As SGA undergoes its annual election cycle for the next academic year, I have reflected on this past semester in which a historical change to Student Government Association was made.

Senate was reduced by nearly half. While Black Student Alliance (BSA) seats were retained, other seats were added that were not previously there – namely, four Diversity Leadership Cabinet (DLC) seats.

I thought about all the questions that seemed so crazy then, and even crazier now, “Why do we need BSA seats?” and “DLC is already a committee, why should it have a presence in Senate?” There was this impending fear that “we will no longer be an academic body if one-fifth of Senate is comprised of non-academic seats.”

I often time found myself aggravated when anyone mentioned the Oath. In this context, it was always, “We have the Oath of Inclusion- that should encourage people of all races, religions and creeds to join SGA” during an open forum or while drafting the actual bill.

I thought then about how easy it is to say you believe in the Oath and that everyone should follow it and live up to it, but not really challenge yourself to think of who we include in who should be included? Is it the people you think make the Shell “shady”? Is it the breast feeding mother in one of our study spaces in the BSC? Or the whole group of people and their caregivers we taunt when we call someone “retarded”. Who are we talking about?

I’ll paint my thoughts in a more campus-centric way for all you who are getting uncomfortable. How many people after a campus safety email notice comes out hold our breath and hope it’s not someone that looks like them or their brother or father? And how many open those emails, and if the suspect fits the description they already have in their heads, avoid at all costs by crossing streets, averting gazes, walking faster than the “male, 5-foot-11, African American”?

The thing about privilege, and those that hold it, is that you don’t have to see the struggles and adjustments that people who navigate outside of a white, Christian, male heteronorm, must make.

We are socialized to see racism, sexism, ableism, religious intolerance as single acts of “meanness” or overt individual prejudice or discrimination. It’s harder to look at all those “-isms” instead as invisible structures that, as Peggy McIntosh so wonderfully puts it, “confers dominance” to anyone outside of privileged groups.

So it’s easy to say that we’ve come a long way since 2007 when the Oath of Inclusion was drafted in response to a series of heinous bias incidences, because we have.

However, it’s in this time of progressive University-wide initiatives (shout-out to Housing and Res Life for adding “transgender” under the options for students to identify for the HRL survey!), that we as students must take our own part in the movement. When “conferring dominance” doesn’t look like Jim Crowe or Russia’s anti-LGBTQ riots, but in the “no homo” afterthoughts I hear at the gym, along with “pussy” and “fag”; in the “well, she doesn’t act black” or “your English is so great, what generation Asian are you?!” or the lack of gender-neutral facilities, like bathrooms, on campus for students.

Since in my position on SGA Exec, I am forced to see the invisible ways people in our community are discriminated against or unable to fully and healthily function, I want to ask those who serve on SGA, and to those whom we serve, the student body: What are ways that SGA can serve all of us? In its inaugural year, how can we make our community one of inclusive and open dialogue by allowing issues of justice, inclusion, safety for all students on the platform of legislation, discussion and debate in Student Government Association?

I’d like to make a special call-to-action all whom we consider our community and who are passionate about or are identifying members of the groups DLC will be providing seats for: Join SGA – because there is intrinsic value in having students from borderlands perspectives, people who have constantly lived a divided experience, one foot in one world and the other in a different, bordering land; because there are so many benefits of having someone who has had to do without most of their lives out of necessity.

Take it from me, they’re resourceful and creative and would be an asset to any team or group at any institution – because as much as people would like to think that “we live in a post-racist society” because our President is black, we still have stayed at a steady 11 percent enrollment rate for African-Americans at this institution.

Not because there isn’t an interest (we are right in the middle of St. Louis, Mo.) but because SLU has not made it a priority to recruit and retain black students, or meet 100 percent financial need for anyone for that matter.

Because the “Vagina Monologues” cannot be held on campus, because sexual assaults happen and they leave survivors and bystanders and maybe someone who didn’t even know what they were doing was wrong.

Because all but one of the bias incidents that have been reported so far this academic year have attacked each and every member of our LGBTQ community and their allies.

Because there still is not someone in Campus Ministry to ensure that our students who do not hail from a Christian background have someone who is familiar with their customs, prayers, rules for practicing their faith the way over 75 percent of us from the Christian tradition are able to here.

These things should bother every student on this campus. Because if you really embrace the Oath, you know it means we’ve got a long way to go, but that every step forward is worth it.

Last weekend, the New York Times published an article titled “Google, Tell Me. Is My Son a Genius?” examining the not-so-subtle gender preference that Americans have expressed via their web searches in the past decade. Data collected by Google since 2004 has revealed that Americans are twice as likely to Google “Is my daughter: overweight, depressed or ugly?” than to do the same for their sons. In fact, the most common parental Google queries about their male offspring are “Is my son: a genius, a leader or happy?”

Essentially, Americans are more likely to associate their sons with positive concerns, such as their intelligence or well-being, while American daughters continue to be subjected to the usual stereotypes surrounding their appearance and emotional “instability.” Technology has been able to record evidence of modern gender preference — this time committed by “supportive and concerned” parents sitting behind a computer screen.

Upon reading this article, I couldn’t help but consider my own experiences as the third daughter in a family of four girls, and I found these statistics not only unsurprising, but also disturbingly accurate. For as long as I can remember, my family has encountered gendered prejudice walking into restaurants, in school, at the doctor’s office and even in church. We are constantly bombarded with the same ignorant comments regarding our gender: “Aren’t there any boys?” or “Your parents never wanted a son?” The absurdity of these questions lies not only in the obviousness that my sisters and I are girls (we keep our imaginary brother locked in the basement), but that my parents could somehow control the sex of their children.

Countless times I have sat quietly by, humiliated and offended, while random strangers went on and on about the “challenges” of raising daughters and how they pitied my “unfortunate” father. Each and every one had the same condescending remarks on what a shame it is that my sisters and I can’t carry on the family name or how we will never be able to play in the NFL or that “four girls equals a lot of trouble!” Naturally, I have a lot of hostility towards such obtuse comments. What is the NFL compared to earning a college degree? Is it not possible for a woman to keep her maiden name once she is married? Could a son demonstrate better behavior than me? Surely my sisters and I couldn’t be so much of a disappointment that the “shortcoming” between our legs still overshadowed our accomplishments? It was at an early age I realized my sisters and I lived in a very different world than I thought we did. We, as daughters, will struggle for our entire lives to be accepted by a society who is openly disappointed in us.

I can’t help but wonder if my sisters and I would invoke the same reaction if we were four strapping sons rather than dainty daughters. The suggestion that my sisters and I are more difficult than sons is far more than simply insulting; it is outdated, bigoted and narrow. Unfortunately, these remarks span the breadth of social, economic and educational levels — doctors, lawyers, accountants, educators and even “well-meaning” friends and relatives have relayed opinions about my predominately female family.

Although some of these comments may be teasing and good-natured, their foundation lies in a much deeper established opinion of women. Even in today’s “modern” and “equal” society, daughters are still viewed as deadweight. In fact, Google reported that American parents sought for advice on how to conceive a boy 10 percent more often than on how to conceive a girl.

How Google is supposed to control the sex of an embryo, or know if your son or daughter is overweight is difficult to say — perhaps Americans should be reevaluating their parenting techniques.

I wish I could say that the statistics released by Google shocked me or offended me or even inspired others to make great changes in the way they speak, act and think.

However, they only affirmed something I’ve understood for a long time. I know that most people who saw these numbers went on with their day and continued to make ignorant assumptions they view as harmless.

Ironically, if our society changed the way they treated women, perhaps the frequency of “concerned” Google searches about female emotional stability or appearance would subside. It’s a vicious and perpetual cycle of unfair sexism that I refuse to be a part of.

So, instead of being submissive in a world prejudiced against daughters, I choose to be proud of my femininity, and I encourage all other daughters to become adamant about being treated the same as a man — and more specifically, the same as a son.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock this past week (gosh wouldn’t that be nice), you would know that superstar Justin Bieber was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Bieber has received castigation and sometimes praise for everything from the act itself to his adorable mug shot.

For people uninterested in the lives of celebrities, this whole incident is something to either quickly scold, snicker or both. However, for those that follow the lives of superstars, many may be left disappointed by yet another young starlet using his extensive privilege and influence to ill ends. Parents with children that look up to Biebs and his hair will now have to explain how nobody is perfect or even force their children to stop listening to the music of the (still alleged) lawbreaker.

This begs the question, though, how much influence should a 19-year-old superstar really have?

Miley Cyrus is another superstar with a controversial year, which included a hotly debated VMA performance and a video of her riding a wrecking ball in the nude. This editorial board has heard just about every opinion about Miley Cyrus. However, we’d like to note that Miley Cyrus is just as young as most of us (21), and is capable of making mistakes like the rest of us do. The spotlight on her, however, is infinitely greater than most of us SLU students have ever experienced.

With the spotlight on these two starlets for the past several years (even more for Miley), and showing no signs of abating, perhaps these two stars are just attempting to show how little they care about the world outside the people most immediate to them. Is this selfish? Of course it is, but so is everyone else. These stars, however, are burdened with appealing to a huge fan base, while simultaneously living the life they want which would likely not appeal to their fan base. They’re on a tightrope being pulled on both sides, and the cameras are always on them.

While many young performers have difficulty traversing their late teens and early teens, several stars manage to get through with utter class. One of these stars is Queen Beyoncé. At 33 years, Beyoncé is squarely on top of the world and can pretty much do no wrong at this point, barring some kind of arrest or drug abuse (but honestly, she’s too smart for that).  Not only does the world recognize Beyoncé’s privileged position, she does as well. In her newly released album, she describes how the work she’s done over the years allows her to perform in ways she prefers. In this case, it is about utter sexuality! You know what? She does deserve to sing about sex without innuendo or clever metaphors; she’s earned it.

While no other artists can claim the throne that Beyoncé has, it would be nice if we as a society could grant them a little more space to grow as people, so hopefully they can turn out half as cool as Beyoncé.

This next Sunday in East Rutherford, New Jersey, the (supposedly) best two football teams in all the land: the Seattle Seahawks and the Denver Broncos, will battle to become the next Super Bowl champions.

There are a number of important facts that make this particular Super Bowl all the more interesting. The clash between the Broncos and Seahawks will pit the best offence in football (Broncos) against the best defense in football (Seahawks).

In addition, this is only the second time in 20 years that the number one seed in each conference is playing for the Super Bowl, defying the trend of relative underdogs playing in the big game.

This is also the first time in the Super Bowl’s history that the game will be played in a cold weather stadium. Usually the game is held in Florida, California or in a climate-controlled dome. However, the old saying goes: Roger Goodell (the NFL commissioner) loves his money, so the game will be played where he damn well pleases.

This game is also interesting for how much money is at play during this game. At last year’s Super Bowl, the reportedly cheapest ticket sold for around $1,500 and a 30-person suite would require someone to shell out $325,000!

Commercials are also a big money business during the Super Bowl, as the biggest companies and advertisers constantly attempt to outdo one another with outrageous and attention grabbing 30-second blurbs. At last year’s Super Bowl, the average 30-second advertisement cost $4 million.

The half time show has become a program all itself with some of the most important musicians around performing during half time. At Madonna’s half time show two years ago, more people watched her performance than the Super Bowl itself. Last year’s performer, Queen Beyoncé, undoubtedly spoiled any other performer’s dreams of having the biggest half time show since JT and Janet. Nonetheless, Bruno Mars will give it a go.

But now, back to the football: this game pits the two most impressive teams of the NFL all year and should hopefully be a game for the ages, one we’ll be able to tell our grandchildren or random passerby on the street many years from now.

The star of the Broncos has irrevocably been the greatest quarterback of all time: Peyton Manning. This 37-year-old NFL player has had a record season, starting it off right with a seven- touchdown performance in the first game of the season and he never really slowed down throughout. Manning finished the regular season with an NFL record 4,577 yards passing and another NFL record 55 touchdown passes. He leads the highest of high-powered passing attacks, flinging the pigskin around to Pro Bowlers Demaryius Thomas and Julius Thomas, as well as Eric Decker and Wes Welker all with over 60 catches. To put this offensive juggernaut in perspective, no St. Louis Rams player had 60 catches. The rushing attack was also firing, with Knowshon Moreno rushing for over 1,000 yards during the season followed by St. Louis native Montee Ball, who rushed for 559 more.

This attack will face the best defense and best cornerback in the league, Richard Sherman, who set twitter ablaze with his postgame interview with Erin Andrews, stating: “I’m the best corner in the game” and calling 49ers’ receiver Michael Crabtree a sorry receiver and a sheep.

Many of us on the editorial board actually enjoyed Sherman’s comments, as he had the grounds to make those comments and showed a passion not often seen once the final whistle calls. It will be up to Sherman and the rest of the Seahawks’ defense in stopping, or at least containing the Broncos potent offence in order to give second-year quarterback Russell Wilson a chance to win the biggest game of the year.

No matter what happens in the game, there are enough storylines and enough entertainment to make this a Super Bowl worth watching.

By Becky Killian, Junior, Urban Affairs major in College of Arts and Sciences

Presentations concerning sexual assault frustrate me. The audience at these “dialogues” is always defensive and, at the end, the spoiler that a heavily intoxicated victim cannot give consent always proves to be subject for debate. While this reaction points out significant societal problems, it also necessitates that these “educational tactics” need to be reevaluated.

My problem with sexual assault presentations is that they separate, rather than unite a community. By presenting a complex, serious problem in a hetero-normative, sex-specific fashion in which men are always the perpetrators and women always the victims, we force people into camps where their statements will be recognized as either “anti-woman” or “anti-man,” instead of simply “anti-victim.” 

These presentations need to cease being a chance to defend or criminalize a given sex, and instead concern humanizing all people until we do not inflict sexual harm. Our campus needs to understand that cases of sexual assault should not divide men and women, but should be met with joint outrage.

To do this, we need to stop saying, “Think if this happened to your daughter or sister,” and instead say, “Think if this happened to your daughter or son, sister or brother.” Limiting the havoc of sexual victimization to one sex is detrimental to understanding it as a crime on human beings, not just women at the hands of heterosexual men. Rape can be experienced by both men and women, regardless of their sexuality. A rapist is no less a rapist for harming the sexual dignity of a man, and a woman who pushes the sexual boundaries of her boyfriend is no less a rapist than a woman who takes advantage of her girlfriend. 

Only when we can present sexual crimes as a human problem will we see true dialogue and growth.  

Recent political rhetoric, especially the kind surrounding President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address, has focused on the nation’s increasing income gap—“income inequality.” To many on the left and the right, but more strongly on among the left, who benefit from strong sentiment from the White House, the solution to income inequality has revolved around the minimum wage and whether or not it should be raised. The President and his Democratic allies in Congress and around the country believe that raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour will help reduce the vast discrepancies in income nationwide. But is the problem of income inequality, if it truly is a problem, to be solved so easily? It makes sense on the surface: more wage, more salary, narrower income gap. The problem of income inequality and upward mobility (the two are intimately connected) is not reducible to such simplicity, however. To think that such a basic solution exists is to give in to ideological fervor and deny the humanity inherent in poverty and low economic mobility, and the compassion and thoughtfulness its study thus deserves.

Income inequality, like many terms in politics, is difficult to precisely explain and quantify.

Furthermore, while it as a concept can be fodder for politicians looking to win big in the game of generic political rhetoric, income inequality is a fundamental oversimplification of a complex economic phenomenon: upward mobility. In a recent project involving Harvard economics professors Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren entitled “Equality of Opportunity Project,” the authors attempt to explain the complexity of economic mobility in a short introduction on the project’s website. They write: “Upward income mobility varies substantially within the U.S. Areas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital and more stable families.” As this excerpt explains, attributing economic woes to income inequality—and making the solution an increase in the minimum wage—is naïve; levels of economic mobility involve a great number of social factors, only one of which is income inequality.

The United States espouses itself to being a country of economic opportunity, but this opportunity is not necessarily solely contingent on having near equal levels of income. In her recent NPR report called “The Income Gap: How Much is Too Much?,” Yuki Noguchi references the words of Scott Winship, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, to define this point. Noguchi writes: “Winship says policies should aim to increase access to opportunities to those on the lower rungs of the social ladder.

But, he says, narrowing the income gap by…raising the minimum wage is unlikely to have much of an effect on mobility.” This is not to say that the minimum wage should not be raised or that the rich do not enjoy a tremendous social advantage because of their wealth (the certainly do), instead, it means that we should not get caught up in the soaring rhetoric of political pundits.

The way to improve economic mobility is not as easy as some make it sound: raise the minimum wage! A large pool of factors must be considered, like those outlined in the “Equality of Opportunity Project.”

We live in a world of, according to political academics, “complex global economic interdependence,” and we must not forget that the economic world is just that- complex.

To say that simply raising the minimum wage will help increase economic mobility is to deny people their humanity—we are beings of vast complexity whose problems cannot be amounted to being just monetary. Society demands that we look deeper into the problem of economic immobility and adjust for a long term solution.

I saw a motto once on a tombstone that said: “It is a fearful thing to love what death can touch” and I started to wonder if that’s why I love my cell phone so much. After all, its metal guts can be tweaked and tugged into immortality, while every human I know will, at some point, be made into moss.

My cell phone sits on my pillow when I’m sleeping. Its face is the first one I see in the morning, and its screen is the first thing I touch. My phone is the only witness to the fight I had with my mother and the texts I still sometimes exchange with my ex-boyfriend. Without realizing it, my relationship with my cell phone has become the most intimate one in my life.

Last week I left my phone at a bar and it got stolen by someone smart enough to pick up an iPhone instead of abandoning one. Distraught, I went to the store to get a new telephone and discovered it’d take me four days to get a new phone. While the AT&T salesman worked on the order form I stared blankly at my feet, unsure of how to pass the time without checking my Facebook on my phone.

The first few phone-less hours were freedom akin to the feeling you get after a breakup when you realize you don’t have to be faithful to anybody. I didn’t have to read any text messages. I had an acceptable excuse for not responding to emails. I was single, alone in the world without my 200 contacts and delighted by the idea of having to do something quaint, like ask a stranger what time it is.

Then the feeling ended. In my car I was forced to listen to the terrible CDs I’d made in high school because all my music was on my phone. I went grocery shopping and on the way back, I realized I couldn’t Google how long I could leave milk in the car.

I noticed how boring it was to sit through stoplights when you can’t check your text messages in the interim between red and green, and when I felt awkward at a party I had to strap on a smile because I didn’t have a screen to scroll through to avoid eye contact with strangers. In short, I was forced to participate in all the drudgery of reality without the distractions on

my phone.

I think my smart phone made me stupid. Really, I do.

Having a phone makes it so easy to look up answers that I stop asking questions.

It makes it so easy to keep in touch with people that it’s less important to talk to people you can touch.

With the internet in my pockets, what good is it to trundle through the cumbersome pages of an encyclopedia? If you can text, why talk?

And it isn’t my phone’s fault. My phone, like a hammer or a nail, is a tool. Use that tool for its intended purpose and it’s good, but use that tool to nail someone’s ears to a wall and it’s no good at all.

My phone doesn’t willfully force me to replace tangible things in my life with cheap substitutes. It doesn’t adhere my fingers to its tiny screen and force me to waste time on my twitter feed, but that’s what I choose to do with it.

I avoid awkward conversation by sending long-winded texts. I don’t let my mind roam in the quiet hours before sleep because it’s easier to play tetris until tiredness takes me. I replace nightly prayers with podcasts. A world as wild as ours should not be limited to pockets.

When my new phone arrived I unwrapped the box like it was a short-wave radio to a lifeboat, a link back to the life that I knew before my cell phone went missing. But as I fingered the cold metal of my new iPhone 5s, it seemed to me cold and lifeless, a hollow box that was undeserving of my secrets and ill-equipped for intimacy.

I contemplated not turning it on. Then, with the slide of two-fingers on a still glass frame, I tapped back in.

The basketball season is heating up and it’s time to talk hoops!

The Billiken men’s basketball team is 16-2 after a home victory against St. Bonaventure, winning 66-60.

The win against St. Bonaventure gives the Billikens a 10 game win streak, which is something of an expected streak, given that this is the Billikens’ third such streak of nine or more games in just two years.

What’s more impressive about the Billikens’ excellent record is that their only two losses of the season were two close games against Wisconsin and Wichita State, two teams with only one loss between them that grace the top ten of the rankings. The rankings took notice of the Bills’ impressive display, and SLU is now ranked #24 in the country.

Due to SLU’s relatively weak conference opponents, as well as SLU’s level of talent, SLU is not projected to lose again until early March, making yet another run into the NCAA final 68 all but inevitable.

However, if SLU hopes to receive as high of a seeding as they got last year as a #5 in last year’s tournament, they must come close to winning out against their opponents and take the Atlantic 10 crown yet again.

Such a goal puts the onus on the Billikens to pull out the tough road games against teams such as VCU, as well as to maintain their focus and drive against weaker conference opponents. If they do not, they risk falling into a bubble spot or even worse, out of the tournament conversation altogether. The Bills’ composure cannot afford to be lost with the conference competition that they have this year.

But those of us in the UNews fully expect the mature and team-oriented Billikens to maintain their excellent play down this all-important stretch of play, and will reach their third NCAA tournament in as many years.

With the Billikens playing as consistently well as they have been this season and in seasons’ past, we would expect the Bills’ home games to be sold out, or at least for the student sections to be filled, but unfortunately neither are true.

We’re not certain if the poor attendance is a result of poor competition, less-than-perfect scheduling, heavy workloads or all three, but the inevitable result is that the basketball team is playing in front of an apathetic fan base. At the University of Dayton over the break in an early season conference clash between Dayton and the Bills, the arena sold out their tickets. Judging from this season, we know that SLU could pull off such a feat.

Simply put, the Bills are having yet another stellar season and it is up to the players and the fans to keep this beautiful run going.

Welcome back to SLU, folks! Those of us with the UNews welcome you back and wish you all a prosperous semester and all that jazz.

Since it is the UNews’ first issue after the break, we decided that we would publish our own set of resolutions. Rather than putting our personal resolutions, although it would undoubtedly be funnier if we did, we came up with several school-wide resolutions that we can all apply to our next semester at SLU.

Our first resolution has to do with polar vortex that hit St. Louis and just about everyone else and the resulting destruction and chaos that afflicted SLU. The first floor of Griesedieck was flooded with over an inch of water. That wasn’t even the worst part. The pipes of Anderson Hall in the Village Apartments burst in the midst of the frigid temperatures, causing all of the rooms in that hall to be damaged to such an extent that the tenets of Anderson Hall were forced to relocate on campus.

The most disappointing aspect of this saga is that it could all be avoided by a little forethought by SLU and its contractors. Apparently, the piping on the third floor of Anderson Hall was not insulated, causing the pipes to be more susceptible to freezing and subsequent bursting.

Under normal winter weather conditions, such a design decision would likely cause no problems, but the worst happened and now there are likely hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to pay for. In the future, we hope SLU will take more consideration into incurring costs now, lest they risk paying the greater costs later.

Our second resolution for SLU is for a more school-spirited student body. SLU’s men’s basketball team is on its way for its third NCAA tournament in as many years, and yet their success is not translated into filling the student section every game. However, we’d also like to see a greater interest from the student body in other SLU events as well. SLU students and organizations offer a bounty of great events that deserve some SLU pride. This school spirit also means getting more involved on campus. There are over one hundred organizations on campus, and there are hopefully several that can interest every Billiken on this campus.

Our third resolution is to get out of SLU every once in a while. We are all aware of the feeling: being stuck at SLU each day in the same routine. It’s time for everyone to take some time out of the week to treat your self or to give to others.

Our fourth resolution goes out to the folks that send these long reports regarding SLU’s presidential search. While SLU students should be interested in the proceedings, these long reports make such a task slightly more difficult. As well as a longer report, we’d also like to see an abridged version of important events at SLU, giving accessibility to all and greater access to those that want to learn more.

A fifth and almost final resolution is to take more attention to events that may or may not matter to you, but nonetheless affect many people. While we’ve also said that the university could stand to cut down the size of news bits in the university, it is extremely important, regardless of major, that as SLU students we become more well-rounded by being well read.

Now, this doesn’t mean read the New York Times front to back every day. It does mean picking a topic that interests you and challenging yourself to learn more. You were in Madrid last semester and was peeved that all the garbage workers had gone on strike and wreaked a stench upon the city? Read about it!

Challenge yourself in more ways than academics (although pay attention to your studies as well) and enjoy yourself fully this semester!

Jameis Winston, the star quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner from Florida State University, led the Seminoles to a 34-31 victory over the University of Auburn in the BCS National Championship game on Jan. 6.

Winston capped an incredible athletic display throughout the season despite being mired in a sexual assault case. With the decision on the status of the investigation coming only a few days before the Heisman Trophy ceremony in December, there was a great deal of doubt over Winston’s star status.

Fortunately for Winston, Florida state attorney William Meggs announced in December that the state would not file sexual assault charges against him.

The announcement was disturbingly marked by its jocular tone. Throughout the announcement and the subsequent questions, the state attorney and members of the press joked about Winston’s Heisman candidacy and the accuser’s boyfriend.

The accuser’s attorney’s conference was understandably less jovial, as attorney Patricia Carroll castigated the investigation by the state attorney office. Carroll stated that, “this was a complete failure of an investigation of a rape case.” While she said that going through all of the failures of the state’s investigation would take an entire day, her chief concerns were that the police department in Tallahassee (TPD) failed to test the victim’s blood for date-rape drugs, the medical records from the night were altered or redacted and the TPD failed to record conversations with the victim, witnesses and Winston’s attorney until after the case was closed. The TPD also failed to execute a warrant to conduct a DNA test on Winston after the victim identified him as her attacker.

She lambasted Meggs and Scott Angulo, the head detective, for “not [even] conducting an investigation on the suspect.” In addition, she criticized the focus of Megg’s supposed investigation by stating that he focused more attention on the victim’s boyfriend and consensual sexual relationship than on the suspect himself. In addition, according to Carroll, Meggs focused primarily on the witness accounts from two Florida State football players (teammates of Jameis Winston).

Now, if this investigation seems flawed, imagine that blundered investigations for rape and sexual assault cases like this occur all the time.  This only aspect of this case that is extraordinary is that the accused won a Heisman trophy.

However, there are plenty of aspects of this investigation that are by no means extraordinary and is in fact prevalent.

The first aspect of this case is an investigation of the victim rather than the suspect and threatening behavior towards the victim. Angulo said to the victim “[that she] needs to think long and hard before proceeding against (Winston),” lest she “be raked over the coals and her life will be made miserable.” This statement is relatively mild compared to the threats and hostility received by other women who had come forward against athletes that had sexually assaulted or raped the victims. Such hostility from the football team and administration of Notre Dame was shown to a female college student who had come forward with a sexual assault charge caused her to take her own life.

Other cases of threats from the community against an accuser can be seen in a recent case in Maryville, Mo., where a girl had come forward against a high school football player. The girl and her family received so much hostility that they were eventually forced to move (afterwards the family’s house in Maryville was burned down by an unknown arsonist). The hostility has even continued into this month with the victim attempting suicide.

Coming forward against athletes takes a tremendous amount of courage, and that is an absolute shame. It should not require bravery to report a crime beyond confronting their attacker. The crime itself is traumatizing enough for the victim, but society often makes it even more difficult for these women by protecting the reputation of the athlete rather than the victim; testing a woman’s blood for alcohol and narcotics, but not for date-rape drugs, investigating the woman’s life rather than the accused’s, for the average spectator believing that the girl is lying even though such cases are extremely rare. These are all examples and consequences of a society that protects the privileged athlete to the detriment of the victim.