The independent student newspaper of Goucher College

Category archive

Opinion

Supreme Color Theory

by

Now one may ask, “Is there truly a ‘supreme color theory?’” The short answer is yes, but before on understands the truth behind the “supreme color theory,” one must understand what a color theory is.

For starters, color theory, according to my own definition, is an idea rooted in psychology to use the color of one’s attire to pursue one’s ambitions. The concept of a color theory is to use the color of what you wear to your advantage. What your advantage is can be decided by the color theorist, for each person has their own ambitions and goals and different colors work towards differing goals. However, while this interpretation of color theory is not necessarily scientifically provable as of yet, it has derived from real life experiences. One last disclaimer before the theory is presented: this theory is from my own perspective and my own life experiences this is in no way attempting to be scientific –– just an account of my personal observations. This theory also applies best to conferences where you are meeting many new people at once and need to stand out yourself. Now onto the theory.

For a multi-day conference, one to four days, I recommend the following approaches. On the first day, wear a nice blue or darker color suit or other equally formal attire. Have a bring pink or green tie, or ideally bow tie, to contract the darker colored suit. Ensure the suit/other is well tailored and fits you well. No one looks good in baggy or small clothes no matter the colors you are wearing. The darker colored main part of your attire shows you mean business and are taking the situation seriously; the brighter colored accessories show your character and personality. They will make you stand out and especially at a big conference, like Model UN or Model Senate, standing out is essential. Later on in the succeeding days, you will want to moderate the colors to be more welcoming and not necessarily stand out as the conference progresses. The middle days are for building connections and getting to know people more; if you adhered to the first method and made a good impression, you now have some options open and it is time to explore them. The finally requires a dark suit and a red tie. Bow ties are always more ideal because of their uniqueness; the red tie at the end displays to everyone that you emerged with strength and your final deals and compromises are from positions of strength. Do not fall for the trap of wearing a red tie on the first day; you will just look like Donald Trump. No matter your personal opinion of the President, make your own style ride you own path be your own person.

For single day conferences, one must adhere to the above but snipe specific styles for the type of conference. If everyone is well acquainted prior to the conference, then a bright bow tie may be unnecessary and a softer color would be more effective. On the contrary, if you are unfamiliar with many of the potential attendees, then the brighter colored accessories would be more useful; avoid the plain red tie at all costs for single day conferences. Get more creative and add more personality than just bright red. It is a power move, that will come off as too confident and cocky. Be more creative.

This color theory is more suited to formal occasions, which some clubs would see more use in this than others. Nevertheless, one can apply these colors to less formal meetings. If you are going out on a date, for example, the same color schemes would apply, maybe just not in a suit and tie but shirt and shoes. Creativity is the key; be observant of what attracts and what repels people. Personal confidence in your clothes is, however, the single most effective way to pursue your ambitions, regardless of the formality of the situation. With that, the theory is concluded and I encourage those who may agree or dissent to write or discuss in person with me your opinions on my “supreme color theory” or color theory at large.

 

Photo Credits: HGTV.com

Unionization of Goucher Student Workers

by
Photo Credit: https://insights.dice.com/

To be a student worker at Goucher can mean many things. Job hours range drastically from two hours a week to twenty. Many students’ long hours of work results in their social life, clubs, and, most importantly, education being sidelined. With the addition of long work comes increased stress levels. Mental health cannot be ignored and doing such can create more hardship. It is not uncommon for Goucher students to feel overwhelmed when pressure and stress comes from multiple directions. School work plus additional jobs added to social or emotional issues can really take a toll on students. When students need to work on campus just to afford to attend, it is understandable when students feel forced to put education behind their job. While time management is an important lesson of life, it can be a very real challenge to make ends meet with so many responsibilities. There needs to be more support for student workers; too many feel overburdened by the challenges they are being dealt. If an issue arises with their job, it could very easily be the stressful tipping point for them, and confronting that problem alone can feel overwhelming.

For such reasons student workers should be allowed to form workers unions, or a type of collective. This is not to say that student workers are being mistreated by their supervisors per se. This is a statement that must be understood from the perspective of students who share many common struggles. It can be hard as a worker to approach your supervisor, no matter how comfortable you are with them, and make your voice heard. A union of student workers will provide students with the opportunity to come together as equals and discuss their work and how to support each other. Support for students need to come from peers, not only “adults.”

A collective or a union would be instrumental in allowing student workers to consolidate their opinions together and form a common group to lobby and make their voices heard in a more effective way than simply complaining to their supervisors independently. If students were to meet regularly and reach agreements on issue pertaining to their work, such as pay, hours, responsibilities, and more job-specific issues, it will allow for better work cohesion and the understanding that no student is isolated. Students workers would be able to communicate their needs and wants better as a group in an official manner. This could be used by supervisors to help make adjustments based off of a organized majority opinion.

Ibrahim Juhass, a senior physics and economics double major, has been an RA for three years and has worked in IT for four years. His thoughts were as follows:

“I think it is a great idea to have a collective or union student group to support each other. I believe it can only work for some jobs, specifically First-Year Mentors, RAs Librarians, and Ambassadors. It could be helpful if there were new policy changes were being implemented with the input of a student group or union. Students should have the right to know what changes are happening and voice their opinions about them. Additionally, it is important to make sure there is no abuse from students asking for unreasonable complaints.”

Yuchen Ding, a first-year Ambassador who works about eight hours a week as an Ambassador, had this to say when asked:

“I think it makes a lot of sense for us. The power of who decides the work schedule is only with two students and sometimes they mess things up. A union would also help communication between workers and could be used to ask for better pay or benefits.”  

Connor Harrington is a sophomore communications major working as a Technical Assistant who works about eight hours a week making minimum wage. When asked he said, “Union to me would mean protection, rights, and solidarity. I do think students should have a right to organize within the school…potentially even with outside organizations if appropriate.”

There is clearly a need for such student-run institutions at Goucher. Such organizations would not inherently be in opposition to the established work policies, but can and should work in conjunction with the already in place student employment infrastructure. The right to meet and come to common agreements on issues that pertain to them all should be expressed here at Goucher even if there is no established precedent for them yet. Such outlined proposals would produce a larger and more stable student workforce at Goucher, and would have indirect benefits to the campus community at large.

What the post-Goucher world taught me about my dad’s old advice

by

When I was a student at Goucher, my dad would encourage me to try to learn a “hard skill” before I graduated. The workplace was a practical beast, he cautioned, and I needed a way to make myself stand out. Programming. Web design. Something.

I silently laughed whenever he told me this. Dad, I’d think, surely you misunderstand how today’s world works.

Like many of my fellow Goucher students, in those days I believed that the modern workplace was friendlier to graduates of the liberal arts than it had once been. Gone were the days when employers narrow-mindedly insisted on graduates with degrees in the hard sciences. Bosses today wanted critical thinking skills and creativity and flexibility and passion for learning. My dad was speaking not of the actual world but an antiquated one, a world of assembly lines and analog watches and giant desktop computers that couldn’t be used unless you had a degree in computer maintenance.

Then, in 2014, I graduated and entered the workplace. English degree in hand, I migrated from place to place — teaching English in Beijing and creative writing in Hong Kong, a stint of unemployment back home in Chicago — before landing a three-month unpaid internship with the literary organization PEN America in New York City. By this point I’d grown weary of not slotting into a more permanent job and lifestyle, and now, nearly two years after graduating, I was determined to stay put. But no matter how certain I was that I could excel in virtually any of the hundreds of thousands of entry-level roles across the New York City area, I couldn’t find work. I’d applied for some 100 jobs in perhaps four of the five boroughs of New York City by the time my three-month internship was up, including a position as a janitor at Brooklyn College. I didn’t so much as get an interview.

These days I think my dad was mostly right. The modern workplace continues to recognize and reward “hard skills,” just like the old one did. The types of jobs available may have changed — you really don’t need a degree of any kind to use a computer these days, and attributes such as creativity are more important than they used to be — but most good jobs still require solid qualifications, the sort that you can put on a CV or identify in the space of a few words.

In its 2017 report, “The Future of Jobs”, the World Economic Forum sought to predict how technology would change the workforce. Some of its findings echoed the kind of new age liberal arts optimism I once took as gospel. For instance, surveys of top executives said that, of the top 10 most desirable skills, critical thinking skills ranked second and that many of the other desired skills had to do with communication.

While such surveys could be used to paint an optimistic portrait of the future for liberal arts graduates, they shouldn’t overshadow the fact that the future of jobs is increasingly in science and technology — where employers really would require you to, say, check a box saying you have skills X and Y. According to recent projections by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the job category predicted to experience the greatest growth over the period 2016-2026 (after healthcare-related work), is “Community and social service.” That’s a good fit for liberal arts grads, but the median annual wage in that sector in 2017 was $43,840. That’s barely half the $84,560 in median wages that will be earned in “Computer and mathematical occupations,” which will grow at nearly the same rate. Then there’s this year’s “Future of Jobs” report, which says the top two “emerging” jobs will be “Data analysts and scientists,” and “AI and machine learning specialists.”

This isn’t to say that you need a degree in computer science or engineering. But it is a useful reminder that some of the most valuable jobs in the future, as in the recent past, will be in fields for which no amount of creativity or communications prowess will substitute for a hard qualification. Outside of a limited number of professions, this is broadly true for many of the most desirable fields of work: business, law, medicine and nursing, architecture, and so on. The kinds of generalist thinking skills nurtured by liberal arts degrees — creativity, critical thinking skills, awareness of social and historical context — will always be valuable, but in most cases only on top of more fundamental qualifications.

My internship with PEN America wasn’t the ticket to New York City employment I imagined it would be. But it did help me realize I wanted to be a journalist, my dad’s old job and one that I had experimented with for some time. After a brief second stint of unemployment back home, I drove across the country to write for a local newspaper in rural California. It was this job, at last, that provided me with some way to “fit” in the world of work and, happily, some sense of direction. After California, I went to graduate school in London and then landed a journalism job here. I believe I was able to do it because at last I had a hard skill — reporting — to talk about during the job interview.

The workplace hasn’t really changed. Perhaps one day the world will be a more just place, and students who don’t choose to prioritize a job-oriented education — the ones who tend to gravitate towards the humanities, like English, modern languages, or philosophy — will be rewarded in the workplace just as much as students who make landing a job their chief focus. For now, however, this remains the case.

Photo Source: Google Images

Being Boxed In

by

These past few years have seen such an unprecedented growth of anti-semitism across the world. To say that Pittsburg was the start is to ignore the hate that has been manifesting itself since the election of our current president. Anti-semitism has always been present in American culture. General (and later President) Grant, during the civil war, attempted to expel all Jews from Tennessee, but the order was revoked by Lincoln. The 20th century had explicit prohibition of Jews from moving to certain neighborhoods, strict quotas of Jews allowed in universities, bans on Jews joining gyms or clubs, and barring them from resorts. Jews were accused of both being global capitalists out to control the world’s banking, and global communists out to spread Marx’s revolution. However, the past few decades oversaw what many were hoping for as full integration of Jews in American life. Restrictions were eventually dismantled, and many Jews are actively involved in public life from entertainment to politics. However, I fear that now the nation is descending further into anti-semitism.

According to the Anti Defamation League, there has been a fifty seven percent rise in anti-semitism last year alone. A recently announced CNN poll found that twenty eight percent of Europeans say “Jews have too much influence over finance around the world.” The same poll found that one third of Europeans “never heard of the Holocaust or know just a little about it.” That trend looks to only increase with the recent incident at Columbia University, when a professor’s office was vandalized with Swastikas. It is painful to write that Goucher College is added to that unfortunate statistic with the truly evil, cowardly racist graffiti next to a swastika. Other recent news in Baltimore saw the performance of Fiddler on the Roof, a story about the last few years of a Russian-Jewish community, including a pogrom or race riot and their forced exile, be interrupted by a man chanting “Heil Hitler, and Heil Trump” according to the Baltimore Sun.

At first such stories came from afar, incidents happening far away from the bubble of Goucher. It can be easy to write off and ignore such things, being in the North East and having the luxury of never personally experiencing anti-semitism. It only became apparent when such cowardly acts started spreading that we were never really safe. Now we can no longer ignore it, but we cannot really take a direct action.

Security cameras are not a solution; stopping every car that enters campus is not a solution; mandatory online classes are not a solution. The racists and bigots of the world are engaged in a culture war, in which they have built a false narrative of their victimhood to defend their actions. The more incidents that happen, the more bigots will be inspired to act. We must fight this war not with rules and restrictions from administrator but with peer education and leadership. It may be exceedingly overambitious to propose that we can stop the rise of anti-semitism around the world, but we cannot be apathetic to the increasingly dire situation. Anti-semitism and all forms of bigotry and racism must be combated, and we can make a difference at Goucher at least.

Student organizations must raise their voices. I applaud the powerful statements made at the rally in Mary Fisher a few weeks ago, unfortunately more needs to be done. Inviting a strong speaker to discuss and empower students is an option, alongside clubs and organizations having meetings and discussions about bigotry. But fundamentally the main struggle has to be fought between peers, not official organizations. Discussions among peers and stifling those who share bigoted feelings, not through patronizing them, but with thoughtful listening and explanation will be the most effective way. We as a community need to create a culture that does not tolerate anti semitism and bigotry, of any kind, Informal struggles, catching a racist comment here, or noticing and reporting swastika on a bathroom stall there. These things are not normal and we must not allow them to be normalized, especially in a time when they are becoming cripplingly routine.

Why Aren’t You Practicing?

by
Photo credit: http://vishalmaliwal.com/blog/

Yoga: what is it? Why do people make such a big deal about it? Yoga is one of the oldest and most beneficial forms of movement in practice today. However, it isn’t just a movement form; it’s a way of life. Yoga helps the mind come back into the body, and can allow for deeper and prolonged concentration that otherwise would be hard to achieve without assistance.

Our society today is fast paced and causes stress for everyone, young or old. The more our society begins to depend on science and technology, the more we will want (and need) to fall back to a different form of meditation or relaxation. In his article Why is Yoga Becoming So Popular?, Sadhguru states, “As the activity of the intellect becomes stronger in the world, more people will shift to yoga over a period of time and it will become the most popular way of seeking wellbeing.” As we all work more and more on computers, or with technology, the more we will want to step back and take a breather away from it all.

Yoga originally started as a precursor to meditation. The practice of yoga has been in effect for several thousand years and is used mostly by people in India, where it originated. When shamans wanted to meditate, they performed the sun salutations or Surya Namaskara (opening sequence) to begin a longer asana (yoga) practice which ended in savasana (final rest) before meditating. Yoga was originally used to remove all of the excess energy that our bodies have so as to help achieve a deeper state of meditation. There are multiple types of yoga, spanning from vigorous to restorative/relaxing types of yoga. Ashtanga and Vinyasa are more vigorous, and Yin and Hatha are more restorative. Even though yoga is a new phenomenon in the United States and considered a ‘modern’ form of exercise, it is actually an ancient practice. Once yoga arrived in the United States, it took on the form of exercise and inserted itself as a modern work-out as an alternative to cardio or Pilates. While yoga is classified as form of exercise, yoga can calm the mind and renew energy in the body. From personal experience, I can testify that daily yoga practice can help streamline any process from writing a paper to giving a presentation and everything in between.

I discovered yoga while I was on an exchange program in Honolulu, Hawaii at the beginning of my junior year of high school. Four days a week, the school day started with some form of exercise, and I chose to have yoga as my form of exercise. I have never experienced the amount of clarity in school that I had after those yoga classes. I was more attentive in my classes, understood the material better, and didn’t feel as tired at the end of the day. When I went back to my own school, I lost that clarity of mind because I didn’t have yoga built into my schedule the same way and couldn’t practice before school. In Jim Paterson’s article “Positioning Yoga in Schools,” he states that “[y]oga can tune up students’ academic performance and specifically help with issues such as paying attention in class, test taking, inappropriate behavior, and conflict among students.” I, myself, have experienced clarity of mind and longer attention span while in Honolulu and here at Goucher, where I take a yoga class twice a week.

While yoga helps with the academics, it can also assist processing feelings or emotions that are unable to be dealt with otherwise. If a topic is too uncomfortable to talk about, trying to work through it via physical activity, such as practicing yoga or taking a walk, can help you come to terms with the topic or be ready to talk about it with someone else. Diamond confirms that “[y]oga has been shown to improve many health issues including anxiety and stress.” Personally, I have seen yoga benefit many people, myself included. For instance, when I originally started going to classes at home, my mom came with me just to spend time with me. As she began to practice yoga more and more, my mom began to have more energy and clarity of mind, along with not getting as many migraines as she did before. The improvement I saw in my mom was amazing, especially after the seeing her struggle through the previous difficult years. Another example was when I taught a yoga class last year to a group of peers, many of whom had never practiced the movement form. In the beginning, some struggled with the forms and being able to stretch in new poses. However, by the end of the class, everyone looked more restored and energized than when I had seen them in the previous weeks due to yoga.

Yoga can be a form of exercise, but it can also be a form of relaxation. Yin and Hatha are both more relaxing types of yoga. Personally, I enjoy relaxational yoga more than a vinyasa (exercise) class, but it’s just my preference. Most importantly, though, we need to have balance, both exercise and restorative yoga in your practice. For example, in order to practice yin yoga and to not throw my body off kilter and maintain a healthy balance, I also have to practice vinyasa. Just like a coach would tell their players to stretch before a game and cool down after one, having a balance between exercise and relaxation is important. Balance is a crucial part of life, and also of yoga. If the desire is to heal yourself, then achieving that balance is important. Meditation is also part of the tradition of yoga — to meditate after practicing yoga. Meditation was the main reason that yoga was invented. Just practicing a breathing exercise or taking a few moments to process what happened in your day would benefit you in the long run. Unwinding is one of the best ways to help keep your body healthy.  

While the benefits of yoga are well documented and widely believed, there are some who do not believe it is a good practice. Like most activities, or lack thereof, there can be negative repercussions. Alignment is very important in the body, which is why chiropractors exist. When our body is misaligned, it causes pain (and no one likes that). While misalignment in yoga may not cause immediate damage or pain, it can cause pain in the long run. In the article “Ten Reasons Yoga Might Be Bad For You,” Jonathan Fitzgordon states that exercising is crucial and that “if you are doing it incorrectly it will not be good for you.” Understanding what feels good or bad in your body while taking a yoga class will help prevent injuries down the line. An instructor doesn’t know a practitioner’s body like the practitioner does, so practicing what feels good, and not doing a posture that might aggravate a knee, for example, would be wise for a practitioner. Using common sense to take care of your body, and understanding that everyone’s body is different, will help eliminate the possibility of causing yourself pain. In the conclusion of his article, Fitzgordon further explains that “whether it be pursuing yoga for spirituality or exercise, students should spend most of their time getting to know themselves, inside and out, in the search for a healthy life.” Thus, listening to what feels good and what doesn’t will help with understanding what is right for your body.

Yoga is a form of exercise, mediation, and a way of life. It helps to hone the mind to the task at hand, energize and rejuvenate the body, and can lead to a more satisfying and fulfilling life. Yoga is an activity that benefits everyone. Practicing yoga could be your turning point of understanding what needs to happen in your life as a human being. Life requires balance and if you bring yoga into the mix, life will become more rewarding. So, why aren’t you practicing?

 

Works Cited

Diamond, Lisa. “The benefits of yoga in improving health: Lisa Diamond recommends the prescription of yoga to improve patients’ physical and mental wellbeing with little cost to the health service.” Primary Health Care, Mar. 2012, p. 16+. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A283751581/AONE?u=goucher_main&sid=AONE&xid=cd212883. Accessed 18 Oct. 2018.

Fitzgordon, Jonathan. “Ten Reasons Yoga Might Be Bad For You” Core Walking for Pain Relief, 2018 https://corewalking.com/ten-reasons-yoga-might-be-bad-for-you/ Accessed 18 Oct. 2018

Paterson, Jim. “Positioning Yoga in Schools: Programs offer academic, physical, and mental benefits for students and teachers alike.” Principal Leadership, vol. 18, no 5, Jan. 2018. Gale Educators Reference Complete.  http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A534365499/PROF?u=goucher_main&sid=PROF&xid=d4e40c95. Accessed 18 Oct. 2018.

Sadhguru. “Why is Yoga Becoming So Popular?” Isha Yoga—A Guide to Yoga and Meditation https://isha.sadhguru.org/yoga/yoga_articles_yoga/yoga-becoming-popular/ Accessed 27 Oct. 2018

#ThisIsMyEducation

by
Photo credit: http://affectautism.com/

Imagine the following scenario taking place in a middle school classroom. An 8th grade history teacher asks her class, “What were some of Abraham Lincoln’s beliefs?” One student raises their hand and says, “Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong.” The teacher provides the student a piece of candy as a reward. Another student raises their hand and notes, “Piggybacking off of that, Lincoln believed in a strong, united nation.” This student also receives a piece of candy. Next, the teacher calls on the student sitting in the back of the class.

The student proudly states, “Although Abraham Lincoln freed millions of slaves, he strongly believed that whites were superior to blacks.” The class grew quiet, and the teacher looked in surprise at the student. “Um, that’s an interesting viewpoint, but if Lincoln did have that belief, do you think he would have freed millions of slaves? Think about it.” With their comment being dismissed, the student ashamedly shook their head and sat quietly in their seat. The teacher carried on with the lesson.

In classrooms all across America, there are young maturing students who don’t “receive a piece of candy” for answering questions that go against what the teacher is teaching. But why? Why are we discouraged from seeing a topic in a contrary perspective to that of the ideas set within the curriculum? Open-mindedness allows students to see issues critically from an opposing view and to evaluate their preconceived assumptions. Who doesn’t agree with that? However, modern school systems are restricting this ability from us; resulting in us to learn in an environment that teaches us there is only one way to view the outside world. But is there really one way to view the world?

If it wasn’t for the Internet, teenagers today would still only believe Christopher Columbus was an amazing explorer that discovered the New World and had a massive feast with the Native Americans. Crazy, right? Teaching a classroom of students in a selective perspective only prohibits their growth, doesn’t it? School is only teaching us the preferred side of a story, the story that assimilates us with the rest of society. Wait, isn’t school supposed to create higher thinkers? But yet, the school system creates a curriculum that only highlights socially accepted views and topics; thus, narrowing our beliefs and assumptions.

Objectively, school is supposed to teach us the history of the United States and the world. Am I right? All throughout school, we have been informed again and again about the evils of slavery and how it was one of America’s worst eras. From depressing in-class documentaries to vivid at-home reads, slavery is a staple of American history. Strikingly, the school system failed to inform me that the act of slavery has been practiced long before it ever happened when America was “discovered”; meaning the practiced was normal. Now does that mean slavery is morally right? In contemporary terms, of course not; but why do we only emphasize African enslavement in America when discussing racism? Certainly, there have been other groups of people other than blacks that have been enslaved. Have you ever had a lesson each school year discussing the terrifying era of Native American enslavement?

This way of teaching only provides students with half true facts and limits their knowledge.

Growing up, I’ve always been fed information without being skeptical about it. I accepted what I learned, and it shaped my beliefs and assumptions about the world. But isn’t that what school is intended for? To provide us with “facts”? I’m not saying school teaches us complete lies, it just doesn’t teach us the full story. Providing students with “half” facts and sending them into the world is detrimental to their role as a citizen. We need to be taught, not from a socially accepted perspective, but from a morally accepted perspective; where we are given information from all viewpoints, disregarding norms and what is socially appropriate. The thought of this idea will certainly frighten many adults, but this is our education. We need to be provided with the tools to shape our mentality. We are the ones being taught the knowledge, so why shouldn’t we examine it? The student who didn’t receive a “piece of candy” shouldn’t be negatively viewed upon or completely dismissed. Instead, we should embark on their ability to view the world differently. Isn’t that what makes each of us special? Think about it.    

What’s the Deal with Living Off-Campus?

by
Picture source: https://eduadvisor.my/articles/pros-cons-living-on-off-campus/

To live on campus or to live off campus? That’s the real question. Chances are if you’re a student at Goucher, you’ve probably noticed that living off-campus doesn’t seem to be all that common. Most Goucher students spend all four of their undergrad years moving from one dorm to another. And, if you’re like me, when you make the decision to live off-campus, Goucher doesn’t exactly offer many resources. Add in the process of submitting the off-campus application and the daunting question of “what next?” and it can be a pretty intimidating experience.

However, I took the plunge. And I’m so glad I did. Living off-campus has been one of the best decisions of my undergrad years. I have my own kitchen where I can cook whenever I want (and not have to worry about a meal plan!). I have my own room, my own space—I actually feel like I have a home. And, most importantly, I can spend as much or as little time as I want on campus, which is a really freeing feeling. While the process for me to live off-campus was a pretty simple one, I talked with other Goucher students to see what their experiences have been like. As a commuter, Cecile Adrian, ’20, said of her experience, “It’s good. I think it’s better for my mental health and emotional being. It’s just nice to have a place and not have to be here all the time.” Further, August Shah, ’20, said, “The quality of life is exponentially different living off campus than on campus. My overall experience with being off campus is amazing for the most part.”

Although living off-campus can seem like a great option, sometimes it can be difficult. While living on Goucher’s campus means you’re only a walk away from your friends and resources such as the Ath, Alice’s, and any on-campus events, sometimes I feel a bit distant. I don’t always know about stuff happening on campus or last-minute events, but for me that isn’t really a big deal. Ari Schlossberg, ‘19, shared his opinion on this saying, “On the other hand, all of my friends are here [and] sometimes I miss out on stuff.” This is something other students relate to as well. Melina Albornoz, ’20, said, “The hardest part about commuting is that sometimes I feel ‘out of the loop’ when it comes to on campus events,” although she adds, “but that’s not a major issue for me. Overall, I really enjoy commuting; it gives me the option of being on campus or at home.” Similarly, August Shah, ’20, said, “The only downside [of living off-campus] is that I am not integrated much into the community with peers because of being off campus,” and adds, “but to me, that’s a very small downside.” For some students, they still feel just as connected to Goucher living off-campus as when they lived in the dorms. Cecile Adrian, ’20, said, “I don’t feel like I’m missing out or like I’m less a part of this community. I maintain all of my friendships, relationships, and involvement.”

When asked what the hardest part of living off-campus is, most other students I spoke with agreed on the commute. Ari Schlossberg, ‘19, said, “Definitely the commute. That’s the worst part.” He adds, “But it’s a valuable trade off. Definitely worth it!” When talking about the difficulties of commuting, Zoe Shimberg, ’22, warns, “If you do want to commute, be prepared, be very prepared.” It can definitely be frustrating at times, especially finding parking mid-day! I think that’s one of the most difficult things I’ve had to deal with.

After reading this, you might be wondering about the application process. I know when I was thinking of applying, I heard so many horrible stories I was nervous I would encounter a similar fate. However, I was lucky to have my application approved without any major difficulties. Ari Schlossberg, ‘19, had a similar experience and said, “At the time, Res Life was really helpful…With Goucher, moving out was easy.” Some students had a more difficult time, such as August Shah, ’20, who said, “Applying to live off campus was atrocious and so unnecessarily difficult.” I honestly think it depends on your situation, and while some people have had a more difficult time with their process, I don’t think it should deter you from trying it for yourself.

Thinking of living off-campus? For me, taking that next step into “adulting” has been a very valuable experience. While there will always be positives and negatives, pros and cons, if you think popping that Goucher Bubble is the best move for you, then I say go for it! I’m sure glad I did. And, after talking with other Goucher students, I can tell you they are too. Living on campus is a great option, but if you’re ready to take the next step, I think living off-campus should be something more Goucher students consider.

Politicizing the Judicial Process

by

 

This article will not focus on the other disqualifying factors regarding Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, as his previous judicial record, honesty, and disposition during the senate hearing could fill a paper alone. This piece will focus specifically on one aspect of this legal episode: the investigation performed by the FBI into Brett Kavanaugh’s past. The investigation, while not available to the public, was performed into the two credible allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh, both by Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez. This investigation was limited in scope to those allegations (so it did not look into his alleged drinking habits), and was limited to the course of one week. Because of the limited scope of this investigation, the results produced should in no way shift more doubt onto the allegations of either women.

 

Understanding the limited scope of this investigation requires an understanding of how sex crime investigations are formatted. Investigations like this work outward-in, starting with those with limited knowledge, and then working towards those who have distinct, firsthand knowledge of events (Stein). More specifically, after speaking to the victim and completing any initial search warrants that might be needed, investigators go first to disclosure witnesses, or those people who the victim first came forward to. In the case of Dr. Ford, these witnesses could have been her husband, therapist, as well as other friends that she had disclosed her experience to. The disclosure witnesses provide information as to who may need to be contacted next, as well as provide additional verification that they were advised of what happened, when, and what the victim may have forgotten or left out of the report.

 

With this information, investigators contact those with knowledge of the location or event, but not the incident in question. In this situation, those witnesses would be the other students or those at the party in question who did not witness the actual crime in question. These witnesses can speak to the behavior of both parties, as well as corroborate that the location did in fact exist, and that both people were present. From those witnesses, investigators move to fact witnesses, or those with firsthand knowledge of the attack: the people who were in the room. Finally, investigators re-interview both the victim and suspect, with the information gathered from the investigation up to that point.

 

With that said, it is clear that an investigation of this type is a complex, multi-layered endeavor. By nature, it takes time; people respond slowly, search warrants often take weeks or months to return, and leads constantly pop up and need to be followed up on. In the course of an average investigation, multitudes of people will be interviewed, re-interview, and re-re-interviewed. It is not possible to complete an investigation of this caliber in a week, regardless of the size of the agency or skill of agents. The FBI itself even acknowledges this fact, stating on the report summary to the public that “[o]nly those with firsthand knowledge of the attacks were investigated” (FBI Report). The FBI only spoke with fact witnesses, completing only one of a multitude of investigative steps. This is not a jab at the talent or scope of the FBI; they simply were not given the time to interview people who could potentially have information, but were not fact witnesses. In doing this, however, the FBI missed dozens of people who have stepped forward as either disclosure or location witnesses, who very well could have valuable information.

 

In light of the #MeToo movement, with a growing willingness of the United States population to take seriously accusations of sexual assault and harassment, it is deeply frustrating that political whims would be put over a proper investigation into an act that would immediately disqualify someone considered for the most powerful court in the country. It goes without saying that this is a setback that will sit with us, as a country, as Brett Kavanaugh serves a life term on the Court. Perhaps there will be another, more conclusive investigation done in the future though it will be far more difficult to remove him from the Court than it would have been to prevent him from obtaining the position initially. Both of those steps, however, first require the recognition that a new investigation is warranted, and that the investigation performed prior to his confirmation was incomplete.

 

Duncan Miller serves as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff with a full service Sheriff’s Office in Northeastern Georgia. He is a certified, sworn police officer with advanced, specialized training in criminal investigations, and spent the summer working in the Special Victims Unit of the department.

 

Sources:

 

FBI Report: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/supplemental-fbi-investigation-executive-summary

 

Guide to sexual assault procedures: Abuse investigation Rubric and Abuse Investigation Protocol, Richard Stein, 2017

 

The Importance of Public Discourse

by
Picture Source: Public Photo Credit: Discourse: Importance & Strategies | Study.com

 

I am writing today because the atmosphere at Goucher has, for the duration of my studies here, been lacking healthy public discourse. That is not to say people are not sharing their opinions with their friends, nor is it to say that people have been censored. Public discourse is more than just talking about international maritime trade law over lunch. The Goucher Bubble has alienated many students on campus, not because they feel they are a minority politically, but because there are no safe spaces for dissenting opinions to be voiced. Conversations must be held on all aspects of our modern world. This includes the direction Goucher College has taken. Majors being phased out is only part of the story; the very identity of liberal arts is being redefined and we, students, must be a part of that conversation. Us students must create mechanisms for voicing ourselves to each other and to the larger Goucher institution.

To achieve these goals, I first must ask club leaders to invite speakers who are relevant and even radical. There is a valid argument as how to discriminate and chose which speakers we can and cannot invite. I am not going to provide a simple answer as to who should be provided the platform and who should not. That decision rests with club leaders, but I would say that if one has an unpopular belief, they are no less worthy of sharing their opinion for it. Learning about differing understandings creates bridges between people who have different narratives. A Republican pro-coal politician in West Virginia has a legitimate narrative just like young Democratic Socialist from Queens. We need to seek out these narratives and have them told to the Goucher student body so we all gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world we live in.

My second proposition is intended for the greater campus population. I encourage all of you to seek out groups to have these conversations. Do not be afraid to challenge yourself, and do not succumb to the mistake of judging someone’s character based on how they understand the world. If someone carries a moral stance that you reject, let them elaborate it, and if they are wrong, their explanation and a discussion should correct it. I am a firm believer in the ability of freedom of discussion and a society, no matter how small, that makes discord topics taboo further creates a detachment from the larger community it inhabits.

I also encourage all students to voice their opinions by attending faculty meetings and by engaging with professors and administrators when appropriate. Bring up Goucher’s identity in class, if permitting. What does a liberal arts education mean, and has Goucher betrayed it or merely modernized it? I have witnessed many incidents where opinions were screaming to be heard but there was no one willing to speak them. Breathe life into these opinions – there are avenues, including the one you are currently reading, for a minority dissension to be heard. Take a stance and I, along with the community, will respect you for it. If you are compelling enough, we may even join in with you.

 

Is Goucher Allowing Bon Appetite to Steal From Students?

by

Last year, Bon Appetite at Goucher had a much simpler way of going about meal plans. I’d sign up for the meal plan I felt best fit my needs and that’s what I was given for the semester. Say I signed up for the largest meal plan with 240 meals; I’d get that number of meals and I could use them whenever and however I wanted.

Now, Goucher has come up with a new plan on how to better manage our meal plan needs. I can still choose my meal plan, but there’s a catch. If I sign up for the now largest nineteen meals per week plan, all I get is nineteen meals to use over the course of a week and they’re use-or-lose. If I don’t use all nineteen, they will disappear, meaning I can’t save meal swipes for later in the semester or whatever I choose.

Additionally, last year I was given three-hundred dining dollars (flex) to use at other dining locations on campus over the semester. But this year, that has been cut down to two-hundred-fifty dollars on flex to use.

What gives, Goucher?

I stumbled upon a petition demanding that Goucher make a few changes to the meal plans. First, make food equitable, meaning we should be able to use our meal swipes throughout the semester and across campus in locations such as Alice’s. Meal swipes not used during any given week should always roll over to the next. Second, food should be available in more locations, meaning Goucher needs to reopen The Van and open Alice’s for longer hours including Sunday nights. Goucher need to make the main dining hall hours longer at night and on the weekends. Third, no tax on flex. These, and other demands, had to be met by Bon Appetite last Thursday (September 13th), and students must have a transparent email detailing the plans to make it happen. Since demands haven’t been met and there has been no communication from Goucher or Bon Appetite, students were planning on protesting in Dorsey on Monday (September 17th). Which did not happen.

I am upset that our semester meal plan was changed to a weekly plan and my mind keeps coming back to one particular thought. I cannot resist wondering if Goucher is allowing Bon Appetit to steal from its students. Yes, I knowingly signed up for the meal plan assuming what my needs on a weekly basis would be, but my meal swipes are disappearing because I choose to eat somewhere besides the dining hall (not including the Pick Three option at The Market, which takes meal swipes). My flex has gone down by fifty dollars. Last year, I used every last penny of my three-hundred flex dollars.

Thankfully, Goucher has admitted to some of its mistakes and refunded all of the tax that was charged on flex, which is a step in the right direction. I’m not saying that there is a right or wrong way to go about feeding a campus full of students. I am simply saying that there should be a way to go about meal plans that makes everyone happy.

 

1 2 3 5
Go to Top