Opinion
The morality of Mitt
By
The Observer
· Monday, Oct. 29, 2012
The vast differences between each presidential candidate's life journey strongly influences the ways in which they decide to lead and steer our country. The manner in which President Obama or Mitt Romney will run this country is highly dependent upon various factors, one of the most important being each man's moral compass. President Obama, with roots in community organizing and law, grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia in a middle-class family as a minority. Meanwhile, Romney is privileged and was raised in an affluent family and had a career in business before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in 2003. Consequently, President Obama and Mitt Romney hold vastly different worldviews - worldviews that strongly impact the way that they view the citizens of this country and the world. Similarly, each man's position in society influenced his respective moral code. Being a part of the privileged, upper class has undoubtedly impacted Romney's bid for presidency, as the average American does not earn approximately $250 million. His massive wealth disconnects him from the reality of American citizens in the poor and middle class. His crafted tales of alleged struggle are key indicators of his blindness to the often-grim realities of those that are not prosperous. Romney maintains a sincere belief in an American Dream that is not completely attainable by all Americans. We are not all born on equal socioeconomic footing from which to pursue this "dream" and he ignores this. Mitt Romney's potential policies and current ideology on issues like women's rights, education, immigration and the economy indicate a lack of compassion and disregard for struggling Americans. This is an ethical failure. He lacks the morals that the leader of a diverse, complex country must have. The President is not the Pope, but he does need the character and ethics to view our country through a lens of compassion and recognize the marginalized and disadvantaged. His campaign champions creating jobs for Americans and supporting small businesses. Given his inconsistencies and flip-flopping on essential issues like equal pay for women, contraception rights and education, can we really believe this? When viewed through a moral lens, Romney's continuous dishonesty and lack of true conviction points to a lack of rooted principles and moral consciousness. Before Romney lessens our country's deficit, he must relieve his own moral deficiency. We cannot fault Mitt Romney for being born into a wealthy family and we cannot fault his business savvy. Being rich does not automatically diagnose you as morally bankrupt, the same way that being poor does not inevitably indicate laziness. However, we can fault Mitt Romney for his lack of compassion for less-fortunate individuals. Need I mention the 47 percent? Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's disregard for the poor, education, women, immigrants and global citizenship is a moral issue. Unless you are a wealthy, white male, Mitt Romney does not hold your interests at stake. If Mitt Romney is elected, he will have to learn the hard way that what worked for him and people like him does not work for all Americans. He must value the interests of all Americans, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, creed, sexuality or legal status. Furthermore, U.S. Catholic Bishops and Catholic nuns have sharply rebuked Paul Ryan's proposed House Republican budget that includes cuts to hunger and nutrition programs that aid poor and working-class Americans. The Bishops called these proposed cuts "unacceptable," "unjustified" and "wrong." The Catholic sisters participating on a tour to protest Ryan's budget, Nuns on the Bus, say on their website: "We cannot stand by silently when the U.S. Congress considers further enriching the wealthiest Americans at the expense of struggling, impoverished families." While Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have found relative success in other arenas, they are not qualified to lead this country because they are unsympathetic toward the struggle of real Americans. Obama is by no means perfect. However, his accurate understanding of the poor and marginalized and of minorities is what makes him a qualified leader for our complex country and is due to his character, experiences and upbringing in the middle class. Neither the trickle-down economic approach nor the trickle-down presidential approach will work. We do not need a president who is too disconnected, too privileged and too untethered from the American reality to adequately lead our country. President Obama insists helping the poor and supporting the middle class is going to move our country forward. He is right. As Mahatma Gandhi said: "Man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare of his fellow men." In order to win the election, Mitt Romney is going to have to work for all men - and all women. We need an approach that recognizes the dignity of all Americans and all humans. We need Barack Obama for president. Leila Green can be reached at lgreen2@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Post-racial rhetoric won't work
By
The Observer
· Monday, Oct. 29, 2012
Racialized rhetoric has been at the forefront of public conversation both nationally and at Notre Dame. It surrounded events such as the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the Town Hall meeting last spring to discuss instances of racial harassment on campus. All of these occurrences have raised a series of questions: Is race still an issue? Do we create racial tension by bringing it up in conversation? Have we reached a post-racial society? A recent Letter to the Editor in The Observer ("Segregation at the tabernacle," Sept. 3) made the case that we live in a post-racial society and that bringing up race only furthers any divisions: "By focusing incoming freshmen on their race, we are not 'unifying' them with the rest of campus. Until Notre Dame stops classifying its students by race or orientation, the campus will have problems. We, as Notre Dame, are not made up of 'white students,' 'black students,' 'gay students,' etc. No. We are Notre Dame." The intention behind this statement - a vision of a post-racial Notre Dame - is one of unity. This argument represents an individual assimilation model, which suggests that racial identities would not play any significant role in the incorporation, whether socio-economic, political, etc., of people into broader communities. The model suggests that racial divides would be diminished if proponents of policies, such as multiculturalism, that emphasize race would stop their advocations. It suggests that prejudices and their concrete consequences can passively dissolve over time, and that ultimately, everyone, regardless of race, assimilates to the community, whether to American society or to Notre Dame's. However, there are problems in adhering to an individual assimilation perspective and in arguing that post-racial rhetoric is needed to bridge the racial divide. The following criticisms acknowledge that race is a social construct. However, they also recognize that it has pervaded societies and manufactured realities that bolster structural inequality. The "perception" of race has created consequences that are all too real and very recognizable. Post-racial ideology assumes that these consequences are eliminated psychologically by requiring the oppressed to forget the past wrongs that have been done to them. This assumes it is even a possibility, and practically requires the oppressed to accept the institutional inequality is in fact a "new normal." Notice, however, how both of these options place all responsibility on the non-dominant paradigmatic group. This leads to the first criticism: An individual assimilation model subtly assumes there is a point of equilibrium to which people assimilate. However, the dominant paradigm, in the Notre Dame context, is white, upper-middle class, straight male. This first assumption is in the phrase, "we are not 'unifying' them with the rest of campus," as if the "rest of campus" is a de-racialized one, and all who choose to step outside it, even registered students, are no longer part of "Notre Dame." The second criticism is that an individual assimilation model assumes a level of equality in historical experiences that influence opportunity in society. Whatever inequality and oppression that currently do exist are the results of perceived psychological oppression rather than actual physical oppression, and are, therefore, the fault of the oppressed. There is no physically descriptive, normative value to "American society" or "Notre Dame;" however, by arguing that we live in a post-racial society, we fail to appreciate the historical injustices towards different groups, and we add insult to injury the moment we ascertain that those experiences should be set aside in order for assimilation into the dominant paradigm. The third criticism is that an individual assimilation model assumes that silence, or the idea of "the best way to end racism is to stop talking about race," is the best means to overcome such inequality. Silence never works to eliminate oppression, whether physical, psychological or structural, because silence reinforces a status quo that is inherently unequal. If the intention of "unification," for which I believe we should all strive, is to be reached, post-racial rhetoric will not work. What is needed is a pluralist model, which does not place the burden of responsibility to actively create a unified community solely on the shoulders of the historically marginalized and regularly silenced. This model needs to address the causes of structural inequality of opportunity rather than to silence all efforts. This model is not one where racial differences do not matter, but where racial differences are not subjugated to one another. Such a model encourages conversation and coalition building, and states that racial distinctions, as components of self-identity, actually provide a participatory outlet for incorporation in a broader society. If we want unity, in American society or at Notre Dame, the process by which we achieve it must not be community-critical, but community-based. Alex Coccia is a junior Africana and Peace Studies major, and a Gender Studies minor. He appreciates classroom conversations in Black Politics in Multiracial America. He can be reached at acoccia@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Top 10 Halloween costumes
By
The Observer
· Monday, Oct. 29, 2012
Today is one of my favorite holidays of the year (behind St. Patrick's Day and the first football game of the season, of course.) Halloween is a time of candy, horror and humor, and sometimes it's tough coming up with the right costume. So you don't pull a Cady Heron from "Mean Girls" and show up in a completely socially unacceptable costume, here is my list of the top 10 costumes of the year. 10. The Tune Squad. "Space Jam" is one of my all time favorite movies, and any group that puts together the Tune Squad to take down the Monstars is an accomplishment. Bonus points for having Michael Jordan show up. 9. Memes in real life. Over the past few years, memes have become an accepted form of communication and social commentary. Memes in real life, "Overly Attached Girlfriend" or "Good Guy Greg," for instance are both relevant and hilarious. I personally will be "Ridiculously Photogenic Guy." 8. The Avengers. The biggest blockbuster of the summer provides half a dozen easy costume ideas if you're going solo or as a team if you have a band of five guys. Plus, you'll be needed to take down number 7 ... 7. Bane. It's not important what your costume is; what matters is your plan. Just kidding. Practice his voice if you want to pull this off, though. 6. Aladdin. Disney classics never go out of style, and we all know Aladdin is not only the greatest Disney movie but also the studliest character of all time. Speaking from experience, 60 percent of the time this costume works every time. 5. Anyone from our defensive front seven. Our defense has been scary good through the first eight games, and any team's offense would tremble at the sight of you. One of my personal favorite "College GameDay" posters was, "Why was 6 afraid of 7? Because 7 is StephonTuitt." 4. McKaylaMaroney. Spend Halloween being unimpressed with everyone as the gymnastics star famously was after getting the silver medal. 3. Romney/Obama. Politics are always a frightful sight, and it's always easy to poke fun at the two presidential candidates. Don't forget to bring a binder full of women if you try to be Romney. 2. Hurricane Sandy. The winds and rain have been terrifying even in the Midwest, a thousand miles away from the Hurricane's epicenter. Too soon though? 1. Psy. Gangnam Style. Contact AnkurChawla at achawla@nd.edu The views expressed in the Inside Column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Romney for president
By
The Observer
· Monday, Oct. 29, 2012
I don't love Mitt Romney, but I am going to vote for him.
Speak up
By
The Observer
· Monday, Oct. 29, 2012
Two weeks ago, a former student at Amherst College published a detailed account of her sexual assault and the administration's subsequent failure to address her needs. Within 24 hours, the president of the College released a statement outlining immediate changes to the College's sexual assault policy. This sequence of events reveals the palpable power of speech, a founding ideal of our nation. The American Civil War was fought in part to secure the freedom of speech in the political arena. Today, American citizens can voice political dissent, thanks to freedom of speech. Citizens residing in censorship-prone nations fight tooth and nail to secure the freedom of speech, to give voice to the truth. Even the ancient Greeks wrote tomes dedicated to the power of orators. One would think, since we live in a country where even the Ku Klux Klan is given the freedom to voice their hateful ideology, we would take advantage of this precious right. But more often than not, we remain silent. We offer many excuses for such silence. Sometime people choose silence to remain "polite." Other times people choose silence because they believe their opinion to be a minority one, and fear social reprimand or isolation. And who can blame them, for in a majority-rules society, a minority voice doesn't even matter, right? Wrong. The amount of academia refuting this deterministic "majority-rules" mindset is overwhelming. On one level, society is largely familiar with the all-too-common phenomenon of the vocal minority and silent majority - the phenomenon that inspired the Progressive Student Association's 4 to 5 Movement. But on an even deeper level, society must become aware of the mutability of opinion when faced with so much as a single dissenting voice. Social psychologist Serge Moscovici dedicated his life to studying the power of the minority voice. Moscovici executed a revolutionary and often-replicated psychological experiment in which a substantial portion of a group of people chose obviously wrong answers to questions, simply because a clandestine confederate within the group spoke up in defense of the wrong answers. His findings indicated that having one single voice of dissent in a group of people can substantially change the viewpoints of other people within the group. If the minority voice can be that powerful when wrong, imagine how much more power it carries when right. Despite this reassurance, some individuals may still choose to remain "politely" silent. They claim that it is better to "let it go" than to create conflict. But even this excuse is questionable. Our very own Kelsey Manning recently wrote an article for NextGen Journal discussing the damaging effect of derogatory language, especially in reference to the pervasive use of phrases such as "that's so gay," or "that's so retarded" on our own campus. Frequently, those who would experience the damaging effects of derogatory language, such as the young woman from Amherst, are not in a psychologically stable enough position to feel comfortable speaking out, and as a result such victims rely on allies. But all too often, we remain silent when our peers use derogatory or damaging language, or make jokes we find distasteful. Certainly, our peers have the freedom to say whatsoever they choose, but we, too, have the freedom to speak up when we are insulted. To speak up in response to insulting language is to create inception, to plant the idea that perhaps we ought to be mindful of language. And if you fear you may lose a friend by speaking up and, for example, expressing your distaste at their use of the word "retarded," you must ask yourself if a friend who values his "freedom without criticism" (not a real freedom) to use a frankly uncreative slur over your friendship, is worth keeping as a friend. Freedom of speech is internationally recognized as a basic human right. It may be the case that you completely disagree with the views I have presented in this column concerning the damaging effect of derogatory language, and if so, I encourage you to speak up. We as individuals learn and grow when faced with new perspectives. Alternatively, some of you may simply wish to use your freedom of speech to insult, and as Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But I, too, will not hesitate to use my freedom of speech to tell you exactly how I feel. Mia Lillis is a junior political science and philosophy major who is also pursuing a business-economics minor. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Hypocrisy of Obama
By
The Observer
· Monday, Oct. 29, 2012
Leila Green wrote in her Oct. 30 article, "The Morality of Mitt," that "Obama is by no means perfect." This concluded her criticism of the president's morality, as she took the president at his word regarding his support for freedom, equal rights and dedication to alleviating poverty. However, a thorough analysis requires less attention to rhetoric and more attention to reality.
On failure
By
The Observer
· Monday, Oct. 29, 2012
Sports offer the opportunity to excel. Successful players can gain glory and wealth in excessive quantities. Ordinary people can become household names and athletes can even transcend the sport they dedicate their lives to. Unfortunately, sport also offers the possibility of failure. Monumental, heartbreaking failure befalls a subset of athletes who never fulfill their potential. For those who are turned away at the threshold of success, the failure is especially devastating. Several recent events have emphasized this fact. Three separate cases, with three completely separate sets of circumstances and actors, have hammered home what it feels like when transcendent athletes do what the public could never imagine: fail. The story of Benjamin Wilson, a top high-school basketball project from Chicago, addressed this very phenomenon in last Tuesday's installment of ESPN's "30-for-30" documentaries. "Benji" described Wilson's meteroic rise into the national spotlight and his subsequent murder in 1984 - he was shot and killed near his high school. Wilson did not so much fail as he was robbed of his future. Those interviewed in the film relay the sense that Wilson was supposed to have been the best of the city. The residents felt Wilson's success could reflect in some small way on them, that they could share in his triumph. His death instead became a stark representation of promise unfulfilled. Last Thursday the road to redemption of Tyrann Mathieu took what could turn out to be a damning blow. The former LSU football star was arrested, along with three other former Tigers, on drug charges after being found with marijuana in Baton Rouge. The Honey Badger, after forcing his way into Heisman discussion last season, has become another reminder of how tenuous athletic success can be. Not a victim of external forces, Mathieu has simply proven himself to be unable to handle the responsibilities that come with sports fame. South Carolina senior running back Marcus Lattimore suffered a gruesome knee injury Saturday against Tennessee. A preseason Heisman contender, Lattimore suffered his second season-ending injury in as many seasons. For Lattimore, and less so for Mathieu, the prospects for recovery seem bright. For Wilson, however, the path to success was permanently halted. These headlines are dark news for all of us in that their main characters could have been the best. Wilson's death remains tragic, Matthieu's recklessness is disappointing despite its status as a product of individual weakness and Lattimore's pain is our pain. Those who revel in the other-worldly success of athletes better be willing to stick around for the failures that come part and parcel.
URM debate
By
The Observer
· Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012
As many of you know, "Fisher vs. University of Texas," a case that could determine the future of affirmative action in the U.S., is currently before the Supreme Court. This case has brought the debate over affirmative action to the forefront of the public consciousness. I am going to join this debate by arguing that the practice of accepting "under-represented minority" (URM, in college admissions parlance) applicants with weaker records of academic achievement than non-URMs harms the very people it aims to benefit. First, it curbs URMs' academic achievement by placing them in difficult and discouraging environments where they are less likely to succeed than their counterparts. Second, it perpetuates negative stereotypes about the academic abilities of URMs by populating colleges and universities at all levels of selectivity with URM students that are less qualified than the rest of the student body. All colleges and universities want to build diverse student bodies and to welcome people into the academic community from groups that have traditionally been denied access to higher education. Sadly, the disproportionately high poverty rates of certain races in this country have resulted in fewer members of these races being able to qualify for admission to elite universities than these universities would like to admit. To make up for this difference, universities have been accepting URM students who would not ordinarily qualify for admission. For example, URMs admitted to Duke University scored an average of 140 points, or twelve percentiles (96th vs. 84th), lower on the SAT than non-URM admitted students. The SAT is only one measure of college readiness, but the study by three Duke University economists from which I took that number shows equally large disparities across all other categories that admissions counselors use to evaluate students. Likewise, other studies have shown that similar achievement gaps exist between URM and non-URM students at other universities, and not just the elite ones. Therefore, the URM students who show up on campus are less qualified, and therefore less prepared for college, than their classmates. Proponents of affirmative action say that these less-prepared URMs universities admit to balance their racial compositions may face a rough start when they first get to college, but will quickly adjust and begin to fit in academically like any other students. The Duke study, however, demonstrates that this does not occur. It found that URMs are more than twice as likely to switch from "harder" majors (determined by average GPA and time spent studying) to "easier" ones. The study found that the majority of students who changed majors were passing their classes when they switched, so they did not leave because they could not handle their original courses of study. Rather, the authors of the study and I agree that the struggling URM students likely changed their majors because they felt that they "did not belong" in classes where they saw the other students consistently outperform. Instead of showing them that they are as good as anyone else and that they can achieve anything they want to, being accepted to universities they would not ordinarily qualify to attend shows URM students that for the next four years, they will be a cut below their peers academically and that they cannot pursue the most challenging subjects their school offers without humiliation and frustration. Excellence and mediocrity, therefore, come to characterize different racial communities within the university. This is the opposite of what affirmative action is supposed to achieve. If universities admitted only those URMs who were fully qualified to attend, there would be fewer URMs on the campuses of America's elite universities, but each would know that he had his university's full confidence that he could study anything with anyone. The other students would see these URMs performing at or above their own level and recognize that traditionally marginalized students can be just as intellectually capable. Furthermore, the less selective universities that educate the vast majority of America's college graduates would not have their own qualified URM applicants stolen from them by the "elite" schools and would also be able to admit only those URMs who qualified. Education is about much more than the name on one's diploma. It's time to start placing under-represented minority students in the educational environments they need to achieve their full human potential instead of stunting their academic achievements for the sake of promoting artificial diversity. Elliott Pearce can be reached at Elliott.A.Pearce.12@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
NTDs
By
The Observer
· Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012
ND Fighting Neglected Tropical Diseases was born four years ago out of a simple reality: NTDs can be treated for just 50 cents per person per year, but no one really knows these diseases exist. The members of ND Fighting NTDs feel this reality needs to change. NTDs are a group of seven easily treatable but devastating diseases that cause blindness, grotesquely swollen limbs, malnutrition, mental retardation and intestinal cancers. All seven are easily preventable with medicine already developed and donated by major pharmaceutical companies. The main obstacle is the cost associated with distribution, a cost of 50 cents a year for each of the 1.4 billion suffering people. This week is our third annual NTD Awareness Week. Event highlights include a Slumdog Millionaire movie watch in Keough Hall tonight at 7 p.m., and our Harry Potter Trivia Night on Tuesday. On Thursday we host an "Avenues to Africa" open house in the LaFortune Student Center, and on Friday stop by our Global Health Panel with free lunch at noon in Coleman Morse Center. We have two fundraisers this week: On Wednesday, 10 percent of any purchase you make at Five Guys on Eddy Street will be donated to NTDs if you put your receipt in the marked box next to the cashier. Students will be collecting money from their dormmates. I look forward to seeing you all this week help ND Fighting NTDs work for the dignity of 1.4 billion lives. Eileen Lynch senior Ryan Hall Oct. 29
Great Pumpkin
By
The Observer
· Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012
What is Halloween? Is it a pagan festival to celebrate demonic spirits and deceased ancestors? Is it a release before the solemnity of All Saint's Day, in the spirit of Mardi Gras? Is it a manufactured holiday created and maintained by Mars, Inc. and other players in 'Big Candy'? I think, in the end, we can all agree it's a celebration centered on a giant, sentient pumpkin flying through the air and bringing toys to children. Yes, I'm talking about the Great Pumpkin, the magnificent orange squash that appears only once a year to a lucky few. You may not know about the Great Pumpkin, but that's only because he doesn't get the same publicity as a certain jolly Coca-Cola spokesman. Without corporate sponsorship or catchy songs, and with only one profile-raising movie, he has a limited following. However, the Great Pumpkin's devotees remain undeterred, even in the face of derision from the spectacular vegetable's main cynics: beagles and sisters. In fact, the Great Pumpkin appears to relish his obscurity. He actively avoids large audiences, choosing to rise only out of the single most sincere pumpkin patch and distributing his gifts only among the well-behaved and sincere. Join me in the pumpkin patch to wait for the Great Pumpkin to arise. Don't join us if you don't sincerely believe. Also, it might take all night, but he will definitely show ... probably. Here's an idea of the festivities: 8 to 9 p.m.: Arrive and make sure to find a comfortable spot. 9 to 11 p.m.: Wait in cheerful anticipation. 11:11 p.m.: Regress to maturity of high school student. 12 a.m.: Separate group by gender. 12 to 12:06 a.m.: Complain about temperature. 12:07 a.m.: "Was that . . . no it was nothing." 12:08 to 2 a.m.: Wait in increasingly irritable anticipation. 2 to 2:05:55 a.m.: Hum Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody to self. 2:05:55 to 2:30 a.m.: Wonder if the Great Pumpkin has food and or is edible. 2:30 a.m. to 3 a.m.: Wait in increasingly sleepy anticipation. 3:15 to 3:45 a.m.: Collectively discover and subsequently forget answers to all of life's questions. 4 a.m to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. 9:15 a.m.: Blend in to equally sluggish, disheveled and previous-night-regretful student body as they go to class. Finally, it can get chilly out there, so don't forget to bring your blanket. Contact Christian Myers at cmyers8@nd.edu The views expressed in the Inside Column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Venturing into the neighborhood
By
The Observer
· Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012
Notre Dame's campus is a bubble. For those who live here and do not have the luxury of a car, it would appear the University and campus is self-sustaining. It has the necessities - housing, food, classes and a long list of extracurricular activities. It incredibly easy to forget about the outside world, especially about what it is going on in South Bend, the University's backyard. For the most part, I would argue that Notre Dame students are blessed financially. Tuition is not cheap and scholarships are few and far between. The majority of students are here not only for their academic and athletic achievements, but because their families are able to financially support them. Yes, there is financial aid, but that does not change the fact that tuition is steep. Due to the fact that the student body has this background and that the campus is such a bubble, there is a concern that Notre Dame students are becoming elitists, that they are not exposed to the real world. It's a worry my parents had for me when sending me here. They knew the student body was not among the most diverse in regards to race, religion or economic class in the nation. However, though many students are coming from more privileged lifestyles back home, many have a background in community service. And not only do they have this background, but they are encouraged by the University and upperclassmen to further pursue service while on campus. This can be witnessed in the long list of service programs and organizations promoted on the beginning of the year's activities night. There are clubs and programs that cover everything from providing clean water overseas, to building homes throughout the U.S., to tutoring underprivileged kids in the community. I felt called to become involved with a community service program. A friend from home invited me to come to the program he had become involved with. So, I ventured outside the bubble to tutor South Bend kids one Monday afternoon. The program is called Teamwork for Tomorrow and meets twice a week for a couple of hours in an old church 10 minutes from campus. There, Notre Dame student tutors meet with elementary school kids to help them in reading and other schoolwork. After tutoring, there's always gym time or free time for the tutors and students. A couple of weeks ago while the boys were playing dodgeball in the gym, I was drawing with the girls. A friend and I starting making "cootie catchers" out of the construction paper. One person holds the cootie catcher and asks the questions printed on the sides of the origami, while the other chooses among the answers. Some prediction or fortune is eventually revealed for the person answering the questions. My friend was wearing a Disney World sweatshirt that day, so we made one of the predictions, "You will visit Disney World." One of the young girls happened to get that prediction and immediately asked, "Really?" It was almost heartbreaking as my friend explained to this seven-year-old that she would not actually be going. I would argue that a large majority of Notre Dame students have been to Disney World. And if they haven't, I would also argue that many Notre Dame students have been on at least one vacation. However, almost all of the kids at Teamwork for Tomorrow have never been out of the Michiana area. None of them have been to Disney World. That day I realized the disparity between Notre Dame and South Bend. South Bend is a small town whose economy is heavily reliant on the neighboring university. This fact places an enormous responsibility on the University and its students. Students cannot forget about the outside world during their time here. It's never too early to start giving back; the Notre Dame community owes it to South Bend to venture outside the bubble and step into our backyard. Molly Howell is a freshman anthropology and international economics major, as well as a gender studies minor. She can be reached at mhowell5@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Diss-appearance
By
The Observer
· Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012
You don't get a second chance to make a first impression. Researchers have found that people make an initial judgment of one another within the first three seconds of meeting. Talk about pressure.
Trust your training
By
The Observer
· Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012
Running is relatively low key - all you need is a pair of shoes (or no shoes, but that's another article), and you can run almost anywhere in the world. Just talk to Notre Dame senior and last year's Holy Half champion Ian Montijo, who often ran at 5 a.m. in the desert heat of Oman last summer. One of my favorite ways to explore a new city is by running its streets, and I try to take part in a different race whenever I am home from school. This fall break, I participated in the Run Like Hell Half Marathon, a Halloween-themed race in my hometown of Portland, Ore.
Bring back the Offbeat
By
The Observer
· Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012
Back when I was a young whipper-snapper (read-until this semester), The Observer ran a hilarious, entertaining and surprisingly informative section.
Trust your training
By
The Observer
· Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012
Running is relatively low key - all you need is a pair of shoes (or no shoes, but that's another article), and you can run almost anywhere in the world. Just talk to Notre Dame senior and last year's Holy Half champion Ian Montijo, who often ran at 5 a.m. in the desert heat of Oman last summer. One of my favorite ways to explore a new city is by running its streets, and I try to take part in a different race whenever I am home from school. This fall break, I participated in the Run Like Hell Half Marathon, a Halloween-themed race in my hometown of Portland, Ore.
CEO of Me, Inc.
By
The Observer
· Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012
Some students, especially those with younger siblings, may know of VeggieTales, a children's animated video series featuring Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber. At the end of each video, Bob the Tomato addresses the viewers by saying: "Remember kids, God made you special and He loves you very much." In addition to being a healthy message for kids, we can use this sentiment to help us in our career planning efforts; indeed, God did make you special. Each person is a unique creation, and we each have special gifts and talents.
A reason for our routines
By
The Observer
· Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012
At Mass a couple of Mondays ago, we read the Gospel of the parable of the Good Samaritan. As I proclaimed it during Mass, I did so with some worry. We have all heard this parable so many times that I feared the congregation would tune out as soon as I read the parable's well-known opening line: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and was attacked by robbers." I was afraid others might become distracted, mainly because I found myself doing the same as I read that morning! My mind quickly summarized the remainder: two men pass him by because they're too busy, then a Samaritan, who doesn't get along with Jews, sees him and takes care of him. "Got it, we need to be more like him."
N.D. weather
By
The Observer
· Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012
As I write this column, it is currently 77 degrees. In South Bend. In late October. Which means it's a perfect time for me to talk about one of the most notorious aspects of Notre Dame life: the weather.
Media influences foreign policy
By
The Observer
· Monday, Oct. 22, 2012
I became enraged in 2010 when Floridian pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn the Qur'an and put Americans abroad at risk of violent retaliation. My brother, in Pakistan working with a humanitarian aid project, was moved to a secure location. Even after the President addressed the issue and Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a personal phone call to the pastor, America was uncertain if the man and his 60-person congregation would follow through with their hate crime. The Qur'an later underwent a 'trial' in 2011 and was burned as 'punishment' by Pastor Jones. This act of hate inspired violent riots and attacks throughout Afghanistan. A hate crime in the U.S. is defined as "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Granted, everyone is entitled to hate. America does not label "hatred" as a crime. However, it becomes a crime when citizens are hurt in response to that hate. We are used to the idea that hate crimes are direct actions against a particular group. Burning a church or shooting someone of a particular ethnicity is easily classifiable as a hate crime. What responsibility do we have when the hate act causes indirect acts of violence? When social media gets involved the lines become blurred. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in regards to Internet freedom, "viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat [underground press] of our day". The mock movie trailer "Innocence of Muslims" went viral and influenced riots and the deaths of non-Muslims and Muslims alike across the globe. Should the video have been censored because past situations have led to similar results of violent retaliation? Is so, how can a state determine if a video, comic, etc. will become "viral" and go global? "Innocence of Muslims" is not the first hateful and inflammatory depiction of Islam to hit the web. Therein lies our challenge; understanding how social media has begun to influence and incite acts of hatred on a global scale. We must decide how we are going to take responsibility for ensuring respect and safety on equal levels and preventing further deaths. The influence that social media has on public safety and foreign policy cannot be ignored. Margot Morris senior off campus Oct. 22
Trending
