Have you ever played Drag Queen bingo? GW students did at the GW Multicultural Center Wednesday night. Participants entered and played bingo, hosted by the drag queen, to raise money for the Whitman Walker Health foundation: an LGBT health service provider that focuses on AIDS and HIV awareness.
This is the Old WRGW District Radio News website. As of January 13th, 2014 all of the latest GW and local DC news can be found on our brand new website at: www.wrgwnews.com!
Friday, November 30, 2012
GW Student Organizations Raise HIV and AIDS Awareness
by Justin Lee
Have you ever played Drag Queen bingo? GW students did at the GW Multicultural Center Wednesday night. Participants entered and played bingo, hosted by the drag queen, to raise money for the Whitman Walker Health foundation: an LGBT health service provider that focuses on AIDS and HIV awareness.
The event was organized by the GW Student Global AIDS campaign, Allied in Pride and Grassroot Colonials as part of GW’s World AIDS Week. Free food and drinks were provided and the participants were asked to make monetary donations to the foundation while playing Bingo for a chance to win a free t-shirt.
Each day this week there is an event to raise awareness of AIDS and HIV.
On Thursday Kandies and Kondoms took place outside of the Marvin Center and on Friday a screening of the movie “How To Survive a Plague” was shown.
The very last event for the week will be held on Saturday to coincide with International World Aids Day. A vigil will be held for those who have lost their lives in their struggle against HIV and AIDS. The event will take place at 7pm in Kogan Plaza and Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC’s Congresswoman, will be one of the guest speakers.
Have you ever played Drag Queen bingo? GW students did at the GW Multicultural Center Wednesday night. Participants entered and played bingo, hosted by the drag queen, to raise money for the Whitman Walker Health foundation: an LGBT health service provider that focuses on AIDS and HIV awareness.
Students Celebrate the Power of Words and Faith at Interfaith Dinner
by Justin Lee
Students celebrated diversity and the power of words at the 11th annual interfaith dinner held in the Marvin Center on Tuesday night. The theme of the two- hour dinner was words, and how they can be used to build and destroy relationships. Each guest was asked to take a slip of paper at the door with a positive action words can create. The guests were then asked to sit with people who were given the same word as them in order for guests to mingle and share their faiths and creeds with those around them.
Through out the dinner different religious organizations spoke about how their faith includes the themes of words and communication. Sticking with the theme of communication, faith based singing groups The Voice Gospel Choir and Shir Madness, expressed their faith through song. George Washington University president, Dr. Steven Knapp, also spoke about the importance of open communication between religions and the power of words.
The Muslim Student Association and the Jewish Student Association started the Interfaith Dinner 11 years ago in order to open peaceful dialogue between the two groups. At the original dinners, the two organizations ate both Kosher and Halal food in a show of mutual respect and tolerance. This tradition was extended to all student religious organizations in the name of multiculturalism. This year a variety of food from different cultures was served.
Students celebrated diversity and the power of words at the 11th annual interfaith dinner held in the Marvin Center on Tuesday night. The theme of the two- hour dinner was words, and how they can be used to build and destroy relationships. Each guest was asked to take a slip of paper at the door with a positive action words can create. The guests were then asked to sit with people who were given the same word as them in order for guests to mingle and share their faiths and creeds with those around them.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Unranked and Embarrassed: GW Administrators Look to Move Forward
By Chris Evans
Nearly a week after US News and World Report's unranking of George Washington University (GW) from their annual college rankings, President Steven Knapp and his administration sat down to answer the school's questions.
The admissions office would simply estimate where a student might be in their class rank by looking at their SAT/ACT score, GPA, and course load. The estimation procedure that has been used for around twenty years was off and as Maltzman put it, "We were all sort of surprised."
He went onto explain that the statistics found and reported will also now be audited by an outside auditor to ensure only numbers available are used in the report--no more of the estimating that Knapp stated, "should never have been done."
She said, "We'll answer every question we can."
Voles, who is in charge of GW's new image and outreach for prospective students, told those in attendance that the University is charging forward in clarifying that being stripped of the ranking is not a reflection of the education and opportunities available to GW students and those looking at possibly making GW their home.
Provost Lerman agreed, telling town hall participants that, "this University is not defined by its' rankings."
Knapp commented, "these rankings are problematic for an institution of our nature."
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Sexual Assault Policies at GW, Georgetown, and American University
By Michele Ko and Olivia Martinez
Editor's Note: This is part one of a several part series examining sexual assault policies, occurrences, and prevention at GW, American, and Georgetown.
Nationally, one in four women will be sexually assaulted by the time they graduate college, according to the book I Never Called it Rape by Robin Warsaw. This includes specifically the 3 percent of college students who will become victims of completed or attempted rape in a given 9-month academic year.
According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, approximately 90 percent of all reported campus rapes occur under the influence of alcohol. Nearly half of all victims do not label the incident as "rape," according to the U.S. Department of Justice, The National Institute of Justice, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A vast majority of victims know their perpetrator (between 80 and 90 percent), further decreasing the likelihood the rape will be reported.
At GW 18 percent of women have personally experienced forced attempts of kissing or fondling without consent, according to the Campus Tolerance Foundation. The 2010 study also found GW to be the second most unsafe school for women out of the ten surveyed, including Harvard University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Texas A&M, and UCLA. Georgetown University meets the national average, reporting that one-in-four women report having been sexually assaulted by the time they graduate. American University shows lower numbers, with 6.8 percent of students, around 400 a year, incidences of forced fondling, according to their Office of Campus Life.
GW conducted a study of sexual assault in 2010 which surveyed 5,000 undergraduate and graduate students on their knowledge of sexual assault on campus, how to report sexual assault on campus, and the resources available to the victims of sexual assault.
The study concluded that "there needs to be more sexual education and prevention efforts at GW. 61 percent of respondents believe sexual assault is a problem on campus, while 15 percent stated they know someone who has experienced a rape, leading us to believe that sexual assault at GWU is an underreported and silent problem." The study also reported that 265 female undergraduates experienced sexual assault in 2009.
The study also identified several reasons why underreporting might be a problem: students may not recognize sexual assault as a violation of campus policy or as a crime, students may fear the stigma attached to reporting rape, or they lack confidence in GW's reporting system.
The report was produced through a partnership between the leadership of The Sexual Violence Awareness Group at The George Washington University School of Medicine and The Younger Women's Task Force (YWTF).
A close examination of the official sexual assault and harassment of Georgetown, American, and GW reveal several differences in policy between the three schools.
How Does Each Policy Define Sexual Misconduct, Harassment, and/or Assault?
Generally, the three schools share similar definitions of actions that would be deemed sexual misconduct or assault. They outline that actual or attempted rape, sexual battery, molestation, unwanted touching, unwanted sexual advances, physical contact, sexual gestures, noises, remarks, jokes, aggression, and pressure to engage in sexual activity are all against their policies. The importance of consent was also emphasized in all three policies.
However, Georgetown University is the only school out of the three to define consent. It is, "an understandable exchange of affirmative words or actions that indicate a willingness to participate in mutually agreed upon sexually explicit touching or penetration." The policy lists multiple situations in which consent does or does not apply.
Georgetown is also the only school to distinguish sexual assault from misconduct. It defines misconduct as engaging in, or attempting to engage in, sexual or offensive acts with or directed at another person without obtaining his or her consent. They define assault as sexual penetration without the consent of the person, especially when a person is mentally or physically incapable of giving consent. Georgetown was also unique in specifically including a clause about all forms of communication, even electronic, such as sending inappropriate pictures or sexting.
American University is the only school to state that sexual assault is personal, and thus the definition is subjective because everyone perceives sexual assault differently.
GW's policy is unique of emphasizing instances of sexual assault involving people of authority. The policy specifically outlined sexual misconduct in exchange for professional or academic benefits.
According to the Policies, How Do You Report Sexual Assault?
GW's policy allows members of the university community who believe they have been sexually harassed, also known as, "complainants," to seek consultation, administrative review, or a formal hearing. American's policy provides three options for reporting and assistance: information and referral, an informal complaint, or a formal complaint. Georgetown's policy allows complainants to file an anonymous report, a criminal report, or a complaint to the Office of Affirmative Action program.
According to GW's policy, if a complainant seeks consultation, they first meet with the Sexual Harassment Response Coordinator, who decides whether to forego further action or begin administrative review. The complainant is also offered counseling.
In American University's information and referral stage, similar to GW's consultation process, a person may meet confidentially with any member of the Sexual Harassment Project Team, a group created to assist in preventing and addressing sexual harassment campus-wide.
Georgetown's policy likewise devotes a section to "Supports and Services," which lists various resources for victims of sexual assault. Some services include access to The Sexual Assault and Health Issues Coordinator, Student Primary Care Clinic, and counseling and psychiatric services.
The next stage in GW's policy is the administrative review process, where a person may file a complaint against the person believed to have engaged in harassing behavior. During the investigation the University may take "interim action in response to the complaint, if appropriate."
American similarly allows for a complainant who does not want to make a formal charge of sexual assault to file an "informal complaint" against the person engaging in inappropriate behavior.
Georgetown's policy also gives complainants who do not wish to enter the judicial system and initiate disciplinary proceedings similar opportunities. He or she can file an anonymous incident report with the Sexual Assault and Health Issues Coordinator, any other University official or The Department of Public Safety. Another option is the student can contact the Metropolitan Police Department and file a criminal report.
One of the key distinctions between GW's policy and Georgetown and American's policies is GW's recently added time restriction to begin this stage of administrative review. Announced at the start of this academic year, the addition indicates that a person who wishes to file a complaint of sexual harassment and begin administrative review must do so within 180 days of when the harassment occurred (although this time period will be extended if a person wishes to seek assistance through consultation only). GW is the only one of the three schools with this time restriction.
GW's final stage is a formal hearing to determine whether the Code of Conduct has been violated. Similarly, American allows for a formal complaint option, where a person makes a formal charge of sexual harassment. Georgetown likewise allows a complainant to file a complaint of sexual harassment with The Office of Affirmative Action Program.
A major difference between GW's policy and American and Georgetown's policies is the distinction between the stages of action. While at American and Georgetown a student can skip the consultation process to go straight to the administrative review, at GW they must go through consultation and administrative review, in that order, before a formal hearing. Policies at American and Georgetown suggest complainants may access any mode of assistance in no particular order.
Another important factor in GW's policy is confidentiality. A recent addition to the policy this year indicates that complainants may request to keep their name confidential during consultation and administrative review as well as during the formal hearing stage if he or she is a student.
GW's policy is also the only one of the three schools that continually addresses sexual assault by faculty members, while the other policies primarily address students.
The length and format of GW's policy is vastly different and noteworthy in comparison to American's and Georgetown's. The 21-page document outlines the legal process and references many individuals involved in creating the policy, while American's 2-page document covers the basic procedures and Georgetown's policy lies within their Student Code of Conduct.
If any student has questions, ideas, or concerns about the GW policy, they should contact Tara Pereria at: taraw@gwu.edu or 202-994-2657 as well as Terri Harris Reed, The Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion and Title IX Coordinator at: treed@gwu.edu or 202-994-7297.
The next segment of this investigative series will include perspectives from student health administrators and sexual assault awareness organizations on GW, American, and Georgetown's campuses.
Editor's Note: This is part one of a several part series examining sexual assault policies, occurrences, and prevention at GW, American, and Georgetown.
Nationally, one in four women will be sexually assaulted by the time they graduate college, according to the book I Never Called it Rape by Robin Warsaw. This includes specifically the 3 percent of college students who will become victims of completed or attempted rape in a given 9-month academic year.
According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, approximately 90 percent of all reported campus rapes occur under the influence of alcohol. Nearly half of all victims do not label the incident as "rape," according to the U.S. Department of Justice, The National Institute of Justice, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A vast majority of victims know their perpetrator (between 80 and 90 percent), further decreasing the likelihood the rape will be reported.
At GW 18 percent of women have personally experienced forced attempts of kissing or fondling without consent, according to the Campus Tolerance Foundation. The 2010 study also found GW to be the second most unsafe school for women out of the ten surveyed, including Harvard University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Texas A&M, and UCLA. Georgetown University meets the national average, reporting that one-in-four women report having been sexually assaulted by the time they graduate. American University shows lower numbers, with 6.8 percent of students, around 400 a year, incidences of forced fondling, according to their Office of Campus Life.
GW conducted a study of sexual assault in 2010 which surveyed 5,000 undergraduate and graduate students on their knowledge of sexual assault on campus, how to report sexual assault on campus, and the resources available to the victims of sexual assault.
The study concluded that "there needs to be more sexual education and prevention efforts at GW. 61 percent of respondents believe sexual assault is a problem on campus, while 15 percent stated they know someone who has experienced a rape, leading us to believe that sexual assault at GWU is an underreported and silent problem." The study also reported that 265 female undergraduates experienced sexual assault in 2009.
The study also identified several reasons why underreporting might be a problem: students may not recognize sexual assault as a violation of campus policy or as a crime, students may fear the stigma attached to reporting rape, or they lack confidence in GW's reporting system.
The report was produced through a partnership between the leadership of The Sexual Violence Awareness Group at The George Washington University School of Medicine and The Younger Women's Task Force (YWTF).
A close examination of the official sexual assault and harassment of Georgetown, American, and GW reveal several differences in policy between the three schools.
How Does Each Policy Define Sexual Misconduct, Harassment, and/or Assault?
Generally, the three schools share similar definitions of actions that would be deemed sexual misconduct or assault. They outline that actual or attempted rape, sexual battery, molestation, unwanted touching, unwanted sexual advances, physical contact, sexual gestures, noises, remarks, jokes, aggression, and pressure to engage in sexual activity are all against their policies. The importance of consent was also emphasized in all three policies.
However, Georgetown University is the only school out of the three to define consent. It is, "an understandable exchange of affirmative words or actions that indicate a willingness to participate in mutually agreed upon sexually explicit touching or penetration." The policy lists multiple situations in which consent does or does not apply.
Georgetown is also the only school to distinguish sexual assault from misconduct. It defines misconduct as engaging in, or attempting to engage in, sexual or offensive acts with or directed at another person without obtaining his or her consent. They define assault as sexual penetration without the consent of the person, especially when a person is mentally or physically incapable of giving consent. Georgetown was also unique in specifically including a clause about all forms of communication, even electronic, such as sending inappropriate pictures or sexting.
American University is the only school to state that sexual assault is personal, and thus the definition is subjective because everyone perceives sexual assault differently.
GW's policy is unique of emphasizing instances of sexual assault involving people of authority. The policy specifically outlined sexual misconduct in exchange for professional or academic benefits.
According to the Policies, How Do You Report Sexual Assault?
GW's policy allows members of the university community who believe they have been sexually harassed, also known as, "complainants," to seek consultation, administrative review, or a formal hearing. American's policy provides three options for reporting and assistance: information and referral, an informal complaint, or a formal complaint. Georgetown's policy allows complainants to file an anonymous report, a criminal report, or a complaint to the Office of Affirmative Action program.
According to GW's policy, if a complainant seeks consultation, they first meet with the Sexual Harassment Response Coordinator, who decides whether to forego further action or begin administrative review. The complainant is also offered counseling.
In American University's information and referral stage, similar to GW's consultation process, a person may meet confidentially with any member of the Sexual Harassment Project Team, a group created to assist in preventing and addressing sexual harassment campus-wide.
Georgetown's policy likewise devotes a section to "Supports and Services," which lists various resources for victims of sexual assault. Some services include access to The Sexual Assault and Health Issues Coordinator, Student Primary Care Clinic, and counseling and psychiatric services.
The next stage in GW's policy is the administrative review process, where a person may file a complaint against the person believed to have engaged in harassing behavior. During the investigation the University may take "interim action in response to the complaint, if appropriate."
American similarly allows for a complainant who does not want to make a formal charge of sexual assault to file an "informal complaint" against the person engaging in inappropriate behavior.
Georgetown's policy also gives complainants who do not wish to enter the judicial system and initiate disciplinary proceedings similar opportunities. He or she can file an anonymous incident report with the Sexual Assault and Health Issues Coordinator, any other University official or The Department of Public Safety. Another option is the student can contact the Metropolitan Police Department and file a criminal report.
One of the key distinctions between GW's policy and Georgetown and American's policies is GW's recently added time restriction to begin this stage of administrative review. Announced at the start of this academic year, the addition indicates that a person who wishes to file a complaint of sexual harassment and begin administrative review must do so within 180 days of when the harassment occurred (although this time period will be extended if a person wishes to seek assistance through consultation only). GW is the only one of the three schools with this time restriction.
GW's final stage is a formal hearing to determine whether the Code of Conduct has been violated. Similarly, American allows for a formal complaint option, where a person makes a formal charge of sexual harassment. Georgetown likewise allows a complainant to file a complaint of sexual harassment with The Office of Affirmative Action Program.
A major difference between GW's policy and American and Georgetown's policies is the distinction between the stages of action. While at American and Georgetown a student can skip the consultation process to go straight to the administrative review, at GW they must go through consultation and administrative review, in that order, before a formal hearing. Policies at American and Georgetown suggest complainants may access any mode of assistance in no particular order.
Another important factor in GW's policy is confidentiality. A recent addition to the policy this year indicates that complainants may request to keep their name confidential during consultation and administrative review as well as during the formal hearing stage if he or she is a student.
GW's policy is also the only one of the three schools that continually addresses sexual assault by faculty members, while the other policies primarily address students.
The length and format of GW's policy is vastly different and noteworthy in comparison to American's and Georgetown's. The 21-page document outlines the legal process and references many individuals involved in creating the policy, while American's 2-page document covers the basic procedures and Georgetown's policy lies within their Student Code of Conduct.
If any student has questions, ideas, or concerns about the GW policy, they should contact Tara Pereria at: taraw@gwu.edu or 202-994-2657 as well as Terri Harris Reed, The Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion and Title IX Coordinator at: treed@gwu.edu or 202-994-7297.
The next segment of this investigative series will include perspectives from student health administrators and sexual assault awareness organizations on GW, American, and Georgetown's campuses.
Friday, November 16, 2012
WRGW News at 6: Friday November 16, 2012
Featuring a special report on sexual assault at GW, AU, and Georgetown.
WRGW News at 6: Thursday, November 15, 2012
With a special report on Sexual Assault at GW, AU, and Georgetown's campuses.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
U.S. News and World Report "Unranks" University
By Evan Ritscher
U.S. News and World Report has changed the George Washington University’s national ranking in light
of erroneous data the school provided to the news organization over the course of the past decade.
Earlier, U.S. News ranked the school
as the nation’s 51st-best university. However, in a statement
released Wednesday, the news organization announced they will remove GW from that
list and will classify the university as an “unranked" school. U.S. News will
not re-examine the university until next fall for the 2014 rankings, if the
school can prove the accuracy of its new data submission.
The move comes as GW announced on November 8th that for close to 10 years, it had been incorrectly calculating important information about students who decided to attend the university. As a result, the university had been giving flawed data on its admissions process and students to organizations like U.S. News and similar institutions that use the data in their ranking of colleges and universities.
Among the most important data GW incorrectly reported to the ranking organization was statistics on the portion of students who ranked in the top 10 percent of their class. In some cases the actual data was 20 percent lower than what the school reported.
For example, for the class of 2015, the university claimed 78 percent
of students were in ranked in the top 10 percent of their high schools. In
actuality, the number was 58 percent. Such flawed data, which U.S. News and
World Report claims makes up 6 percent of its methodology in determining school rankings, lead
to the organization’s decision to “unrank” the university.
U.S. News classifies schools as "unranked" if they fall into the second tier of national universities, if they are liberal arts colleges, regional colleges, or regional universities, or if they fail to pass U.S. News’ own cutoff level. However, it is unclear what specific criteria U.S. News used in its decision to remove GW from its rankings.
President Steven Knapp released a statement Wednesday, saying the university was surprised and disappointed by U.S. News' decision to remove GW's ranking rather than adjust it. Knapp also stated the university plans to improve safeguards meant to prevent these errors from occurring again.
U.S. News classifies schools as "unranked" if they fall into the second tier of national universities, if they are liberal arts colleges, regional colleges, or regional universities, or if they fail to pass U.S. News’ own cutoff level. However, it is unclear what specific criteria U.S. News used in its decision to remove GW from its rankings.
President Steven Knapp released a statement Wednesday, saying the university was surprised and disappointed by U.S. News' decision to remove GW's ranking rather than adjust it. Knapp also stated the university plans to improve safeguards meant to prevent these errors from occurring again.
Other schools had similar issues with misreporting data recently. Both Emory University in Georgia and Claremont McKenna University in California disclosed that they reported incorrect data earlier this year. But U.S. News did not remove either of those schools from its rankings.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Election Night 2012 Coverage
Live coverage of Election Night 2012, featuring raw polling data, analysis, interviews, coverage from around campus and the White House, and much more.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Construction for New Science and Engineering Hall Sparks Mixed Reviews
By Evan Ritscher
Beginning at 8 a.m. every Monday through Saturday, many GW students are awoken by a sound that can be heard across half of campus. The noise emanates from a construction site on H Street N.W., between 22nd and 23rd streets, one of many sites across campus.
The construction site will be the home of the university’s new science and engineering hall, but right now it looks like anything but an academic building.
The area, which encompasses almost an entire square block, is currently just a deep hole in the ground containing construction equipment including about 10 bulldozers, excavators, large jackhammers, and a large crane. The giant machines that currently occupy the city street represent the dirty part of the process of change and improvement the university is currently undergoing.
GW’s Board of Trustees approved the project in 2010 after a year of planning and design. Construction began in the summer of 2011 and is scheduled for completion by January 2015.
Along with the construction of the science and engineering hall, GW is renovating Gelman Library and Ross Hall; constructing a new School of Health and Health Services building; reconstructing GW-owned properties along Pennsylvania Avenue; and constructing a new GW Museum, garage, and program space for the law school.
For university administrators, the construction, particularly that of the science and engineering hall, will further advance the school’s image as a leader in research and will also bring leaders in science to the university.
“The science and engineering hall will be that anchor that brings people into our community,” Steven Lerman, provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, said in a video discussing the project. “GW can be a convening place; it will bring people from all over the world into our community.”
Peg Barratt, dean of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, also said GW “will be the hub for what is a world science center around the greater D.C. area.”
Still, the work is far from over and the school is currently in the middle of the noisy, dirty and disruptive stage of its improvement plans.
“I don’t think a day has gone by without the noise in someway disrupting me, either while I’m asleep or when I’m trying to work,” Luke Austing, a Fulbright Hall resident, said.
Brian Shear, another Fulbright resident, said he understands the work is ultimately good for the university, but wishes the school would do more to minimize impacts on current students.
In late August, GW Housing sent out an email to the residents of Fulbright, JBKO, Madison, and Munson halls saying the university was working to reduce “exceptionally noisy” activities in the early morning. The email also said the university provides free earplugs and loans white noise machines to students affected by the noise.
Regardless of the noise, the university believes the construction furthers the university’s goal of transforming GW into a hub for academic research and discussion, and the construction will continue as the university moves towards expansion.
For current students, the noise seems to be something they will just have to live with.
Beginning at 8 a.m. every Monday through Saturday, many GW students are awoken by a sound that can be heard across half of campus. The noise emanates from a construction site on H Street N.W., between 22nd and 23rd streets, one of many sites across campus.
The construction site will be the home of the university’s new science and engineering hall, but right now it looks like anything but an academic building.
The area, which encompasses almost an entire square block, is currently just a deep hole in the ground containing construction equipment including about 10 bulldozers, excavators, large jackhammers, and a large crane. The giant machines that currently occupy the city street represent the dirty part of the process of change and improvement the university is currently undergoing.
GW’s Board of Trustees approved the project in 2010 after a year of planning and design. Construction began in the summer of 2011 and is scheduled for completion by January 2015.
Along with the construction of the science and engineering hall, GW is renovating Gelman Library and Ross Hall; constructing a new School of Health and Health Services building; reconstructing GW-owned properties along Pennsylvania Avenue; and constructing a new GW Museum, garage, and program space for the law school.
For university administrators, the construction, particularly that of the science and engineering hall, will further advance the school’s image as a leader in research and will also bring leaders in science to the university.
“The science and engineering hall will be that anchor that brings people into our community,” Steven Lerman, provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, said in a video discussing the project. “GW can be a convening place; it will bring people from all over the world into our community.”
Peg Barratt, dean of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, also said GW “will be the hub for what is a world science center around the greater D.C. area.”
Still, the work is far from over and the school is currently in the middle of the noisy, dirty and disruptive stage of its improvement plans.
“I don’t think a day has gone by without the noise in someway disrupting me, either while I’m asleep or when I’m trying to work,” Luke Austing, a Fulbright Hall resident, said.
Brian Shear, another Fulbright resident, said he understands the work is ultimately good for the university, but wishes the school would do more to minimize impacts on current students.
In late August, GW Housing sent out an email to the residents of Fulbright, JBKO, Madison, and Munson halls saying the university was working to reduce “exceptionally noisy” activities in the early morning. The email also said the university provides free earplugs and loans white noise machines to students affected by the noise.
Regardless of the noise, the university believes the construction furthers the university’s goal of transforming GW into a hub for academic research and discussion, and the construction will continue as the university moves towards expansion.
For current students, the noise seems to be something they will just have to live with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)