“That’s my goal,” she explained: “to develop the student inside and outside of the classroom in every way.”

“Inside of the classroom, the main thing I want to do in my role is to teach students to think critically, to teach students to consider all cultural values effectively and analyze them and evaluate situations, and once they do that, I want them to develop solutions that are inclusive and transparent,” she said.

She also often participates in students’ extracurricular activities. This year, she is serving as the advisor of a four-student Ruhlman panel called “African Diaspora Members Experiences Through the Lens of Black Psychology.” In addition, Eva Mullarkey ’20, a student in Professor Davis’ “Breaking the glass ceiling: women in the workplace” class, explained that she “went to one of our student’s jazz events on a Sunday! How nice is that?”

As Professor Davis put it, “I try in every way to be involved in student organizations from speaking with Active Minds, with speaking to Ethos, from speaking to Mezcla, speaking to Wellesley Asian students—it doesn’t matter, I am there. I go to student events all the time; I love students, like I love teaching.”

She is highly praised by her students, many of whom feel that her commitment to her students goes above and beyond the norm by encouraging them to support each other.

“She’s always encouraging us, and I feel like she is instilling in us the community that Wellesley used to be. … Wellesley is supposed to be a place where Wellesley students support other Wellesley students, Wellesley used to be a place where people went to town halls and people supported each other, people went to each other’s events… she’s really instilling a sense of community in us that I don’t always feel at Wellesley,” Mullarkey said.

However, the care and attention her students say she has for each student is apparently not enough for Wellesley College. Professor Davis was informed in fall 2016 that her contract at Wellesley College will not be renewed this year, although the reason for this decision is unclear and has been kept from Professor Davis and students asking for answers. “I have only been told that my contract has not been, and will not be, renewed,” she said.

Professor Davis was first hired as an adjunct professor in the Africana Studies department from 2004 to 2005 and was rehired from 2006-2008. She was rehired a third time for a three-year lecturer position from 2015 to 2018.

A group of about 60 students has organized an informal coalition in order to fight against Professor Davis’ departure. According to a coalition leader, the group has set up meetings with faculty and with each other, where they circulate information and discussed what steps the group should take next. They are just as confused about the reasons for Professor Davis’ departure as she is.

“I am unsure why this would be the case. She is loved by her students and has dedicated so much time and energy into us. I do not understand why administration would be against what the students want,” said an anonymous coalition leader.

Chair of the Africana Studies department Filomina Steady explained that as a lecturer, Professor Davis was never on track for tenure. Instead, her lecturer contract was three years long and has been completed. “This is not unusual at Wellesley. We are grateful for her contribution and that of all the other faculty to the department,” she said.

Professor Steady added that “all faculty positions and contracts are allocated and approved by the administration and not the department.”

However, Provost Andrew Shennan explained that “The Provost’s office reappoints faculty at the request of, and on the recommendation of, an academic department or program, and in this case we have received no such request or recommendation.”

Regarding the reasons for Professor Davis’ departure, one anonymous coalition leader said, “Only the department chair can provide us with this answer.”

The cause for Professor Davis’ contract not being renewed is especially confusing given the glowing praise she receives from her students and the fact that she appears to meet the requirements for lecturers. According to the Faculty Handbook for the Articles of Government, “Staffing need within a department is the fundamental criterion for the continuation of a lecturer position. The other criteria for lecturers consist of excellent teaching (including supervising independent research, as appropriate), professional development, and service (including advising students), with the primary criterion being teaching.”

The document additionally states that “If the departmental R&P [Reappointments and Promotions] committee can provide justification that the department’s needs would be served best by a term position rather than a tenure-eligible position and staffing units are available, it is possible to request a lecturer position.” It continues, “Contracts for lecturers and senior lecturers will be based on staffing needs within a department.”

Neither Professor Steady nor Provost Shennan responded to questions about staffing needs within the department or about whether the R&P provided justification that the department’s needs would best be served by a term position rather than a tenure-eligible one.

Professor Davis’ students are greatly displeased that she is leaving, especially in a department that has only seven faculty members. Many believe that her departure will have an enormous impact on the Africana Studies department and its integrity.

“Professor Davis is not only one of two black American women in the Africana department, she is extremely involved with students and always makes herself available to helping us whether it is academically, personally or career-oriented. Her classes reach into the past for historical context, and she always makes sure that we understand and make connections to modern day issues. She wants what is best for us and practices it in the way she teaches and treats us. The Africana Department would not only lose a loving and driven professor, but an exemplary community member who encourages students to engage with each other and take interest in all that Africana Studies has to offer,” explained an anonymous coalition leader.

“I have never met a more inspirational professor and it is ridiculous that the Africana Studies Department is willingly letting go of such a valuable professor. If Professor Davis is removed from the department, they will also be losing my faith in them to be honest and true to the mission of the school and to the history of the department,” another anonymous leader explained.

The coalition has been attempting to discuss the issue with administration, but doing so has proved to be more difficult than they had expected because administrators are unwilling to discuss the matter. Despite the students’ multiple requests for a meeting with Professor Steady, conveyed through emails in which they discuss their concerns about the future of the Africana Studies department, an appointment has yet to be scheduled.

“In my perspective, the administration has done what they can to distance themselves from the situation,” explained an anonymous coalition leader. “Though they have given helpful advice, such as informing us that the decision to rehire Professor Davis is the choice of the department’s chair, they also express their ability to do anything to help our situation. While they truly may not be able to help, it does not change the fact that the response has been very distancing.”

Chief Communications Officer Elizabeth Gildersleeve said that “The College is committed to the Africana Studies Department, which is currently searching for a two-year lecturer and has also been authorized to run a tenure-track search in the fall.”

Students are deeply frustrated by the absence of response from the administration and the lack of apparent reasoning for Professor Davis’ contact not being renewed.

“I’ve been very surprised at how nonchalant administration has been,” said an anonymous coalition leader. “I thought that they would listen to us and care about our voices, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I’ve always thought so highly of administration and the Africana Department, but the way we have been responded to makes the value of community seem like a facade.”

Protagonist Renee works in the digital department of upscale cosmetics company Lily LeClaire.  Her office is located in the basement instead of in the company’s extravagant headquarters. She struggles with body image issues and low self-esteem; a boutique salesgirl informs her that she could “probably find [her] size online,” the photo she and her two friends Vivian and Jane (Aidy Bryant and Busy Philipps, respectively) post on a dating site gets no views and at a SoulCycle class, she nearly dives under the counter in embarrassment when forced to ask for a “double-wide” shoe. Scenes such as these exemplify everyday scenarios in which she feels less than; Renee fantasizes about being beautiful and imagines how much easier her life would be if she were, at one point explaining how she has “always wondered what it feels like to be just undeniably pretty.”

Renee’s life changes thanks to a fateful SoulCycle class. During a spin routine, she falls, hits her head hard on a bike and wakes up believing that she is as beautiful as the women in the Cosmo magazines she reads and the YouTube tutorials she watches. While she doesn’t actually look any different, she gains a new level of confidence. Of course, she eventually hits her head again and returns to her normal state of mind, but in the meantime, her life turns around: she gets a new job as a receptionist at Lily LeClaire, right in the center of the luxurious office and finds a new boyfriend.

The most entertaining part of “I Feel Pretty” is Schumer herself, who is adept at weaseling her way into situations so awkward they are almost painful to watch. While her comedic timing is perfect and her gait while toddling out of a SoulCycle class after splitting her pants is hilarious, she also pulls off quieter, more serious moments like the one in front of the mirror. We have not seen this more vulnerable side of Schumer before in her previous films, including “Trainwreck” and “Snatched.” Yet here, she easily gains the audience’s sympathy and laughter in turn.

Michelle Williams as CEO Avery LeClaire is also a joy to watch. She glides on-screen and immediately shocks the audience with a high-pitched, squeaky voice unlike any I’ve ever heard her use. LeClaire is the kind of woman who literally cannot pronounce the word “Kohl’s” and, when she comes upon Renee eating lunch, says breezily, “Ah, Renee, I thought I smelled animal products.” It is clear that Williams is thoroughly enjoying herself in a comedic role, and I was pleasantly surprised at how well she fit it.

The film’s most glaring problem becomes evident during its climax, when Renee realizes that she actually looked the same the whole time and her career achievements were due to her own strength and ability, not her looks. It’s a touching sentiment. Unfortunately, it occurs onstage at a huge product reveal for Lily LeClaire, and Renee uses her newfound confidence to encourage the audience to buy LeClaire cosmetics. It seems like a vicious Catch-22: she finally realizes that physical beauty is not what matters, and so… she encourages her listeners to buy her cosmetics in order to first “fix” their outward appearances before then addressing their internal beauty? Her newfound power leads her to turn right around and continue selling cosmetics as a path to internal strength rather than extolling the many virtues of internal strength on its own. This approach insinuates that it’s the responsibility of women to overcome unhealthy societal beauty standards and be confident without denouncing the ridiculous beauty standards themselves.

Renee’s very presence on-stage is also due to a questionable plot choice, as the only reason her supervisor promoted her is because Lily LeClaire is creating a lower-end product line in an attempt to expand their reach to a new target demographic: girls who don’t “have high-end makeup brushes” and “put their makeup on in the rearview mirror”—girls like Renee. When LeClaire looks at her, you can practically see dollar signs flashing in her eyes.

On the surface, “I Feel Pretty” is good for a laugh and for some entertaining Amy Schumer comedy. However, there are deeper problems that the film does not address, like the failure to question Renee’s pitch that cosmetics have life-transforming capabilities. Ultimately, it still conforms to an extremely narrow and overwhelmingly white definition of beauty. Vivian aptly sums up one of the film’s greatest frustrations when she asks Renee “Why do you think everyone cares what you look like?” Undoubtedly, society is cruel to women who do not fit its specific notions of beauty, and many women suffer from low self-esteem and body image issues. But oftentimes, these perspectives are imposed on us by the media and by the likes of the very cosmetics company for which Renee works. Her job — convincing women they need cosmetics to look beautiful and/or change their lives — is, in fact, the reason why she is so insecure about her appearance in the first place. It’s a vicious cycle that “I Feel Pretty” propagates far more than it questions.

Egan is from Cape Elizabeth, ME, where she began cross country skiing in middle school. As a high school student, she was a Maine state champion and a two-time member of the New England Junior National team. When she arrived at Wellesley, she founded the school’s Nordic Ski Club, majored in International Relations and ran cross country and track, the sport in which she was Wellesley’s first All-American. Egan is still Wellesley’s only cross-country runner to have claimed both conference runner and rookie of the year titles and Seven Sisters individual champion honors in the same season.

Egan made her Olympic debut on  Feb. 12 in Pyeongchang, South Korea, where she competed in the women’s 7.5 km sprint. She finished with a time of 23:51.6, earning her 61st place overall and missing qualifying for the Pursuit race, which is 10 km for women, by one place.

Two days later, Egan participated in the Women’s 15 km Individual. She completed the event with a time of 48:00.8 and finished 62nd overall.

Egan’s final event in her first Olympic Games took place on Feb. 22. She competed in the Women’s 4 x 6 km relay with her teammates Susan Dunklee, Joanne Reid and Emily Dreissigacker. The squad completed the event with a time of 1:14:05.3 and finished 13th overall.

We interviewed Egan  about her introduction to biathlon, her experiences at Wellesley and her Olympic journey.

How did you first get involved with Biathlon?

After college, I joined a Vermont-based elite cross-country ski team called the Craftsbury Green Racing Project. We trained full-time and worked part-time at the Craftsbury Outdoor Center in exchange for all of our living and skiing costs. A few of my teammates had transitioned from skiing to biathlon, and I followed their footsteps, eventually earning a spot on the U.S. Biathlon Team.

How did competing for Wellesley’s Cross Country and Track teams and attending Wellesley in general prepare you for the Olympics?

My athletic career at Wellesley played a pivotal role in my later success, but not in the way you might think. When I chose to go to Wellesley over Division I schools that had offered me running or skiing scholarship, I made a choice against sport specialization in the name of education and diversity. At Wellesley, I enjoyed the relative freedom and autonomy that comes with being a Division III student-athlete: I sang in the College Choir, studied abroad my whole junior year, visited friends and family on weekends and chose classes without any restriction imposed by my sports schedule. After having four years to think about it, I was ready to make athletics a bigger priority, so I decided to use my last year of NCAA eligibility as a Division I athlete and graduate student at UNH. They paid for my tuition, so the team came first. I couldn’t take classes on Thursdays, Fridays or after 12 p.m. on Tuesdays because of our training schedule. I loved it, and eventually, it grew into my full-time job. In the eight years since I graduated from Wellesley, I’ve defined myself as an athlete, committing 100 percent to the all-encompassing pursuit of reaching my maximum physical and psychological potential. Without the solid, well-balanced foundation I built at Wellesley, I think I would have burnt out long ago.

What were some of the biggest obstacles you faced leading up to the Olympics?

The biggest hurdle has been keeping it fun. Committing to this lifestyle requires a level of passion that most other jobs do not because there is no financial reward. The vast majority of aspiring U.S. Olympic athletes are not compensated for doing their sport. Until two years ago, I was not paid; now I make about $14,000 dollars a year. So it has to be rewarding in other ways; it has to be fun. I spend about seven months of the year on the road, I am not in charge of my own schedule, I train six days a week and don’t have weekends or holidays off. Ultimately, my reward is that I’m an Olympian: totally intangible and totally worth it. But keeping my fire burning within for the past decade was not easy, especially when there was never any guarantee that I would make the Pyeongchang 2018 team. For every person who qualifies, there are hundreds who don’t. So on a daily basis it needs to be fun, and it often was not.

What challenges did you face during your time in South Korea?

I got the flu about two weeks before the opening ceremony and missed our entire 10-day final preparations training camp. I’ve never missed that many days of training due to illness in my entire career. Luckily, I was healthy by the time the Games began, but I was certainly not in peak physical form. I also crashed in my opening race, and as a result, missed qualifying for the next event. Both the illness and the crash were just bad luck and bad timing.

What motivates you?

I’m motivated by the coach who believes in me, by my duty to be steadfast teammate, by a will to seize the day and by the joy I get from blowing people away.

What were some of the most memorable moments of your Olympic journey?

I’ll never forget marching in the opening ceremony or hitting all 10 of my targets for a perfect race in the women’s relay.

What are your plans for after the Games? Are you planning to return in four years?

I have five more weeks on the road for Biathlon World Cup racing! I race in Finland, Norway and finally Utah. Then I have some time off in April, and I need to decide whether I am continuing or retiring!

The Wellesley community is so proud of everything that you have accomplished! What has its support meant to you?

The video Wellesley made for me was the most moving gesture of support I’ve received. There’s nothing stronger than women together!

What advice do you have for student at Wellesley?

Carpe diem, sisters.

Senior Lecturer in English and Chair of the creative writing concentration Marilyn Sides began planning this event last summer. “I saw they [Acker and Witte] were very interested in having a classroom component to The Common,” she explained. “Since I was teaching English 203, the short story class, it was a natural to have them come and talk about how literary texts get published.”

About 25 students and professors attended the event, which took place in the English Department Library. Many students were members of Professor Sides’ Short Narrative course. Others were interested in learning about the world of literary magazines. “It’s an issue I’m curious about. I want to submit to literary magazines, but it can feel really insular,” explained Claire Beyette ’19.

Professor Sides began by welcoming attendees, but most of the introduction was handled by event moderator Rachel Pak ’18, who became involved because she is the editor-in-chief of The Wellesley Review, Wellesley’s literary magazine. She introduced Acker, who is currently a visiting lecturer at Amherst College, and Witte, who was the recipient of a Mass Cultural Council Poetry Fellowship in 2016.

Pak’s questions for Acker and Witte, she explained, focused on the prospective audience for the event. “I decided that the group in attendance would be composed mostly of writers and some students interested in the publishing industry. Therefore, I decided to find out what goes through an editor’s head when selecting submissions to publish to working with writers to hone their pieces,” she said.

Pak began by asking Acker and Witte about their magazine’s brand and why they believe literary magazines are such a crucial part of the literary world.

Acker emphasized the value of “creating a literary community” and the role of literary magazines in fostering such communities. When she worked in book publishing, she explained, they “didn’t have group of subscribers, it was much more diverse.” In addition, she stressed that one of the main goals of literary magazines, at least in the case of “The Common,” “is to launch the career of younger writers,” which is not always true of other platforms.

When discussing their brand, Witte explained the publication’s focus on place is not meant to be constraining. “Generally, we think of it as very broad in terms of a sense of place. We don’t do themed issues. We’re interested in what emerges when a writer engages with this idea of a sense of place,” she said.

Pak found this aspect of the discussion to be the most fascinating.

“ ‘A modern sense of place’ guides their editorial process, and as they described what that idea means to them, I also realized just how important it is for literary magazines to have a strong, perhaps niche identity. It allows certain publications to cut through the crowded media landscape,” she said.

Pak then asked the editors about funding—a common problem for literary magazines. Acker explained that The Common receives support from Amherst College. “It’s a joint venture, so the college pays for some staff positions. But it took four years of lobbying for the college to sign on.” Further funding comes from grants, either from academic departments or outside sources, such as the National Endowment for the Arts. “We’re always applying for grants,” Acker added.

Pak moved on to the magazine’s digital strategy. “I’m fascinated by how something tactile can be moved to online,” she explained.

The Common recently completed a year-long redesign of its website, something Acker and Witte feel has been successful. In terms of its online presence, Witte explained,“Our website is unique, I think, among literary journals because everything we publish is online. It kind of creates another way to experience the print issue. We’ve tried to make these platforms speak to each other.”

While on the subject of digital media, Pak brought up the oft-cited adage: “print is dead.” She asked Acker and Witte their thoughts on the matter and how they saw it affecting the future of The Common.

Acker’s attitude about the future of print media and The Common in print form was highly optimistic. “Part of our founding mission was that it would be a print journal, so we’re gonna fight that fight until the end. So I don’t see that disappearing. It seems really important to be creating something that is a standalone, finite volume,” she explained.

Pak then opened up the floor to audience questions. Some students were interested in the submission process, specifically where the submissions come from, how many submissions the mag receives and how many submissions are selected to appear in print.

“We publish on average one percent of what is submitted, depending on the genre. It’s less than one percent for prose, four percent for essays,” Acker said. Finally, one student asked how Acker and Witte find time for their own writing amidst all the work they must do on the writing of others.

“It does take a lot of energy and a lot of time. Time management is a real challenge,” Witte admitted.

Acker agreed but mentioned the benefits that their editing work has on their own writing. “We learn a lot from the editorial work that we do. We learn how to become better writers. It hones a certain set of analytical muscles. It’s fruitful creatively,” she explained.

After the event, Professor Sides said she was “wowed, as always, by my students… Students followed up with good questions about the combination of print and digital platform, how they judged submissions, what about a submission felt ‘right’ to them.” She plans to invite Acker and Witte back to campus for future events.

“Since they are both authors, we could have an event called ‘Editors and Authors’ — they talk about wearing both hats. Students seemed very interested in that,” she said.

In many instances, the women have been swarmed by the press and excited onlookers, who jostle for a photo or quote. In fact, the media has become so focused on the cheerleaders themselves that it has forgotten the bigger picture that these women symbolize. Media outlets outside of Korea have coined the phrase “army of beauties” to describe this cheer squad. Suki Kim, journalist and author of “Without You, There Is No Us: Undercover Among the Sons of North Korea’s Elite” and journalist who spent months undercover in North Korea, explains that these women are not an army and do not accurately represent North Korea. “That country is really nothing to do with either cheerleaders or the Olympics, which actually is about the world coming together. North Korea is the one place the world is not allowed to enter,” she explained. This so-called “army of beauties” is merely a distraction from North Korea’s actual military power—a distraction that is, unfortunately, succeeding.

These women are doing exactly what Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un hoped they would when he sent them to PyeongChang: drawing the attention of the media and spectators. The cheerleaders are beautiful, young and focused, and their routines are perfectly coordinated. Their presence not only humanizes the North Korean regime, but also makes it seem charming, while still symbolizing the North’s strength and discipline. The cheer squad is a form of propaganda, a charm offensive that continues performing no matter what. After the combined North and South Korean women’s ice hockey team lost 8-0 to Sweden, the cheerleaders nonetheless continued clapping and singing with the same vigor. The spectacle is surely mesmerizing, but by focusing so much on this squad, we have lost sight of the very real threat that North Korea poses.

Too much media coverage has focused on the women themselves or criticized them for agreeing to be a part of the regime. However, as Kim explains, “they are not an army and they are not cheerleaders. They’re actually college students who’ve been rounded up by the government to be sent overseas to look pretty.” These young women are selected from North Korea’s top universities based on a variety of factors, including height (at least 5’3”), youth, family status and dedication to the North Korean regime. They have no choice in the matter.

In addition, Han Seo-hee, a former North Korean cheerleader who defected and now lives in South Korea, explained that these women undergo extensive psychological training. They are also not allowed to discuss what they see on their visit to the South; after the 2005 Asian Athletics Championships in Incheon, South Korea, which was the last time North Korea sent cheerleaders to an international sports event in the South, 21 North Korean cheerleaders were sent to prison camps for doing so.

While at Olympic events, this cheer squad is separated from the crowd by male minders who surround them on all sides; visits to the bathroom are supervised and must occur in groups. The cheerleaders are not even paid, although many see traveling outside their country as a great opportunity. These women don’t have a choice. As Jia Tolentino wrote in a recent article for The New Yorker, “The squad is supposed to have incredible power—but that power is directly connected to the degree to which the girls appear under control.”

The female body is being used here as a distraction and their submissiveness as a form of promotion. Whether you think they symbolize the opportunity of reconciliation between the North and the South or are simply a manifestation of North Korea’s militaristic propaganda is not really the point, because either way, this debate indicates that we are are doing exactly what Kim Jong-Un intended, which is focusing on and agonizing over these female bodies rather than on the threat that North Korea poses. The united Korean flag does not fool me, and neither does this army of beauties. We, and the media, should turn our attention away from the North Korean cheerleaders and focus on the real threat.

In order to attract more students to attend screenings, the Film Society is considering changing their film selection process. Currently, members of the organization propose films, and those who have screened films get to vote on the final lineup. Occasionally, the Film Society also collaborates with other organizations on campus to select certain films. However, Kornitsky explained that the organization is discussing other methods for selection of films.

“We’ve thought about maybe having the campus choose a film that they want to watch. We definitely take into account what the campus is interested in,” she said.

The problem with screening certain films, however, is that the Film Society must pay for every film that they show. Even with the money that they receive from the Student Organization Funding Committee (SOFC), this quickly becomes expensive.

“Generally we can only afford a couple big releases because they’re very expensive with distribution rights… Screening “Wonder Woman” was about $700. You have to pay for everything… Even if you have a copy from the library, you have to get the distribution rights for non-theatrical release,” Kornitsky explained.

The Film Society wants to become more representative of the campus as a whole and is currently in the process of redrafting its constitution, in part to address this issue.

“There’s no diversity clause in our constitution at the moment, so we’re working on changing that to make sure that the Film Society represents the values of the community more. Organizationally, we want to get enough representation of different types of films and filmmakers. It’s disappointingly harder than you’d think because you’re just not exposed to these filmmakers, so there’s really a need on campus to emphasize that,” she explained.

Despite these limitations, students are often pleased with the Film Society’s work and enjoy attending the screenings.

“I think that it’s a really cool service that we have and that they pick really cool movies to show. I remember seeing ‘Mad Max’ right after it came out! It’s also really fun to watch the movies with Wellesley students because of the running commentary,” said Colleen Larkin ’18.

While the Film Society has consistently screened films every weekend, its actual role on campus is somewhat independent. Kornitsky reports that the organization is always changing to reflect what its current members are looking for.

“I think each generation of the Film Society makes it what it wants it to be,” she stated.

One of the Film Society’s current purposes, Kornitsky said, is to be a place for cinephiles to come together and discuss films. Treasurer Ciara Wardlow ’19 echoed this sentiment.

“I joined film society because I wanted an opportunity to bond with other Wellesley students that love movies,” she explained.

In addition, Kornitsky would also like to focus on encouraging students to engage with film in a critical way and ask questions about what they’re watching.

“We want to focus on film as an educational resource… Having people think critically about film is so important. Wellesley is such a place about thinking critically, and we want to incorporate that through film,” she stated.

Kornitsky feels that their recent screening of “Wonder Woman” on Nov. 3, which included a post-screening discussion with Associate Professor of French Codruţa Morari, was especially successful. She intends to build upon the critical engagement she noticed there.

“You could see the audience start to think about films critically and ask questions that reflect that,” she said.

Wardlow is also looking forward to coming semesters and making the Film Society a more notable presence on campus.

“We’ve been trying to figure out how to best serve the Wellesley community in our film selections and events, and we’ve got some ideas to improve for next semester onwards that I’m pretty excited about,” she said.

Wu officially founded Sharpe Suiting in 2013, but in a way the company began when he was a graduate student at New York University. He had an interview for an internship, which was an awful experience because, as he explained, “The only thing I could find when shopping for interview clothing was a modest or ‘cute’ version of a men’s suit from Ann Taylor… I felt really uncomfortable during the entire interview process primarily because of what I was forced to wear, whereas the focus should be on the interview and my abilities.”

After trying on a custom-made suit at a friend’s suggestion and loving how it made him feel, Wu founded Sharpe Suiting and began doing consultations for his friends. The company quickly expanded and sold over 100 suits in its first year—all while Wu was still working a full-time job at a major production studio. He was thrilled at his company’s success, saying “I wanted to create a place where anyone, of any gender identity, could create a suit that not only fit them, but really showcased who they were.”

After the first year, Wu and his team began a Kickstarter campaign to see how successful Sharpe could be. “The goal of the campaign was to create a line of clothing that had a unisex standard of sizing… At least five of the pieces that are currently in Wellesley College Career Education are from that line,” he explained.

Wu was then put in touch with Alyssa Beauchamp, the Program Manager of Civic Engagement at Career Services, through Deeba Zivari ’11.

“She is one of the coordinators for the annual queer fashion show in New York City, called DapperQ. As someone who is a part of the queer fashion community, I knew she would be able to connect me with different designers who create masculine clothing for AFAB (assigned female at birth) bodies,” Beauchamp explained.

Wu agreed to donate some items to Wellesley, thinking of his own time in college. “When Alyssa asked me to make a donation to Wellesley, it instantly reminded me of my school days. Things may have gotten a bit easier for female-bodied and genderqueer individuals, but it’s still difficult going through the process of graduating, applying to grad school, entering the workforce and applying for highly competitive positions. Competing in a cis-normative world to get that top job doesn’t make it any easier,” Wu stated.

The donation includes eight suits, two blazers and two button-down dress shirts, all of which are currently available through Career Education. Although Sharpe has donated over 60 suits to LGBTQ youth centers, non-profit fundraisers and queer-identified high school prom students, Wellesley College is the first college to which Sharpe has donated clothing.

Beauchamp hopes this donation will be helpful for students as they undergo the interview process. “We knew that this was gap in our resources, and we are so excited that, through Leon’s generosity, we have been able to close this gap,” she said.

Wu’s gift is especially noteworthy due to the fact that, as Beauchamp explained, “Prior to this donation, Career Education did not have any masculine suiting options for our trans men/masculine, GNC or non-binary students.”

Students are also excited about the donation. “I think it’s really cool that these suits were donated. My impression of Wellesley is that it’s currently in this transition period of how we’re talking about ‘sisterhood’, which can be pretty exclusive for some people. So it’s cool that if you need a suit for an interview, you now have one that includes you,” said Emily Lashelle ’21.

Meanwhile, Sharpe Suiting has continued to grow and succeed. It has been featured in The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Huffington Post, and its work has been showcased on the red carpets of the Oscars, the Emmys and Cannes Film Festival as well as on the catwalks of New York and Los Angeles Fashion Week.

“We’re proud with how far we’ve come as a company, in the LGBTQ community and beyond,” Wu said.

In our October 4 issue, we printed a photo that displayed the incorrect location of the donated suits. We apologize for the error.

The Council, which is composed of multiple committees and addresses academic issues at Wellesley, voted to adopt the shadow grading policy on December 11, 2013 and implemented it in the fall of 2014 for a four-year test period. According to a recently-released report from the Office of Institutional Research (OIR), one reason for its adoption was to respond to findings that Wellesley students were extremely focused on their grades, more so than other female college students. The report goes on to detail the five goals of the policy, which were to allow first years to learn about Wellesley’s standards for academic achievement, to encourage students to explore new subjects and areas, to refocus student attention from grades to intellectual engagement and inspiration, to help students learn to manage time and balance their lives and to reflect Wellesley’s commitment to a liberal arts education.

The OIR report assesses the shadow grading policy using both qualitative and quantitative data, which was gathered using surveys and multiple focus groups with students and faculty over the past three years. This research reveals that the policy’s goals have only been partially met, and shadow grading has received mixed reviews from faculty and students.

One of the main concerns faculty have is whether the policy actually encourages students to explore the curriculum or whether it encourages them to take classes that they anticipate receiving lower grades in. In addition, this approach has had the unintended consequence of students taking classes in STEM fields, which they consider more difficult, and has thus funneled students away from the humanities and social sciences.

Megumi Murakami ’20, the former College Government Secretary-Treasurer, has had multiple conversations with administrators and faculty about shadow grading and has seen this lack of equal movement between the humanities and STEM.

“The way in which shadow grading should work is that people who don’t feel as comfortable in the sciences take sciences first semesters, and people who don’t feel as comfortable in humanities take humanities first semester. So you should have a switch, kind of. Maybe it’s not equal, but there should be a switch. And they see that there’s no switch,” she said.

In addition, faculty feel that the standard for good work may have been lowered by shadow grading. They noticed a lack of effort in first-year students whose classes were shadow graded, and research shows that students with shadow grades earn lower grades than students whose classes are not shadow graded. However, it could be argued that this shows the policy is working since students may be focusing their time and energy on extracurricular activities.

Psychology Professor Beth Hennessey also worries about the message that shadow grading may be sending to incoming first-year students.

“If you’re an incoming student, and you’re told all the courses in the first semester are shadow graded, what might be some of the underlying takeaway messages? ‘Wow, Wellesley College is incredibly difficult.’ We don’t think that you can cut it or that you’re ready. I think that’s a dangerous message,” she explained.

Finally, course data analysis also shows that shadow grading leads to poor preparation in language courses and other sequenced courses, since a D is needed to pass a shadow  graded course but may not be sufficient to move on to more difficult areas of study.

While these are only a few of many critiques of shadow grading, there are also multiple aspects of shadow grading that are beneficial. For example, the vast majority of students that were assessed during the student surveys and focus groups report that the policy made their transition to college less stressful and encouraged them to take classes that they would not have otherwise enrolled in. Many tried difficult courses or those in areas they had not explored before. Students often felt encouraged to learn for the sake of learning. In that respect, the OIR report states, shadow grading fully meets its goal.

Ariana Gonzalez-Bonillas ’18 fully supports shadow grading for these reasons.

“I think that shadow grading is really important because in your first semester of college, you’re adjusting to so many things like living away from your family for the first time for most people, being in a new community, trying to make friends, trying to get adjusted to the weather. And your academics are what’s important, but first you need to build your support system, and shadow grading allows you to worry less about your academics in your first semester so that you can build your support system,” she said.

In addition, the OIR’s report has found that shadow grading helped students become more organized and ready to take on the rest of college because they had a better idea of what was expected of them. It also led students to spend more time on their extracurricular and recreational activities than they did in other semesters.

The OIR reports suggests some changes for the college to consider if it decides to continue with shadow grading. These suggestions include allowing students to shadow grade courses over their four years at Wellesley, not just the first semester; allowing students to shadow grade fewer than four courses in their first semester if they wish and stipulating that shadow grading can only apply to 100- or 200-level courses.

Murakami agrees that the current policy needs to be altered in some way.

“We now need to revise the system to tailor the outcomes to the incentive to explore, try something new, be challenged, learn how to study. This may require an entirely new program,” she stated.

Hennessey, who voted against shadow grading when it was first proposed, believes that the policy should stay in place for another few years so that its full effect can be accurately assessed. However, she stressed that the biggest change that must occur is more conversation among students, faculty and administrators.

“We should try to get a handle on how the shadow grading policy has impacted their [students’] experience at Wellesley and the way they think about grades. Also, my impression is that the first year or two we had shadow grading, for whatever reason, there was a lot more direct discussion about it. But now that we’re more used to it, perhaps incoming students didn’t get as much information about it. I think that’s a mistake. Students, whatever the year they are at Wellesley, need a lot of conversation with administrators, deans and faculty as to why this policy came about in the first place. I just believe there’s been lack of conversation,” she said.

The Committee on Curriculum and Academic Policy advised the college to discontinue shadow grading and to consider other policies instead. In addition, the OIR report mentioned that shadow grading is not the only academic problem that Wellesley must grapple with. The achievement gap, resources for students coping with mental health issues, support for faculty advising and misconceptions about the grading policy among students and faculty were also listed.

Furthermore, Hennessey discussed the intense focus that many Wellesley students have on their grades and GPAs. She believes it to be worse than that of students at similar institutions and thinks the college should address this phenomenon.

“There’s lot of literature supporting or saying that women much more than men tend to define themselves in terms of their grades and GPAs, etc. I see it in a lot of my students. To really start confusing your worth as a person, your success as person, with whether you got an A or A- or B in some courses at Wellesley College, that’s a really dangerous road to go down. And I fear that a lot of Wellesley students are going down that road,” she said.

A United Airlines flight on Sunday, April 9, scheduled to fly from Chicago to Louisville, was overbooked. The airline asked four passengers to give up their seats for crew members who were needed in Louisville the next day. United claims that it chose the passengers that were to debark based on criteria that included frequent-flier status, check-in time and fare type, among others. For their cooperation, the airlines offered monetary compensation. Three of the chosen passengers left quietly. The fourth, Dr. David Dao, 69, refused to leave. He is a physician who needed to see patients the next day in Louisville. He was then forcibly wrestled from his seat by Chicago aviation authorities and dragged by his arms down the aisle of the plane. Multiple videos surfaced online of Dao being pulled down the aisle, face bloodied. His lawyer later explained that Dao suffered a broken nose, a concussion and two knocked-out teeth.

Since then, United Airlines has faced enormous backlash about their violent and inappropriate tactics. Many have seen it as an example of airline greed, showcasing how far these companies will go to sell their seats. United CEO Oscar Munoz at first blamed Dao for what happened, claiming that the passenger had been belligerent and uncooperative. He has since apologized and says that United is working on addressing the incident.

Dao received an outpouring of support from people who had seen the video. In recent days, however, more information has surfaced about him. Specifically, there are accusations circulating that he has a criminal record. He was apparently convicted in 2005 on six counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and was also convicted for writing prescriptions for a male patient in exchange for sexual favors. The Kentucky state medical licensing board issued a suspension that was lifted in 2015, and Dao is currently under severe restrictions while he practices internal medicine.

Learning about Dao’s background introduces the question of whether or not a victim’s past should come into play when assessing the situation. But a victim’s personality should be separated from their victimization.

I believe that it is important to separate a victim’s past from their abuse. Whatever their history may be, no person should be violently dragged from an airplane for refusing to give up their seat, and especially should not suffer a concussion and other injuries along the way. Past wrongdoings do not excuse immediate abuse.

This discussion is similar to one that emerged after Trayvon Martin was fatally shot by George Zimmerman in February 2012. When he was killed, Martin was walking home from the drugstore and was carrying Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail, which, when combined with dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup, create ‘lean,’ a substance that can cause psychosis and aggression.

Some saw Martin’s purchases as an excuse for his murder, especially when his autopsy revealed that his liver showed damage consistent with DXM abuse. Some said he deserved it, emphasizing that he had been suspended from school three times in the month before he was killed. Others shrugged it off as just something unfortunate that happened. For them, Martin’s alleged drug use excused, or at least explained, his murder.

Trayvon Martin’s drug use was not a reason or an excuse for his murder. He was just a 17-year-old kid walking home. A similar situation arises with Dao. While his criminal past is unsettling, it does not justify or explain what happened on the United flight.

It may be true that Dao was belligerent on the flight. Another passenger reports that when Dao was first asked to leave, he shouted at the flight attendants that he was being singled out because he was Chinese. However, his aggression does not warrant a broken nose and other injuries. Any person in that situation may have done the same thing. Voicing your rights does not merit physical abuse.

A victim’s history is especially irrelevant because the perpetrators did not know about their history at the time of the abuse. The Chicago aviation authorities had no way of knowing about Dao’s criminal record; they simply acted violently towards an innocent passenger. Since his background was not known at the time, it was irrelevant at that point and is thus irrelevant now.

When discussing these incidents, or those that are similar, it is crucial to keep them solely in the context of the abuse that occurred. What matters is that a 69-year-old man was violently dragged from a United Airlines flight and sustained multiple injuries, not that he had a criminal past. If we continue to expand upon these events so that they include years of backstory, the abuse itself is overshadowed and taken out of context. Keeping the circumstances of these events in mind allows us to address the abuse or injustices that occurred without excusing unwarranted violence.

One of the proposed changes to the Constitution concerned the stipulation that there had to be two representatives on HCC from each class year. HCC proposed a new policy in which there must be at least one each of seniors, juniors, sophomores and Davis Scholars, but no other guidelines. This would ensure that the most qualified applicants would be allowed to join without strict guidelines in terms of class year.

As Chief Justice Myra Ahmad ’17 explained, “We also wanted to be able to select the best candidates from our application pool rather than select from each class year… As we tend to have the most applicants for sophomore and junior year positions, we wanted to be able to choose candidates who were most qualified rather than a purely class year based system.”

In addition, the role of Ombudsperson was renamed as Student Advocate in order to clarify the role and to make the position seem less intimidating, as the summary document states. Caitlin McCarey ’17, a Member of HCC and one of the original creators of this proposed amendments, explained that the duties of this position are unchanged. Student Advocates will still “counsel charged students on how to present their side of the story to the hearing panel and answer their questions.” Ahmad added that “We wanted to give a clearer name so those who are not as familiar with our process would understand what the role of this member is on HCC.”

The HCC also proposed that applicants self identify as differently abled, first generation, LGBTQ+, gender non-conforming and/ or as a person of color. The Council suggested that a “substantial mass” of its members must identify as a member of one of these groups, and this term would be defined by the Chief Justice. The proposals also included getting rid of the ALANA (Asian, Latina, AfricanAmerican and Native American) representative on the Council.

Finally, the HCC also changed its Constitution to reflect the current practice of holding one full committee meeting a month. The Constitution stipulates that at least two meetings must be held. However, the Council concluded that this was not feasible and that one meeting a month is adequate.

After initially introducing these changes, the Council heard from many students who were concerned, especially about the diversity quotas that the Council had proposed. As McCarey explained, “There were concerns that this language could be interpreted as ONLY three students of color, or that students of color would feel tokenized or question why they had been accepted to the council.”

In an effort to avoid this, the HCC reinstated the ALANA representative, who will be responsible for diversity outreach and initiatives. The role of this position is now specifically outlined, whereas before it had just been implied. In addition, the HCC created the Outreach Coordinator position to reach out to various groups on campus and to assist the ALANA representative with outreach.

These proposed changes have been the result of months of hard work. McCarey and Emy Urban ’16, both members of the HCC, came up with the idea of focusing on what McCarey calls “the language of the Constitution” in November 2016. The pair proposed a plan, which was later brought to the HCC for approval and then introduced at Senate.

One of the problems that these amendments aim to resolve is difficulty retaining members on the Council, which McCarey and Urban addressed by getting rid of the quota for representatives by class. McCarey said that “This year, there are only four returning members (out of 14 student members). This isn’t unusual, because obviously the senior members will graduate and usually half of the junior members go abroad. This makes it hard for HCC to retain institutional memory. Emy and I wanted to change that… By giving the Chief Justice more flexibility to choose the best applicants, we hope this change will increase the number of returning members.”

In addition, the HCC is striving to increase diversity in its composition. Don Leach, the Honor Code Council Administrative Coordinator, acknowledged that “There’s no one right way to diversify HCC membership. The purpose of both the initial and revised amendment is to expand representation.”

The HCC hopes that these amendments will make the Council more accessible to students and encourage them to get involved. “We hope that once students learn more about HCC, they’ll want to apply! We do really important work on campus, and it’s vital that all parts of the student body are reflected in our discussions and decisions,” McCarey said.

Ahmad agreed with McCarey and said that “HCC is always striving to be as accessible to the student body as possible, while also being efficient and honoring our constitution. We felt the changes would further clarify our practices.”