Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Observer
Sunday, April 5, 2026
Support The Observer
Observer Store Subscribe
The Observer

Opinion

The Observer

A channel of pure thought

By The Observer · Tuesday, April 13, 2010

I spent the last summer away from home. The completion of the term sent me down and back up again through the country, living, for various reasons, with 11 different host families, nights beneath 11 alien roofs. During those hot and sunny months, I became acutely aware of my distance from places and people familiar. This awareness was not a shock or a burden, but an amazement at the distances to which I was now connected by virtue of the presence of my friends and acquaintances. To be honest, I liked the feeling that accompanied the knowledge that a zip code or the jurisdiction of a city no longer defined my world. Perhaps, then, my interest in composing and mailing enveloped letters was motivated by a desire to indulge this impression of worldliness, a desire to not choose the instant gratification of emailed conversation, a desire to comprehend the distances of the people to whom I was attached, distances measured in postage marks and days between my writing and the delivery of the response.

The Observer

The Finest scholars

By The Observer · Monday, April 12, 2010

We'd like to take this opportunity to clarify some omitted information from the article run on April 9 regarding Notre Dame's 2010 Truman Scholarship winners ("Two ND juniors awarded Truman Scholarship," Carly Landon). Both Puja Parikh and Beth Simpson are not only beloved Notre Dame juniors, but members of the finest dorm on campus, Farley Hall. Our congratulations go out to them and their fellow Finest scholarship winner Shayna Sura, recipient of the 2010 Goldwater Scholarship. Way to represent, ladies! We are so proud of you!

The Observer

Library will be fine under proper custodian

By The Observer · Monday, April 12, 2010

I wouldn't say that our library's future "hangs in limbo," for I believe the University leadership and faculty see the issues with greater clarity than "Future of Library hangs in limbo" (Sarah Mervosh, April 9) implies. Everyone supports Fr. Jenkins' aim to "become a premier research university" and "make ourselves a strong candidate for membership in the American Association of Universities" — and most of us realize that the Library is the area where the most work needs to be done. That will require a very substantial increase in funding as well as visionary leadership. But while every library director must be an excellent manager of both money and people, the most important credential we should be looking for is proven research experience: As at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, Johns Hopkins and other leading universities, our next University Librarian should have at least one graduate degree in a humanistic or social science field, in addition to any degrees and publications in Library Science. That is necessary to ensure that the coming library upgrades will be managed by someone who knows from experience how researchers use libraries and what a world-class research library looks like.

The Observer

Students uphold Notre Dame mission

By The Observer · Monday, April 12, 2010

As members of the faculty and staff at Notre Dame, we take seriously the University's mission statement, which says, "The University seeks to cultivate in its students not only an appreciation for the great achievements of human beings, but also a disciplined sensibility to the poverty, injustice and oppression that burden the lives of so many. The aim is to create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good that will bear fruit as learning becomes service to justice."

The Observer

Biking away from car culture

By The Observer · Monday, April 12, 2010

As of the 1990 Census, 46 percent of Americans lived in suburbs. Our generation grew up in this paved paradise, this transportation system built for cars, supermarkets and supersized, super-value anything. Their car-friendliness makes suburbs pedestrian wastelands and biking hazards.

The Observer

Time at The Observer

By The Observer · Monday, April 12, 2010

I first started working at The Observer during my freshman year. After high school, I wanted to try something new, and I figured the paper would offer me the opportunity to see all different parts of campus.

The Observer

Scientific basis for homosexuality

By The Observer · Monday, April 12, 2010

In response to "Exploring only human sexuality," (Michael O'Connor, April 9) I would like to assert the evidence, some of which can be gleaned from other animals, for a scientific and evolutionary basis for human homosexuality. O'Connor states that humans are significantly different from animals in many ways, the most significant of which lies in an awareness of right, wrong and consequences — essentially, the possession of morality. This, he claims, means we shouldn't use the homosexuality observed in nature to analyze human homosexuality. Though humans do seem to be unique in the development of morality, we must remember that we are animals, albeit the finely tuned end-product of their evolutionary chain. Just because our capabilities seem so superior to those of other animals, however, does not mean we are exempt from all comparison. What if homosexuality is hard-wired in some individuals, at a level as fundamental as or even more so than that of our own morality?

The Observer

Furthering the argument for Atheism

By The Observer · Friday, April 9, 2010

I am hoping we can continue this debate about the credibility of atheism and religion. I was hoping to ask my question about what authority the Bible has today, considering that it is supposed to be the Word of God, yet is clearly written by men seeking to further their agenda of repressing women and telling false tales. Such an example is the story of Jesus kicking the merchants out of the temple, which was explained to me in my Fundamentals of Theology class as entirely impossible since he would have been murdered on the spot for such behavior. Some may argue that the Bible has to be reinterpreted for each generation and each group of people, yet doesn't this picking-and-choosing behavior disagree with the theory that it is the Word of God? How can we reconcile these concerns? I also wanted to present my counter to Dr. D'Souza's assertion that morality cannot be a reasonable product of the evolution of humans. He described that altruistic behavior which does not directly benefit us does not make sense in light of what evolution would be more likely to produce. According to him, selfishness would be the best survival mechanism for humans. I disagree. Humans underwent a transition many years ago from small groups of hunter-gatherers to settle into agricultural societies. This creation of long-lasting societies necessitated the development of a moral code to ensure the society would prosper. An example is the members of society agreeing to not rob each other's houses. If each person took interest in theft, then the members of the society would have to invest resources and time into protecting themselves against crime. Rather than wasting a tremendous amount of resources protecting oneself, the members of the community agree to not commit crimes. Today this attitude persists, where only a small percentage of the population and are often punished for such behavior. In addition, this altruistic behavior is most apparent in the existence and proliferation of people with genetic diseases, some of which are deadly or debilitating. Evolution on Darwin's terms argues that such people should not live long nor reproduce, yet clearly something about human nature and technology has allowed these people to do just the opposite. Therefore I argue that morality is a product of evolution because living in societies is the better way for humans to reproduce and expand our territory, and we do not require a divine provider of morals to explain this. I do recognize that when two different societies do battle, the victor is not determined by the strength of the moral code, but by the number of fighters and technology. I want to extend my utmost gratitude to the coordinators of this event, as well as to Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza for an absolutely astounding debate. However, for anyone seeking the best answer to all of the questions one can have on this topic, I highly recommend Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." For anyone unwilling to read the book, the answer is 42.

The Observer

Exploring only human sexuality

By The Observer · Friday, April 9, 2010

In response to Professor Fuentes who wrote "Just the Facts" (April 8), the fact that homosexual activity occurs in other animals does not give us an appropriate context for discussing human sexuality. Humans are different than animals in very significant ways. Humans have a sense of transcendence or religion, a sense of the distant future, a sense of self-awareness and an ability to think abstractly. Animals, including our closest relatives like the Bonobo and the Chimpanzee, simply do not have these things. But probably the most important difference regarding this topic is our (human's) sense of consequences and our ability to differentiate right and wrong. Humans, unlike other animals, have ethics and morality. Simply because other animals commit certain acts does not give us a foundation upon which we can discuss the appropriateness for humans to commit those same acts. The fact that cannibalism occurs in Bonobo communities should not affect how humans view an act of cannibalism among humans. Similarly, the fact that monogamy is favored among wolves and foxes should not affect how humans view monogamous relationships among humans. In order to foster the conversation regarding human sexuality and sexual orientation, only facts about humans and human relationships should be conveyed.

The Observer

Recommend bands that need it

By The Observer · Friday, April 9, 2010

So, we know that no one reads the Scene section, so a lot of the absurdly misguided movie reviews and terrible music recommendations have gone by unnoticed and uncommented upon. But the absurd recommendation of supposedly obscure electropop bands ground our gears. There are electropop bands that actually deserve widespread recognition, not the wholesale Postal Service knockoff Owl City or a band that's been featured in a blockbuster movie's soundtrack. And are you seriously imploring us to "tap" tracks by international dance sensation La Roux who is in the top 40 in at least eight different countries? Give us a break. For your perusal, here are 50 electropop bands that are more deserving of recognition and esteem for you to "tap." These are bands that are not popular but deserve to be, so we won't be listing bands that are good but already have enough popularity like MGMT, Passion Pit, Animal Collective, etc. Hot Chip, Goldfrapp, Cut Copy, Crystal Castles, Ladytron, Air, Kleerup, Bat For Lashes, The Bird and the Bee, Black Moth Super Rainbow, M83, School of Seven Bells, F*** Buttons, Faded Paper Figures, STS9, Fol Chen, Four Tet, Free the Robots, Freezepop, Gameboy/Gamegirl, Hercules and Love Affair, High Places, jj, The xx, LCD Soundsystem, Neon Indian, Of Montreal, Panda Bear, Persephone?s Bees, Portishead, Yelle, RJD2, Dan Deacon, Royksopp, The Ruby Suns, Small Sins, Throw Me the Statue, Tiga, Empire of the Sun, Fischerspooner, Little Dragon, Memory Cassette, Prefuse 73, Boards of Canada, Yuksek, Annie, Anamanaguchi, FM Belfast, OH SNAP!!, and Santogold. To actually receive an education (read: not top 200 hits) in great music (not just electropop, but literally every genre), please tune in to WVFI on Monday nights at midnight to listen to the Electric Boogaloo, the greatest radio show to ever grace the netwaves of Notre Dame.

The Observer

All the Pope's Men

By The Observer · Friday, April 9, 2010

In 1974 Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency as a result of his role in a widespread cover-up of the criminal activities that his government had participated in over the course of his presidency. While the Watergate scandal exemplified corruption and created a distrust of our federal government, it also exemplified one of the great things about the American political system: accountability. The crook that ordered the cover-up had no choice but to resign. Over the past month it has been reported that the Pope and other leaders of our Church have been similarly involved in a widespread cover-up of criminal activities that members of the priesthood have been participating in over the past 60 years (and probably much longer). The circumstances surrounding the priestly cover-up, however, are much more troubling than those of Watergate not only because the original behavior is so much more heinous, but also because the leaders at the top are an important source of moral foundation for a billion people in our world. Currently I am working as a teacher in China through a Catholic organization, and before coming here I had to take "Creating a Safe Environment for Children" training. This training included several videos of interviews with sexual predators that described their tactics to make sexual advances towards children or to get themselves alone with children. Those of you that have seen these videos certainly remember how appalling they are. One man describes how he worked at a roller rink and how he told all the parents, "look how safe our roller rink is, no parents feel like they need to be here" and he went on to describe what he would do when he held children on his lap. Another man left pornographic magazines where children could see them, and would ask children what they thought of these magazines in order to begin his pursuit. I believe that men like this are sick and dangerous, and that they should be locked away in the coldest and darkest prison cell imaginable so that they can't possibly come into contact with children while they await their long journey to hell. Until recently I believed that reasonable people would agree with me in this assessment, but if we are to believe The New York Times (which I do) it appears that our Pope and other leaders of our church seemingly believe that the sexual abuse of children is no big deal. Reading these reports about the widespread sexual abuse problems that our church is undergoing disgusted me. It's one thing that a handful (okay, more than a handful) of priests practiced this abhorrent behavior, but it's a completely different (and more disturbing) problem that Pope Benedict and other Church leaders were seemingly involved in cover-ups stretching from Munich to Milwaukee that not only protected child-abusing priests from law enforcement, but allowed some of them to continue working with children in a priestly capacity Aren't we supposed to look to priests and Church leaders for moral guidance? Isn't the primary purpose of religion to create a moral system that allows humans to live together harmoniously? How are the rest of us supposed to understand the difference between right and wrong if the leaders of our religion, the religion of one billion people, did not understand that these priests needed to be removed from the priesthood and sent to prison? How did Cardinal Ratzinger not understand the severity of these crimes? The great success of Watergate is that it proved our political system works. While it certainly uncovered a disconcerting web of corruption and criminal behavior, it also proved that our system has the capacity to remove a president that can no longer credibly lead our country because of his activities. The problem with the Catholic religious system is that it has no such mechanism. I believe that the Pope is no longer able to credibly lead our religion because of his complicity in this cover-up and his continued refusal to address the allegations in a forthright manner, but even if every Catholic agreed with my assessment, we have no ability to force a change. The great travesty of all this is that because the scandal has now engulfed the Pope, it unfortunately impacts all of the men that serve under him. In the same way that American's trust of our government was thrown into question as a result of Watergate, our trust of the Church and the institution of the priesthood is now in jeopardy because of the actions (and inactions) of the Pope and other leaders. Catholics should therefore demand that this Pope resign from his position not only because he now lacks a credible moral basis for his leadership, but more importantly because his continuing role as leader of the church threatens to destroy the foundation of our trust in the Priesthood and general opinions and perceptions of all the good men working under him worldwide.

The Observer

The benefits of religious debate on campus

By The Observer · Friday, April 9, 2010

Wednesday's God Debate brought two extreme viewpoints to the University to engage an important question: the existence of God. Yet the debate's presence on campus has garnered controversy as members of the Notre Dame community questioned the role of this sort of discussion at a Catholic university, and because tickets sold out before many students could get their hands on them. Christopher Hitchens, a well-known anti-theist, and conservative Catholic writer Dinesh D'Souza wrestled with the question of faith in the debate titled "Is Religion the Problem?" The two intellectuals have a reputation for combative viewpoints. Although some University advertising portrayed the debate as brash and antagonistic, it turned out to be just the opposite. The God Debate fulfilled its goal of fostering open, intellectual dialogue, and debaters used reason and science rather than rhetoric and emotion to drive their arguments, avoiding any debate over actual Christian scripture and practice. But the real asset of this kind of debate on campus is not the debate between the academics themselves but rather the discussion it provoked among students, professors and other members of the Notre Dame community. The fact that students sought out tickets and criticized the University for the lack of available seats indicates that the student body is already engaged in the kind of intellectual dialogue that the God Debate furthered. Those in attendance appeared very receptive and respectful of both speakers. The University has an important role as a Catholic institution, but it is also an institution of higher learning. The God Debate is the kind of conversation for which Notre Dame should be a forum. Although Hitchens and D'Souza disagreed, both stuck to fact and theory to support their arguments. In this way, the debate was informative and thought-provoking, rather than pointlessly stirring up emotional rhetoric. But students should not take either side of the debate as presented by Hitchens or D'Souza at face value. The enthusiasm these debaters display shows that this is an important, but contested issue, and one that students should form their own opinion about by becoming knowledgeable. The presenters give an introduction to extremes, not a comprehensive view. Students will have to work their way along the spectrum as they learn more about the positions to form their own opinion, which will probably be closer to the middle ground than the views expressed by Hitchens and D'Souza. To the credit of these two figures, their criticism of each others' arguments was professional and intelligent. When personal attacks were made, they were made in the form of offhand jokes and were taken in stride by both sides. Both Hitchens and D'Souza recognized that it was more important to keep the issue itself at the forefront, and we applaud them for not letting personal attacks overshadow the opportunity for dialogue. As students at a Catholic University, we naturally grapple with contentious issues — the death penalty, abortion, premarital sex. What we should take away from the God Debate is that not only is it important to discuss contentious issues with those who disagree, but the manner in which we do it is just as important. Seek productive discussion, use facts to support your assertions, be respectfully critical of the opposing view, but also courageously stand up for what you believe in. These are all crucial lessons to be learned from this event.

The Observer

Butler gets remembered, but legends never die

By The Observer · Thursday, April 8, 2010

Gordon Hayward was channeling Bobby Plump, the last-second hero of the 1951 Indiana Men's Basketball Championship and the inspiration for the film Hoosiers, Monday night when he shot that jumper over Duke's Brian Zoubek. That last-second shot should have arched over the 7'1" center, bounced once on the rim and rolled in. It should have been the greatest NCAA Men's Championship game in our generation. Instead, the ball went long and bricked off the far side of the rim. It was rebounded by Zoubek, handing a perennial dynasty and its insufferable fans yet another championship (yes, I recognize the irony in me, a Notre Dame student, calling other college fans insufferable, but I am writing as a Butler fan). Sports these days don't seem as magical as they used to be. I grew up on a steady diet of classic inspirational movies like Rudy (obvious), Remember the Titans, Miracle, Seabiscuit and Space Jam. They taught me that if you are plucky enough and the situation is just perfect, even I could pull off the upset of a lifetime. What are they going to make movies about in 10 or 15 years when we need to teach our children that the world is a just place where the good guys coached by a lovable — if slightly damaged — mentor always win? Are they going to watch a movie about a plucky Saints team that finished with the NFL's second-best record and top passer finally winning a Super Bowl or how a grossly overpaid Yankees organization purchased a World Series team to beat on a small market team that made it to the World Series? Maybe they can watch the story of two non-BCS teams that went undefeated during the year only to be paired together in a bowl game matched only by class on St.Patrick's Day in its futility. My point is that the magic in sports is dying. When was the last time a true underdog story translated into a championship? The answer should have been last Monday. You could not script the sequel to Hoosiers any better than Butler's journey through the tournament this year. If those mystical forces that create truly great sports stories couldn't allow Butler to finish the greatest story in men's basketball of the past 25 years, then what hope do my Cubbies have this season? Peter Elliott sophomore Siegfried Hall April 6

The Observer

One book, one Michiana - one Notre Dame

By The Observer · Thursday, April 8, 2010

I am writing to share exciting information in response to the March 31 Letter to the Editor titled "One book, one Michiana" (Caitlin Wilson, Rachel Hamilton). I am pleased to announce that Hesburgh Libraries has joined the One Book, One Michiana project. Hesburgh Libraries will host a presentation by Notre Dame Law professor Thomas Shaffer scheduled at Geddes Hall from 4-5:30 on April 14. The presentation is titled "Atticus Finch: Not Only Gregory Peck But Also Southern Gentleman and County-Seat Lawyer Whose Daughter Is a Whiz-Bang." We are in the process of adding our campus event to the St. Joe Public Library's website. In the mean time, we are asking you to help us spread the word. Thanks for helping us make our first "One Book, one Michiana" project a success. Felicia A. Smith faculty April 5

The Observer

Sex on the brain: The biology of sexual orientation

By The Observer · Thursday, April 8, 2010

Editors note: This is the second installment in a series of columns by Notre Dame faculty members exploring current scholarly research in sexuality concentrating on sexual orientation and related issues. What causes sexual orientation? What causes us to be attracted to and fall in love with the people that we do? Almost all our behaviors and traits are a product of both nature and nurture. The "Nature/Nurture Debate" actually does not make much sense, because genes and environment have a constant interplay throughout the lifespan. However, whether through genes or learning, there is no doubt that sexual orientation is manifested somehow in our brains. This is because the brain is responsible for all our thoughts, behaviors, personality characteristics — everything that we are. The brain is not a fixed entity — learning changes your brain every day, whether very fleeting changes, like a phone number you forget immediately, or long-lasting behavior patterns, like being shy or outgoing — and, perhaps, like sexual orientation. What is it that changes our brains to be straight or gay? There are probably many influences, but one may be the level of hormones that your brain was exposed to while developing in utero. One of the clues that androgens (testosterone-like hormones) influence sexual orientation comes from a disorder called Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). In this disorder, the adrenal glands' hormone production goes haywire so that they make too much androgen. This doesn't seem to impact developing male fetuses, since the androgen levels are not much different than what their bodies would normally make. But female fetuses with CAH find themselves swimming in much higher levels of androgens than they otherwise would. The disorder can be easily corrected with drugs once it's discovered at birth, and androgen levels for CAH girls are normal from there on out. However, was there an effect of the extra androgens on the brains of these girls as they were developing in utero? It seems that there is. When CAH girls grow up, 33 percent of them describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual, compared to six to 10 percent of the non-CAH population. So, androgens must play a role in sexual orientation, but they can't explain it completely. After all, 67 percent of CAH women identified as heterosexual. And most homosexual and bisexual women do not have CAH. So androgens in the developing brain play a role in sexual orientation (at least in women), but they're not the whole story. Our next clue comes from differences between straight and gay people in tiny regions of the brain involved in sex and reproduction, found in post-mortem brains by Simon LeVay and colleagues. A region of the hypothalamus called INAH3 turned out to differ in size between straight men and women — men's INAH3 is about twice as large as women's. Gay men, however, had a smaller, straight-female-sized INAH3. Could INAH3 be the "sexual orientation area" of the brain? It's possible. The hypothalamus is certainly an important area for sexual behavior, although what exactly INAH3 does is unknown. But another consideration is the chicken-and-egg problem: What causes what? One possibility is that the size of INAH3 causes sexual orientation: a larger INAH3 means you will be attracted to women, and smaller INAH3 means you will be attracted to men. But another possibility is that being attracted to women for years and years causes the size of INAH3 to increase. Remember that your brain is changing and responding all the time in response to your experiences. And the brains being studied were adult brains, after the individuals had died. We can find out more by looking at sheep, a species which shares with us some reproductive traits. Interestingly, eight percent of rams (male sheep) have a sexual preference for other rams, rather than ewes (female sheep). It turns out that sheep also have an INAH3, and it follows exactly the same pattern as in humans: rams that prefer ewes have an INAH3 twice as big as the INAH3 of ewes, but rams that prefer rams have the smaller, ewe-sized INAH3. We still have the chicken-and-egg problem: Does being attracted to ewes or rams change the size of INAH3? Or does the INAH3 size control the attractions of the sheep? We don't know. But we do know that human cultural experience cannot explain the INAH3 results. Whatever the connection between this brain region and sexual orientation, it is something we share with other species. These are just two studies among an ongoing body of research seeking to find out more about the biology of sexual orientation in humans. So far scientists think that, like most human behavior, sexual attraction is the result of a complex orchestration between genes, early hormone exposures and other environmental factors. There is probably no one thing that determines sexual orientation. But each clue gives us a little more information about human sexuality and how we each come to be who we are. Michelle Wirth is a professor of Psychology. She can be contacted at mwirth@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

The Observer

A suit, a suitcase and a typewriter

By The Observer · Thursday, April 8, 2010

When my father left his childhood bedroom for the Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College in the late summer of 1967, he possessed three things: a tailored suit, a luggage set and a typewriter. He had acquired all three at separate times immediately surrounding, but, more significantly, on account of his graduation from high school. So, when my time came to leave the lockers of senior hall behind, my father was insistent that I take careful time in securing my own versions of the three commencement items. My mother tried to explain why they were so important to him, but I just shrugged and rode shotgun on the way to Men's Warehouse. There were way too many graduation parties and salutatory addresses demanding my concentration. Two years later, I find myself checking an over-sized rolling duffel at the airline counter, buttoning up the three-button pinstripe armor before braving formal events and spending a large majority of time with my fingers on the keys of my computer. Look in my room and you will see that these have a special place among my other belongings: right there with my books and the picture of my family and my iPod and my speakers and my sneakers and my futon and my postcard collection and my camera and my snow boots and my posters and those energy-efficient bulbs I have yet to install and that strand of Christmas lights I grabbed off of a tree on the side of the road last winter break. All right, so you wouldn't necessarily be inclined to notice them any more than anything else in my hovel of strange junk. And it would be safe to assume that, on most days, the suit or the suitcase or the computer doesn't strike me either. Truth be told, individually, they are no more than societal necessities, common objects to be found in any one of my neighbors' rooms. However, every once in a while, that little picturesque legend of my father, dressed up, suitcase in one hand, portable typewriter in the other, floats into my mind and I try to understand what those things meant to him. For centuries, higher education has represented a furthering and intensification of individual, intellectual instruction. To a certain extent, this remains and will always remain its function: assimilation of information, profession of the knowledge by some and the demonstration by others of comprehension of such knowledge. Yet, the longer I am here at this University, the more I feel that an equally important (though perhaps implicit or even overlooked) role of college is the social formation of the individual. For most, the university acts as a catalyst for our transition from adolescence into adulthood, a catalyst for independence and autonomy. We (or at least some of us) are pushed from the nest of our parents and made nomads for a time, allowed to roam. We are asked to interact with adults more as peers than as authorities. We are encouraged to develop our own thoughts and worldview. Curse ResLife or the latest assignment for a paper from Philosophy, but college is our society's way of making us responsible for our own thoughts and actions. College forces us to recognize our own person: individual, free and capable. My father steps onto the Louisiana State University campus. He wears a suit, a sign of his age and of his newly earned status as a man, no longer a boy. He carries a suitcase, symbolic of his having no tethers to home, fettered to nothing and no one, able to settle in any land he may choose. And he punches out letters on a little, tan Brother typewriter, the keys that can unlock his means to expression and materialize his thoughts or pin down the world he sees onto fields of 20-pound white. Perhaps this image allows me to better appreciate the profundity of those three gifts with which I left home. Perhaps distinguishing their significance among my room of superfluities allows me to distinguish my necessary significance among this world of banalities. William Stewart is a sophomore majoring in the Program of Liberal Studies. He can be contacted at William.J.Stewart.90@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

The Observer

Being 'anti-union' perfectly legal

By The Observer · Thursday, April 8, 2010

I want to respond to one of the assumptions that appears to underly Sarah Furman's March 31 column about the HEI hotel company ("HEI: Still an issue"). She criticizes HEI for being "anti-union." She seems to assume that being anti-union is either illegal or immoral. It is neither. An employer, at least under current law, has every right to encourage its employees not to form or join a union. An employer is well within its rights, both legally and morally, to think that a union will not be in the best interests of the company or of its employees. While there are those who wish to deny employers the right and ability to communicate with their employees about unions organizing, employers in the U.S. have long been at liberty to speak with their employees about these matters. If an employer goes beyond exercising his constitutionally protected right of free speech, and instead engages in actions that violate federal labor laws, then of course he should be held accountable for those violations. Whether HEI violated such laws is a matter to be decided by the NLRB — though I would caution anyone from assuming guilt merely based on allegations by NLRB staff. My point is that encouraging employees not to join a union is not synonymous with denying them the right to do so. If, after hearing both sides of the argument, employees freely choose to unionize, then that is their right. However, we should not assume that employers who are "anti-union," in the sense that they actively communicate with their employees and encourage them to not join a union, are acting either illegally or immorally. Mark Goodman alumnus class of 1983 April 6

The Observer

Fall of a power

By The Observer · Thursday, April 8, 2010

In my four years at this wonderful university, I have witnessed many great things. Unfortunately I have also seen the complete fall of a once-powerful baseball program. While I will admit that my coming to the university coincided with the loss of one of the top five coaches in the nation (Paul Mainieri), there is no reason our program should have gone from a Big East dynasty that was a perennial player in the NCAA Tournament to a Big East afterthought that has not made the tournament in four years. While I will admit that baseball at Notre Dame doesn't receive the same amount of attention as basketball or football, there is no reason a team which made the College World Series in the past decade should currently stand at 9-17. From everything I have heard about him, Manager David Schrage seems to be a great man. However, I do not think our university should accept mediocrity in a sport that we had dominated for well over a decade. If Mr. Swarbrick does decide to make a coaching change at the end of the year, I think he should look no further than Brian O'Connor, a former Notre Dame assistant and manager of the No. 4 Virginia Cavaliers. Jordan Carey senior off campus April 7

The Observer

We owe our gratitude

By The Observer · Wednesday, April 7, 2010

We at Notre Dame are blessed by a large number of prople who provide services which enhance our lives and are sometimes taken for granted. We owe much gratitude to the Grounds workers, the cleaning staffs, our Security people and our Fire Department. Without these men and women, our lives would not be as meaningful as they are. Be sure to say a big THANKS to those who serve us as their ministry to Notre Dame.

Trending