Opinion

Lost and found

Defining love

Last Friday, Ohio Senator Rob Portman wrote an op-ed, which ran in The Columbus Dispatch, and it has been making news ever since. This particular op-ed, though no longer than this column, marks a profound shift in the debate on same-sex marriage rights in this country. Portman co-sponsored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and voted for a 1999 measure banning adoption for same-sex couples in Washington, D.C. And with his announcement last Friday, he became the first sitting Republican senator to openly support gay marriage. It is worth noting that Portman arrived at this reversal of his opinion after his son Will, a junior at Yale University, revealed his gay identity two years ago. Consequently, Portman has been widely criticized by left-wing commentators for his lack of empathy for the LGBT community until the issue directly affected him. While I understand the rationale behind these criticisms, I believe it is better to focus on the progress Portman's decision signals. Furthermore, I believe the senator ought to be praised for his decision because he did something that is all too undervalued in politics when he changed his mind. We rightly expect our leaders to maintain the courage of their convictions, but we must also recognize that our leaders should continue to ponder their own beliefs in order to best serve the voters, an act that will inevitably lead to some changes of heart and mind. Senator Portman should also receive praise for standing in the face of overwhelming opposition within his own party. The 2012 Republican Party platform calls "for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman." Nevertheless, Portman courageously declared, "I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married." Thus, it does not matter how Portman reached his decision, it only matters that he has taken the courageous step and placed personal conviction above party. Portman joins only a handful of Republicans currently in office who support same-sex marriage, and although his recent shift in position may not lead an immediate charge, I still feel same-sex marriage is an inevitability within my lifetime. In his piece in The Columbus Dispatch, Portman noted that "in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan." This observation reflects what almost anyone in my generation already recognizes. By the time my fellow Millennials take power in this country, the issue of same-sex marriage will be an afterthought. I say this because, in my experience, it is exceedingly rare to find someone my age who vehemently opposes same-sex marriage, or at the very least civil unions. Furthermore, the denial of same-sex marriage has correctly been characterized as the last socially acceptable form of discrimination. Marriage is a civil right, and the government cannot deny that right to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation or any other attribute. I understand many religions believe marriage to be a sacred bond between one man and one woman, but since when do we allow religion to dictate policy? I too believe marriage is a sacred bond that shows deep love, respect and commitment, but I do not believe the government can restrict who can enter into such a bond. Now, the opinions I have articulated thus far may seem like idealized leftist rhetoric, but I, as well as Senator Portman, recognize that supporting same-sex marriage is in itself a conservative idea. Portman wrote, "conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people's lives" and therefore, the government has no place to define the love necessary to enter into the sacred bond of marriage. More often than not, however, conservatives place their own "values" (often deriving from the Christian right) above this conservative principle. Such imposition of values applies not only to same-sex marriage, but also to abortion, capital punishment and the role of religion in government as a whole, but I digress. My point is our generation has been brought up to accept and respect everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status or any other possible factors that distinguish others from ourselves. Thus, same-sex marriage will become a social reality sooner or later, most likely sooner. Until then, we must remember and accept that social change comes in painfully small and slow increments, we must continue to fight for equality and all forms of civil rights and, above all else, we must love one another in a way that transcends any tangible definition. Jack Rooney is a freshman studying political science. He can be contacted at jrooney1@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Identifying the context

Regarding his recent letter to the editor, Mr. Crummett did not "corrupt" Mr. Damian's words; he identifies context ("Mr. Crummett's cookies" Mar. 6). While Mr. Damian did say philosophy is concerned with "meaning and ultimate foundation of human, personal and social existence," this was (1) a direct quote from Pope John Paul II, (2) in the same paragraph in which he explains that history is a valid subject because it reveals "God's plan for the universe" and (3) later followed with the statement that a goal of the philosophy requirement at Notre Dame is "to learn to think in depth about the problems posed by a life of faith." In this context, Mr. Damian's description of philosophy is undoubtedly strongly tied to religion, and fairly interpreted as a call for a "souped-up Catechism class." Furthermore, Mr. Damian's implied claim that Plato would have approved of a sign saying "Let no one ignorant of sugar enter here" entirely misses the point of the sign reading "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here." Here, geometry symbolizes abstract thought. This is entirely different from Mr. Damian's proposal. In fact, the geometry sign supports Mr. Crummett's argument that introductory philosophy classes are intended to "help [students] reason critically and evaluate arguments." Finally, I would like to point out Mr. Damian's original physics professor example is unfair and offensive. On a campus such as ours, there are literal experts in the relationship between physics and free will. There is no need for a physics professor to state as fact a personal opinion based on, presumably, not much more formal study that an undergraduate would have (though he has undoubtedly discussed this question frequently with colleagues). This hardly implies the professor is not "educated and free," nor does it imply that he "has failed to make connections that a basic introduction to philosophy course" would allow him to make, and it absolutely does not imply that "Notre Dame students graduate more educated than their professors." That statement is ignorant and disrespectful of the amount of time, passion, and energy every professor here has put into their academic career.

Renewing our hope in the pope

The entire Catholic Church has pulsated an electric excitement about Jorge Mario Bergoglio since he was elected Pope Francis. Not since the 1978 installation of the first John Paul who only served for a month have Catholics worldwide - both from the progressive as well as the fundamentally orthodox wings of the Church - looked to the pontiff with such expectation and universal hope. Certainly Francis' predecessors were respected and admired, but his humility and genuinely simplistic lifestyle somehow are uniting competing factions within the church more so than ever in the post-World War II era. In Washington, D.C. at my parish last Sunday, those preparing for mass in the Cathedral of St. Matthew's sacristy buzzed about reports of how our Archbishop, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, was identified as the principal "Pope Maker" of this conclave by sources within the Vatican. According to journalist Paolo Rodari of La Repubblica newspaper, Wuerl convinced the North American cardinals to unite behind Bergoglio instead of two early favorites: the Italian Archbishop of Milan, Angelo Scola and Brazilian Archbishop of Sao Paulo, OdiloScherer. That unified new world voting block pushed Bergoglio's vote majority to a higher margin than the 2005 odds-on favorite margin of Pope Benedict XVI. This year, Church observers should have placed more stock in the Argentine, more seriously considering Bergoglio's runner-up status from 2005, rather than focusing on the perceived public affairs strengths of Scola and Scherer. Church leaders recognized that a Vatican outsider needed to send the Church into a new direction. One needs to merely watch the manner in which Pope Francis entered and left his inaugural mass to witness how he exudes charisma like the Holy Spirit on steroids. Observers welled with tears as the pontiff briefly stopped to greet a group of disabled persons along the barrier fence. Anyone watching knows that we are headed in a new direction under Francis as evidenced by the pure exuberant joy beaming from the grotesquely disfigured face of a disabled man whom the pope gently kissed on his forehead. Ironically, progressives who want the Vatican to be more inclusive using modern-day thinking are as eager to support this pope as conservatives who prefer standing firm on status quo dogma which currently forces nonconformists to leave. Each camp pins their hopes on Bergoglio's past. For example, as cardinal, Bergoglio worked tirelessly to bridge what he called the "estrangement with the Orthodox churches." As a result and for the first time in nearly a thousand years, Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox Church's Ecumenical Patriarch, attended the new pope's installation. Signs of such mutual respect and friendship warms hopes that the pope will eventually institute one policy regarding the marriage of priests which only the Orthodox permit. Hard-line conservative Catholics mistakenly overlook the nuisances of the new pope's stand on various conflicting issues. Initially, Bergoglio approaches conflicting issues with an eye on serving mankind, not unnecessarily restricting others. Conservatives need to study the pope's initial stand regarding same-sex marriage before they mistakenly believe that all of their core stances align with the pope's history. Bergoglio opposed same-sex marriage in Argentina only after the government banned civil unions as an alternative. Bergoglio chastised priests who refused to baptize the children of unwed mothers. His Jesuit philosophy remains the antithesis to the thoughts of so many so-called "traditional" Catholics. He holds that to be pro-life is to also oppose capital punishment, an inconvenience for many American Catholic politicians who support babies, but execute convicts. He does not withhold communion as a punishment of elected Catholic officials who represent their constituents' needs rather than their Church's proclamations. My personal hope is that our pope continues to invite rather than limit, remains clear-eyed about the difficulties facing our church while never losing sight of the vision St. Francis of Assisi held for his neighbors. May he use his authority to undo errors of the past. Undoubtedly, the pope's love of service will allow him to reform the Vatican's problems. May he also remain open-minded to change matters of discipline and tradition that are not matters of faith. Many who stray from the church will "come home" once the Vatican seems more in touch with the flock like the pope's namesake was in the Twelfth Century. Nature and symbolism can be the great predictors of the future. With St. Francis as his guide, Pope Francis should affect Catholics as profoundly as John XXIII did more than a half-century ago. It seems that such ominous foretelling lies within the Assisi monastery walls. Far from open doors and windows, stands a statue of St. Francis holding his hands cupped at his chest. Birds built a nest within his palms as though to validate their unity with him during his days on earth. Since our modern-day Francis lives by the same attributes as the saint, we can rejoice that the servant of God is truly amongst us. Gary J. Caruso, Notre Dame '73, serves in the Department of Homeland Security and was a legislative and public affairs director at the U.S. House of Representatives and in President Clinton's administration. His column appears every other Friday. Contact him at GaryJCaruso@alumni.nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

A new leader

Pope Francis will be installed in his new position in a mass at the Vatican today, and he's only the third pope many of us have been alive to see. This is a different world than the one Benedict XVI stepped out to greet in 2005 - photos from St. Peter's Square show a crowd dotted with lights from smart phones and iPads instead of flickering candles. I found out about the white smoke sighted above the Sistine Chapel when my mother's Pope Alarm app went off on her phone, and we flipped through TV channels to watch the developing action. The @Pontifex twitter account has already posted on behalf of Francis, reaching his 2,000,000-plus followers.

Earth's biggest party of the year

On Mar. 23, starting at 8:30pm, I will be throwing a party, like a crazy lights-out rager kind of party.  I've got a global invite list and am currently prospecting venues such as the Eiffel Tower. Here's the thing, I need you to host . . . all of you.

The compromise deficit

Anyone who has watched CNN recently, read a newspaper or spent a couple of days in the United States know that America has a deficit issue.

Ironball Challenge for charity

On Mar. 23 and Mar. 24, America's college basketball teams will compete in the NCAA Tournament. Meanwhile, students here at Notre Dame will take part in an epic basketball game of their own in the Siegfried Ironball Challenge.

I'm a maniac, that's all!

Dearest Domers,

Racial entitlements?

On Feb. 27, the Supreme Court heard the case Shelby County vs. Holder. The county argued before the high court that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when, in 2006, it reauthorized section five of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for another 25 years. The county adamantly claims that reauthorizing section five of the Voting Rights Act exceeded Congress' authority under the 14th and 15th Amendment thus violating the 10 Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

Faith informing politics

Mr. Rooney,

You say tomato...

Being a born and bred East Coaster makes life at Notre Dame a pretty interesting change of pace. It's a wonder to drive around and spot mysteriously named grocery stores ("Meijer? How do you pronounce that?") and a challenge to dress for weather that changes approximately every 10 minutes. But the most interesting thing is the amazing microcosm of the world that I get to mingle with every day. The people I've met here have consistently prompted me to think about nearly everything in a different way.

(Political) science and faith

Aside from the whole no meat on Fridays thing, I really love Lent. Lent always coincides with some of the busiest days of my year, but it also provides a constant reminder to keep my life centered on God and to place my trust and faith in him. Lent, in my opinion, is also the best time for reflection. This Lent, my reflective thoughts repeatedly return to the one issue I struggle with most: reconciling my faith with my political beliefs. As a liberal I am frequently led to believe, through the media and occasionally in person, that some of my specific political beliefs are not only wrong, but also immoral. As a Catholic, I constantly struggle with these implications and search for some source of reconciliation between these two sets of beliefs I hold so close to my heart. I struggle with going to mass and hearing a homily in which the priest tells me that if my political views don't line up with Catholic social teaching, then my conscience wasn't formed correctly. I struggle with seeing prominent Catholics who should be my role models denying adoption rights to loving and capable gay couples and pontificating on the immorality of a healthcare law that would help millions of people who desperately need it. More than anything though, I struggle with the notion that a Republican vote is a vote for Jesus and a Democratic vote is a vote against him. Despite it all, I still believe and still argue, in order to be good, conscious Christians, we must be liberal. Welfare, for example, falls under frequent attack from conservatives, who claim people abuse the system. It was Jesus, though, who said in the Gospel of Matthew, "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." Some may argue this is a call for charity and not government-run welfare, but charity alone cannot help the poorest among us receive the equal opportunity all Americans should claim as their birthright. As Catholics, we must also advocate for workers and defend their right to organize and receive fair pay. As the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states, workers have "the right to a just wage ... [and] the right to assemble and form associations." The Compendium also states that workers have "the right to appropriate subsidies that are necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families," which sounds remarkably similar to the unemployment insurance Republicans tried to drastically reduce in 2011. Furthermore, we as Catholics must defend the basic human rights of immigrants, especially those who come from the most abject of circumstances. Pope John Paul II, on World Migration Day in 1996, said we should look beyond the law when it comes to illegal immigration and recognize and respect the humanity and dignity of all immigrants. All of these examples show that in order to be good Catholics acting with Christ as our guide, we must, at least to some extent, be liberal. And while I'm on my liberal soapbox, I might as well drift out into far left field. Brace yourselves. For those on the Christian right who believe capitalism is unfailing and entirely just, I should remind you that the early Christian Church was a communal society (Acts 2 and 4, people. Read up). And for those who argue homosexuality is a sin, I should remind you Jesus never once addressed homosexuality one way or the other. And for the love of God, will the right-wing hacks who claim this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values please pick up a high school history book. Perhaps more than anything, though, I must argue that conservatives in this country cannot monopolize morality because there are millions of faithful, compassionate liberals who work just as hard to bring the justice of God into the world. All of these issues, however, are drastically overshadowed and forgotten because most liberals, including me, believe when it comes to abortion, the decision rests with women. Don't get me wrong, I believe life begins at conception and I believe each abortion in this country is a tragedy and, to some extent, a sin. We must recognize, however, that the choice for a woman to abort a pregnancy or not is one of the most excruciatingly difficult decisions anyone will ever have to make. I pray each and every day for women who must face this decision and I pray they make the decision that is best for them and the life inside of them. I cannot, however, bring myself to impose my views on these women because I will never find myself in their position, and therefore cannot even begin to understand it. I find Vice President Joe Biden, one of the nation's most prominent Catholics, sums up my position perfectly by saying, "My religion defines who I am ... but ... I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body." The Viewpoint page of The Observer can't even begin to allow me to describe my internal struggle with faith and politics, though. This issue is something I will contemplate and question for the rest of my life. In the meantime, I along with anyone in a similar position should find comfort in the words of Thomas Merton, who wrote, "My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end ... But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you." Jack Rooney is a freshman studying political science. He can be contacted at jrooney1@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

An editor's farewell

I've been lucky enough to have had an eventful term as Editor-in-Chief, a term which ends with this edition of the paper. There's been a fruitful debate over LGBTQ rights on campus and a football season unlike any other in a long and proud tradition. There's been a presidential election, and we've marked the 40th year of coeducation at Notre Dame. When I reflect on these stories and so many more, I'm struck by one thought: Stories matter. Over the last year, our best stories have put faces on events. They've added voices to debates. They've brought forth the impact an administrative policy can have on real people. That's what journalism is supposed to do - tell stories. Stories will never go away, and that's why journalism will never go away. It might look different years from now, but it'll still be telling stories. That's our job. The countless stories of the Notre Dame and Saint Mary's communities have been my driving force for the last year. They've been both complex and simple, national and local, uplifting and saddening. Through it all, they've been the best part of my job, and they're what I'll miss the most when I hand my office over. On Monday, you'll hear from our incoming Editor-in-Chief. He's got big plans for his term, and he's got an immensely talented group of leaders behind him. As for our crop of editors, I'm proud to say we accomplished many of our own lofty goals - this new design, for one - but left more for the next group of leaders. Yet while each spring new editors begin to change, tweak and improve The Observer, one thing will never change: We'll keep telling stories. There are so many untold stories behind the stories you read, and many of them took place in our newsroom. Countless people have made our storytelling possible. To Deb, Megan, Andrew, Sam and the rest of the staff, thank you. It's been an absolute thrill working with you. Thanks to the people who helped me write my own story. From my family to the editors who came before me, from Emily to the roommates who kept me sane, thank you too. I'll have a lot more free time to spend with you next week. I promise. And most of all, thanks to you, the reader. Thanks for looking to us for coverage of an eventful year on campus and around the world. Thanks for picking us up every day, whether in the dining hall or online from somewhere around the world. And thanks for reading our stories. The Observer will always tell those stories - your stories. Because stories matter, and they always will.  

Please sequester our penchant for stupidity

The $85 billion of automatic, massive and indiscriminate budgetary cuts across the federal government, our so-called "sequestration" of funding, triggered at midnight and is scheduled to continue through September. Designed as a draconian meat cleaver way to force congressional Democrats and Republicans to agree on solutions reducing the deficit, the measure was sadly not too extreme to fail. The congressional lawmakers' impasse leaves many to wonder why. Warnings have abounded since sequestration's inception in 2011. Republicans, ever eager to oppose Obama ideas, blame the president for devising the sequestration scheme. Yet House GOP members - still living in their fantasy world that collapsed on Mitt Romney last November - wrongly believe that although they personally passed sequestration, the consequences fall on the president for thinking of the idea. GOP intransigence relies on a denial of complicity: "Don't blame me. I did not rob the bank. I only drove the getaway car." Months ago, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that sequestration would cost the overall economy 750,000 jobs within a year. Testifying on Tuesday before a congressional committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (an appointee of former president, George W. Bush) urged lawmakers to avoid sharp spending cuts, which he warned could create a "significant headwind" against our economic recovery. The Pentagon notified 800,000 workers last week to expect furloughs - both contractors and government staff - effectively reducing their salaries for six months by 20 percent starting today. So why does such seemingly tone deafness echo on Capitol Hill? Simply put, in their fictional GOP world, most representatives from safely gerrymandered Republican districts oppose President Obama as sport. Their political games are void of fiscal or historical fact, oftentimes riddled with simple slogans and well-worn lies. They rely on such popular untruths as Newt Gingrich's "economic fact" coined in the 1990s alleging taxing the rich reduces job growth. They support their mindless chatter through their American idol, Ronald Reagan, using mere legend rather than a study in historical governance. Their fantasyville tales become absurdly opposite and devoid of the facts. Historically, Reagan raised taxes nearly a dozen times - two collectively were the largest in history at the time - on Social Security and gasoline while closing tax shelters and other loopholes to reduce the deficit, at the time averaging 18.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Reagan's public debt tripled from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, jumping from 26 to 41 percent of GDP. Ironically, Obama haters hate to acknowledge Obama outperforming Reagan on public debt. The CBO reports this year's deficit will be $641 billion, down $500 billion from last year's nearly $1.2 trillion level. The CBO further shows federal spending in 2009 when Obama entered office was 25.2 percent of GDP. It shrunk to 22.8 percent last year and is projected to fall to 21.5 percent at the end of Obama's term in 2017.  Notwithstanding experts, non-partisan forecasts or current, concrete examples of the double-dip recessions suffered by European nations that have adopted extreme austerity measures, the GOP considers deficit reduction only through the prism of spending cuts. House Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans are fixated solely on reducing the debt through governmental cuts rather than fixing the economy based on proven historical principles. Keynesian economics, for example, recognizes active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy as the best method to support employment, ensure economic growth and create stability, especially during recessionary downturns. When the House GOP disregards established principles for their slogans, they are like the ship, Californian, watching the distress flares of the Titanic without understanding or initiating any timely actions. The GOP salivates at any opportunity to initiate their long-time obsession of decimating governmental functions. They refuse to acknowledge that under President Obama's watch, federal taxes sunk to their lowest levels since the 1950s. The federal deficit also steadily decreased to currently four percent of GDP, about the level when Reagan left office after Reagan's peak of six percent in 1983. So it begs the question, "At what point do we label our elected officials stupid for ignoring basic historical economic principles stripped of rhetorical spin?" Obviously mere historical facts will not convince them. They do not study how our Civil War or either World War national debts were paid down. They could care less that Republicans cut some World War II taxes yet reduced the debt by a third through other taxes or that we survived our all-time World War II high of 113 percent of GDP debt through economic expansion, not with increased taxes. In fact, by 1962, just 17 years after the war, WWII debt had been reduced back to the pre-war 1934 level. The only way to educate the GOP is through cruel, calculated and coldhearted cuts in their own backyards - the opposite of Keynesian economics can offer another shocking punch like last November's election eve. The president should surgically exact massive federal cuts in gerrymandered Republican districts to force GOP members out of their current stupor. Speaker Boehner last Monday announced, "Well, Mr. President, you got your tax increase. It's time to cut spending here in Washington."  The president should answer, "Fine, we'll begin in your district." Gary J. Caruso, Notre Dame '73, serves in the Department of Homeland Security and was a legislative and public affairs director at the U.S. House of Representatives and in President Clinton's administration. His column appears every other Friday. Contact him at GaryJCaruso@alumni.nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

The State Road 933 divide

State Road 933 is just a stretch of concrete, just two lanes of local traffic in each direction, just a road. But State Road 933 also acts as a physical divide between Notre Dame and Saint Mary's, and the divide is much wider than four lanes of asphalt. This week, The Observer has published a series titled "Her Loyal Daughters," a five-day stretch of stories to mark the 40th anniversary of coeducation at Notre Dame. We have written about a possible merger between Notre Dame and Saint Mary's in the early 1970s, when both were single-sex universities. We have written about the memories of the first women on this campus and their male classmates. We have written about the men and women who walk down Notre Dame Avenue and the Avenue at Saint Mary's today. Notre Dame and Saint Mary's have been neighbors since the mid-1840s. Holy Cross sisters founded the College in 1844, just two years after Holy Cross priests began Notre Dame in 1842. A co-exchange program developed between the two schools in the mid-20th century so students at each college could capitalize on the resources of the other. A merger made sense. But we've heard it again and again this week: "I'm glad the merger fell through." Graduates of both schools have expressed thanks for their unique degrees. University President Emeritus Fr. Theodore Hesburgh wanted Notre Dame to become a top Catholic research university, a distinctive voice in higher education. It made sense to search for the brightest minds in the country to achieve that goal, and that search needed to include women. So Notre Dame went coed and today is a top-25 university. When Notre Dame and Saint Mary's discussed a possible merger, there were more than 300 women's colleges around the nation. It has been 40 years since those talks failed, and there are now fewer than 100 women's colleges in the United States. Fewer than 40 of those schools have a Catholic identity. Saint Mary's has built itself on the goal of providing strong liberal arts and a Catholic education for women, and it is both one of the top 100 liberal arts colleges and one of the premier women's colleges in America.   Notre Dame and Saint Mary's have different missions, but both excel. Notre Dame and Saint Mary's have different strengths, but both graduate top-tier students. Notre Dame and Saint Mary's are on different sides of State Road 933, but are neighbors. So why does that narrow strip of concrete often feel like a gulf between us? We all know the stereotypes. Notre Dame women aren't as pretty as Saint Mary's women, but they're smarter under the Dome. Saint Mary's women are easy. We throw the word "slut" around without a second thought. Notre Dame men who strike out with their female peers on this campus can easily find a "SmickChick." We ride the "Sluttle." These stereotypes are disgraceful, inaccurate and uninformed. And we - men and women, Saint Mary's and Notre Dame - are responsible for allowing them to continue. We perpetrate them without considering their consequences. We laugh at jokes on the annual Zahm House ticket for student body president and vice president about a monorail between Notre Dame and Saint Mary's, so women could more easily find their way to men's dorms. Debate about Saint Mary's students' chances in the BCS National Championship Game ticket lottery became really nasty, really quickly. It starts with freshman orientation. Frosh-O welcomes new students to school traditions, but it also sets the tone for dorm and gender relationships on campus. Women's dorms serenade men's dorms, and men escort female students on "dates" to various brother-sister dorm events. But freshmen generally don't collaborate with other dorms of their same gender, and the first time Saint Mary's women enter the mix is on the sweaty dance floor at Domerfest, taken aback by the misperceptions they often face. Freshman orientation does not foster positive relationships between Notre Dame students and their own gender outside the immediate dorm community, and it definitely doesn't introduce Saint Mary's and Notre Dame students in a setting that encourages them to form friendships. There is awkwardness to this structure, a sense of competition among one gender for members of the other. It starts with freshman orientation, but it continues beyond that first weekend. How many Notre Dame students have walked up the Avenue? How many Notre Dame students avail themselves of the classes we can take at Saint Mary's? How many Saint Mary's students eat after club meetings or band practice in the dining hall at Notre Dame, where obtaining a co-exchange meal is unnecessarily difficult? How many students have thought about the jokes we pass to younger students, the flippant comments we make and their consequences? Administrators and students at both schools should remember this era of coeducation and return to its original principles - Notre Dame and Saint Mary's are two schools, on two different sides of the road, striving to accomplish two different missions. We are different, not better. Let us drive the administration to reform the freshman orientation experience and set a more positive tone for gender relations. Let us build a sense of sisterhood not just in our individual dorms, but also between all female students. Let us demand more convenient options to share meals together and to travel from Notre Dame to Saint Mary's. Let us foster collaboration between clubs, between those studying abroad in the same cities from different schools and between individuals studying similar subjects. Let us rid our language of terms like "slut." Let us embrace coeducation in the best sense of the word - a community of men and women, studying together, learning with and from each other. Let us make this road we travel down together into a two-way street.

The Oscar goes to...

Let's talk about the Oscars.

Study abroad deadline hits too early

One day I sat down in an info session for a minor I was interested in at the time. The Professor used the session not just to talk about the minor, but also to give some general advice for any ND student. The most memorable item was: "Get the hell away from Notre Dame. You've got to study abroad." Following that advice, I scrambled this past November to finish a 500-word essay on why I would be a good fit for Notre Dame's Washington Program and why the Washington Program would be a good fit for me.

Our introduction to 'philosophy'

Last semester, I helped a friend with her Introduction to Philosophy course. Like many Introduction to Philosophy courses at Notre Dame, it functioned primarily as an introduction to intellectual history and as an introduction to certain mind games. Such courses have instilled a general sense that philosophy is largely a waste of time. This sense is confirmed by students whose only exposure to philosophy is: "How do you really know that you exist?" For many, philosophy progresses in a series of pointless questions. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?

Notice men's basketball

If the Notre Dame men's basketball team defeats Cincinnati at Purcell Pavilion on Sunday, it will mark the fourth straight season in which the Irish have earned 10 wins in the Big East - a remarkable feat considering the conference has consistently stood atop college basketball during the past decade. It's a shame so many students have failed to notice. Irish coach Mike Brey's squad - which recently clinched its seventh consecutive 20-win season, the first time that feat has been accomplished in program history - has consistently competed among the conference's elite during his 13 seasons at the helm. But with Brey set to accomplish a personal milestone - four consecutive NCAA tournament berths for the first time in his coaching career - the student body has been mostly apathetic. Unless a marquee program like Kentucky, Syracuse or Louisville is in town, the student section of Purcell Pavilion is mostly a ghost town. Even the enticement of ESPN's "College GameDay" coming to campus could not attract a large student crowd, and the network's strategic camera angles could not hide the fact that the vast majority of seats were empty. The electric atmosphere of that evening's five-overtime thriller against Louisville carried little weight four days later when DePaul and Notre Dame played another overtime. For a program that is consistently among the best in what is typically the nation's best conference, the lack of support makes little sense. College basketball games are only two hours (with the exception of five-overtime tilts), which is the perfect amount of time for a midweek study break or a weekend activity. Even the price is affordable. When members of the Class of 2013 were freshmen, a student ticket booklet cost $100. This season, one could be purchased for $65. If you just attended the seven Big East games and the November matchup against Kentucky and chose not to attend the other non-conference games, it only cost a sliver more than $8 per game - affordable for even a college student. Sure, Notre Dame might not offer the best ticket policy and could offer some flexibility to students akin to other universities. Many students want to see Kentucky, Syracuse or Louisville, but they don't want to pay for games against Evansville and Monmouth in the process. It's not only the early non-conference attendance that suffers (that's somewhat to be expected because of the lack of many marquee matchups), but also the student attendance against quality programs like Villanova, Georgetown and Cincinnati - matchups that students should want to see. Selection Sunday is three weeks from Sunday, and the Irish are on the brink of clinching yet another bid into the field of 68 teams. Only two home games remain (Cincinnati and March 5 against St. John's), and Brey would no doubt welcome a gaggle of newcomers on the Notre Dame bandwagon as Jack Cooley and Scott Martin, who's currently sidelined with an injury, close out their Irish careers. There's no doubt Notre Dame's a football school, but the quality teams Brey continues to develop are worthy of more of a showing from the student body. See if you can snag a last-minute ticket or find a friend with season tickets who might have lost interest. Use it as a midterm study break or as some time you set aside to enjoy yourself for the week. But take the time to notice before the end of another entertaining season has passed.