The first thing that anyone should know about Brittany is that she is that she is more passionate about politics than almost any other person I have ever met. If you have read her own column for The Mug, “The Daily Grind,” then you know that she knows her stuff, and is not afraid to tell it like it is (“but not in a Trump-like way,” she would say).
I got the chance to talk to Brittany over the phone a couple of nights ago, and I grilled her with questions about her time at Baylor and what she thinks she would like to do in the future.
“What’s your favorite Baylor memory?” I asked.
Because I am so intimidating and scary, I heard her laugh nervously on the other side of the line before she warned me with, “Okay, so this is kind of cliché…” Brittany told me that her favorite Baylor memory by far was our football team’s classic domination of TCU a couple of years ago, when the Bears won with a score of 61-58. “I was right in the front row of the line section,” Brittany said, “and I rushed the field with everyone. It just really felt like I was a part of the Baylor family.” I agreed that there was no bonding experience quite like stampeding with a herd of riled up twenty-somethings over a field of crushed horned toads, and then we moved on.
“If you were going to pursue anything other than a career in politics, what would you do?” I asked.
“A friend and I actually went through a phase last year where we really wanted to be CIA agents!” Brittany said, excitement palpable through the phone. We both laughed about that, and while I shoved my own secret aspirations to be the next American super spy deep into the corners of my psyche, Brittany admitted that she probably did not have the skills required for the job. “But it’ll always be a secret dream!” she said.
Next I asked Brittany what she had accomplished during her time at Baylor that she was most proud of. She said that she had had trouble thinking of actual, tangible things that she had done in her two-ish years in Waco when she first read the questions that I sent her. Finally, she said, she had decided that she was most proud of the person that she had become—proud of the journey that she had completed.
“I was trying to think of a way to say that that wasn’t cheesy,” she said, laughing.
“I think that’s great!” I said. “No worries. Last question: can you describe Baylor to me in three words?”
This was a hard one. Together, we explored Thesaurus.com to try to coax the words out of Brittany’s brain. Awkward silence reigned as she struggled over finding just the right thing to say. Finally, she decided on life-changing (“That’s one, right, because it’s hyphenated?”), unique, and fun.
“Yep,” she said as I typed the words. “Sounds about right.”
Chelsea Teague is a junior majoring in professional writing.
College is expensive and therefore, the cost of tuition is an important and relevant issue to college students. Recently, politicians with platforms to make college free or to lower the cost of tuition have become popular, and there is a mindset that college should be available to everyone. However, what many people do not realize is that one of the biggest reasons tuition costs so much is the same reason that many people believe is the solution to the problem: the federal government tuition loan program.
In 1980, a year in college cost approximately $3,400. Now, a year of college costs approximately $23,000. Even after taking inflation into account there is a large price difference, but why is that? The loans and financial aid programs that the federal government gives out to help students pay for their tuition significantly increased during this time period. Although well intentioned, the increase in student loans allowed colleges to raise their tuition rates. As students are able to take out bigger loans more easily and frequently, colleges experience an increase in demand from students and as a result, raise their tuition. While the increase in demand is the result of money the students have received from the government and not the individuals’ own money, all colleges see is that students have more money for college.
Thus, one of the first steps that can be taken to creating more affordable college costs is to scale back the federal loan program. Perhaps returning to caps on loans, as was previously done, would help bring down the cost because students will have less money to spend. Another possible solution is scaling back on financial-aid programs. There is no question that college should be available to more people, but a large federal loan program increases the cost of tuition. Additionally, students must pay back their loans, so they are not saving any money but instead are delaying their payment. In that case, college is not more affordable, just paid for later.
As such, high college tuition rates are not just the result of the infamous “inflation,” but also the federal loans on which we rely so heavily. This is a difficult topic and not easily solved, but one thing is clear: we should not have to spend our entire lives paying off student debt.
Brittany Gamlen is a junior majoring in international studies.
Image courtesy of the American Enterprise Institute
On September 28, 2016, the United States Senate overrode President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) by a vote of 97 to one. JASTA limits the extent of a political concept called “sovereign immunity,” which states that a sovereign body cannot be accused of legal wrongdoing and is thus immune to any type of legal prosecution, criminal or civil. In simpler terms, JASTA will remove sovereign immunity from Saudi Arabia and allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi Arabian Government.
Despite the unanimous vote of 97 to one in the Senate and 348 to 77 in the House of Representatives against President Obama’s veto, American lawmakers have already started backpedaling. Days after overriding the president’s veto, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated, “Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were, but nobody had really focused on the potential downsides in terms of our international relationships,” and blamed President Obama for this lack of discussion.
Come on, Mitch. Why do you think the guy vetoed the Act? ‘Saudi Arabia’s mad that we’re allowing our citizens to sue them for a crime they did not commit? Who woulda thunk!’
Some Americans might say, ‘Well, of course the Saudis funded the 9/11 attacks. They hate our freedom and our blue jeans and our rock and roll. I bet they haven’t seen a single episode of the Brady Bunch.’
To put these thoughts to rest, both the FBI and CIA have published reports which officially clear the Saudis of any suspicion of wrongdoing1. Moreover, although Osama Bin Laden was a member of the prominent Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia, Osama’s Saudi Arabian citizenship was revoked in 19942. Furthermore, in his official reasons for committing 9/11, Bin Laden clearly stated, “We call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education,” with “corrupt countries” meaning Saudi Arabia3.
Finally, Saudi Arabia and the United States have been very close allies since 1945, with Saudi Arabia investing trillions of dollars in the United States which JASTA has seriously endangered4.
While I cannot hide my disdain for this act and the immediate backpedaling of the lawmakers who we trust with our international relations, I nonetheless find this act extremely interesting, as there are few actions throughout history that truly compare to JASTA.
The closest comparison that I can muster is the “Donation of Pippin.” After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the political landscape of Europe was scattered and unclear. The Franks took control of a great deal of Western Europe, with the Lombards, the remnant of the Ostrogothic Empire, occupying Italy.
The Lombards ruthlessly attacked the Papacy’s holdings in the area surrounding Rome proper around 754 CE. While Pope Stephen III technically reported to the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire), Constantinople could spare no reinforcements as it fought the Ummayad Caliphate in the East. As such, Pope Stephen looked to the Franks for assistance. The then king of the Franks, Pippin, the son of Charles Martel, answered Pope Stephen’s call and swiftly forced the Lombards to sue for peace.
Having suppressed the Lombards, Pippin met with Pope Stephen and claimed that, due to their transgressions, the Lombards should cede land to the Papacy, which thus created the Papal States. It is important to note that this meeting took place without Lombard leadership. However, Pippin promised that the Papacy would receive the city of Ravenna, which was then held by the Lombards. The Lombards refused to cede the city, however, and, turning his attention to other problems in his empire, Pippin did not fully deliver his promise to the Papacy before his death.
It was Pippin’s son, Charles the Great, more popularly known as Charlemagne, who would deliver on his father’s promise to the Papacy. In 772, Pope Adrian I formally requested that the Lombards cede Ravenna. King Desiderius of the Lombards refused, however. Once again, the Papacy turned to the Franks for help. Charlemagne intervened and completely erased the Kingdom of the Lombards, giving Ravenna to the Papal States and declaring himself King of the Lombards, absorbing the remaining territory in Italy into his Frankish empire.
This historical example is a case, much like the one we are facing now, which involves one sovereign power forcing its will onto another sovereign power, demanding money and property for what it sees as a transgression. Yet there is no means to force a sovereign power to act against its own interest, save for violence. Unfortunately, our modern day case could similarly result in all-out war.
This all to say, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state (they’re not – but we’re pretending). Furthermore, let’s assume that somehow an unbiased ruling originating from a New York court against Saudi Arabia actually occurs. Finally, let’s assume that a reasonable sum of money in damages is requested of Saudi Arabia.
Who is going to make them pay this sum? The United Nations? The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries? The Arab League? No, none of these bodies will force Saudi Arabia to pay. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign power, just like the United States.
There is one power that can force Saudi Arabia to pay – the United States Military. Yes, the US Military would have to invade Saudi Arabia in order to extract the money a court in the United States has demanded.
While America’s potential occupation of Mecca and Medina would surely improve our relations with the Arab world (pause for nervous laughter), we probably should not invade Saudi Arabia for a crime they did not commit, according to the CIA at least.
French philosopher René Girard identified what he called a “Scapegoat Mechanism” in human history, by which every society finds a scapegoat and kills that scapegoat. When a society’s problems persist, they simply find another scapegoat and kill it as well. According to Girard, this mechanism drives human history.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did not fund the 9/11 attacks. They had no reason to do so. As this country soils itself before the international community in the upcoming presidential election like a toddler at a piano recital, our society has deemed it fit to blame someone else for our problems: the Saudis.
Please write your congressman and get this law thrown out as I try to remove myself from the watch list I have surely been added to after searching “Bin Laden’s Justification for 9/11” a few too many times today.
Lee Shaw is a junior majoring in professional writing and the current editor of The Mug.
I think there is a certain bravery scientists must internalize as they take on a new research project. There is no promise that there are answers for them to find, no promise that the answer they find will be the one they wanted. Years and millions of dollars of research can turn into a failure. However, this makes the success all the more amazing. There are certain problems that haunt society, leaving their mark, as blazing signs that we have yet to find an answer.
HIV/AIDS is an example of a problem into which an unimaginable amount of effort has been put into curing. However, as of yet, there is no cure. HIV, or human immunodeficiency virus, is a virus that attacks CD4 T-Cells (a vital part of the immune system that attacks invading organisms). Instead of killing the host directly, the virus weakens the immune system until the person can no longer fight off simple infections such as colds or the flu.
AIDS, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, refers to the later stages of HIV, when the immune system has been severely compromised. At the end of 2015, there were an estimated 36.7 million people living with HIV/AIDS across the world. Most of these people live in third world countries, where a lack of access to education, medicine, and birth control has left populations ravaged by this disease and millions orphaned as they lose their parents at incredibly young ages.
In the US, I do not think we see the real effect of this disease. There are treatments: ARV drugs can suppress the virus enough to give a person with HIV a relatively healthy life, but only if you have enough money to take an expensive and intense regimen of drugs for your entire life. For many though, that is not an option. The drugs can also lead to a long list of severe side effects. Researchers have fought effortlessly for a cure, a cure that will allow people to live without drugs and free from the burden of this disease. There has been great defeat.
There is a hint of change in the air though. Just a few days ago, findings in a study on monkeys were published that left people amazed and hopeful. A group of immunologists at Emory University infected a group of monkeys with SIV (the primate version of HIV) and then attempted to treat them with Alpha4Beta7, an antibody that is found on the surface of CD4 cells. The findings were unexpected and gave no clear-cut answers. However, the monkeys treated with antibiotics had noticeably lower levels of SIV 8 months out, in comparison with the monkeys treated with a placebo. Already, they have been able to start human trials. I cannot tell you much about how this works because they know very little. There is not yet a clear understanding of exactly what mechanistic changes occurred.
In reality, this may all amount to nothing, or it could be a moment we will etch into the pages of history. In science, we rarely know exactly what the outcome will be. Perhaps we will fail. Perhaps we will change the world. If you have the bravery to follow through and commit, you may change the world.
Katherine Estep is a junior majoring in neuroscience.
Our latest Mugshot contributor is Swanson Traylor, a freshman BIC-er with two majors and one epic positive attitude. I lured him to the library with promises of free Starbucks, and then attacked him with a list of Big Bad Baylor Questions™.
“First of all,” I said. “I know you haven’t been here long, but is there a Baylor memory that sticks out in your mind more than any other?
Swanson thought over the past seven weeks of his life, and then admitted that, if anything, his greatest Baylor memory must have been his very first World Cultures lecture with Dr. Long. “He went on this long analogy about quests, and about how BIC was a quest,” Swanson said, laying the scene. “He is such a great speaker—I don’t think I’ll ever forget that.”
We agreed that all Dr. Long had to do to get us to weep with patriotism was open his mouth and spill something about the weather. After a few more minutes of gushing over how much we loved our BIC profs (“I have Hinden for Cultures!” Swanson said. “He’s the one that throws the beach ball the first day of class!”), we moved on.
“So I guess you’re liking BIC so far, huh?” I asked.
Swanson said that he definitely was. “It still seems ridiculous that I’m required to do all these things that I love to do,” he told me. Like most BIC-ers, Swanson is a man of many interests, with majors in English and history. “BIC is everything that I like all melded together,” he said, shaking his head like he could not believe his luck.
I asked him what he would major in if not English and history, and Swanson said that there was actually a very real probability that he would switch. “I’m really interested in film,” he said. “Being a director would be really cool. The professional writing major looks awesome too.”
I freaked out a little when he said that and tried to win him over to our pro-writing ranks (“Join us,” I hissed). He said he would think about it.
Finally, I asked him the last question on my list. “Can you describe Baylor to me in three words?”
Swanson mulled that over, and then said, “Welcoming, rigorous, and—um, surprising, I think.” He said that before coming to Baylor, he had assumed all the stereotypes surrounding tidy little Baptist universities would be true. “They’re not,” he said. “Especially in BIC, it’s really diverse.” And with that, we saluted each other and went our separate ways.
BIC definitely affects your Baylor experience—and your life, if we are all being completely honest—in irreversible ways. Dr. Long is right: our education is a quest, and we are all adventurers bound together in pursuit of the best versions of ourselves, and the best version of the world we live in.
Chelsea Teague is a junior majoring in professional writing.
The phrase “Convention of States” seems to be making headlines more than usual, especially in Texas, but what exactly does it mean? It turns out it is not just another term you learned for your Constitutional Development class but a key part of the Constitution that ensures states maintain the right to check the power of the federal government and protect federalism.
When writing the Constitution, the authors wanted to ensure that states maintained the ability to amend the Constitution, so they included a clause in Article V that allows state legislatures to come together to propose amendments to the Constitution. It follows a similar procedure to the one that Congress uses when they want to amend the Constitution. The process goes something like this: thirty-four states (two-thirds) pass a resolution known as an application calling for a convention, states select delegates that will represent them at the convention (usually through an election), delegates attend the convention where they vote on and hopefully pass amendments, and said amendments are sent back to the states for ratification. For an amendment to become law it must be adopted by thirty-eight states. A convention deals only with one issue that the states have all agreed upon, such as limiting the power of the federal government.
Although a Convention of States has never occurred, every state except for Hawaii has applied at one point or another in time. However, last month the Citizens for Self-Governance sponsored a mock convention in order to get an idea of what a modern day convention might look like. The convention followed an agenda which proposed amendments to impose fiscal restraints of the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and create term limits for members of Congress and elected officials. Delegates who attended the convention broke into committees, which addressed these specific issues and drafted amendments pertaining to them. The amendments were debated and by the end of the four days there were six amendments ready to be sent back to the states for “ratification.” Ultimately, the convention was deemed successful and demonstrated that an actual convention would not erupt in political chaos the way some critics believe it would.
So, will an actual Convention of States happen? The answer is maybe. Currently, eight states have passed resolutions calling for a convention of states. Thirty states have considered it, and it is set to be debated in many states in the 2017 legislative session (including Texas). So while there is still a ways to go, the movement is gaining momentum. At a time when the federal government appears to be increasing its power and American politics is more chaotic than usual, it is a credible answer to many of the challenges the country faces. Regardless, it is too soon to write it off as impossible and stop exploring the idea.
Brittany Gamlen is a junior majoring in international studies.
It is easy to forget that a world exists outside of Baylor University. Generally, students spend the majority of their time within the boundaries of Baylor. We go to class, study, and usually live quite close to campus. While Baylor offers a beautiful environment for living and learning, it cultivates something commonly called the “Baylor bubble.” Christian Balaños defines the “Baylor bubble” as a thin sphere which separates Baylor and the residences surrounding the university from the rest of Waco.
Of course, Baylor students do venture out into the greater Waco area, and at these times we become acutely aware of Waco’s homeless population. The strip of restaurants across I-35, affectionately dubbed the “grease pit,” often sees tired looking men and women of all ages asking for money or pushing around all of their belongings in a dingy shopping cart. Other parts of town show signs of Wacoans seeking shelter: if you look closely when you walk through downtown, you will find many alcoves housing dirty, old pillows and beat up shoes. Presumably, people live here. The intersection at New Road and I-35 is another place we often see homelessness in the form of people suffering the heat with their signs. This can be the only interaction a Baylor student has with the homeless population of Waco.
Many current Baylor students do not know that ten years ago, Waco had approximately 600 homeless people. According to city officials, the homeless problem was perpetuated by “chronic homeless”: individuals with a disabling condition who have been continually homeless for more than a year or individuals with a disabling condition who have experienced at least four “episodes of homelessness” in the last four years. In 2006, many of the people suffering from chronic homelessness were veterans suffering from PTSD, substance addiction, or another type of chronic illness or disability.
Due to a ten-year plan implemented by the city of Waco and the efforts of the Waco Veterans’ Assistance program, the number of chronically homeless people in Waco have drastically declined. Waco’s ten-year plan focused on ending chronic homelessness through implementing education, rental assistance, foreclosure prevention, eviction prevention, interim housing, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, training, and eventually employment. The Waco VA has helped veterans by reserving thirty-five vouchers, which allow the veteran to only pay thirty percent of their income towards rent.
While the city of Waco has made great strides towards ending chronic homelessness, there is still more to do. Most sources confirm that Waco will face the issue of chronic homelessness again when soldiers return from war. In 2015, Waco I.S.D. reported that 1,119 students were considered homeless. Baylor students have many opportunities not only to educate themselves on the reality of Waco homelessness but also to help their fellow Wacoans.
Although many Baylor students do not call Waco home, we should not let that stop us from investing in our community. The “Baylor bubble” can fool students into disregarding real life issues until they graduate. However, Baylor and various local organizations offer many ways for students to invest in their community. We’ll be living in Waco for at least four years; why not spend that time helping others and learning about our city?
Nikki Thompson is a sophomore majoring in English.
If you have been paying any attention to the major headlines in the news these past few weeks, you have likely seen the devastation in Aleppo, Syria. Aleppo, formerly Syria’s largest commercial city, has been a major point of contention between the Syrian government and Syrian rebel forces.
The city has been under siege by government forces since the Free Syrian Army retook the eastern portion of Aleppo in 2012. The Syrian government has stepped up its siege, however, utilizing Russian air support as well as its own in an attempt to bomb the rebel-held section of Aleppo into submission. Civilians, hospitals, and first responders have been targeted directly through these attacks.
In particular, Russia has been using bunker buster ordinance to destroy underground shelters and hospitals utilized by civilians. In this week alone, nearly four hundred people have been killed in Syria and Russia’s bombing of Aleppo, including over one hundred children. The total number of deaths from the Aleppo from the past few years are somewhere in the tens of thousands. This number is only increasing.
The situation in Aleppo has been condemned by the UN, especially Russia’s involvement, but the situation only worsens. The horrible conditions in Aleppo have led to people making statements like “We live in the most violent age of human history.” Yet when one actually looks back at human history, he or she will see that civilians have never been safe in times of war. In fact, despite what the situation in Aleppo might suggest, the 21st century is the safest time for civilians yet.
In the ancient world, the civilians of a captured city had two fates. Civilians would either be sold into slavery by the thousands, or they would be raped and killed.
For instance, in Alexander the Great’s campaign against the Persian Empire, the young commander set upon the city of Tyre in 332 BCE. Although Alexander’s army outnumbered Tyre’s garrison by about five to one, Tyre’s defenders held out against Alexander’s siege for seven months. Outraged by the extended siege and the loss of his men, Alexander slaughtered all the defenders and sold the remaining 30,000 civilians in Tyre into slavery. This practice would last well into the early medieval period.
It is also interesting to note that siege engines such as catapults, ballista, onagers, and trebuchets, whose purpose was to hurl large chunks of often flaming material over stone walls upwards of sixty feet tall often hit civilian populations indiscriminately.
For instance, the siege of Carthage by Roman forces in the Third Punic War lasted for almost three years. In this three-year period, hundreds of thousands of projectiles were launched by Roman siege engines. By the time the city fell in 146 BCE, the walls were reduced to rubble, many of the city’s buildings were destroyed, and a large portion of the civilian population was dead. In accordance with ancient practice, most of the defenders were killed, tens of thousands of people were sold into slavery, and the city itself was razed to the ground.
All of this to say, the current situation in Aleppo is terrible and deplorable. The civilians trapped within the city are exposed daily to a horror that no one should have to experience. Yet it is important to note that many strides have been made in the modern era to protect civilians in times of war. There was no UN to advocate for the Carthaginians. There was no news outlet that abhorred the butchering of the citizens of Tyre.
While the modern age has brought us bunker busters, so too has it brought us international diplomacy and the establishment of universal human rights. Do not be so quick to forsake our time.
Lee Shaw is a junior majoring in professional writing and the current editor of The Mug.
Recently, an environmental issue in Texas has hit national headlines. An increase in earthquakes in the North Texas area sparked the interest of researchers a while ago. Now, findings from an SMU research group and the EPA point to certain practices of oil drilling companies as the reason behind this seismic activity. In fact, the increase in seismic activity since 2008 has been quite notable. In the past 8 years, the North Texas area has seen about 130 small to medium sized earthquakes. One couple in Irving Texas describes experiencing numerous earthquakes that left their paintings and pictures askew on the wall.
Much of this seismic activity is thought to be due to the water disposal system many companies use after the fracking process. (Fracking is a process used to drill for oil and gas, in which high-pressure water is directed at rock deep underground in order to release the gas that has collected in the shale rock. It has long been a source of controversy due to its numerous possible ecologically damaging effects.)
The leftover water must be removed. However, to leave it above ground runs the risk of polluting any of the areas water sources. Therefore, often the water is injected into the ground. This increases the pore pressure in the area, as the space between the small rocks that make up the soil fill with water. Scientists have also noted a rise in the general elevation of the earth around these wastewater injection sites. The EPA and Texas Railroad Commission are now exploring possible avenues for changing the rule regarding wastewater and injection and general drilling practices.
This problem is another in a long string of environmental issues that oil and gas companies have faced over the past few decades, even the past century. For our generation, the biggest example is likely the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of 2010. An oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico caught fire and sank into the water, killing eleven people and releasing a previously unimaginable amount of oil (around 5 million barrels) into the surrounding water. BP spent approximately $14 billion cleaning up and became the face of a horrible tragedy. Many people and environmental groups were left furious. Should we be feeling the same anger now? The damage seems less at face value, but again the effects of these massive projects on our environment haunt us.
The question we must ask ourselves is: Where do we draw the line? On one side of the line are the belief in Laissez-faire economy and the need for oil that permeates through every inch of our current economy. On the other side is the need to protect our environment and the lives of people and wildlife making a home here. How much time, money, and energy should be spent finding new ways to keep the environment safe? At times like these, many point to alternative energy resources, ones that would have a lesser impact on the environment. The thing we must remember, however, is that oil drilling is not the only thing leaving these cracks in our earth. Many of the choices we make as a society and the practices that drive our economy and world leave their mark on our environment. In a way, there is something simply human about leaving our mark on the world. However, on the other hand, it is naïve to think that we will never face the effects of our actions. We have to be careful. We must approach with caution. The earth is often far more delicate than one would think a spinning ball of rock would be.
Katherine Estep is a junior majoring in neuroscience.
Welcome back to school, Baylor bears! QuickBIC—now The Mug—is back after a summer-long hiatus, and we hope you are all ready for some top-notch new content that will get your blood pumping and your heart racing.
Before we all went our separate ways at the end of last semester, I sat down for a wonderful chat with the BIC’s most colorful professor, Dr. Emily Glass. We hunkered down in the library where Dr. Glass had been meeting with her rhetoric students to help them with their final papers—ten-page long monsters about complex issues that I did not even want to touch. I hid in the corner while they worked.
Dr. Glass did not seem to have a problem with beating thesis statement after thesis statement into submission. “I do experience pride very viscerally with my students,” she told me once the last freshman had gathered his cowed research paper and left. When they struggle with difficult concepts or schoolwork—like final papers, she said—and then they get it—that is the point of being a teacher, in Dr. Glass’ book. I rushed to scribble down that piece of literary gold, and then jumped right into my next question.
“What are your favorite hobbies?” I asked.
“Well,” said Dr. Glass, laughing a little. “I like to think that I’m capable of engaging with serious grownup things.” (I made air quotes around “serious grownup things,” because what even is that?) “But inside,” she said, “I’m a vortex of frivolity held together in human form.”
It turns out that Dr. Glass’ hobbies are just as fun as her awesome wardrobe. “I’ve made my own jewelry,” she told me while I simmered in jealousy over her creative genes. She also sews, and she has been interested in costume design since she was little, even making her own outfits for the Monster High dolls that she collects. Back in college, she said, she and her friends founded a sword fighting club, and they used to spar with wooden practice swords in the park, which she said was unbelievably fun. (I made a note to check out the fencing club on my own time.)
We talked a little more after that. Dr. Glass mentioned her respect for Socrates, and I mentioned that my Gorgias was buried away, never to see the light of day again. She said that she had crayons and coloring books in her office for world-weary students; I said that I would probably need to drop by sometime.
Finally, we arrived at the last question on my list. “Can you describe Baylor to me in three words?”
Dr. Glass had done some thinking about this one, and tackled it immediately. “Earnestly mission-driven,” she said, with no explanation.
After reading back over my notes, I think that Dr. Glass managed to sum up herself in three words too. Anyone who spends upwards of half a dozen hours a week helping students outside class, or who takes the trouble to smack googley-eyed stickers onto your weekly quizzes, or who has snacks and crayons in her office for students that need them must be earnestly mission-driven about her job, and about turning the kids she teaches into rhetoricians to rival Aristotle.
Thanks, Dr. Glass. We think you are doing a great job.
Chelsea Teague is a junior majoring in professional writing.
