— STAFF EDITORIALS —
Changes will stop the waste
After becoming the president of Xavier, Fr. Michael Graham, S.J. established Academic Day, most anticipated Tuesday of the year.
But while many students sleep off their Monday nights deep into Tuesday, the faculty, staff and administrators at Xavier are expected to “explore and critically discuss issues and themes relevant to academic excellence at Xavier,” according to Xavier’s website.
Unfortunately, it seems that the growing sentiment among professors is that the discussion is rather lacking. One professor remarked that instead of talking to each other, “We are talked to.”
What’s more, the recent focus of Academic Day has been on the impending reaccreditation of the university, which sounds a little dull.
Perhaps, then, it’s no surprise that attendance at Academic Day is lacking. One professor called it “a waste of a day if no one shows up.” Another advised students instead to meet for a group project that day.
There are a couple of ways to address this problem of absence.
One would be to make Academic Day mandatory, but the Newswire feels that this solution would only make attendees bitter and even more disinterested, and is frighteningly impractical.
Another option is to cancel it, and address the principally administrative issues of the event during meetings when classes do not meet.
The only true course of action, though, is to open up the discussions and to pick more interesting topics. We are much more interested in the specialized research of our favorite members of Xavier’s faculty than we are in the tedium of higher education accreditation. A conversation between experts in a given field would likely pique our interest as well.
What better way to address the academic issues of our university than allowing open discussion of values, ideas and direction for the university? If the themes were things faculty and staff wanted to discuss, there would undoubtedly be more interest.
And let’s face it, if the university isn’t on track to getting its accreditation renewed, a bunch of talking heads urging a change won’t make much of a difference.
X’s shadow won’t dim Norwood
While some of the students over 21 may be lamenting the death of karaoke night at Randy’s now that it has closed, the transfer of the liquor license to Betta’s is a wonderful thing. Not only can we enjoy wine with our pasta and beer with our pizza, but a local business can finally spread its wings in the shadow of an ever-growing university.
Betta’s expansion is good for the DeLuca family (who got shafted after losing, predictably, a bidding war with Xavier for the Norwood Café) and for Norwood as well, because a thriving business is good for any community.
It also means that people like Will DeLuca are not letting Xavier take over and push out the locals. While we’re all for the university making expansions and improvements (even though we’re sad not to be around when they are finished), those changes should not cripple Norwood.
After all, what Xavier experience is complete without off-campus parties, walks to the UDF or visiting the new Chipotle? None. Norwood has a symbiotic relationship with Xavier, but we’re glad to see it thriving on its own too. And yes, we are going to continue to urge Xavier to follow that whole “love thy neighbor” thing that’s published in some important book somewhere because, to put it simply, we love Norwood.
Whose faith is it anyway?
Darren LaCour
Op/Ed Editor
Like many Americans, I consider myself to be pretty religious. And boy, am I a target for politicians.
An interesting phenomenon has swept our incompetent and debilitating two-party system, causing Republicans and Democrats to believe that anyone who identifies him or herself as “religious” must think a certain way.
For some reason, a lot of us common folk have been convinced.
So while the Republicans are busy pandering the “Religious Right” and the Democrats are desperately trying to show how irreligious the Republicans really are, I’ve been seriously thinking about how both of these parties try to tie faith into their campaigns. And the questions just keep on coming.
Who’s to say whose lives are more important? Why should we value the unborn over those already born? Enemy civilians over the elderly? The poor over the rich? Others over ourselves?
Why does religious tolerance amount to religious silence? If I believe something wholeheartedly, wouldn’t I be compelled to share it with others, even if they hold different views?
How can someone champion the right to life from conception to natural death while simultaneously championing war and the execution of criminals?
Are we claiming that bullets and lethal injections are the “natural ends” for certain individuals?
How can someone be expected to keep religion completely outside of politics when devout faith demands that religion seep into every facet of that person’s life? Doesn’t a politician whose supposed convictions do not influence his decisions strike you as a politician who isn’t committed to anything?
Why are politicians so preoccupied with preventing terrorism and using scare tactics to create anxiety in the minds of the American people when “be not afraid” was Jesus’ most-uttered phrase? What are we really afraid of?
Why should morality be scrapped from government and law when all we hear about is how our corrupt lawmakers and greedy business executives are sending this country straight to Hell?
If God appointed us as stewards of the Earth, why is it a bad idea to take care of it? Sure it may be expensive, and it might create jobs and innovation, but isn’t it even better for us if the air is cleaner?
And while all these questions have been racing through my mind, there have been two that really vex me, that make me want to figure out what’s really behind all this double-speak and these phony images.
How can a party that emphasizes personal choice force me to give my money to the needy? Seems like an interesting twist to me: “Make your own personal decisions, do what makes you happy. We can’t tell you how to live. But your money? That’s not really yours, per se... You really need to give it back, because people need your help.” I don’t know about you, but I consider my hard earned money to be one of the few things that I actually consider to belong to me, especially if we’re coming from a secular worldview.
Of course on the other side of the fence, it’s just as silly to assume that even though people can’t make moral decisions unless they are restricted by laws, they’ll help those in need without any prodding.
And that, interestingly enough, leads me to my last question. Does criminalizing sin change people’s hearts? In the New Testament, I seem to recall that Jesus and Paul had a bit of beef with the Law because the people observing it had completely forgotten the point, which was that devotion to the Law would bring them closer to God. Granted, I am Catholic, so I may be way off base with what’s actually in the Bible, right? But still, it seems like sending people to jail because they aren’t living up to God’s commandments isn’t the way to God. Following God comes from making the choice to follow Him, and outlawing the alternative outlaws the choice.
So who’s got it right? Well, nobody. Unfortunately, those of us who are “religious” have to make a choice between platforms that get half the stuff right. So whose side am I on? That’s an easy one, so perhaps a more pertinent question would be “Whose side is HE on?” That’s another easy one, though.
He’s on ours.
It’s a mad world
Andrew Chestnut
Editorial Columnist
The world is completely insane right now, which you probably know already, but let’s take a second to recap:
This has been the strangest presidential election in recent history. The fact that Sarah Palin basically got plucked from the obscurity of Alaskan governorship and could be one of John McCain’s 72-year-old heartbeats away from sitting on the button is bewildering. The fact that Tina Fey is arguably one of the most powerful women in the country is perplexing. The fact that “Saturday Night Live” is important again—and funny—is nothing short of bizarre.
The fact that hardly anybody outside of Fox News is talking about Barack Obama’s ethnicity is surprising. Many of us assumed his blackness would become the number one issue of the whole election, but it’s not even in the top 20.
The fact that our economy could soon be in the biggest recession since the Great Depression or on its way to recovery (and no one has any idea)—dependent on a bail-out strategy that has literally never happened before in history—is, obviously, a little unprecedented. The Dow Jones average is getting to be more temperamental and unreliable than Time Warner’s internet service.
Even the Tampa Rays are legitimately looking at winning the World Series. When that happens, you know that the times are changing.
As complex and unpredictable as everything is, things will only get weirder, and I am left wondering a number of things.
Is it worth the stress and confusion of paying attention when everything is so mercurial, contentious and depressing?
Are things always like this? Is everything always changing and evolving so rapidly, and does it just seem like it now because everyone is paying attention and forcing so much information through their heads at once? I don’t think it just seems this way. This country (and the rest of the world) is in a hyper-realized transitional period between the incumbent-less election and the turbulent financial situation. Whether Barack Obama wins the election or not, change will happen. This sweeping evolution is extremely critical and opaque, which demands that I draw some general themes out of its complexion:
All of this could go really well or really poorly. It seems both candidates have a chance to affect positive change or totally drop the ball. Starting some time around Jan. 20, 2009, someone will have to start actually doing something about climate change, fixing health care, paying off the cataclysmic national debt and getting money together for the next few decades of Social Security.
Whatever happens in the coming weeks—especially with the banking bail-out and the election—will have a tremendous impact on the next few decades. People seem to realize this, at least as it is reflected by the national media. Nobody seems to be talking about which candidate is cuter or with whom it would be more fun to have a beer; more people than normal seem to prefer talk of the chaotic economy to the latest installments of Britney Spears’ hilarious tragedy of a life.
Even the presidential debates were rational and dignified, breaking the trend of senseless, crap-laden spectacles from elections past.
Hopefully this collective intellectual ascent continues long enough to elect executives and congressional leaders who will address these issues in the interest of citizens rather than lobby groups, who will bring competence and effectiveness into office rather than the corruption and short-sightedness that we have been conditioned to expect.
Hopefully, we will have reason to exchange the rampant, universal cynicism that will come to define this decade for the optimism that characterized the ‘90s. Hopefully, if we have something better to look at, we might want to keep paying attention.
— LETTERS TO THE EDITOR—
Tactful politics
From the perspective of the College Democrats Executive Board, election time is one of the most exciting times of the year. We are excited to foster democracy on campus and support our political party. We look forward to working very hard over the next five weeks to promote activism among this very important demographic and to encourage Xavier students to be informed voters.
As a club, we are supporting the campaign of Senators Obama and Biden wholeheartedly, and we hope to do this in an inclusive and professional manner, conducting ourselves at all times as representatives of Xavier University, as well as the young democratic population.
That being said, we would like to encourage all students involved with College Democrats, or any other student organization, to continue to be professional in their discussion of the campaign, as well as acknowledge that any advertisements and fliers on campus are reflective of the Xavier community.
As a Jesuit Institution, we are called to be men and women for others, and to engage in smear campaigns and negative advertising is not representative of the fundamental ideal that all Xavier University clubs and students should strive to uphold. In our personal discussions with classmates, we can feel free to say whatever we’d like about our opposing candidates. However, whenever we hang something on Xavier’s campus, it should be appropriate and respectful.
When this is all said and done, I hope that the political organizations on campus will be able to look back and be proud of the manner in which we conducted ourselves.
Caitlin Richter | ‘09
Absence of red
Now that there is an “Election 2008” tab on the Xavier portal, I have had the opportunity to read Xavier’s position on supporting the political process while it remains non-partisan. That was a relief, since the view on campus is quite different.
As a part-time MBA student, who has to “work for a living,” and “pay taxes,” among other adult “responsibilities,” I come to campus three nights a week for class, and I don’t enjoy being constantly confronted with the HopeNChange-y sentiment at every turn.
I understand undergrads are excited about their role in the civic process, and I understand that academia is overwhelmingly democratic. I’m not complaining about seeing the buttons on student backpacks or the stickers on the professors’ cars. Everyone’s entitled to that, and O’s aura is certainly charismatic and easy to get swept away by.
I’m complaining that the organized and sponsored events are Obama exclusive: demonstrations on the grass near GSC, a giant banner on the table as soon as I walk into GSC.
I just want to eat my dinner and go to class.
Xavier has a strong College Republican group, but where are they? Where is my hope when I walk through campus? Where is the change I can believe in when I eat dinner?
Jeff Stewart | MBA Student
Sports kerfuffle
I was very surprised to learn that our club football team beat the Cincinnati Skyhawks semi-pro team (“State of the Union: Cincinnati Sports,” Oct. 1 2008). I am on the team and did not hear a thing about even scheduling them, so you can imagine how shocked I was to find out we had beat them without even playing a down. How much of a bright spot can it be when we beat a team from Cincinnati, which apparently is home only to bad teams?
I also find problems with Mr. Tifft listing the arrests and injuries to UC players as bad things. We go to XAVIER. In case he did not know, Xavier and UC are rivals, so bad things happening to them serves our best interest. I am not wishing actual harm on them, but I do like it when they lose every possible game, and if this is how it happens, then so be it.
I am very disappointed in the Newswire’s sports coverage. The club football
team has won seven straight games dating back to last year, the schedule is
online, most of the games are nearby, we still get almost no coverage, and when
we are mentioned, and you get the name of the team we play wrong. What kind
of newspaper doesn’t cover its own school’s sports and pities on
the shortcomings of your rival school? This is very sad.
Jon Bokar | ‘10
Katherine Monasterio
Op-Ed Editor
Submit a Letter to the Editor
The Xavier Newswire 3800 Victory Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45207-2129 On-campus location: The Publications House, 3739 Ledgewood Dr. Telephone: 513.745.3607 Advertising: 513.745.3561 Fax: 513.745.2898 Email: Kathryn Rosenbaum
Editor-in-Chief Nathan Sergio
Advertising Manager Full list of staff contacts www.xu.edu/newswire
