” strategies that will “reduce the likelihood of future sexual misconduct and violence.” This applies to everyone, and it should be an issue that is important to everyone. If you want Grinnell to be a place where people feel safe, where consent is clearly defined, and where sexual partners respect each other (and I dearly hope that you do want these things), then the survey matters.

4)  “I haven’t experienced any type of sexual misconduct.” Re-read my answer to excuse #3.

Also, they can’t accurately determine how many people have experienced sexual misconduct if no one who hasn’t experienced it doesn’t respond. That’s science. And keep in mind that the survey is about more than just your personal experiences—it also asks about your definition of consent and how you feel about intervening in certain situations, among other things. The bottom line here is that everyone’s opinions and experiences are important to form a complete picture of the situation.

5)  “I don’t want to/I don’t care.” Re-read my answers to Excuses #3 and #4, then take a good hard look at both your life and your choices. Make an effort to care about an issue that is very important on this campus, one that affects many people here—maybe even some of your friends.

Obviously, I think you should take the survey—but this one survey isn’t the issue. It’s an issue, but not the issue. The real issue is caring enough about the things happening on this campus (i.e. sexual harassment) to be a part of the dialogue surrounding them. That’s part of self-gov. It doesn’t work if people don’t care. So please care, please do the small things that prove that self-gov is still alive and kicking.

The Bill of Rights is a magnificent document; however, it is not perfect. Our founding Fathers had no way of knowing how America would change in the next few hundred years, nor did they know how their writings would be interpreted. Supreme Court Justices, Constitutional law experts, politicians and everyone in between differ in how they interpret the amendments, but especially the second: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court has varied dramatically in the interpretation of the amendment since its passing, but the most recent Supreme Court case regarding this subject (2008) decided that the amendment, “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia” and also, “the right is not unlimited.”

Now that I have laid down some background information, I can address the main topic of this article: gun control.

Although I am far from being an expert on the Constitution, I do not understand how anyone could think any form of gun control is constitutional. The Constitution’s phrase, “shall not be infringed” is very simple and direct. According to Oxford Dictionaries, “infringe” is defined as, “act so as to limit or undermine (something)”; gun control does just this. The objective of gun control is to limit who can get a gun. I personally do believe the government should limit who can get certain guns, but I believe they should do it in a constitutional way (even if that entails amending the Constitution).

More relevant than the constitutionality of gun control is the issue of how strict Federal gun control should be. The gun control debate can largely be broken up into two different areas: who can get guns and what guns can they get. I’ll start by addressing the first, who can get guns.

Background checks are an excellent way to determine who should be able to purchase a gun; every purchase of a gun should include one. Similar to “innocent until proven guilty,” I believe everyone should be allowed a gun until it is proven they pose a safety risk if allowed a gun. The main question here is what entails a “safety risk.” I believe individuals with severe mental disorders (as diagnosed by qualified doctors), individuals living in the country illegally and violent criminals (those who commit violent crimes, as defined by the legal system) should not be allowed guns.

As for which type of guns should be legal, due to my lack of knowledge in the mechanics of guns, I will not attempt to classify gun X as okay but gun Y as not okay. Instead, I will briefly mention a few of the arguments used in favor of stricter and more lenient gun control.

The main argument used to justify banning certain types of guns is that banning those guns results in less violent crimes. Although there are many empirical studies suggesting this to be true, there are equally as many suggesting there to be no relation or even a negative relationship between the two. There is definitely not enough conclusive evidence for this to be a valid point.

For me, one of the most influential arguments in favor of not banning more powerful (and therefore, dangerous) guns is the classic, “What if?” scenario. What if the government turned on its people and citizens had no way to defend themselves? This scenario is often brushed off as “crazy” and “unrealistic” but I strongly disagree. A brief look at history will show many compelling examples of the U.S government doing just that. The most obvious example of the U.S government turning on innocent civilians was the genocide of the Native Americans. Even scarier to me than that is how the U.S government, without strong opposition by citizens, imprisoned over 100,000 innocent civilians (with over 60,000 of them being citizens) in concentration camp-like prisons simply because they were Japanese. It is unbelievable that this event occurred in the recent past of the United States and yet people dismiss this reasoning as “crazy” and “unrealistic”. If it happened once, it can happen again.

Until next time, remember, there’s always A View From Below.

In my last column, I detailed the stark fundraising differentials between Grinnell and peer liberal arts colleges Carleton, Swarthmore and Amherst. What is clear is that a “Giving Gap” exists, with peer institutions fundraising substantially more from their alumni bodies than Grinnell. But what is also apparent is that Grinnell can improve its fundraising dramatically. This column will detail the power of giving.

Compared to other revenue sources, fundraising represents the easiest way for Grinnell to finance projects. For example, suppose Grinnell wanted to raise $1 million to supplement the annual budget. The college’s three revenue sources are the endowment, net student revenues and fundraising. The annual endowment payout rate is 4%: to raise an extra $1 million Grinnell would have to increase its endowment value by $25 million, or approximately 1.67%. Grinnell’s discount rate (financial aid provided to students divided by tuition and fees) is 61.4% since most students do not pay “sticker price,” meaning that to raise $1 million from net student revenues, Grinnell would have to increase its comprehensive fee by over $1,000. Alternatively, every one of Grinnell’s 19,507 alumni could donate $52 every year for a total of $1 million.

It will be several years before Grinnell can hope to close the $22.2 million fundraising gap with Carleton. But that is not cause for discouragement: major progress can be made with marginal improvements. In 2012, gift revenue increased by 27% to $6.6 million even though only 32.6% of solicitable alumni donated to Grinnell. If Grinnell maintained the last year’s average gift size of $1,033 but pushed its participation rate past 50% (where Carleton is), total gift revenue would exceed $10 million: an over 50% increase! And if half of all 19,507 Grinnell alums donated an average of $1,000 (which sounds high, but is still less than the average alumni donation for Carleton, Swarthmore and Amherst) then total gift revenue would approach $20 million.

Why do donations matter? Simply put, they provide the foundation for Grinnell to expand, adapt and improve. Facilities upgrades—including Burling, the ARH and Forum South Lounge—will be majority funded by gifts. Alumni gifts contribute to everything from financial aid to summer internship funding. Gifts can even be restricted to support specific initiatives of a donor’s choosing. Want Grinnell to become carbon neutral and build a wind farm? Want to preserve the Classics department? Want Grinnell to maintain need-blind admissions? These projects can all be achieved through donations. And while Grinnell will naturally seek to improve itself and allocate its budget efficiently, gifts allow the College to truly excel by taking its facilities, personnel, programs and students to the next level.

It is important to remember that philanthropy should never be taken for granted. Not everyone is in a position to contribute financially and there exist myriad ways to support Grinnell. But at the end of the day, we cannot deny that a giving gap exists between Grinnell and peer liberal arts colleges. Donations represent more than a windfall: they are required to maintain an elite liberal arts college, and a lack of resources will ultimately leave Grinnell unable to compete with colleges like Carleton, Swarthmore and Amherst. Are we really to believe that Grinnellians are less enthusiastic than Carleton alums? Grinnellians give their time and money to transformative causes and organizations all across the world while neglecting their alma mater.

These are unstable financial times for colleges, with traditional revenue sources under pressure. But that is all the more reason to give. Grinnell needs its alumni to support it now more than ever. Every donation counts, no matter how large or small. And everyone has a reason to give.

Give if you valued your time and education at Grinnell and wish to provide that opportunity to others. Give because the generosity of Grinnellians before you contributed to your college experience. Give if you believe Grinnell is a special institution that empowers students to change the world. Give if you are proud to be a Grinnellian. Give if you believe in the power of giving.

 Ishan Bhadkamkar ’13 is an intern with the Grinnell College Investment Office.

If you have read my column in the past, you may have learned how to up your pasta game in the dining hall. Now instead of bland noodles and overly sweet red sauce, your pasta dinner boasts protein, veggies, sauces and savory spices. What about breakfast? The often forgotten about meal, when most people shovel bites of tasteless oatmeal or plastic yellow faux egg with their eyes still struggling to open fully. And what about lunch? At lunch your sandwich is really quite sad—its pale turkey, melted cheddar and drooping lettuce leaving your taste buds unfulfilled. These meals can be more than the necessitated intake of calories to get you through the day; these meals can become culinary creations.

I don’t know what it is about oatmeal, but people often equate it with tasteless mush, destined to work and be filling, but never exciting. I challenge this notion. Next time you go for a bowl of oatmeal in the morning, leave room to add a lot of other food in the bowl. For your first addition, scope out the fruit options. I have added banana slightly mashed up, apples and oranges cut into pieces. But I have also gone through the waffle line and asked for some strawberries, blueberries, raspberries and strawberries for the top of my oatmeal. These fruits sure beat canned peaches. Next, saunter over to the peanut butter (your oatmeal bowl already a proud colorful peacock amongst city pigeons) and add a generous helping of crunchy peanut butter to it with honey drizzled on top. Now the trick with peanut butter is to quickly mix it into the middle of your hot oatmeal so it melts. Next, head to the yogurt and if you please add a dollop on top, finishing off your creation with a sprinkle of raisins. Now, one last piece of advice I have for all of you out there is that if you want to add some flare to your oats, don’t soak them in hot water, but in coffee. Coffee oatmeal sounds like an up-and-coming fad at cafes if I don’t say so myself, so don’t miss your chance to get in on this latest culinary trend right here in Grinnell. Coffee is the perfect match for a sweet treat, so think of this like eating a peanut butter and honey oatmeal cookie with coffee.

At lunch, I urge you not to become disheartened by the noon rush crowds, and take the time and effort to fight against the wave of diners in order to create a purposeful and innovative meal. A lunchtime staple is the sandwich, yet similar to oatmeal, sandwiches are often unfairly characterized as bland. I want to give the sandwich a chance to burst from its meat-cheese-lettuce confines until it shines as it was always meant to. The sandwich line provides many tasty additions to the basic sandwich formula such as banana peppers, onions, carrots and all kinds of mysterious sauces with names like “chipotle red pepper.” But even these exciting options can get boring over time. Next time you get a sandwich, I encourage you to consider a different bread. What about a bagel? Better yet, what about the bread option by the soups? Those bread options change every day and often boast new and interesting flavors, such as olive bread with rosemary. You can also expand with your meat option, scouting the dining hall for any meat that would work well in a sandwich, such as grilled chicken. As a former sandwich bar employee myself, I can assure you that we get all sorts of strange meats and bread, and were always excited to see how it would turn out.

Now what about after you’ve got your sandwich in hand, cheese bubbling like hot lava and bread delightfully toasted? Resist the urge to dig in right away. Instead, head over to the salad bar. Toss some mushrooms on top of your sandwich, add a sprinkle of spinach. See those bacon bits, green peppers and egg? Throw it all on! Nothing is out of the question at the salad bar, including the dressings. Soar beyond your average mustard and mayo to enjoy a sandwich with Greek feta cheese dressing. Your sandwich will not disappoint, as melted cheese, bread, veggies, meat and sauce is guaranteed to taste great. My only warning is that your friends might be rendered silent for a while, unable to focus on anything else but the copious ingredients of your sandwich interacting to produce tastes and textures you never knew existed. How better to reinvigorate yourself before your afternoon classes than with a wake up to the taste buds!

Now, if you are a fan of ice cream at lunch, I have one last suggestion. If the classic combination of salty and sweet leaves you salivating, then try this; get vanilla ice cream, pour chocolate or vanilla sauce on top, and then sprinkle on some kosher salt from the spice rack on top. Just make sure not to go overboard with this, as you don’t want the salt to overpower the sweet.

Dear SHIC,

Whenever I come in to buy condoms, I’m always faced with the dilemma of sizing. How do I know what type of condom to get, and if it will fit? Please help!

Sincerely,

—Overwhelmed

Dear Overwhelmed,

Never fear! The definitive guide is here. Finding a condom that fits just right is important for safe and enjoyable protection. A perfectly fitted condom is tight enough to securely stay on the penis without pinching, but won’t slip off or break. Since the latex used in most condoms doesn’t stretch as much at the tip as it does for the shaft, penises with larger heads may require a larger condom, but the overall elasticity makes most condoms adaptable for a wide range of penis sizes and shapes.

Let’s break it down by general market sizes, as well as the brands we carry at SHIC. Many brands define condoms with a smaller diameter as “snugger fit”, and are appropriate for individuals wanting a tighter experience. At SHIC, try our Beyond 7 Studded condoms (1.97” wide). Most condom brands aim for the average penis size, the middle of the bell curve, with a diameter of around 2.05”. This includes brands sold at SHIC like all our One products, Lifestyles, Atlas and Kimono condoms. Finally, for larger men or those wanting a looser fit, with a diameter above 2.13”, try the Trojan Magnum, the Atlas XL, One Legend and Lifestyles XL. Nothing beats grabbing a few condoms and testing them out yourself in order to find the perfect fit!

Love,

[SHIC]

Dear SHIC,

Well… I was wondering if you guys have any idea how I can spice things up in my sex life. I’ve read online about how to “induce” orgasm, but I feel there are a lot of myths around about erogenous zones. I want to know what works!

Sincerely, 

—Romantic Rick.

Dearest Rick,

I am happy to say that we’ve done plenty of the legwork for you. As you are well aware, SHIC educators dedicate most of their spare time into expertly studying sex. Therefore, we assembled a group of SHIC educators and performed uncontrolled studies on them. Through rigorous trial and questionable failure, we determined several areas and techniques that are sure to provide a statistically significant P-value, or Pleasure-value:

1. Lips. Not those ones, silly, well… why not? How could we forget these suckers? SHIC thinks mouth-to-mouth contact sometimes gets rushed. Try taking it slow.

2. Feet. Both men and women love foot massages. Massaging of the feet is believed to relieve pressure points and stimulate sexual arousal.

3. Abs/Mons. Why not try gently caressing or tantalizing your partner with your deceptive hand movements (where do you think you’re going, mister?)

4. Neck. Try using gentle touches on the neck, and allow your partner to imagine the seductive brushing motion of your lips.

5. Inner thighs and Bottom. The gift-wrapping to the package!

6. Head. Not that one, silly, well… why not? Head massages are relaxing, and eyelid and forehead stimulation can be relaxing ways to show your… loving side. Hair and the scalp are also very responsive to stimulation.

7. Perenium. In both males (prostate) and females (perennial sponge) which are the areas between the anus and the genitals just awaiting to be explored!

8. A, P, and U-Spots. You may have heard the G-Spot, but how about the A, P, and U-Spots? A: between the g-spot and the cervix. P: the prostate gland of men and U: the area around the urethral region contains many sensitive nerve endings.

9. Knees. Surprised? You probably shouldn’t be. The back of the knees is surprisingly sensitive.

10. The Mind.  Yes. The human mind can do amazing things. Use it to your advantage, hypnosis is not consensual, yo.

There are so many parts of the body that have so much unlocked potential that we encourage you to explore your partners’ bodies, (safely of course). SHIC suggests you take it slow and explore the playground. Whether it be a gentle back and chest massage, or a more “in-depth” procedure, think of yours and your partner’s body as a totally erogenous landscape.

Keep it Safe, sexies!

[SHIC]

I write this article with the belief, which I hope every reader shares, that the underlying purpose of Drag Show, with all of its glamour and flare, is to demonstrate and increase support for our LGBTQ community. Before coming to Grinnell, I was not acquainted with such a community. My traditional all-boys school was founded on a sort of Muscular Christianity, and “coming out” wasn’t a thing, to say the least. With regards to these issues, being a part of the first post-Apartheid generation in South Africa seemingly had little effect on the sentiment of many of my peers. Doubtless, being a passive member of a generation or community does not guarantee the adoption of its values; some identification and action is required. If we agree on this point, about identification, we may use it to maintain the effectiveness of Drag Show in its goal, as a growing number of students audition to perform. The reason for concern is that, as I have been told, QPOC is under increased pressure each semester to cut groups who audition (as there is only place for a certain number), and they might favor members who are in the LGBTQ community over those who are not. This is entirely understandable, but, as I have hinted, it may be counter-productive. I will illustrate this point with an anecdote.

In the second semester of my first year, my friend Christian Loggins ’12 requested I be a part of his Drag Show performance. I had little awareness of the social importance of Drag Show then, but it sounded like there was fun to be had. And there certainly was. Wracked with fear, and perhaps a sense of exhibitionistic excitement, I strutted onto stage, “scantly clad,” in front of a mob of rowdy Grinnellians. I was glad to have Christian guiding me (literally; he dragged me by a chain, tied to a dog-collar around my neck. Ha-ha.) At the end of this dramatic performance, my views on the legitimacy of various sexualities had not changed (they were entirely compatible with the show in the first place), and neither had my own sexuality. I was still just a heterosexual boy with a narrow sexual curiosity (not to sound too apologetic about it.) But something important had changed: my identification with the LGBTQ community. Of course, I am not part of this community, since I am not LGBT, or Q. However, the courage exerted and enjoyment found in performing that night had established in me a sense, as much as it ever could, of real involvement in LGBTQ discourse. I have far deeper ties to this community now than just Drag Show. However, it is because of such inclusive experiences that whenever I hear, say, a homophobic slur, it is not just my deepest values and some of my best friends who are being insulted. It is also my own behavior that is being rejected, and, as unromantic as it may seem, this adds some weight. The point I want to make is that if QPOC decides to cut non-LGBTQ performers from Drag Show, this kind of transformative experience will be lost. Indeed, the more of these events that we can have, in which a diverse sample of our student population acts out its support of minority communities, the more we can drive commitment to making Grinnell safer and more accepting.

So, I suggest that QPOC take care in not preferentially picking members of the LGBTQ community to perform in Drag Show. At the least, QPOC should always allow some hetero-normative students, especially those in younger years, to go all-out in public support of the LGBTQ community. Keep it a Grinnellian performance, rather than a presentation by the LGBTQ community. This isn’t to suggest robbing this group of one of the few spaces in which its members may feel that a certain kind of expression is safe and appreciated. But I posit that keeping those, who might otherwise just be observers of the show, active in the event, grants it transformative potential. My ideal performance is actually one in which members of the LGBTQ community collaborate with a few members outside of it (as it stands, this is often how it happens.) Finally, I also want to share my fear about keeping Drag Show inclusive in the way I am suggesting. This fear is that Drag Show will lose some of its political significance and seriousness. However, I do not see that happening as long as Drag Show continues under its current leadership and organization.

How do you tell your friends that they should do something that takes courage or gumption? Most likely, you don’t tell them, “Hey, be brave,” or “Go take responsibility for your actions!” You may, however, tell them to “man up,” “grow a pair,” “get some balls,” or “stop being a p***y.” Quick quiz: what do all of those expressions have in common? a) They all assume masculinity to be inherently related to courage, directness or initiative and b) they are all problematic.

By this point, I hope you’ve realized that not only are items a and b both correct, they are related; namely, the aforementioned expressions are problematic because they tie certain positively-viewed personality characteristics to masculinity. By extension, they reinforce the conception of femininity as being related to weakness, powerlessness and submissiveness—an inaccurate picture that has regrettably been painted over and over again throughout history. Realistically, the average man/masculine-identified person is no more gutsy or direct than the average woman/feminine-identified person. With respect for individual differences, I believe that most people would admit that, from an objective viewpoint, women are just as bold as men (and if they wouldn’t admit it, they’d be wrong). So, then, why doesn’t our colloquial lexicon reflect that equality?

The patriarchy, to put it quite simply—and to achieve the status of “that person” at the same time. You don’t need to be a history major to understand that women have been consistently looked down upon throughout American history, and you don’t need to be a GWSS major to know that, although we have made great strides, women are still not equal today. As a result of this long and continuing story of discrimination, our culture has created a conversational vocabulary that builds men up as it puts women down; simple slang has become a tool of oppression.

Even more often than we use terms that uphold false assumptions about gender, we assume men as a default. I have a question for you: what do you call the person who delivers your mail? Many of you probably said mailman. I have another question for you: do you know the gender of the person who delivers your mail? If you don’t, but still answered mailman, then congratulations! You’ve helped me prove another point. Far too often, nonspecific male terms are used in place of gender neutrality—“he-as-a-third-person-pronoun-even-when-gender-is-unspecified,” “the-term-man-signifies-all-humans,” “fireman, businessman, repairman.” On and on the list goes, always thoughtlessly assuming men as the standard for humanity. I don’t know about you, but I’m certainly not going to sit back and pretend that one-half is the whole.

“Now you just wait a minute,” you may be thinking. “I’ve used terms like that, but I completely believe in women’s equality. You’re generalizing and I hate you!” Now you just wait a minute: I don’t want to use this column to either imply that everyone uses these expressions or persecute those who do; my intention is simply to point out how language can reinforce stereotypes and problematic assumptions. I don’t want to demonize you, I simply want to make you think. Unnecessarily gendered terminology is often used unconsciously—we don’t think about why such terms exist, and we pay no mind to the effects of their continued use, which is exactly the problem. Even more than being “simply” gendered, much of our language is heteronormative—third-person speech, for example, reflects our dominant culture’s adherence to the gender binary. Gender-neutral pronouns are becoming more common, but it takes an individual effort to completely assimilate new terminology into—and to eradicate old, problematic expressions from—a language.

At first, new and different words may not come to mind easily. That’s understandable, as problematically gendered speech has been legitimized and constantly reinforced. So if you slip up, just correct yourself and move on. Look for more creative ways to express what you’re trying to say, and if all else fails, go buy yourself a dictionary. Alternatively, allow me to introduce you to a rad website called thesaurus.com, where you can find a synonym for almost any word! Putting aside my sarcastic motivational speaker persona, I want to say one more time that details do matter. The seemingly “harmless” use of expressions that reinforce stereotypical and incorrect perceptions of masculinity and femininity or assume men as the standard are quite literally creating a dialogue of oppression. We’re all equal, so let’s create some new slang to prove it.

Gay marriage has emerged as one of the hottest political issues in the country. Chick-fil-A and Boy Scouts of America boycotts, Facebook profile picture changes, and Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’ “Same Love” are just a few of the numerous recent attempts to gain public support in favor of the legalization of gay marriage.

The legalization of gay marriage would be a great success in the struggle for equal rights. As I have written in previous articles, I am against public discrimination (and therefore, pro equal rights) among all legally competent individuals. As a result, I believe if marriage is offered to any consenting adults, it should be offered to all consenting adults. This does not stop with the legalization of gay marriage however; although largely disregarded by the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and mainstream culture, the legalization of polygamous marriages (and all other types of marriages between consenting adults) is no less equally important as the legalization of gay marriage.

With this said, I still believe it is up to individual states to decide what marriage practices are allowed in their borders. The rest of this article solely addresses “marriage” in a legal sense unless otherwise stated.

More fundamentally important than gay marriage, the very idea of marriage deserves questioning. With the recent Supreme Court case regarding gay marriage I have found myself simply asking, “Why is marriage even a thing?”, “Why do people get married?”

Hands down, the greatest legal benefit an individual receives from getting married is the tax breaks. An individual can potentially pay thousands less in taxes each year if he/she/ze is legally married. I am adamantly opposed to this particular, and all, tax breaks.

The government uses tax breaks to promote a certain type of product, industry, lifestyle choice, etc. These are all areas I believe the government should attempt to remain as neutral in as possible. Rewarding someone for getting married is favoring a lifestyle that involves marriage over a lifestyle that does not; the government should not interfere in this type of decision.

Without the tax breaks, the glamour of marriage completely disappears for me. Don’t get me wrong: I hope to settle down with someone and raise a family one day, I just don’t feel the need to get a government contract involved. The decision between my future partner and I to spend the rest of our lives together should be simply that, our decision. This decision does not directly affect anyone other than us; no one else should have any legal power in shaping our choices.

Not only do I personally not want the government to be involved, I believe marriage is a blatant example of an over-step of government regulation.

The very idea that a government contract (in the form of a marriage license) is needed in order for someone to get married, a practice that has been practiced for thousands of years without government contracts, frightens me. Some version of the cultural and religious concept of marriage has been practiced successfully by nearly all civilizations throughout the world. There is no reason why a government needs to be involved.

In conclusion, there are two main problems with marriages in the United States today: 1) they create public discrimination and 2) they advocate for a certain lifestyle. If marriages did not discriminate against anyone and did not provide tax breaks to individuals that have a certain lifestyle, most of my problems with marriage would disappear. I would still think marriages are an over-step of government, but I believe fewer and fewer individuals would get married so the legal concept of marriage would lose importance over time.

On a final note, it is interesting to note that while the Democratic Party officially first argued for the legalization of gay marriage in their 2012 party platform, the Libertarian Party has been advocating for the legalization of gay marriage since their 1972 platform; 10 presidential cycles before the Democratic Party.

Until next time, remember, there’s always A View From Below.

The author, Samuel G. Freedman, suggests that the basketball game in which Jack Taylor scored his record-breaking 138 points is “striking in ethical and even religious terms [because of] the context of Mr. Taylor’s performance.” By this, Freedman means Grinnell’s overall win, 179-104; he wonders why Coach Arseneault did not take Taylor out when Grinnell was significantly ahead.

Freedman couches his arguments in religious terms, citing Taylor’s quote that God’s “fingerprints were all over that game.” Amy Laura Hall, an ethics professor, has the final quote in the piece: “What strikes me in this story about Grinnell is that you have the unapologetic, brazen appeal to ‘Jesus’ right alongside the unrepentant quest to make a name for the school, the team and the player.”

If that was not interesting enough fodder for debate, check out Mr. Freedman’s own words: “A college that prides itself on its values—rigorous academic standards, commitment to the common good, historical involvement in the abolition and Social Gospel movements—inflicted a defeat so absolute that it borders on public humiliation.”

Whoa. Did we sign on to all that? First off, while Taylor is welcome to say whatever he wants about his religious affiliation, Grinnell has none. No Grinnell College press release claimed that Jesus caused this game or that it espoused Christian values. Why did a basketball game involving a secular college become so theological?

Secondly, what do Grinnell’s rigorous academic standards have to do with this “blowout”? We would argue that the System, the innovative style of play used by our men’s basketball team, is in fact very Grinnellian—the team plays by the rules while managing to entirely change the game. As for “commitment to the common good” and historical actions, does a basketball game, which has one loser and one winner, contribute to social injustice? We think not. Judge us on our community outreach programs, financial aid or commitment to diversity—not on one basketball game.

Taylor was not the only person who benefited from this game—the whole basketball team was a part of his record, and the whole Grinnell community, including students, alumni, staff, faculty and community members, enjoyed the ensuing 15 minutes of fame during which people could actually differentiate Grinnell from Cornell. David Larson, a Faith Baptist player, also broke a school record by scoring 70 points. All season, sports fans of all ages came up to Taylor and asked to be in a picture with him; this was an exciting event in DIII athletics.

Who is so hurt by Taylor’s record? While Faith Baptist lost this game, their lives, like Taylor’s, like all of ours, moved on the next day. In 20 years, no one will be crying in their beer about this game—in fact, those involved in any fashion will probably remember the one time they saw an athletic record being set and its subsequent coverage by CNN and other networks. As Doug Cutchins so rightly pointed out in his essay, “In Defense of 138,” the next day, Taylor, like all other student-athletes, woke up, went to class and continued to live life. Maybe critics should do the same, considering the game occurred five months ago.

To: President Kington

We the undersigned, current and retired employees of Grinnell College and most of us also members of a local 501(c)(4) organization called “Poweshiek CARES” (Community Action to Restore Environmental Stewardship), are alarmed and concerned about the ongoing proliferation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in Poweshiek County. We are writing to you to call your attention to the seriousness of CAFO proliferation in our county, to argue that if such proliferation continues it will be detrimental to the College in several ways, including in the recruitment and retention of students, staff, and faculty, and to urge that the College take action to oppose the proliferation of CAFOs.

Grinnell College is highly qualified to speak out on this issue because of its tradition of standing up for social justice and given the public health expertise of President Kington. We understand that President Kington joined with Todd Linden of the GRMC in the past to express concern about this matter. We urge the College to take the following steps:

• Express concern in a letter to the Poweshiek County Board of Supervisors

• Express concern in a letter to the Grinnell Herald-Register

• Express concern to our state senator and representative

• Express concern to the Iowa DNR and the federal EPA

• Express concern to the Grinnell City Council and the Chamber of Commerce

• Make common cause on this issue with other important community institutions

•Discontinue the purchase of CAFO-raised meat by Grinnell Dining Services

The Threats CAFOs Pose to the College, the Community, and the County

It is commonly observed that while Iowa does not have dramatic coastlines, stirring mountain ranges, or cosmopolitan cities, it does offer a significant asset to its residents: a high quality of life. This was confirmed for the town of Grinnell in the report, “Building a Better Grinnell: 2012 Survey Results,” released earlier this month by the Build a Better Grinnell Task Force.

We feel strongly that CAFOs are a threat to Iowans’ quality of life. An addendum to this letter summarizes the harmful effects of CAFOs on public health, communities, and the natural environment. CAFOs are also objectionable in terms of the ethical treatment of animals.

The processes of permitting and approving CAFOs in Iowa leave us as individuals feeling—and in fact being—powerless to oppose them in our neighborhood. Communities and even entire counties are likewise powerless to protect themselves from the effects of CAFOs. The proliferation of CAFOs in Iowa and in Poweshiek County ought to be recognized for what it is: a violation of human rights.

For that reason alone Grinnell College ought to be concerned about the proliferation of CAFOs, but there are also more tangible issues at stake. The number of CAFOs in Poweshiek County is rising, and there is a real possibility that the rate will increase dramatically in the next couple of years. Numerous counties in Iowa have many hundreds of CAFOs affecting their land, air, and water. When this happens in Poweshiek County it will become increasingly difficult to attract and retain highly qualified faculty, staff, and students. One of us has commented on this in the following terms:

Having worked for Grinnell Regional Medical Center and now for the college, I am very aware of how hard both institutions (and others in town) have to work to attract and then retain highly educated professionals. As a rural community it is often difficult to attract non-rural professionals to work for our institutions—usually because of the perception of lack of resources. If we are labeled as a community with growing toxicity issues and stench this will make it even harder to attract new qualified professionals to Grinnell—an issue for all institutions seeking to fill open professional positions or grow their organizations.

Furthermore, the proliferation of CAFOs will eventually have detrimental effects on property values, and as these decline so does tax revenue to support the infrastructure necessary to maintain a community.

Author and activist Rick Bass, who will be visiting Grinnell on April 6, has written about his feelings regarding a parallel situation in the Yaak Valley, his adopted home in northwest Montana, and the threat it is facing from clear-cutting by the timber industry:

I realize that the point at which what was being done to the valley began to hurt me deeply was the time I first began to feel that I was starting to fit: that the landscape and I were engaged in a relationship. That I was being reshaped and refashioned, to better fit it in spirit and desire. That I was neither fighting this nor resisting it. As it became my home, the wounds that were being inflicted upon it—the insults—became my own.

Many of us have experienced a similar feeling as we learn about the harmful consequences of CAFOs and become involved in opposing them.

We are persuaded by John Ikerd’s (2013:3) general conclusions about the harmfulness of CAFOs:

It is not necessary to replicate these previous reviews of scientific literature to anticipate or foresee the negative impacts of CAFOs on rural communities and societies. Such reviews simply confirm conclusions that can be drawn from a logical and rational assessment of fundamental characteristics of CAFOs. Such conclusions are not unique to any particular geographic location or to any nation. The consequences are quite similar, if not identical, for the U.S., Europe, China, South America, or anywhere CAFOs locate. The economic, ecological, and social consequences of CAFOs are inherent within the fundamental structure of CAFOs.

Signed:

Jon Andelson

Joan Mohan

J. Montgomery Roper

Val Vetter

Susan Kolbe

Shannon Hinsa-Leasure

Elizabeth Queathem

David Harrison

Don A. Smith

H. Wayne Moyer

Emily Guenther

Angela Winburn

Douglas Caulkins

Effie Hall

Nancy Cadmus

Vince Eckhart

Richard Fyffe

Tilly Woodward

John Whittaker

Jonathan Brown

Kent McClelland

Susan Sanning

Timothy Dobe

Kathryn Kamp

Harley McIlrath

Betty Moffett

John Stone

Robert Cabelli

Sandy Moffett

Yvette Aparicio

Alan Schrift

Elizabeth Hays

Kathryn Jacobson

Jill Schrift

Elliott Uhlenhopp

Chris Bair

Cassie Wherry

Milton Severe

Elizabeth Hill

Peter Jacobson

Mark Baechtel

Tom Moore

Deborah Michaels

Rachel Bly

Constance Gause

Simone Sidwell

Eric McIntyre

Guinevere McIntyre

Emily Moore

George Drake

Erik Sanning

John Fennell

Vida Praitis

We love lube here at the Sexual Health Information Center (located on the first floor of Main), and so we are dedicating our entire column this week to it. Lube makes every sex act better (disclaimer: we didn’t want to spend our time thinking of every single sex act, so feel free to let us know about the ones we missed). Using lube decreases health risks and increases pleasure.

First: the health aspect. Without sufficient lubrication, you can tear the tissue in both the anus and the vagina, which is a) painful and b) increases the risk of STI transmission, since the disease-causing organisms get easy access to you. Because the anus is not self-lubricating (which you probably have realized by now), lube is crucial for anal sex. On the off chance that it’s not completely impossible to fit things into your anus without lube, doing so is extremely risky. Even vaginal intercourse can benefit from artificial lubricant, however. While the vagina is self-lubricating, the natural lubricant is not always enough, particularly during extended vaginal intercourse. Moral of the story is, even if your vagina is doing work already, it can still use help sometimes.

Lube can also increase your pleasure, so oral sex and masturbation benefit from lube as well. If there is too much friction, sex can become painful and unpleasant—regardless of your genitalia. The SHIC asserts that for most people this experience is not fun. Even just a little bit of lube can make a sexual encounter more enjoyable. You can get flavored lubes for oral sex (or other sex acts, presumably), but should avoid using them near vaginas because they contain glycerin, which can cause yeast infections (fun fact: the same is true of flavored dental dams). If you put some extra lube inside your condom (you might notice that there is already some lube inside of most condoms) you can increase sensation for the penis (f**k the patriarchy). You should use as much lube as is enjoyable for all partners. Mess around (pun intended, obviously) and figure out how much lube feels good. It will probably be different depending on the act, your mood and your partners.

Now that we all agree about how awesome lube is, here is some more information about it: There are two primary types of lube in the world: water- and silicone-based. Both types are easy to clean up with soap and water, and neither degrades latex condoms. Silicone-based lubes last longer than water-based lubes (because they are absorbed more slowly by the body), which makes them ideal for anal sex or extended sexual activities. They tend to be slightly more expensive than water-based lubes, however, and will also melt silicone sex toys. Don’t use them with silicone sex toys. They are also more likely to stain fabrics than water-based lubes, so keep that in mind.

There is a tendency to use oil-based substances (body lotion, chocolate syrup) instead of water- or silicone-based lubes. We know that it is convenient to grab some hand lotion from your desk, but there are several reasons to avoid doing so. 1. Oil degrades latex (latex condoms are made of latex), which increases the chance that your condom will break. 2. Many such products include glycerin, which can cause yeast infections. Our bottle of St. Ives Intensive Healing body lotion definitely does, and so does our bottle of Aveeno Daily Moisturizing Lotion. 3. They are not as effective at lubricating. Have you ever noticed how moisturizer is absorbed into your skin when you rub it on your face? The same thing happens when you rub it on other parts of your body, and as a result it stops lubricating effectively.

The SHIC sells pillows of both water and silicone-based lube in regular and warming varieties (25¢), and bottles of lube ($3). We also sell condoms (25¢), and pregnancy tests ($1). If you don’t like to support student groups on campus, you can buy lube at drug or grocery stores. If you want more kinds of lube (flavored, extra long-lasting), you can find all of them and more online. One good site is adameve.com (we wish we got paid to plug that website).

Once you enter Burling you see that everyone else had the same idea. The first floor hums with the sound of shifting bodies and barely contained whispers. Most of the seats are taken, and you end up in an uncomfortable chair trying to ignore the table of first years gossiping next to you. If only I had given more thought to what space would encourage my most productive work, you think, imagining back to the moment you made the choice of where to study. Or did you really make a choice? You decide you are going to change up your routine from simply following your friends and instead adventure to find new and perhaps better study spaces.

Perhaps I am alone on this quest for less “mainstream” study spots, but having talked to my friends, I believe I am not. I have discussed with them how we miss the tranquility and privacy of a home to get work done. This is why I have sought out alternate study public study spaces for those of us who do not feel productive in our dorm rooms, yet do still want that feeling of a calmer, more private and comfortable studying experience.

One alternative is to find an empty classroom. You are never guaranteed that your favorite classroom will be open. Thus, this approach is best for people who don’t mind wandering the hallways a bit before getting down to work. If this sounds like you, check out the second floor of the ARH for an empty language classroom. The German classroom, for example, boasts a large table perfect for solitary or group study.

Empty classrooms in Noyce are a little harder, as many of them are taken by mentor sessions and overall, they are more frequented by students. What I have found is that there is usually a classroom available in the basement. I know what you are thinking, that you will get lost and encounter Nurse Ratchet down there. But the depressive and maze-like nature of Noyce aside, the physics classrooms in the basement are great. They are usually empty, have a number of computers and plenty of desk space. The cherry on top of this sundae are the large projectors connected to the computers in these basement classrooms on which you can blast homework pump-up songs.

Now the other “alternative” study spot, if you will, that I have found is the multicultural suites on the second floor of the JRC. At first, the signs outside the suites that warn you not to sleep in them may not make sense, but the temptation to doze off becomes apparent as soon as you step into a suite and see all the beanbags, comfy chairs, and large couches with pillows. The multicultural suites are truly the most comfortable space I have found on campus, but do not fear—there are also desks and less snooze-provoking chairs.

You may already be aware of these study spaces, or have found a favorite spot that works for you, such as the CCL or a dorm lounge. But I hope this column leads you to reflect on where you study, and if it is the most conducive environment for focusing. Some people can focus perfectly well, or even better, with the background noise of the bustling environment on the first two floors of Burling. Yet if you get the best work done in a private space in which you are free to put your legs on the desk, blast music or take a dancing study break, then know that you have options! The negative aspects of certain Grinnell experiences are unavoidable. You will always have to study, and lots of the time it won’t be fun. So why not seek out the very best environment for which to perform this task, a space that best encourages productivity for you?

This time of year, especially, many of you are looking toward the future. If the Class of 2013 is anything like the Class of 2012, as many as a quarter of you who are graduating may be directly heading off to graduate school. Exciting times! How do you make all the myriad decisions that lead up to matriculation in a graduate program?

“Myriad” is no exaggeration: Continuing your higher education is not a decision to be taken lightly. The decision, in fact, should be largely an instrumental one: How will an advanced degree help you reach your career and life goals?

While in graduate school, opportunity costs—what you lose by not doing something else (e.g., gaining real-world experience, earning a decent salary)—are large. In the end you’ll have a credential and, depending on the nature of your program, perhaps a substantial amount of debt. How the degree will benefit and position you for the future therefore requires careful and deliberate consideration. Talk with your professors; talk with your mentors; talk with me.

What? Someone at the Career Development Office can help? Yes, in addition to helping you polish your résumé, find an internship, and connect with alumni (and everything else you might intuitively associate with “career development”), the CDO is here to assist you with any and all phases of the decision-making process for graduate school. We are happy to help you articulate your goals; find ways to spend your summers productively; identify suitable programs; prepare for the requisite entrance exams; navigate the application processes; understand funding and financial aid possibilities; craft curricula vitae; draft and revise your statements of purpose; and even consider how to talk with your mentors, advisers, and parents (gasp!) about your plans. Communication is key—and planning ahead is essential.

But what if, after graduation, you intend to do something else first (service, work, or the like) and expect to apply to graduate school later? We support your plan! In fact, certain graduate programs prefer or even require a stint of work or service before they’ll consider you for admission to their programs. Our support, though, is not just ideological, even though taking some productive time away from schooling after college is almost never a bad idea. (Grinnell is pretty intense, after all; but graduate school is even more intense. Truly.) Rest assured that the CDO is happy to consult with alumni via e-mail or phone throughout the graduate school planning, applying, and decision-making processes.

Once your time at Grinnell is over, then, go forth into the world and do good work! When graduate school beckons, know that you can call on the CDO for any assistance you may require.

But first: Anyone who is contemplating graduate school should attend a workshop next Wednesday (April 10) at 4:15 in JRC 226. Although the session is entitled “Third-Years: How to Prep for Grad School,” it’s open to any and all students who are thinking about applying to graduate school in the future. Come one, come all . . . or, well, up to twenty of you (given the capacity of the room). Bring your questions, and we’ll discuss everything you imagine could be related to graduate school.

Can’t attend the workshop? You’re welcome to meet with me in person in the coming weeks and months to discuss your ideas, plans, and concerns. Call the CDO at x4940 to set up an appointment at your convenience. I look forward to meeting and talking with you soon.

Feel free to e-mail me directly [gumpstev], as well, with your questions about graduate school. The CDO also regularly hosts alumni visits and presents special programming for students anticipating careers in law, medicine, or business, so pay attention to the weekly CDO Newsletters (delivered via e-mail most Fridays during the academic year) or check in with me if you’re not sure where to learn about such opportunities. And don’t miss our annual Graduate and Professional School Fair in the early fall.

Remember that the CDO is here to support sound you and help you make decisions for your futures, regardless of the paths you take. If you are graduating next month, congratulations, and please keep in touch. 

With best wishes,

 Steve Gump, M.B.A., Ph.D. 

[gumpstev]

Assistant Director of Graduate & Professional School Advising

Note: Bold indicates lowest in category. Some values and calculations are approximate. All facts and figures come from the websites, financial statements and 2012 annual reports of Amherst, Swarthmore and Carleton, along with the 2012 Grinnell College Honor Roll of Giving.

Fundraising represents a critical component of how a college finances itself. Alongside endowments and net tuition revenues, donations allow colleges to fund their annual operations, offer financial aid, hire new faculty, expand programs and improve facilities. Many colleges recognize the importance of fundraising and have large alumni relations and development offices to solicit donations from alumni, friends and benefactors of the college. Last year, Stanford University fundraised a record $1 billion.

Colleges and universities raise funds in many forms, the most common of which are unrestricted gifts, restricted gifts, bequests and grants. Unrestricted gifts are donations that can be used however an institution chooses. Restricted gifts can only fund a donor-specified project. A bequest is made from an individual’s or family’s estate after their passing. Grants are awarded to fund research, programs or facilities and come from foundations, companies and governmental agencies. While other forms of giving exist and colleges calculate fundraising differently, adding these types of gifts together generally produces a college’s reported fundraising.

The table below compares Grinnell’s 2012 fundraising with that of peer liberal arts institutions Amherst, Swarthmore and Carleton. The data reveals several stark differences. Most notably, Grinnell lags far behind its peers in absolute fundraising, with Amherst taking in nearly twelve times as much in donations last year. Another important fundraising metric is the alumni participation rate, which is the percentage of solicitable alumni who made a gift (of any size) to the college. Within the group, only Grinnell has an alumni participation rate under 50 percent.

Are these differences exaggerated by college size? Naturally, a school with a larger alumni body is expected to have a higher fundraising intake. Student body size is also relevant when interpreting fundraising data. Since Grinnell has the smallest alumni population and the 2nd smallest student body of the four colleges, fundraising per student and fundraising per alum are potentially more informative comparisons. Unfortunately, Grinnell barely improves relative to peers with these adjustments. On average, Grinnell alums donated only $337 last year, which is one-fourth as much as Carleton alums. In addition, Swarthmore and Carleton fundraised more than three times as much as Grinnell on a per student basis.

Why is there a giving gap? Historically, Grinnell has not invested in development and fundraising to the extent of our peer institutions. Twenty years ago, Grinnell had low costs and an enrollment of 1300, meaning net tuition revenues and the endowment were sufficient to fund annual operations. But as increases in college costs have outpaced the growth of these revenue sources, fundraising has grown in importance to colleges as a means of funding annual operations and expansion projects. Amherst’s “Creating Connections” campaign has raised over $470 million since 2007, and Carleton successfully fundraised $300 million during a campaign from 2004 to 2010.

Donations are more than a windfall: they are required to maintain an elite liberal arts college. President Kington and the Board of Trustees have recognized that Grinnell must improve its fundraising, and they have increased the college’s investment in development and alumni relations. While Grinnell’s endowment is sizable, it is not the largest among liberal arts colleges either in absolute or per student terms, and by all measures our fundraising lags substantially behind peers. If the giving gap persists, Grinnell’s lack of resources will leave it unable to compete with Carleton, Swarthmore and Amherst. The good news is that ample room exists to increase Grinnell’s fundraising without asking Grinnell’s alumni to behave in a manner outside the norms of their peers from other institutions.

 Ishan Bhadkamkar ’13 is an intern with the Grinnell College Investment Office.

When former Representative Ron Paul retired earlier this year, I thought to myself, “What will he most be remembered for?” The first two issues that immediately jumped to mind were his dedication for ending the Federal Reserve and his passion for the legalization of raw milk. The legalization of raw milk might seem like a strange and unlikely passion, but it symbolizes a fundamental libertarian belief: the government should not tell you what you can and cannot do to your body.

Many states, including Iowa, criminalize the retail selling of raw milk. Their reasoning? Raw milk (milk that has not been pasteurized or homogenized) is more likely to induce food-borne illness in the drinker as compared to typical store-bought milk. Essentially, the government is preventing an individual from consuming something because the government thinks consuming it would be harmful for the individual.

This belief can easily be applied to the issue of drug legalization. Recently, many individuals and groups have actively tried, and some with much success, to legalize the use of marijuana. This year, a student group, Students Lobbying Against Prohibition (SLAP), was even formed on our campus. Unfortunately, as I listen to politicians and advocacy groups alike promote the legalization of marijuana use, their reasoning is not one I agree with.

Although I am not going to start drinking raw milk or smoking marijuana, I strongly believe I should have the right to make that choice for myself. When an action to do something to one’s body causes no direct harm to any individual other than the individual who makes the decision, I believe said individual should have the right to do whatever he/she/ze wishes to do.*

I often hear the same explanations as to why the use of marijuana should be legal: it would create revenue for the government, marijuana use isn’t that bad for you, it would help reduce cartel violence in Mexico, marijuana can help treat certain illnesses/conditions, it would help with prison overpopulation, etc. None of these are reasons why marijuana should be legalized, though; these are all merely positive side effects that would coincide with the legalization of it.

The fundamental reason why marijuana should be legal is because the federal government shouldn’t have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do to your body. This line of thought goes beyond the issue of the legalization of marijuana. Granted more complicated problems often arise with other substances, I believe all substances should be legal on the federal level for individual consumption: whether it be apples, raw milk, marijuana, or heroin.

This being said, I do believe state governments have the constitutional right to limit what their citizens consume. Even though I hope all state governments share my belief that limiting what a citizen can consume is an over-step of government, I believe the constitution gives individual states the right to make that decision themselves.

Realistically, no politician has a chance of getting elected if he/she/ze runs on a platform of universal drug legalization. It is no secret that Ron Paul supports the legalization of all drugs, but even he, the most celebrated libertarian in U.S. political history, only vocally advocated for the legalization of marijuana in his most recent presidential run.

In this regard, I fully support groups such as SLAP. I might not agree with their reasoning why marijuana should be legalized, but I do agree with their final conclusion; marijuana should be legal.

I expect that within the next fifteen years, the majority of states, if not the federal government itself, will have either legalized or decriminalized the use of marijuana. The legalization of marijuana will hopefully be used as a stepping-stone leading towards the legalization of all drugs, and more importantly, the end of the belief that the government should be able to restrict what one can do to one’s body.

Until next time, remember, there’s always A View From Below.

*I find it necessary to note that while this statement may appear to apply to the abortion debate, this is not necessarily the case. A fundamental aspect of my reasoning is that the action one does to one’s body does not directly harm any other individual. Clearly, this is a controversial issue within the abortion debate.

Person 1: “Hey, how was your day?” Person 2: “Not bad, but I had a test in [insert class name here].” 1: “How did that go?” 2: “It was okay. How are you doing?” 1: “Good. I’m tired, though.” 2: “Yeah, I get that.” 1: “Oh, did you hear that [insert person’s name here] hooked up with [insert person’s name here] at [insert name of party here]?” 2: “Wow, I wouldn’t have expected that.” 1: “I know, right?” 2: [insert further small talk here], etc. etc. etc.

What you just read is a version of the “typical” mealtime conversation to which I have been exposed over the course of my time at Grinnell. I myself have had this conversation, or a variation of it, countless times a day: breakfast, lunch and dinner, over and over again. I assume that many other people have similar conversations at a similar frequency, but I also assume that there are a number of people whose conversations often enter a more meaningful realm. This realm is reached by going beyond the personal: it includes the discussion of important events, ideas, concepts, etc., and produces thoughtful, intellectual, and/or controversial conversation. For purposes of discussion, I will pretentiously label this realm of conversation “big talk,” in contrast with the colloquially accepted term “small talk.”

At this time, please note that I am not devaluing small talk, nor am I saying that no one should engage in it. It’s important to know and care about the somewhat mundane details of a person’s life; the daily grind is, after all, what makes up our days. Additionally, if you’re only acquainted with someone at a basic level, this type of conversation is to be expected. Most people feel comfortable talking about the small things before the big things, which is reasonable. But the bottom line is this: relationships can be begun and maintained through small talk, but they cannot be small talk exclusive. When conversations never exceed the scope of the template I laid out in the first paragraph, there is a problem. Having essentially the same conversation with someone day after day does not do much in the way of helping you get to know the person better, nor does it encourage intellectually stimulating thought.

I’m not trying to say that intellectual conversations rarely happen. Grinnellians frequently have great discussions about current events, campus issues, and big ideas. What I am trying to say is that these discussions seem to me to be suspiciously absent from mealtimes. I find this strange, because meals are an ideal time to have good discussions: a group of friends is present in a contained location for a respectable length of time. Why not use that opportunity to have great discussions that will help people learn more about each other while learning more about different views and ideas at the same time? Why can’t we step beyond the comfort zone of the petty and the personal? Grinnellians are, on the whole, intelligent and informed. We should capitalize on this and engage in big talk while we’re chowing down on gooey butter cake and baked ziti. Many of us eat two or three meals a day in the d-hall, giving us approximately two or three free hours during which we have the ready chance to have amazing discussions with people we care about. We have the chance, so why not take it?

Eleanor Roosevelt said, “Great minds talk about ideas. Average minds talk about events. Small minds talk about people.” Grinnell is not full of small or average minds, but if you walked up to most tables in the dining hall, you wouldn’t be able to tell. We have the ability to be great, so let’s make the most of it. The cast of Les Misérables once sung, “Who will join in our crusade, who will be strong and stand with me?” My answer is: you, I hope. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to initiate big talk at your d-hall table this week. Ask a question. Present a thought. Start a debate. Just make an effort and see where it leads. I’ll be doing this alongside you (figuratively, but maybe literally), hoping to expand both my mind and my relationships.

I have just finished my fourth month as interim Title IX Coordinator. In this role, I have had the responsibility of reviewing policies and procedures related to sexual misconduct, and developing preventative measures. In the process, I have also had the privilege of learning from this community what it expects of itself. I have come to see that there is a shared concern about alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct and a shared energy to prevent them. The students have taken the lead in devising possible solutions, and the Task Force on Safety, Responsibility and Prevention is working to implement changes. You may have already noticed some of these changes at Harris parties. We are keeping Harris open until 3 a.m. and providing food so that people can stay after the dance, meet up with friends, and take a little time to decide what they will do next.

Students have the best sense about what is happening at Grinnell. To focus our resources and efforts where they will do the most good, we need to understand the experience of students. In order to gain this fuller and more accurate understanding of the students’ perspective and experiences, right after break, the Task Force will be sending a survey to every student. All submissions will be anonymous. As one of the students said about the survey in last week’s advisory committee meeting, “This is the first step. We can’t really combat a problem without understanding it.”

If only a small group takes the survey we will get a skewed picture of Grinnell and then possibly put our efforts in the wrong places. So, please take the survey and encourage your friends to take it as well. This is a general survey about sexual culture and conduct. It is not geared toward a particular experience or type of person. We will report the survey results to the student body and continue the conversation informed by what we learn in the process.

One of the strongest elements of Self-Governance is that students look out for each other. Students don’t hesitate to call for help when they see another student in trouble. I believe that this impulse is a crucial part of keeping individuals and the community safe; it’s vital that we continue and strengthen this element of our campus culture.

Thank you to the many students, faculty, and staff who continue to participate in conversations and offer solutions. If you would like to discuss ideas for making Grinnell a safer place, please email me or join us at the next advisory meeting.

If you have concerns about sexual misconduct, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Angela Voos [voos]

Interim Title IX Coordinator

641-269-3024

1121 Park St. (Nollen House)

Here are other resources available to you:

Campus Safety and Security 641-269-4600

RLC on call

Grinnell advocates (confidential)

Campus security officer

SHACS Nurses and Counselors 641-269-3230 (confidential)

Campus Chaplain/Rabbi (confidential) 641-269-4981

 Title IX Coordinator 641-269-3024

 Dean of Students 641-269-3714

Grinnell Police 641-236-2670

Grinnell Regional Medical Center 641-236-2380

 Domestic Violence Alternatives (confidential) 800-779-3512

Title IX: No person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…sexual harassment of students can constitute discrimination prohibited by Title IX.

What is good sex, and how do you have it? And when you want to define good sex, where do you look?

What is sex advice?

Researching sex tips and advice in Cosmopolitan for my Mentored Advanced Project (MAP) this semester forces me to struggle with these questions regularly. At the beginning of my project, I was confident that “sex advice” would be straightforward and quantifiable—easy to measure and analyze. Cosmopolitan, after all, seems like a perfect site to engage with and study the production and (re)production of sex tips in contemporary media.

For the past couple of weeks, however, I haven’t failed to notice that sex advice doesn’t appear to wait, neatly folded in the glossy pages of a women’s magazine. In fact, the more I thought about it, the more I realized sex advice can be dauntingly broad and encompassing.

Take a recent event on the Grinnell College campus about sex, for example. If I were to quote two pieces on sex: “Sex is always sexiest when both partners desire it,” and “Sex is all about maxing out your pleasure,” how easy would it be to neatly identify which quotation came from Cosmopolitan and which quotation came from a poster advertising the Sexual Consent Forum on campus? If you can’t tell which quotation appeared where, it may not matter whether one is intentionally and explicitly sex advice and the other one isn’t.

Are the messages we receive continuously ever not sex advice? And how do we separate one from the other? When do we decide to be the active recipients of advice on sex, and have we developed enough sexual literacy as a society to recognize sex advice when it presents itself in our daily lives?

What is good sex and sex advice?

When mainstream media sources choose to report on Kristen Stewart cheating on Robert Pattison, we hear how good sex is faithful and committed. And we may or may not consciously flash back to reports on President Bill Clinton’s extra-marital affair and the media craze for the Zippergate story, arguably the first time mainstream news media focused on a sexual scandal in such a widespread way.

This coverage is sex advice.

When E. L. James’ 50 Shades of Grey sells over 65 million copies worldwide, we hear how good sex is kinky but also mainstream, aggressive but safe. What was once labeled “deviant” is now in fashion. It is now fashionable to try new sex positions based on what is currently popular. So we hear: good sex reflects changes in society—if everyone else does it, then it must be good.

This is sex advice.

The Sexual Consent Forum on February 7th advertised itself as a space where the Grinnell community could join a conversation and ask questions. With the purpose of discussing issues relating to sexual consent and sexual assault on campus, participants in the forum were to express opinions on what constitutes good sex. When a poster explains: “Consent is never implied and cannot be assumed, even in the context of a relationship,” we hear: good sex is consensual, but not necessarily committed.

This stance is sex advice, too.

Sex advice is as open to interpretation as the act of sex itself. On a daily basis, we must navigate this continuous stream of varied (and often contradictory) messages. And more often than not, we have yet to develop the media and sexual literacy to do so.

—Nazareth Soberanes ’14

On February 23, the Grinnell College Board of Trustees voted to maintain Grinnell’s commitment to need-blind admission and meeting 100% of demonstrated need by adopting a new revenue model. By increasing net tuition revenue and philanthropic support, the Board expressed hope that Grinnell would find itself on sound financial footing. The Board also approved an increase in the comprehensive fee. While these adjustments will hopefully resolve Grinnell’s short-term financial difficulties, Grinnell—and the rest of the higher-education sector—faces significant long-term challenges to its funding model.

Though Grinnell recently engaged in a prolonged discussion over how to fund itself, the current dialogue did not include the College’s underlying cost and delivery model. The administration truthfully pointed out that a liberal arts education is expensive, excessive cutting is detrimental to institutional excellence, and Grinnell’s costs compare favorably with those of peer institutions. But this line of thinking ignores the uncomfortable reality that all higher education institutions are facing cost structure problems. College tuition and fees have risen 1,120 percent since 1978, which is approximately four times the rate of inflation.[i] Even though the returns on a college degree remain high, there are myriad reasons to believe that higher education costs cannot increase forever.

Moody’s Investors Services, a credit rating agency, recently placed the entire U.S. higher education sector on negative outlook. In a detailed report that received substantial media coverage, Moody’s identified a combination of mounting fiscal pressure on all university revenue sources and external factors for the downgrade: “[M]ost universities will have to lower their cost structures to achieve long-term financial sustainability and fund future initiatives.”[ii] The report projects that tuition, endowments, philanthropy and federal spending on student aid are unstable and likely to diminish.[iii] This is attributable to many reasons, including high unemployment, fewer high school graduates, slow economic growth, uncertain federal spending and political gridlock.³ These factors all reduce the pricing power of universities, and therefore their ability to raise costs.

A key reason that colleges have been able to raise costs so drastically is that the federal government heavily subsidizes the higher education sector. Last year, the federal government distributed approximately $174 billion worth of aid in the form of grants, loans, work-study and tax credits.[iv] This represents a 140% increase since 2001.⁴ Of the total $185.1 billion in undergraduate student aid that was distributed last year, 73% came from the federal government.⁴ The popular Pell grants, which are awarded to low-income students and do not need to be repaid, totaled $34 billion and were awarded to 9.4 million students last year.⁴ The takeaway: colleges rely extensively on federal grants and loans to fund themselves.

This source of funding is in serious jeopardy for several reasons. The first is that political gridlock has thrown all federal budgeting in jeopardy. Federal aid is caught in the middle of Washington’s tax and spend debate, with Republicans in particular attempting to cut Pell grants.[v] But the pressure is bipartisan. In his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama threatened to reduce taxpayer funding of higher education unless colleges limit the rate of tuition increases.[vi] There have also been calls for institutions to provide more transparency about the post-graduate success of their students, especially in terms of employment and salary data. With total student loan debt outstanding surpassing $1 trillion in late 2012[vii] and the default rate on student loans at its highest level since 1996, it is only a matter of time before grants and loans will become less accessible to students. Grinnell would find itself quite exposed if this happened, as approximately 21% of Grinnell students received Pell grants during the 2010-2011 academic year.

Perhaps the most radical challenge to traditional college funding models comes from the development of online education. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which are created by for-profit companies like Udacity and Coursera, and nonprofits like EdX, have recently emerged as viable low-cost alternatives to certain higher education courses. It is unlikely that MOOCs will ever fully replace a traditional college education. But as MOOCs become more sophisticated and receive accreditation (some have even been approved for college credit[viii]), the higher education industry will undoubtedly transform.

Grinnell’s existing funding model may come under stress in the long-term because it relies on revenue sources that will stagnate and shrink. The few (but hardly exhaustive) reasons outlined in this article suggest that Grinnell, along with its peer institutions, will eventually be forced to rethink the cost and delivery model through which it provides its “product”—an outstanding liberal arts education. Ultimately, such changes will be far more significant than any Grinnell has confronted thus far.

My friend is worried that she got pregnant from making out in a hot tub. Is this possible?

—Mythbusters

Dear Mythbusters,

There are a bunch of rumors about what can or cannot get you pregnant, and we’ve heard them all. Hot tubs are one of the trickier ones; while most doctors say that it is technically possible, the man would have to ejaculate into the water only a few centimeters away from the woman’s vagina, while her legs were spread and her vagina opened. Sperm cannot survive more than a few seconds under water due to the heat and chemicals in a hot tub. Even in a pool with normal body temperature, the sperm would only survive a few minutes, and would be unable to swim more than a few centimeters. From just making out in the hot tub, your friend doesn’t need to worry. If the man ejaculated in the water, she might want to take a pregnancy test just to be safe.

Here are a few more common myths, in case your “friend” still has concerns. What cannot get you pregnant: wearing dirty underwear (sperm dies by the time semen dries), a toilet seat, kissing, oral, and urine. You CAN get pregnant from: anal (only if ejaculate drips from your anus to your vagina), on your period, precum, rubbing your genitals together, and having direct penile to vaginal contact, with or without a physical or chemical contraceptive.

Love,

SHIC

Hey SHIC, 

So, I’m slightly worried about my dick. Okay, not slightly, but very, very concerned. I haven’t been circumcised, and I’m worried that my partner will be majorly turned off once they see my uncut penis. I know it’s a little strange, to be so worried but being uncut is often misunderstood. How should I deal with this? It’s driving me insane! 

—Sincerely, 

Uncut & Unready to be Humiliated 

Dear Uncut & Unready to be Humiliated,

I can understand your concerns and I think you have a pretty good idea why the stigma exists. Let me give you a broader sense at where you stand among the vast nation of cut penises.

Circumcision is performed for all sorts of cultural and religious reasons, and there are many myths surrounding circumcision, such as cleanliness. It’s an old myth that circumcision improves hygiene. However, did you know that nearly 85% of the world is uncircumcised? Yes, that’s right —­that means circumcision is not a popular choice worldwide. It just so happens you’re living in one of the two nations (the United States and Israel) where infants are routinely circumcised. Depending on your source, the statistics for the number of circumcised men in the United States range anywhere from 60%-80%. But, I don’t think you need the statistics to reiterate the stigma that you feel. The circumcision option for parents is often a no-brainer because they’re afraid of their kids growing up being stigmatized in the locker rooms. Pro-circumcision individuals usually include women who have grown used to the idea of what a ‘normal’ penis looks like, and men who have been cut since they were infants.

However, your parents gave you an amazing choice and opportunity. Many men, who initially had their foreskin intact, report a large decrease in pleasure after undergoing the procedure from medical advice. In heterosexual couples, women also experience reduced pleasure.

Why is this?

The foreskin is highly sexually sensitive and has nearly 20,000 nerve endings! Of course, if that’s removed, there’s going to be a reduction in sensation. For women, the foreskin usually acts as a normal lubricant and has even aided in them reaching their big-O! Without a foreskin, some women have even complained of vaginal pain and dryness.

Confidence is key, love.

You know once you’re hard enough and your foreskin retracts back, you’ll look like any other penis. Tell your partner that you still have the macho ability to please and that they get to find out why ‘uncut’ is sometimes better.

If you’re in a committed relationship, then I suggest talking with your partner that you’re worried about their reaction to the look of your penis and then reiterating that ‘uncut’ means more pleasure. If your partner truly cares, they will understand.

Stay Sexy,

[SHIC]

Ironically enough, the theme of this year’s NEDAwareness Week is “Everybody Knows Somebody.” While many people may be lucky enough to not experience a full-fledged eating disorder in their life, I ask you to recall a time when eating or food served as a source of stress. Everyone knows someone who has been affected by disordered eating. If you don’t think you do, it might be time to start having deeper conversations with your friends. Eating disorders happen, disordered eating happens, discussions about either don’t happen nearly enough.

Ignoring NEDAW is sending the message to all those who struggle with disordered eating on a daily basis that their struggle isn’t important to us, that this community is unwilling or unable to recognize their needs. Grinnell, we are better than that. I know we are.

In lieu of any official (or unofficial) programming this year, I ask you to make an effort to reach out to your friends. Last year’s NEDAW speaker Nicole Cueno ’02 made an excellent point. At her event, she stressed the power of simply asking someone “How are you?” and genuinely caring about the answer. It can really be that simple. If you are concerned that you or someone you know (or don’t really know that well) may be struggling with disordered eating, get help. Reach out and let them know you care and want to help them. Set up an appointment with SHACS, chat with your SA, send an email to your RLC, call home. Let someone know when you are concerned, because, despite our failure to recognize NEDAW this year, this campus is able (and willing) to help. Please go to http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/family-and-friends for more suggestions on helping someone in the fight against eating disorders.

Daria Brosius ’15

Editor’s note: Brosius is a copy editor for the S&B

Gardner is one of those facets Grinnell could not survive without. A live DJ at a dance party represents a proud and sometimes slightly cocky opposition to Harris. Gardner is the venue that makes possible performances ranging from Washed Out to RiFF RaFF. Gardner is often the answer to our weekend blues. Yet just like everything else at Grinnell (and with life itself), there are ways to take full advantage of the jubilee and entertainment Gardner holds on a Friday night, and ways to, well, fail to get the most out of your Gardner gallivanting.

Undisputedly, concerts are Gardner’s main draw, and almost every weekend at least one act graces the stage. These concerts are one of the remaining events that continue to unite this divided campus, especially with the big, hyped up shows such as Dan Deacon and Le1f that bring Grinnellians from Dibble to Cleveland to fill the dance floor in one sweaty mass. The reason is that these shows are good! For once, we have outside entertainment brought all the way to the middle of Iowa to rap about popping pills or swoon about heartache. Yet this treat goes unappreciated by some, who are busy scanning the crowd for their booty call or best friend. I have noticed that much of what makes up a crowd at a Gardner concert is not people enraptured by the music, but people pushing through the crowd calling someone’s name, or standing facing away from the live performance with a worried expression. I know, I know, part of the whole image of Gardner is an air of apathy, to shout excitedly in the JRC about a show that night but then at the show itself be too busy scanning the crowd or generally being hyper-aware of your surroundings to actually be engaged with the show itself.

Grinnellians’ first priorities on weekends are usually “where are my friends?” and “am I drunk enough?” If they aren’t satisfied with either answer they will leave wherever they are to fix it. I understand leaving a 1010 party to smoke more, or meet up with someone special, but if you are at a live show that people put a lot of effort into planning, why not stay? Why not immerse yourself in the act, without concern of whether you are surrounded by friends? If you feel more sober than you had intended, do not be alarmed. Life, and believe it or not, Gardner concerts, can be experienced sober and still be fun. Instead of constantly seeking out companionship and substances, why not forget you are at Grinnell, stop worrying about what people are thinking about you, close your eyes, and simply get swept away by the music.

Another tendency of Grinnellians I have noticed that greatly reduces the Gardner experience is to walk down the stairs slightly drunk and pumped for the show, enter Gardner to find the opening act jamming away, and then promptly leave. Why would people do this? Well if Grinnell ever had one unifying ethos it would be the understanding that because there aren’t enough other Grinnellians there yet—“it isn’t happening!” People will even go so far as to report the “dead” status of Gardner to those approaching as they leave. What I don’t understand about this is the illogical notion that if you and a group of your slightly drunk and primed-to-dance friends leave Gardner, and warns others to do the same, it will still end up eventually poppin’. The poppin’ status is eventually reached, this mysterious critical mass of bodies where it is deemed acceptable for everyone to stream out of their rooms and into Gardner, this time to stay. But why not start this process earlier in the night, especially when the live acts have already started? Grinnellians complain often that the crowd at Gardner is lacking, “there is no one at Gardner… pffft, so typical.” Yet we as a collective body, but also as individuals, have the power to change this.

Next time you go to Gardner with friends and they insist on leaving, try staying. Yes, even if it is just you, the dance floor, the music, and a few other brave independent souls. Watch the drummer get really into the beat, observe the lead singer and notice the funny saying on his or her shirt. Most of all, begin to dance, truly dance, in a luxuriously spacious Gardner without sweaty undulating bodies grinding up on you. Realize that you can exist alone in Gardner and have fun, because before everything else, Gardner is not a dining hall table or even the dance floor at 1008, it is a live show and godd*mn it after a long week you owe it to yourself to genuinely experience it, no matter where your friends or booty call is.

To the Editors:

I write to extend my thanks to the entire Grinnell community. Over the past 18 months, we have engaged in an open, thorough and thoughtful conversation about our college’s future. This discussion has dealt with complicated issues, focusing on our fundamental priorities and values—educational excellence, equal access for the most talented students from all backgrounds, and sustaining the college’s ability to remain affordable, not just today, but for generations to come. I am pleased and grateful that so many of you wanted to be part of this important conversation. Your commitment to Grinnell is clear, and your thoughts have profoundly influenced my own thinking and the decisions of the Board.

On Saturday, the Board of Trustees voted on a set of principles that will guide our planning around these issues for the foreseeable future. This weekend’s Board vote sends a two-part message: First, the Board affirmed Grinnell’s strong commitment to need-blind admission and financial aid. Second, the trustees told us that the status quo is unacceptable. If we want to remain need-blind, we have to figure out a way to pay for this commitment without eroding Grinnell’s commitment to provide opportunity to future generations through our endowment and placing the college at long-term risk.

I firmly believe that the Board has made the right decision. They have established a model for college and university boards nationwide, by virtue of the open, thoughtful and analytical process by which they reached their decision.

This weekend’s vote does not represent the end of the conversation; rather, this is just the beginning. It is now incumbent upon the entire Grinnell community—students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and friends—to do everything we can to show that we take our roles seriously and can meet the challenge that lies before us.

The Board has given us a clear and unambiguous charge: We must find a way to maintain our twin commitments to excellence and to access while also setting the college on a financial path that is sustainable over the long term. Over the next two years, we will closely monitor a number of factors—including our academic profile, our demographic profile and financial indicators (including Grinnell’s endowment performance, fund-raising and net tuition revenue)—to ensure that we are continuing to fulfill our mission while charting a financial course that is sustainable over the long term. I believe that we are up to the challenge. But if we can’t demonstrate success by 2015, the Board will have the option to instruct the college to pursue more aggressive enrollment management strategies effective with the class enrolling at Grinnell in 2017 and reconsider our need-blind admissions policy at that time. As I have noted many times before, the entire world of higher education is clearly at an important flexion point. We face so many daunting challenges; and yet, the importance of our institutions—as centers of clear, independent thought about what it means to be human, as creators of new knowledge to help us address the important problems of society, as essential incubators in providing opportunities for social and economic mobility—has never been greater.

The conversation that our community has had can serve as an important model for others—both because of what was decided, and because of the process that led to the decision. I am inspired and energized by your commitment to Grinnell, and I look forward to working with all of you on the next part of this conversation.

Raynard S. Kington

President