The College Pulse

There are certain trappings of finals week in Chapel Hill that have a comforting, end-of-the-season feel.

It has already become a cliche to note that the official return to economic growth does not mark a meaningful end to the Great Recession for most people.

With jobless numbers reaching into the double-digits in many parts of the country -- including in my home state of North Carolina, where unemployment stands at about 10.4 percent -- the concept of an economic recovery remains a bit... abstract.

And given the belated interest on the part of mainstream pundits in the plight of the unemployed, I want to take a moment to give a little credit where it's due.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has been writing for years about the persistently high unemployment rate among low-skilled workers in the United States, and I have been largely ignoring those columns for an equal number of years.

I was, after all, well on my way to a college degree, so there didn't seem much prospect of ending up in the pool of chronically unemployed workers left behind by America's shift away from manufacturing. Herbert himself wrote of the difficulty in getting policymakers to pay much attention to the problem.

"The cold truth is that tens of millions of hard-working (or potentially hard-working) men and women have no real economic future in a system that is thoroughly dominated by a ruthless corporate elite and the politicians who do their bidding," Herbert wrote... in 1995. "We are allowing this to happen with little more than a whimper of protest."

Well, that whimper is now growing into a roar, and the reason is perfectly simple: chronic unemployment is not only afflicting "low-skilled" workers, but college grads with every reason to expect an easy route to middle class jobs.

In a column this past Saturday, Herbert once again makes his case -- "there is no sign of the kind of recovery in employment that would be needed to bring the American economy and the economic condition of American families back to robust health" -- and this time people are paying attention.

Because Saturday's column was not about high school dropouts or "at-risk" inner city youth; it was about bright, eager college graduates. It was, in other words, about the children of parents who read the New York Times.

"If we're having trouble finding employment for even these kids, then we're doing something profoundly wrong," Herbert concludes.

On some level, it's got to depress the poor man that he's finally getting heard not because policymakers have warmed to his message of an employment crisis for working class families, but because we've degenerated into an employment crisis for college-class families.

It's the same kind of media bias that affects crime reporting; a murder of a 21 year-old high school dropout gets only a fraction of the coverage that a murder on a college campus would attract.

Our attention is drawn naturally to the unexpected, and the sad truth is that policymakers have developed a kind of immunity to news of hardship among those "low-skill" workers Herbert has been writing about for more than a decade. (And while we're on this subject, let's remember that college grads are very much a minority in the United States; the vast majority of Americans will never hold a bachelor's degree).

Only when faced with something unexpected, something that goes against our preconceived notions of the world -- something like unemployed Columbia Law grads -- do we really pay attention.

When the economic tide eventually does rise again, let's hope there's a renewed focus on making sure it lifts all boats, not just those that have sailed through campus.

I have been thinking a lot about my post this past Thursday, as well as the radio show Thursday night. On the show, we discussed safety issues in the giant teeming mass of students and 20-somethings that is Halloween on Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. The groping and grabbing that takes place during this celebration is unfortunately not uncommon. I have heard many women complain about being the victims of frottage (SAT word!), pointing out that it has happened multiple times to multiple people, regardless of how the victim was dressed or whether or not she was sober. And yes, as one caller was correct to point out on Thursday, this is not a unique problem isolated to Halloween. Frottage, or frotteurism, is especially common anywhere there's a crowd: malls, buses, subways, busy sidewalks, et cetera. Though we should of course condemn and prosecute the people who commit these acts, I would also like to bring attention to how our society helps normalize and excuse this behavior.

Two years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Tar Heel, UNC's student newspaper, about the problem of groping on Franklin Street on Halloween. In the article, I acknowledged my own history as a victim of groping on Franklin Street and proceeded to condemn both the perpetrators and the DTH Editorial Board for suggesting that it should be my responsibility to wear conservative clothing in order to avoid being sexuallt harassed or assaulted.

The responses to my letter were outrageous and quite frankly terrifying. The letter generated over 100 anonymous comments, many of which were direct attacks on me. There were a few recurring themes in these comments:

First, many said that I was an idiot who shouldn't have been let into UNC in the first place if I were so stupid and naive to believe that this wouldn't happen on Franklin Street. Because apparently we should expect men to be incapable of following the law. (And that opinion isn't insulting to men how exactly?)

Then of course were the commenters who thought I deserved what I got for dressing the way I did. I guess girls who wear short skirts are asking to be assaulted, people who carry cash in their wallets are asking to be mugged, and people who open their windows are asking to be burglarized -- there certainly can't be any other reason for those behaviors, right?

And then, in a similar vein as above, there were the commenters who thought I should be ashamed of myself for carrying on in such a slutty fashion on Halloween or any night. The culmination of that trend was a three-page message sent directly to my Facebook account from someone I had never met before about how I should be ashamed of my behavior and manner of dress because it was a sin against God and furthermore, it was making the author's walk with Jesus more difficult. Reading this message actually rendered me speechless, an unprecedented occasion in my life, as I sputtered through a long list of thoughts and emotions. After shifting quickly through incredulous, offended, a little scared, and shocked, I settled on outraged. I had no idea that it was my responsibility to ensure that other people had an easy time following their own personal religious doctrine. Nor did I realize that I regularly dressed in revealing clothing as I walked across campus -- that was news to me. And, by the way, I have changed my Facebook privacy settings since then.

The outpouring of hateful and offensive comments in response to my letter prompted a campus-wide debate. Letters streamed into the DTH, carrying on the debate on the opinion page for a week. And the Carolina Women's Center even hosted a forum on the topic, concerned over students' responses to the issue.

Two years after the ruckus, what I take away from the issue is how quickly men and women jumped to the defense of people who were breaking the law by sexually assaulting women. I still am completely shocked and appalled at the number of students who not only didn't think it was a big deal, but were much more eager to blame the victims than to hold the perpretators accountable. When I first started working against sexual violence (in what we often just refer to as "the Field"), I had no idea that a debate existed. It seemed pretty simple to me -- any sexual action committed without the person's consent is sexual assault and is, therefore, illegal.

Tonight is a special broadcast for Vince.

1. Vince shares a big story from over the weekend.

2. Alyson Culin and Eric Johnson, CollegePulse.net contributors join us to talk about Halloween in Chapel Hill. It's not all fun and candy. Find out why.

3. The latest in college news is that 2008 clocked in with the highest enrollment ever amongst 18-24 year olds. Why are 40% in this age bracket sitting in the classroom?

4. The University Talk Sports Block breaks down the latest in the World Series, the NBA's recent opening, and tonight's UNC/VT college football matchup.

College students across the state are busy preparing for an exciting weekend of Halloween parties, replete with cheesy decorations, skimpy costumes, and of course, booze. Some students will agonize for a month over the perfect costume, wanting the most unique costume that shows just how cool they are. Some will forget until the last minute and on Saturday will dig out the big sweater and tights and go as the "'80s girl" for the third year in a row.

What most students will not consider in their preparation is taking precautions for their own safety. Many underestimate the prevalence of rape and sexual assault on college campuses. One study estimates that one out of every four college-aged women will be the victim of rape or sexual assault. Students are at risk at any time, but especially on an alcohol-fueled holiday that advocates becoming a different, wilder character than your usual self.

My experience with Halloween is centered around Chapel Hill. My first year on campus, I had never heard of the Franklin Street traditions. I chose to dress in a short skirt and skimpy top, going for the Britney Spears look. (I know it's a crappy costume; I was 18, cut me some slack. And it was mostly done ironically. Anyway.) I headed out to the festivities with a dozen friends, including my boyfriend at the time. By the way, easiest way to tell a group of freshmen is that they are the ones traveling in packs of at least 15 'friends' that are really near-strangers. We began on one end of the street and decided to walk all the way down and back. This was highly entertaining for a good while, just looking at and commenting on the insane costumes college students imagine into existence. But before the end of the night, I had had my butt grabbed no less than three times - twice under my skirt. I was disgusted and appalled. Of course, the culprits were experts at the game. They would make sure to do their grabbing at the moment that the crowd was so tightly packed that I, in all my five-foot glory, couldn't see a thing except bodies all around me. (And take a look at that picture - the crowd was always tightly packed.) The gropers wouldn't look at me, so then when I looked up in alarm, all the faces around me were looking away, not noticing a thing. In these conditions, there was absolutely no way I could figure out who the offender was, much less remember and report it to anyone.

What astounded me later was the number of people - men and women - who told me that this wasn't a big deal. It was all part of Franklin Street Halloween: If you don't expect it, you're naive, and if you don't like it, stay home. Contrary to popular opinion, the actions I described above constitute a violation of the law. Groping, touching, or grabbing someone without their consent is sexual assault. The law is crystal clear on this, and yet many students write it off as harmless.

So let's all remember to respect each other and keep our hands to ourselves. This shouldn't be a hard concept for college students to grasp; we learned how to keep our hands to ourselves in Kindergarten. Just because it's showing doesn't mean you're allowed to touch it. And any sort of sexual act requires active consent from both parties - if you don't hear a 'yes,' then stop. If you hear nothing, then stop. If you hear 'no,' then stop.

To end this on a chilling note that I hope will jar some readers into taking action to prevent assault, here is one last terrifying statistic. The highest risk window of time for a college student to be raped is from the first day of school her freshman year until Thanksgiving break. We're not quite yet in the clear.

Today, thousands of fans are gathering at Kenan Stadium and around their television sets to watch Carolina football. But it's a Thursday! Weird, right? Weird, and also extremely inconvenient.

The University traditionally hosts football games on Saturdays, like every other college team in these United States. Apparently, fans and administrators have wanted to host a weeknight game for years and have been unable to work out a schedule. (I had no idea that while some worked tirelessly for noble goals such as lower tuition, safer campuses, or better quality academics, others were working just as tirelessly for Thursday night football.)

This year, to (almost) everyone's delight, the schedule aligned perfectly with UNC's Fall Break. It was decided to host a game tonight, the first night of break. The University didn't want to host a weeknight game while class was in session, so this seemed like a handy solution.

However, as often happens, this plan overlooks a key constituency: employees.

As anyone who has ever been to Chapel Hill can attest, traffic and parking are nightmares on any afternoon, much less during a sporting event. And the University, always concerned for their welfare of faculty and staff, decided to end the workday early, of course.

While anyone would normally welcome a few hours to play hooky, state personnel policies require that employees make up the hours. So, for the sake of a football game, every single employee at UNC must either take vacation time or make up those hours with other worktime. Every single employee.

Chancellor Thorp did kindly send an e-mail to all employees thanking them for "accommodating this adjustment."

Regardless of whether the logistics of a Thursday night game CAN be worked out, my question is whether they should be. Should we be forcing thousands of employees to take vacation time or change their schedules for the sake of a football game? At what point do we draw the line against the tyranny of the Athletic Association?

I'm completely aware that athletics on campus are a major source of revenue. However, I wonder what we really sacrifice for the sake of a few games. I was under the impression that UNC, like our other state universities, exists primarily for its educational and academic achievement. That academic part includes the work of our employees, not just the work of our students.

Let's draw the line somewhere, and we may as well start here. I don't see the pressing need for Thursday night football, especially at the expense of University employees. Fans already have Saturday, which was good enough for my family when I was growing up.

My beloved Daily Tar Heel has made waves again recently, this time for a well-reported article about a significant uptick in alcohol citations so far this year.