Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Observer
Sunday, June 14, 2026
Grad Ads
Observer Store Subscribe
The Observer

Opinion

The Observer

Nine rules to live by in college

By The Observer · Monday, April 30, 2012

One of the absolutely worst quotes of all time is "college is the best years of your life." Every college student on the planet rolls their eyes because it's something the grown-up folk love to pass around like it's phenomenal counsel. It's just a terrible expression. Right off the bat, it indirectly reminds us that life doesn't get any better after college. Immediately afterwards, it instantly puts us students in this emotional indebtedness, like we need to owe reverence towards an experience that we've yet to have. As a graduating senior here at Notre Dame, rich with the experiences of our campus, it's my duty to take the reigns of our forefathers and join the monotony of alumni banter. However, I refuse to tell you that college is the best years of your life. For your sake, I hope it's not. We can't settle with this four-year experience as being the most dynamic, exciting periods of our lives, because it means our aggressive risk-taking and belligerent socializing meant nothing for our future. Our adult lives cannot become torpid shadows of our four-year lifestyle, where passions from college fade away by the rhythmic droning of mediocrity. We can't settle for alumni dinners as our only reminder of a life in which we fully lived. While college shouldn't be the best years of our lives, it is arguably the most important years of our lives. It's an environment that's so unlike anything else in life. Here, we're forced to understand everything about ourselves. We discover how we learn, the ways we think and the philosophies that make us tick. College is a place where, for the first time ever, we are truly accountable to ourselves. There are thousands of moments that each of us experience here - both beautiful and tragic ­- where success is measured not by the quality of the journey, but by actually having these experiences. To celebrate the gift of life, we must be willing to experience everything that comes with it. There are so many things I've learned from my time here at Notre Dame. Instead of taking up more newspaper real estate, I'm going to share the top nine rules that I learned from college. It's my sincere hope that these will help the most important years of your life become legendary. Rule No. 1: Don't be logical about your major. Follow your passions and pursue something that you love to do. The worst thing you can do with your parent's hard-earned money is to invest it in something that you're not passionate about because it looks employable. Don't ever sacrifice intellectual satisfaction in the name of job uncertainty. Rule No. 2: Don't let schooling get in the way of your education. If I had listened to my professors, I'd be an A student and completely unhappy. Instead, I've learned far more than my courses have allowed and love life, because I spent time learning rather than mastering intricacies of an antiquating school system. You can't teach how to be passionate in a class curriculum. Don't expect to learn it there. Rule No. 3: Manage your homework and your course load incredibly well. The amount of things you have on your plate will never subside, ever. Develop the tools now to tackle the things that get in the way of living. Rule No. 4: Don't waste all of your time partying. Don't get me wrong; I love the rage. But, there's far more to life than getting drunk when it's accessible. Grab a camera, get on a bike and experience, even if it means doing it alone. Rule No. 5: This comes from a Wall Street Journal Article ("10 Things Your Commencement Speaker Won't Tell You," April 28): "Your parents don't want what is best for you. They want what is good for you, which isn't always the same thing." Despite what you'd like to believe, your parents might be purposefully limiting you. With so much risk in the world, can you blame them? To settle for a riskless, safe life is to settle for a life not lived. Rule No. 6: Contrary to what we're taught, the most powerful word in the dictionary is not yes, but rather, no. Focus is an unbelievably valuable commodity. To have the discipline and strength to turn down exciting opportunities is something that will make your life more fulfilling and less scattered. Rule No. 7: Most of life's problems can be solved with good sleep, waking up early and eating breakfast. The Denver Omelet is the gold standard of this lesson. Rule # 8: Discover what it is that you live for. Everyone has it. If you haven't found it, you haven't tried hard enough to find it. And when you find it, you'll know. Take time to find it, because nobody else will. Nor will they give you permission to do so. Rule No. 9: Do crazy things and believe in something. When you're 65 years old, you're not going to care about how well you played the rules. What you're going to care about is how you stood up for an idea, a movement, something that resonates with you and that you're better because of it. One of the greatest things in the world is to truly own your own beliefs.

The Observer

Never alone

By The Observer · Monday, April 30, 2012

Consider the rock star, politician, superhero, genius, prodigy and celebrity at the apex of their fame. Fans clamor, fight, squeal and foam, hoping for a chance to be close to the object of celebration. The multitude continuously validates the celebrity - book signings, trans-continental tours, award ceremonies, collaborations, presidential dinners, photo-op handshakes. One night she sends a Facebook friend request to an old fling, someone who understood her before the fame, pomp and fancy. For weeks she checks her account wait, wait, waiting for a response - electronic affirmation from someone who really matters-nothing ever comes. It's a strange condition, to be so surrounded, yet so distant from those who matter, and yet it's an ever-popular one. The social Internet promised us a flat world of friendship: a realm of decency, camaraderie and meaning. But what we have is quite different from that. And the profiles that represent our persons online are quite different from who we really are. If we assume that the modern Internet began with Google, we can put an age on it of 14 years. Based on that, anybody born after 1987 has spent the majority of her intelligent life surrounded by a web-centric culture. This generation doesn't know any different from what they have experienced and continue to experience. During the ages of much needed social experimentation and expansion, technological products have been released almost directly in sync. The social pressures of high school or college were alleviated with MySpace, Facebook or Twitter. Paradigms of mental development have been altered to include the social web. The thing is, people don't change much. That isn't to say individuals don't change, but the human race exists and reacts in ways very similar to our generational ancestors. Technology develops at an insane velocity. Only five years ago the first truly "smart" phone was released. It's been within this period that technology has forcibly inserted itself as an essential component of life. At first the benefits were simple: technology would allow people to connect with one another across vast physical distances in a short amount of time. But to establish connections, we were given the tools to create a web presence - a means of identifying ourselves online. Somewhere in the evolution of technology, the importance of those two flipped: our profiles began to say more than we actually did. Better than just saying who we were in real life, we were given the ability to alter our profiles to reflect whatever we wanted them to. We could also be selective or encompassing in who we interacted with. Profiles, posts, texting and whatnot let us present the image of who we want to be. We can edit out our inadequacies and shortcomings, we can skip the messy bits of face-to-face conversations, we can all become awesome beings totally in control of our lives. Dangerously, we begin to forget how fallible we are. Technology is fascinating and powerful. So is human interaction, and that's something a generation is increasingly forgetting. A connection is not a conversation. Being friends with someone on Facebook is not equitable to human interaction. Yet we thrive on these superficial connections. People take to Twitter or Facebook in the middle of the night in hopes of a chance to express and be recognized. People log into Facebook before they brush their teeth in the morning, before they have coffee, before they get dressed. There's a fascination in the voyeurism of exploring others lives. After all, if you're inspecting their projected life, wouldn't they be inspecting yours? Seldom do people have the opportunity to look at their social profiles and actually compare what's on the page with what's on their mind. A photo album of 300 pictures can reflect the atmosphere of a party, but reality proves you spent a night observing a party from behind a camera lens in hope of preserving it. As great as technology is, I challenge you to give up on it. Turn it off, shut it down, launch it to the moon, blow it to pieces. It's not that the Internet must be ruining your life, nobody is saying that. Rather, those born after 1987 haven't lived without technology, at least not of a long while. Quitting Facebook won't be enough. Quitting the Internet is a start. Henry David Thoreau would be proud. We expect more out of technology than we do out of each other, and that is a fundamental flaw. By leaving the internet behind, you will be forced to examine your interactions. And I suspect you will find more trust in those you care for, and those who care for you. Self-reflection requires intimacy and empathy, two things which cannot be found on a broadcast system to 1,000 of your best "friends." Maintaining your identity is exhausting; specifically when it's something you have to do twenty-four hours a day. Forget about fans, likes, views, comments, reblogs, @replies and everything. Forget about yourself for a bit, disconnect and live for a bit.

The Observer

Please let me be me

By The Observer · Sunday, April 29, 2012

What is it about the human condition that will not allow us to affirm the development of others in the manner the Spirit has predetermined? It seems as though either we say nothing to encourage holistic, authentic development, or we cast negative aspersions on those who make the attempt. From a very early age, each of us has recognized that not everyone thinks, feels or reacts the same way. During this academic year, five individuals close to me suffered through the death of a parent. As I attended the homegoing services for these awe-inspiring individuals, it became evident that each family handled the grieving process differently. In fact, there is no "normal" way to grieve. This process is unique to each one of us, and this is okay. Some may need months, some years and others only a few days. The length of time one grieves is not an indication of the depth of love or commitment to their loved one. Everyone processes these emotions differently and we should offer them the grace needed for the Spirit to do His perfect work in their lives. Since taking on the role of interim director of the Gender Relations Center, I have enjoyed numerous conversations with students about many different types of relationships. Although there were some similarities, degrees of variance were ever present. In one of my past articles, I talked about the pressure and stress that Notre Dame women experience as they navigate their path to an impossible standard. Men on this campus feel the same stress and frustration around the issue of relationships. Last week a student (let's call him Robert) sought me out to discuss several issues related to fitting in at Notre Dame. Robert struck me as mature, thoughtful and open to the critical examination of his personal development into manhood. He treated women with great respect because this is what he learned from his family, and he always thought it was the right thing to do. His friendships with women were genuine, based on mutual interests and surrounded by great conversations. Robert seemed clear about who he was and comfortable with the "skin he was in." There is a certain social movement of relationship building on campus that I will call the "Notre Dame Relationship Combine" (NDRC). The "NDRC" has certain expectations, and quickly called into question not only Robert's perspective on dating, but also challenged his premise that women are more than objects for his physical and emotional pleasure. Some of Robert's friends not only labeled him with various character flaws, but they also brought into question his sexual orientation. His experience of Notre Dame is that he is no longer free to be himself. The assault of the "NDRC" was so assertive that Robert began to think that there were very few (if any) men on campus who valued women and relationships the way he did. He felt alone. Although a hard sell, I endeavored to inform him that there were many men like him on campus. These men, however, are part of the "Silent majority" (Jan. 29) that see the craziness, do their best to avoid the craziness, but refuse to call out the craziness for what it is - crazy. Until this happens, the "NDRC" will continue to be the most influential determinant of relationship quality on this campus and men like Robert will continue to view their path to manhood as lonely and uncertain. So why is it important for the "NDRC" to denigrate those who are brave enough to place immediate gratification on hold, and to try to ignore the media's attempt to portray women (and men) as objects only good for personal pleasure? My hunch is that it relates to an old adage you may have heard before - misery loves company. Although Robert's friends gave him the impression that they had it all together, my experience tells me, that they lacked the maturity needed to pursue significant relationships based on mutual respect. They are having "fun," but are unfulfilled, so they want Robert to join them in their pursuit of immediate gratification, regardless of collateral damage. This way, "we're all in this together." It would be really nice if those ensconced in the "NDRC" would allow those who have taken a different path to do so without the belittling and derogatory comments. My hope has always been that our campus would be one where everyone desired authentic and mutually beneficial relationships, but I recognize that this may not be the case. This is particularly true, given the sundry attitudes with which students engage this transitional period of life. Some have bypassed the part of friendship that encourages others to be their best self, not just imitations of what everyone else claims to be. This is my message to the "NDRC" from those who are looking for relationships based on respect and the mystery of authentic human relating - please let me be me.

The Observer

For the administration

By The Observer · Sunday, April 29, 2012

Dear Notre Dame Administration, I've thoroughly enjoyed being a tour guide this past year and having the privilege of showcasing the campus and academic life to prospective and admitted students. I've been thrilled to answer the questions of these individuals, as well as concerns or specific questions that have come from their parents. However, as other tour guides have told me, there will be that one tour you will always remember. Mine happened last week. The tour had two families of admitted students, plus one mother whose daughter was currently getting another tour of campus provided by her host student. At the end of the tour, this one mother stayed back to ask some questions that were concerning her daughter. The first question she asked was, "How is the LGBTQ community and how are they treated on campus?" I was at a loss. On one hand, a vast majority of my friends are in complete support of the inclusion and would love to see it happen. On the other hand, we have an administration that continually chooses to reject adding sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause. What could I say? The mother continued by saying that her daughter (she never mentioned her daughter's orientation, nor was it my right to ask) was very concerned by the lack of a Gay-Straight Alliance or an official LGBTQ club, for she has friends who are members of the community and didn't think she would be comfortable on campus. After a while, we began to discuss the difference in generations on this issue, and how the current generation of college students (including those on this campus) are overwhelmingly supportive of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation. Notre Dame, your attitude on this issue is starting to have serious effects. Students who you want to welcome into the family are turning away due to the uncomfortable atmosphere surrounding this issue. I have also heard from friends who work in the Phone Center that recent alumni are refusing to donate to the University because you won't add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause. Throughout the year, we have seen individuals write about how other Catholic colleges in the country (including Saint Mary's) have LGBTQ organizations. I could throw in official Church documents that state that we are all called to accept one another fully. But apparently, this doesn't work. Instead, I ask you this, Notre Dame administration: How would you have answered this mother's question? How would you respond to her concern over the lack of an official LGBTQ? What would you do if she discovered that you repeatedly turn down the request for club status and for adding sexual orientation to the clause? How would you respond?

The Observer

Please tell us why

By The Observer · Sunday, April 29, 2012

The University recently announced that it will not be adding sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause, and subsequently released the ways in which it hopes to "enhance support for gay and lesbian students." This press release claimed that it was responding to student concerns and needs. As an ally, I appreciate that the University has given some kind of response to the momentum built this year by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual and questioning (LGBTQ) and ally community. These measures, however, are not enough. They are not the response for which students are asking ­- nay, pleading. If you cannot make sexual orientation part of the non-discrimination clause, and if you refuse to recognize a student-run gay-straight alliance (GSA), please recognize the efforts of the many students fighting and working for these issues on campus. The best way to recognize these efforts is to respond, publicly and explicitly, with the reasons why our requests continue to be denied. It has been many years since the University released an official statement detailing why they continue to believe that a GSA is unnecessary, or why sexual orientation does not belong in the non-discrimination clause. I am a practicing Catholic, I have studied the teaching, and I cannot find a doctrinal reason for this resistance. Are there alumni concerns? Would it negatively affect our endowment? Are there legal issues? These are questions in the minds of many students. While it would not be a replacement for the ultimate achievement of a recognized GSA and changing the non-discrimination clause, it would put my mind somewhat more at ease if the University would make a public statement telling us why. At this University, I am being taught to ask questions and make challenges. So this is my question. This is my challenge: Why? Why not? Respectfully and anxiously awaiting your response,

The Observer

A call to future parents

By The Observer · Sunday, April 29, 2012

The fight for recognition, legitimacy and inclusion of LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff at the University of Notre Dame is a beautiful and powerfully necessary thing. This struggle seeks to improve the quality of life for students who don't necessarily feel a part of the Notre Dame family, or who have been purposefully ostracized by ignorance, discrimination and hate. Personally, however, this struggle represents and embodies the fight for every child who will ever look in the mirror and feel nothing but shame and fear. For every boy who doesn't understand why he is pushed into lockers, why people call him a "f*****." For every girl who is made fun of because she's a tomboy, or because she likes girls. For every person who goes through the terrifying struggle for gender identity, and for every person who has ever lost their life because they have been pushed over the edge by hate. No one should ever have to feel the need to harm themselves because people cannot find within them the humanity to say, "I love you, not just regardless of your sexuality, but with unconditional acceptance and recognition of all that is a part of you." This is a call to every Notre Dame student who ever plans on having children, adopting children or plans to work with children. Make your arms the first that your child will run to if they come home from school with stories about how they don't want to go to school because the kids are mean to them. Wrap your son in your arms, and tell him that it's alright that he wants to hold hands with another boy. Hold your daughter and explain that it's okay for her to like another girl. If your child struggles with their gender, be loving, accepting and create a space for them grow, mature and learn to love themselves. Don't be the parent who has to bury their child because you never thought that it would happen to you.

The Observer

Why I signed the letter

By The Observer · Sunday, April 29, 2012

Since signing the letter denouncing Bishop Jenky's comparison of the Obama administration to Hitler - one of 154 Notre Dame faculty to sign - I have received e-mails calling me "shameful," "treacherous," and "without honor." I have been accused of trivializing abortion and betraying Catholic teachings. What follows is an edited version of a response I wrote to one of my critics, who wrote me after I was quoted in the South Bend Tribune. "The South Bend Tribune quoted me accurately. I was disappointed by the bishop's remarks. I thought they were divisive, ill-considered and historically absurd. You may believe President Obama deserves to be compared to Hitler. I do not, and I said so. Nor am I persuaded by those who argue that the bishop's remarks were quoted "out of context." These people state the bishop did not directly compare Obama to Hitler, but instead made a narrower argument about restrictions on religious freedom by citing relevant historical examples, including Hitler. The problem with the "out of context" defense is that it wants to invoke Hitler without being accountable for it. Hitler, in our culture, is both a historical figure and a concept, one representing the embodiment of evil. You cannot compare someone to Hitler and then note afterwards that you weren't referring to those parts of Hitler's legacy. Analogies to Hitler do not permit such nice distinctions. We do not parse Hitler. To invoke Hitler is to invoke all of it - the death camps and all the rest. There is no such thing in our culture as a "Hitler-not Hitler" analogy. However, my comments were not meant as a defense of abortion, as you suggested. Indeed, nothing I have said on this issue has addressed the questions of abortion, contraception, religious freedom, or the proper relationship of the U.S. Government to the Catholic Church. My comments in the South Bend Tribune concerned the language Bishop Jenky used to advance his arguments. I believe one can argue passionately about the most profound moral questions without demonizing others. "Hear the other side," St. Augustine said. In this instance, I think Bishop Jenky ignored that good advice. In recent days, I have heard from people telling me that legalized abortion in the U.S. is a grave moral crisis. I feel the urgency in their messages, and I respect it. But I am also concerned about a crisis of another kind: the crisis in public argument. I am concerned that public discourse today has become so toxic and debased that not only are we incapable of securing agreement on moral questions, we are not even able to agree on such basic things as the nature of a fact, or what constitutes empirical evidence, or what language is appropriate for characterizing those with whom we disagree. We argue ethical questions in terms of assertions and counter-assertions, and we hike up the volume on our personal speakers to the max. We do not listen, and what we hear we are unwilling to understand. You may think my concerns trivial compared to yours. After all, accepting your formulation for this discussion, what compares to 50 million murders? Nothing, really. But I would suggest to you that the crisis of public discourse is prior to almost all other moral crises, including yours. Because if we do not have a language that allows us to reason together, then all our moral crises, including the one about which you care so passionately, will simply continue without end. If you don't believe this, ask yourself what progress you have seen on the issue of abortion. Consider that since Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, we have had five Republican presidents and three Democratic ones. In all the comings and goings of so-called "pro-life" and "pro-choice" presidents and other politicians, what fundamental changes have occurred? How satisfied are you with the sum of legislative accomplishment? How confident are you that the next election will bring about, at long last, the changes you so fervently desire? Our politics, I am trying to say, are crippled by an impoverished public language. And this impoverishment of language makes us a tribal people, each side in its territory, firing rhetorical rocket shells at one another. The blasts are emotionally satisfying, but the wars go on. If you think the only solution is the total destruction of the other side, then we part ways here. I am looking for a different way, and that's why I regard Bishop Jenky's remarks as unproductive and indeed offensive. The Bishop's language was a powerful blast but did nothing to end ongoing conflicts. That is why I signed the letter.

The Observer

College and self-deception

By The Observer · Sunday, April 29, 2012

Ten years from now, we will remember the college experience at Notre Dame as we remember our childhood. My childhood memories somehow represent a place where everything was ideal. Yet, the fact that I will never be able to relieve those memories creates this sense of nostalgia. When I was young, my life consisted of my family, friends and teachers, and the corner shop owners and their children. It was a perfect world. At the same time, when I look more deeply, my childhood had problems I consider petty as a grown up: The continuous battle over food and TV channels with my sister, all the toys and pets I wanted but my parents wouldn't get for me, neighborhood bullies and scary kindergarten teachers. Those are issues that made me sad as a child, even though I had very loving parents. But in the end, the feelings of sweetness precede the difficult memories. Thus, the memory became a sanctuary. Maybe that's why adults tend to idealize their college lives, just as we idealize our childhoods. My parents told me college was the one of the most carefree times of their lives, so I should enjoy it as much as possible. There seems to be a notion that college is supposed to be a perfect, happy place where your life only blossoms. Our lives do blossom, and I have enjoyed the past four years at Notre Dame. But I am noticing the negative sides of the college life are underestimated. Diversity issues at Notre Dame seem to be one such side. This year, the Notre Dame community lived in the delusion the situation for minority students was better than it actually was. The fried chicken incident happened, and other cases of discrimination were revealed through the Town Hall meeting and "Show Some Skin." Racism and discrimination are not just exceptional experiences of some minority students, but a stable part of the Notre Dame experience. Many students who are not a minority face different kinds of difficulties due to the homogenous culture at Notre Dame. Students who are in a minority, such as sexuality, religion, nationality, political identity or family background, have their own challenges. A friend of mine who hates the party scene at Notre Dame said he had a hard time his freshman and sophomore year finding the right group of friends, even though his roommates were "great guys." I have seen many of my friends suffer due to the discrepancy between the hard reality they faced in college and their preconceived idea of college. After a breakup, one of my friends said, "I think when I look back my senior life after graduation, I will only remember happy things. I guess [the fact I suffer now] is okay. I just need to go through this." Maybe in her case, it is good to detach yourself from the reality and try not to get too immersed in the situation. However, when the problem requires any action on your part, this kind of detachment is very dangerous, as it disables you from accurately assessing the reality. This year has been a tough year for the race relations. Many realized that somehow we have been deceiving ourselves with the sense of normalcy that everything was fine when it wasn't. Realization is the first step for advancement. Maybe when I graduate, I might end up remembering my times at Notre Dame mostly with nostalgia and happy memories. But the struggle will continue for those who continue to live in it.

The Observer

Yoga pants

By The Observer · Saturday, April 28, 2012

As Walsh Hall apparel commissioner, I have a duty to ensure the Wild Women look good. As a lifelong fashionista, I wanted to create fall and spring collections of loungewear that were comfortable, collegiate and classy, not oversized and obnoxious. Staples of this fall's order included a cardigan and a henley in classic colors with simple designs, both of which I purchased myself and wear proudly around campus. But when it came to introducing new items for spring, both our rector and the dorm's residents were vocal: they wanted yoga pants. Those who know me know I make it a point to dress up for class daily. I boast an eclectic wardrobe of varied styles, colors and patterns. But if there is one thing I will never wear, it's yoga pants. Not to revive last year's "Viewpoint-less" war, but yoga pants are glorified leggings. Just because they flare out at the bottom does not make them qualify as pants. Flare-legged pants have been out of style for years, so by that logic, it's better to just wear leggings as pants, but by no means is it good. I found myself in a dilemma. I could refuse to order the yoga pants, stand firm in my beliefs and deprive the Wild Women of what they wanted, or I could cave and get the pants, ignore my personal principles and please the girls in my dorm. As a future lawyer, I have to get used to this war between career responsibilities and inner convictions. Lawyers oftentimes have to choose between representing a questionable client and getting fired. Criminal defense lawyers in particular must be at peace with knowing most of their clients are guilty, but as professionals, they're required to do their best to procure the most favorable sentence for them and guarantee justice prevails. At Notre Dame, we're taught to follow our moral instincts and to uphold our Catholic code of ethics at all costs. When our careers clash with these tenets, we must hold true to our beliefs no matter what. The Church claims it does not have a hierarchy of dogma, but when it comes to shaping personal ethics, a ranking of priorities is vital. A good, moral person shouldn't defend someone who killed another in cold blood merely for the sport of it. But if I were asked to represent a kid guilty of theft who is genuinely repentant and brimming with potential, I can disregard, "Thou shalt not steal." Sometimes in life people have to do things they're not comfortable with for the sake of a greater good, and as long as these actions do not conflict with one's core ethical pillars, some dissonance is allowed. I realized my petty vendetta against yoga pants was not worth standing in the way of my friends' joy. In fact, I think those yoga pants will look fabulous on the strong, beautiful and ever classy Wild Women of Walsh, and not just because I designed them.

The Observer

Why so serious?

By The Observer · Thursday, April 26, 2012

Anyone who knows me at all knows that I love to tell jokes. And since I'm all about giving, I think I'll start off this column by sharing with you of one of my all time, absolute favorite jokes/puns.

The Observer

A call to the Notre Dame family

By The Observer · Thursday, April 26, 2012

I love Notre Dame deeply and for many reasons. Notre Dame aspires to create a sense of family among all those associated with Notre Dame. This is particularly fitting when one considers that our alma mater begins with the words, "Notre Dame, Our Mother."

The Observer

What lack of compassion?

By The Observer · Thursday, April 26, 2012

Having read excellent columns by Alex Coccia in the past, I was disappointed by his treatment of the Vatican's investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious ("Catholic compassion, not condemnation," April 25). Mr. Coccia's notion of compassion rightly emphasizes social justice and the promotion of equality, but he overlooks the possibility of a corrective compassion, a "tough-love" compassion which seeks the betterment of the other through the cultivation of truth and the correction of error.

The Observer

Graduating seniors: keep your head up

By The Observer · Thursday, April 26, 2012

Like generations before, and many who will follow in generations to come, this year's seniors face both excitement and uncertainty as graduation nears. Their secure campus routines are about to forever change. An eccentric, uncertain world looms dead ahead - one slowly rebounding from a great economic recession while anemically expanding job opportunities. For my soon-to-be graduated and future neighbors, let me offer some advice to relieve your pain and ease your transition.

The Observer

Jenky should issue formal apology

By The Observer · Thursday, April 26, 2012

On April 14, Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Diocese of Peoria, Ill., delivered a homily that touched on the healthcare reform of President Barack Obama's administration. In his remarks, Jenky compared the challenges the Catholic Church is facing today to others it has faced in the past - including the regimes of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

The Observer

Notre Dame and the LGBTQ community

By The Observer · Wednesday, April 25, 2012

On Wednesday, the Notre Dame News (ND Newswire) page featured an article stating that "Notre Dame enhances support for gay and lesbian students." While the changes are a nice gesture of support for the LGBTQ community and their straight allies, they are not an adequate response to the problem. In the article, Fr. Tom Doyle is quoted, saying, "The University has made significant progress over the past 15 years in its support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and questioning students, but we've always emphasized the desire to continuously improve and to be responsive to student concerns. The conversations between students and the administration both recently and over the past several years have been very important." If student concerns are so important to the administration, then the administration would seriously examine the reasons and understand the need for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the official non-discrimination clause and the approval of an official gay-straight alliance. These are the things the students are asking for. The administration needs to listen to them before they claim that student concerns are so important.

The Observer

A fond farewell

By The Observer · Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Today is a celebration because today marks my final column in this great newspaper. For many campus liberals, this day has not come soon enough. Over the past four years, this column has been a bastion of conservative thought in these pages, and I appreciate all my fans and detractors that have silently agreed with and publicly dissented on my viewpoints. Through the ups and downs of the election cycle, the pressing issues of the day and even the occasional life commentaries, I have written many opinions that I hope you found engaging and provocative.

The Observer

To all the draftniks

By The Observer · Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Today is the day that many have been awaiting for the past two months - or more for some. The NFL Draft is here. Sure, it is overhyped and most so-called "draftniks" are downright crazy.

The Observer

We the people

By The Observer · Wednesday, April 25, 2012

One never-ending argument in the realm of American politics is over the weight politicians should give public opinion. Should legislators follow public opinion? Or should they work to influence it? This debate is central to our democracy but usually receives far too little attention.

Trending