Humans vs. Zombies: A Community Builder

Posted by Jesse Riggs

As someone who has organized at least seven games of Humans vs. Zombies and advised moderators around the nation and around the world on a few dozen more games, a current security chief of a small college, and holding a masters degree in higher education administration, I feel compelled to respond to Prof. Nechtman's concerns.  His concerns are all common, and perhaps legitimate, objections raised about the game that have been answered many times by students introducing the game to their campus.

First, I would like to encourage Prof. Nechtman to play the game.  Then he will have an opportunity to see firsthand the benefits I will outline below.  I hope he will at least take a moment to discuss it with the players on your campus.

Humans vs. Zombies has probably the greatest return-on-investment for student participation hours of any activity of which I am aware.  Students provide their own gear, props involved in gameplay are usually improvised from objects the moderators have in their homes, and it can be run from a free website.  Meanwhile it engages students for an entire week.

I agree that academically speaking the timing of this particular game is bad, and I hope the people in charge of scheduling take that into consideration next semester.  Ideally as moderators the organizers should have tried to schedule it for a week less likely to have important due dates, both to minimize impact on academics and to maximize the time players can commit to the game if they so choose.  Students are encouraged to go to class, that is how the game progresses.  If no one goes to class, no one gets tagged.  And then, also by virtue of the gameplay, students are going to hole up in a lounge or library until they absolutely have to cross campus again, during which time they just might study.

But, when Nechtman states that discussion of the game dominates pre-class discussion, he misses the obvious fact that this game is a tremendous relief from the everyday grind of class and homework, and an active alternative to video games or other sedentary pastimes.  HvZ is seen by many as an opportunity to put aside the hum-drum trapping of a college student, challenge themselves, and pit their wits against a campus full of adversaries.

And adversaries are only half of the game.  The other half is one's allies, those students who you instantly bond with because you are both wearing a bandanna either on the arm or around the head.  That bandanna is enough to begin a friendship between any two people.  In the moment they meet, as "humans," the bandana is all that matters, not the other person's political views, religious beliefs, or music preferences.  Players have a chance to connect with that person at the most basic of levels, where true character is revealed.  Honest, deceptive, brave, meek, loyal, or self-preserving, it will show during a game of HvZ.  I find that most players are honest and loyal, and oftentimes brave, though no one can really blame the guy who sprints away in the face of a zombie Horde.  Discretion is the better part of valor, after all.

Around the nation, HvZ games have been organized for fundraising efforts.  "University of Oregon's Humans vs. Zombies raises money for Japan," and "Humans vs. Zombies; Battle across UA's campus raises money for charity," are just two of the headlines trumpeting the social good that can be accomplished by the players of HvZ.

HvZ encourages teamwork, critical thinking, and situational awareness, all extremely useful skills in the emergencies you believe are made light of by this game.

Nechtman drew parallels between a game of HvZ and real mass shootings. I put forward that HvZ could prevent such shootings, by reaching out to and including the individuals who are in danger of following the path that leads to such atrocities, giving them a circle of friends and peers they were otherwise lacking in their lives, who will pull them back from that path.

HvZ is, by and large, an unusual game.  I hope everyone who plays will forgive me for saying we're all geeks and nerds in some way.  Great numbers of us will admit to having difficulty fitting in with the "cool" people, those people who will look at a game of HvZ and say "What a bunch of babies, running around with toys.  Why don't they play a real sport?"  Or "It's ridiculous that they can't find a normal activity to occupy their time," as if normal was something to which they should aspire.

Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, James Eagan Holmes, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not "normal."  No one can defend or condone what they did, but we see a pattern of individuals existing on the fringe of their society, drawn apart because they did not go in for "normal activities," or were too awkward to function on the party scene, or suffered from depression.

HvZ doesn't cure depression, it doesn't suddenly give you the ability to be the life of the party, but because it is not a normal activity, I suggest that it can and will draw in, accept, and help to heal those individuals wounded and scorned by "normal" society.

Additionally, Nechtman seems to propose that the tragedies of the past should interfere with our enjoyment of the present.  Why did these people who caused those tragedies lash out, except to vent their anger, fear, and despair, and impose those feelings upon others?  Will we lock down colleges and post guards and ban toys so that students hurry to class, not for the thrilling "fear" of being tagged, but for fear that if they linger too long they'll be marked as suspicious?  Fear that the next monster with a gun will catch them?

I speak in the extreme, but extreme circumstances were the examples Nechtman gave.  To say to students "You should not play this game where you pretend to fight fictional zombies because real people have been killed by other real people," is just fear mongering, giving stage time to the darkness, and snuffing out one of the bright points on which we should be focusing.

When Nechtman finds proof that Humans vs Zombies actively damages Skidmore's reputation, recruitment, or academic mission, he should most certainly bring it to someone's attention.  Because that will mean HvZ is failing its purpose.  Until then, he might take time to consider his purpose as an educator and goals of HvZ.  I believe he might find HvZ worth supporting, provided they don't schedule it during any big exams he administers.  That would be annoying.

Humans Versus Zombies: An Appropriate Community Event?

Posted by Tillman W. Nechtman

Last week, the campus community was notified that this year's Humans Versus Zombies (HVZ) game has been scheduled for October 22 to October 27. That notice assured us that this game would not interfere with non-players or with campus and its academic life.
 As one who has taught through this game in previous years and as one who has never participated in the game, I write to assure the campus community that the HVZ game most certainly does interfere in the academic life of the college. During the nearly-week long event, students come to class wrapped in their bandanas carrying along their Nerf weapons. The game dominates pre-class conversations among both players and non-players alike, time that ought otherwise be filled with thoughts and conversation about the course content. I can only imagine how completely the game marginalizes conversation about academic life in locations like the dorms or in the dining hall. Back in the classroom, students often bolt out the door at class' end to avoid the rush across campus in which they could become somebody's target. Likewise, just crossing campus can be harrowing, as students duck and run to avoid being struck down as part of the game play.
 Let's be honest, therefore, whenever this community organizes a weeklong game of this sort, it does say something about our community's priorities, and in this instance, we are not prioritizing learning, which is, after all, the college's primary mission. Let's not pretend that not only allowing but actually promoting a culture in which students carry around toys for a week does not have a detrimental and diluting impact on the seriousness with which the college can and does carry out its educational mission.
Even the timing here speaks volumes. Friday, October 25 is this semester's study day, scheduled as such because many classes will have papers due and midterms scheduled soon thereafter. That HVZ has been scheduled across the study day is a clear indication that academic interests took a back burner in this instance. Imagine the student who hopes to spend the study day outside of Case Center reading up for an exam who now has to be disrupted by others running around with their toys in the hallways shooting one another with Nerf pellets. Surely, that student's academic climate has been harmed by this event.
And, let us linger for a moment on the idea of a game that converts campus into a simulated war zone, a game in which students duck behind furniture and under bushes to avoid being shot. That is a scene that is sadly far too common in our nation. College campuses, high schools, elementary schools, even day care centers have become venues for horrific gun violence in recent years, so much so that the issue is an ongoing and serious topic in debates over public policy. How callous are we as a community that we turn that kind of scenario - a campus battlefield - into a weeklong game? How insensitive? I certainly do not want to be the one who has to explain to a prospective student from Columbine, Colorado or from Newtown, Connecticut why Skidmore thinks it is either appropriate or fun to have students simulate a war zone on its campus in the middle of an academic term. I suspect that citizens of towns where real violence and abject evil have manifested themselves in schools would read this event as far less "fun" than those planning it think it will be.
I urge those in Student Government and Student Affairs who are planning this game to re-think their decision. I urge those who are considering playing it to think deeply before they sign up. Is an HVZ game representative of the kind of scholastic community we hope to build here? Can we host it and reasonably expect that it won't damage our educational mission? And, as a matter of civic responsibility, ought our campus community casually play as a game something that, for far too many in our nation, has been a horrible reality? Think about it, Skidmore.

America, Insane

Posted by Alex Hodor-Lee

You know that oft-cited Einstein aphorism: insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, last week President Barack Obama made yet another public plea for transformative gun safety laws, on the back of the mass shooting in Washington, D.C.'s Navy Yard.

While I suspect that the pairing of our hugely dysfunctional congress and highly functioning gun lobbies will be enough to stymie any effort at reforming gun safety laws, at least media insects can feed off the slain bodies, never letting a good crisis go to waste.

The media has, once again, engaged in a frenzied effort to find a fresh way of framing another mass American shooting. Immediately following the Navy Yard shooting, politicians called for safety in the Capitol (what a shocker: the security of political elites takes primacy in the critical debate over the safety of the Americans they represent). 

Other media mouthpieces spent their time connecting peripheral dots-they emphasized that USIS, the private contractor that screens two-thirds of federal government employees, including Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis, also vetted the infamous NSA leaker, Edward Snowden.

Let's be very clear. This isn't a story about security in Washington; this isn't a story about the failures of government contractors. Stop with the kaleidoscopic efforts to make meaning amidst chaos. This is a story about this American culture; and folks, we own this culture. Don't get distracted by the sideshows and crazed media vultures. As Danny Hayes, of George Washington University points out, "news coverage of mass shootings follows a pattern. In a shooting's immediate wake, gun control coverage spikes before receding back into relative obscurity." 

Every day, Americans are killed by guns. According to Slate, more than 8,400 people have been killed by guns since the Newtown shooting, which resulted in the death of 20 elementary school children. The Newtown, Conn. shooting shocked the nation, and sparked a worthy discourse about mental illness in America. But the most deranged actor, it turns out, was our U.S. Senate, who failed to pass a timid, bipartisan bill that would require mandatory background checks on most gun purchases. 

In Chicago ghettos, which have become war zones in their own right, young people are killed everyday by gun violence. Conservative commentators have seized on this mindless violence as an opportunity to add their slant, opining that Chicago's tight gun laws are proof that "strict" gun legislation is ineffective. In reality, the opposite is true. 

Illinois' neighboring states-Indiana, Wisconsin and Missouri-have lamentably loose gun laws and many firearms are trafficked from the neighboring states and sold to Chicago gangs. Gun laws with no federal uniformity create discontinuity between neighboring states and the subsequent cleavages allow for the flow of guns from legal sellers to illegal buyers.

Last Friday, during a late night basketball game, a gunman opened fire in a Chicago park. Thirteen people were wounded and, luckily, no one was killed. But this act of violence was symbolically perturbing. It meant that the week ended just as it had begun: with another mass shooting. And just as he did in the aftermath of Newtown, a weary Barack Obama is trying to begin the gun debate anew. And just as they did after Newtown, the media went on a frenzy, dragging us along for the ride. And while the parents of slain Chicago teenagers have to live with their loss, we'll neatly push those Chicago youth, along with the Navy Yard victims, into the back of our national collective memory. There they'll sit in the fuzzy, unceremonious depths with the victims of Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech and Columbine before them. Their only purpose? To be anecdotally, tendentiously and cyclically retrieved with the hope of new results that aren't coming-proof of our American insanity. 

The Skidmore Culture War

Posted by Alex Hodor-Lee

Most government majors at Skidmore read Morris Fiorino's "The American Culture War." In it Fiorino describes a nation plagued by a false epidemic: the perception of political binary.

Fiorino argues that Americans take cues from elites, pols and media, arguing that polarized elites and fierce bipartisanship between Democrats and Republicans is creating an overly-pronounced and mythologized schism in America.

One good example Fiorino points to is the 2008 election, in which many Americans were forced to choose between electing the first African-American President or a war hero who branded himself as a hardline conservative to appeal to his Republican base. But let's for a second imagine if Colin Powell, an African-American moderate, was running for president. In considering a third and more centrist option we may recognize that in fact Americans are not so different; and we may actually celebrate our similarities.

This type of cultural chasm, caused by polarizing options is reflected in the culture of our college.

These first weeks hundreds of freshman will be forced to choose between eating meals--an act that forges friendships and camaraderie--on the red side or blue side of our dining hall.

When I transferred to Skidmore, I was immediately struck by our dining hall (my last institution boasted an aggressively plain, beige mess hall). With a wide-eyed expression that made clear my immigrant status, I was told in no uncertain terms that "jocks" sit on the blue side and that "hipsters" dine on the red side.

As a freshman, trying to navigate this new home, locate your identity, and carve out your niche, choosing sides can unwittingly consign you down one social path, closing you off to another side of Skidmore.

But let's consider the Fiorino model for our dining hall. Engage in a mental experiment in which we triangulate a third, or "purple" side into our dining hall. Or imagine that the entire dining hall was painted green or yellow (our actual school colors). We may find that we more naturally integrate (in some places they call this phenomenon "progress"). 

And even if it turned out that athletes still gathered by the television, and "artsy kids" by the vegetarian bar, the dynamic would at least be organic, and any culture war would not be validated by the college's decision to make one half red and one half blue; people would be judged not by the color of their table, but the content of their character. Most importantly, we may diffuse this specious myth about where certain types of people should sit. In fact, we might actually become closer as a student body.

Ranking the College Experience

Posted by The Editorial Board

This August, the Princeton Review ranked Skidmore College No. 1  in their category "Reefer Madness."  Immediately following Skidmore were the University of Colorado, Boulder and  Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA.

The Princeton Review bases their annually revised rankings on eighty online surveys. The ranking of schools under "Reefer Madness" is determined by students' answers to one question on the survey: "How widely is marijuana used at your school?" A student answers this question using a Likert scale, a five-point answer scale where one-point is designated  "Not at All" and the five-point option is designated  "Extremely." Students are also invited to contribute more detail in an optional comment box.

 To take the survey, students log-in on the Princeton Review website with their email  --which does not have to be the official .edu address issued by their college -- and select their school from a drop-down list. The survey system will only accept one survey from each e-mail address listed.

 The Princeton Review states that the average number of student surveys they receive from a school is 333, or roughly thirteen percent of Skidmore's student body. But the response rates of larger schools such as the University of Vermont skews the mean to the right, which suggests Skidmore's actual response rate is likely substantially lower.

The Princeton Review is undeniably a well-known and widely referenced publication and resource to prospective students, but how much stock should one take in their rankings as current undergraduate students? As students, there is a natural tendency to be invested in the reputation of one's school; and it's healthy for an institution when its students are consciously cultivating a reputable environment. But is it possible to rate the college experience using a two-dimensional one to five scale?

A collegiate environment is created and fostered by three parties: professors, the administration and past and present students. On this basis, the environment of an institution is constantly changing due to the constantly changing student body. And the student-body does not just restyle annually with the incoming freshman class-new clubs, performances, research and student government decisions are created daily. The collegiate environment has the unique and beautiful quality of being a constantly transforming-and transformative-community of new and challenging thought. While college is certainly a collective experience with our peers, it's also a highly personal, individualized experience for each student. This is true specifically at an institution such as Skidmore, where opportunities such as small class sizes and self-determined major options encourage individual growth. The Skidmore experience will never mean the same thing for two students.

While The Skidmore News recognizes the efforts of the Princeton Review to produce data on schools based solely on student input, it must be noted that we believe it to be impossible to accurately assess a four-year college experience with the selection of a single bubble, something we fear students and the larger population are taking away from this survey. While it's productive to be invested in the character of our college, it is ultimately the student body that defines an institution, not the institution's reputation that defines the student body. Skidmore may currently reside at the top of the Princeton Review's Reefer Madness list for better or for worse -- or for somewhere in between -- but Skidmore, its students and its experience, can't conceivably be defined by one label.  

The Beast of Skidmore: Skidmore workers struggle at the bargaining table with the college

Posted by Aneta Molenda

At one of the wealthiest colleges in upstate New York, boasting an endowment close to $300 million (National Center for Education Statistics), Skidmore College workers, in separate personal interviews, are describing a struggle for "dignity" that is scaring them "to death." The following situation is what one dining services worker, who wishes to remain anonymous, described to me as "the beast of Skidmore."

Skidmore workers have been represented by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) since 1972. The initial battle to unionize our campus lasted over a year and was led by a group of five workers-Carl Ure (Central Receiving), Wilbur Wright (Cook), Vie Oliver (Housekeeping), Maria Marcolongo (Cook), and Joseph Moore (Cook)-who are remembered by many Skidmore workers to this day.

This past summer, a petition was filed by the United Professional and Service Employees Union (UPSEU) to displace the current union when 45 workers signed UPSEU membership cards. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) then initiated an election process and a vote took place on Aug. 1.

Workers had three options-stay with SEIU, switch their representative to UPSEU, or elect to forgo union representation entirely. One of the three parties had to receive a super majority in order to win.

The initial vote resulted in a tie between the two unions, with UPSEU receiving 66 votes and SEIU receiving 52 votes (another 20 people voted to go non-union). A federal judge has yet to announce the ruling on a new date for a second vote, and it is unclear whether it will be a run-off between the two unions or if the non-union option will remain as well.

Prior to the vote, Skidmore's Human Resources pitched the "benefits of going non-union" to employees who are already members of SEIU. Even President Philip A. Glotzbach himself urged workers to go non-union in a letter to the affected employees, arguing that they could "make our community even stronger by voting not to have a third-party organization come between you and the college."

But does the College care about its workers? Anyone familiar with the larger fight for the rights and dignity of service workers across the United States will realize that with "no union" there is a risk of "no rights." Skidmore workers stand to lose the most significant advance they have fought for since members unionized forty-one years ago: their bargaining power.

With workers' contracts about to expire, the critical matter facing our unionized workers is their fight at the bargaining table with the College. The key concerns SEIU Skidmore workers and the negotiations team have identified, says organizer Mack-Piccone, include "a fair and equitable retirement package that allows them to live in some modicum of security after a lifetime of service to the College, a decent health insurance package that the College contributes to fairly, and for the first time in the history of the SEIU Skidmore contract, a living wage compensation plan that realistically meets the basic levels of service-worker pay in Saratoga county, let alone those of New York state as a whole."

One 36-year SEIU member and dining hall worker who wished to remain anonymous explains, "We are asking the college to treat us right. Aren't we worth our hire?"

Regardless of whether SEIU or another union ultimately represents the workers, the workers' successful outcome to the continued negotiations with the College is absolutely crucial.

If we, as students, care about our workers and what they do for us, we need to educate ourselves. Strike up a conversation with facilities or the cleaning staff (while they are on break, of course). Ask questions, even as simple as, "What are the issues most important to you in negotiations right now? How can we-as students-help support you at the bargaining table?"

Show our workers that students stand behind them in this fight, and let's start building a coalition, not to support one union over another union, but rather to support the amazing people on our campus who too often go unnoticed. These are the people who clean our dorms and buildings, maintain the mechanical equipment, prepare and serve our food, keep our grounds and landscapes beautiful, organize the student mail, and care for our horses and stables.

What kind of institution do we want to be a part of? We can make it happen.

Why The Skidmore News

Posted by The Editorial Board

Current society has become accustomed to the instantaneous dissemination of information. On April 15 of 2013 at 2:49 p.m. EDT, two bombs crafted out of pressure cookers exploded on the sidewalk next to the finish line of the 117th Boston Marathon. Within three minutes the first tweets including the stems "explod*," "explos*" and "bomb*" were published on the social media website Twitter. The New York Times ran their first full-length article detailing the attacks Twenty-eight minutes later at 3:17 p.m. EDT.

The modern individual has more news source options to choose from than ever before. And not only are there more news sources, but as New York Times writer Brian Stelter pointed out during his on-campus lecture last spring entitled "Twenty-Somethings," there's an entirely new method of packaging information to the public. Websites like BuzzFeed and Twitter have become enormously successful due to their intelligent integration of advertisements, eye-catching headlines and, most importantly, their clear, concise and punchy delivery. This year the New York Times audited 593 newspapers and reported a 0.7 percent daily circulation decline.

From major publications to fringe newspapers, the changing landscape of journalism has been a prominent table topic. Inevitably, the form of news delivery that society prefers is changing-but with a definite perk. Readers can now comment on and share news with the click of a button. Thanks to modern technology, the public is now a more integral part of the dialogue. The Skidmore News hopes to emulate and encourage this readership involvement in our own publication to the best of our ability.

Why read articles when you can receive sound bytes of information from numerous social media sites? President John Kennedy once noted about the press that its role is "not to simply give the public what it wants-but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and even sometimes anger public opinion." There is something lost in the sensationalism of the news circulated by media sites. At The Skidmore News, we believe that there is enormous value in carefully crafted, researched and artistic journalism.

We are here not to make news, but report it. Our job is to not only to observe and record Skidmore's accolades and achievements, but also to recognize and point out its mistakes and faults. In return, we ask that the reader identify our faults when they are apparent so that we may correct them. As Skidmore College's sole official newspaper, we are inherent to the critical debate regarding this campus-but the reader is equally as indispensable to its dialogue. We not only could not silence your dissent, but we welcome it.

As the only club chartered for the specific purpose of printing campus news we aim to serve as a source of unbiased and factual information, meaningful and well-researched opinions and, finally, as a common ground for opinion and debate. As the reader you fuel us with feedback, criticism and contestation. Without you, we could not grow.

Founded in 1925, The Skidmore News was chartered as the official campus newspaper with , "the purpose ... to act as a source of communication and dissemination of information for the students, faculty and employees of Skidmore College as well as the general Saratoga community." We are deeply proud of our role in Skidmore College's historic trajectory and equally excited to continue on with our tradition as custodians of information. We're looking forward to a great year.

The harm in jumping to conclusions

Posted by The Editorial Board

In a small community, good news travels fast, but bad news travels faster. On April 19, this newspaper reported that Skidmore senior Justin Tavarez had been charged by the Saratoga Springs police department with grand larceny in the fourth degree and theft of service. It was later learned that a charge of witness tampering had also been added. Justn is the same student who, in 2010, pled guilty to misdemeanor assault.

Unfortunately, in a case like this, many community members who do not personally know Justin-nor the circumstance surrounding his arrest-have presumed his guilt, and now assume that his character is nothing more than the sum total of the crimes he has allegedly committed.

We find this to be saddening. In a community as small as ours, and in a community which purports and strives to value principles of justice and due process, we find it disheartening that Skidmore students have been so quick to assume Justin's guilt, and equally quick to ostracize. Regardless of his previous and alleged criminal activity, Justin is above all a Skidmore student, and no Skidmore student should have to walk on campus feeling marginalized or like the victim of prejudice. Justin's innocence or guilt ought to be determined in the fair courts of law, not the brutal court of public opinion, and until the legal system establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that Justin is guilty, he deserves the community's benefit of the doubt.

As students and members of the larger community, we understand the inclination towards judgment. Such judgments are naturally occurring and inevitable. They are an evil caused by our inability to know all things in all cases. Still, we seek to remind the student body that forming quick judgments-though effortless and often satisfying-neither aids in obtaining a deeper understanding of what has happened nor assists the individual in finding vindication in the public eye. Rather than enjoying the right to explain themselves and have his/her version of the story assessed on neutral grounds, the individual is confronted with preexisting bias. The individual is burdened not only with trying to convince others they are innocent but also just to get others to listen and consider their story objectively. Such a burden is tremendous, and tremendously unjust to impose.

We do not know whether Justin is guilty or innocent and the victim of an unusual and unfortunate series of circumstances. In a community that pioneers restorative justice, we must always assume the best in someone. The law will judge Justin Tavarez. Condemning fellow students for alleged crimes is not our prerogative, and as such, we must continue to treat him and those who have befallen a similar fate with the same humanity we award anyone else. We cannot accuse someone of violating Skidmore's values while infringing upon them ourselves.

The ghost of Compton's past

Posted by Alex Hodor-Lee

On April 12, senior Justin Tavarez, was arrested on theft of service charges, after failing to pay $23.80 for his cab ride, following a late night of drinking downtown.

Tavarez, who took a cab home with a "white female" student (according to the driver's sworn statement), fled the cab with a bag left behind by the last passenger. Tavarez relinquished the bag shortly after fleeing the cab, and following a stubborn night of rain, its contents-valued at $1150-were irreparably waterlogged. Thus, Tavarez was charged with grand larceny the following Tuesday.

Tavarez called the owner. "I didn't mean to steal your stuff, I'm going to graduate this year, the charge is serious and I could do jail time, I want to meet you to show you I am a good guy." states a police document.

Two days after the call, Tavarez, 22, was arrested at Burgess Caf?? on an added charge of witness tampering in the fourth degree, and forced to walk across campus in handcuffs, despite the dean of student's plea to have him arrested outside the public setting.

Tavarez was at the center of another investigation in 2010, when a late night brawl broke out between four Skidmore students of color, and several local diners-now infamously referred to as "The Compton's Incident."

Tavarez, who took a plea deal so as to escape college expulsion, contends that local diners initiated the brawl. "This guy got in my face and pushed me-it was just pushes, that's all. I never broke a plate over his head, but plates were broken and food was everywhere. They might as well have said I hit him in the head with a pancake."

"I'll never forget, ever," said Tavarez, "we were all leaving the courthouse the next day and some guy in an SUV drove up next to us, rolled down his window and raised his fist and screamed 'white power!' We all just looked at him like, 'what?'"

Saratoga Springs is very much a tale of two towns.

The first is an affluent, sunny, halcyon summer destination characterized by the white mansions and white linen suits-something out of an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel.

The other town is much less glamorous: economically depressed, with a local newspaper sensationalizing headlines to attract readers, hoping to avoid filing for bankruptcy for a fourth time. This town doesn't welcome Skidmore students. Its police-suppressed witness' statements at Compton's two years ago and they trumped up charges for "a hispanik" (as the cab driver's police statement reads).

But this story is also about two Skidmores.

It's about a large faction of students who quickly convicted Justin for his involvement in the "Compton's incident" and a small minority of students, who were there, and really know what happened.

It's about a pernicious schism between opportunity program students, who immediately stand out in contrast to those who are privileged enough to indulge in the Vineyard, the Hamptons and equestrian culture.

It's about one set of tours that visit Skidmore one week, segregated from another set of Discovery tours that visit the next.

It's about limousine liberalism and armchair progressivism, and professors who observe, "The best way to keep incidence of drinking down on campus is to raise your minority population. College means a lot more to them."

It's about concerted efforts at cultural awareness negated by a student crudely scribbling, "I love being white" on a dorm fa??ade.

Though Justin's experiences may not mirror your own, it doesn't make them any less real. We shouldn't depreciate the value of someone's harsh experiences or feelings of marginalization in this town or this school, simply because you haven't felt them.

In this country, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. However, through misreporting and sensationalism and without a trial by jury, two men in Boston have already been convicted in the court of public opinion. What's more damaging is that because of their ethnicity, some commentators suggest their actions may preclude progressive immigration reform-proof that the evil of few sculpts the face of many.

In some instances-such as the Steubenville rape case-we go as far as socially indicting the victim. Many called that young female victim a "slut", with little understanding or knowledge of the case-proof that we need to practice media literacy and skepticism, not because it's easy, but because it is hard.

Next time you hear a story, question it. Next time you look in the mirror, ask yourself: would I be paraded, in handcuffs, across the campus green or convicted before my trial had even begun?

Justin Tavarez is no saint. I know because he's my housemate. While I had heard legends of the "Compton's Incident", it wasn't until a few weeks ago, I found out that he was the student in question. I never would have expected it from a young man who keeps us up at night-singing Adele songs in the shower or keeping the lights on so he can read books about social history and Bobby Kennedy.

Like me, Tavarez has a unique affection for RFK, and, like me, he's from New York City. Like me, he exhibits a New Yorker's cynicism. Sometimes, it feels like the only difference is the color of our skin. Now I consider him one of my closest allies. What's sad: but for a housing snafu, we may have never even met. Like you, he would have remained crystallized in my mind as "that Compton's kid."

For many us, the only thing we truly know about the "Compton's Incident", is that we truly know nothing about the Compton's incident at all. I welcome your disagreement to what I've said; we're all entitled to our own opinions. We are not however, entitled to our own facts-especially when we have none.

Skidmore's reputation on the line, again: The need for students to be wary as 4/20 and Fun Day approach

Posted by The Editorial Board

The onset of spring brings excitement to the student body not only because of the warm weather after a dreary and prolonged winter but also the occurrence of events like Fun Day and Earth Day, the latter which will be celebrated on 4/20 this year. While these events are part of Skidmore's traditions and are two of the more enjoyable events of the semester, they also often serve as an impetus for drug and alcohol abuse .

As these events approach we should consider  the substance abuse that has occurred in the past during these events and more recently in our community. Furthermore, we need to consider what we want these approaching events to look like and how we want them to reflect on ourselves and our college.

Last weekend there were seven reported alcohol and drug related hospitalizations, a large spike from normality. The causes of these occurrences can be attributed to a variety of factors: the "Big Show," where The Dirty Projectors played, the warm weather of spring, or even  "senioritis." While last weekend was an unfortunate semester low-point as far as substance-abuse goes, it raises greater concern for what may occur in the next few weeks as we approach  highly anticipated events like Fun Day, Earth Day and Spring Fling. In an email sent to students earlier this week, the Dean of Student Affairs, Rochelle Calhoun, spoke specifically of 4/20, a day widely recognized as a celebration of cannabis, and admonished students of the consequences of being caught in possession of illicit substances.

This year's 4/20 marks the four-year anniversary of the marijuana-related imbroglio which was photographed and reported by The Saratogian and consequentially skyrocketed Skidmore to No.2 on the Princeton Review's Reefer Madness list. Currently, Skidmore sits at No.4 and the College is working hard to shed this "druggy" reputation.  

This newspaper doesn't delude itself into suggesting that student's remain law-abiding, but that they consider the potential ramifications of their decisions. As Calhoun pointed out in her email, "even when we do not intend it--we represent the communities to which we belong. As student members of the Skidmore College, your actions will always represent the entire student body."

Specifically, this newspaper asks that students be safe. That is, of course, the primary concern. But we also ask that students remain conscious -- in all possible interpretations of the word -- of the impact of their decisions and how their actions will reflect Skidmore.

Fall Fun Day was a deemed a success, and there is no reason why the upcoming events shouldn't either. As long as students don't embarrass themselves, they won't embarrass the school.

Enjoy the upcoming events, it has been a long winter and the student body certainly needs these times to unwind and relax as the final onslaught of work approaches before finals. But be responsible, and hopefully Skidmore can see itself fall back a few slots in next year's Princeton Review list. There is really no good reason why the College is 11 places ahead of the University of Vermont in the Princeton Review's reefer madness rankings.  

An admirable, but poorly thought-out protest: How the Anti-Carroll protestors need to act moving forward

Posted by The Editorial Board

Last Friday, 40 students interrupted April's faculty meeting to protest the college's choice to invite Cynthia Carroll to speak at commencement. The protest was the first of its kind in twenty years -- when students protested the lack of racial diversity -- and garnered much attention among the student body. This newspaper commends the student protestors courage and their conviction to make their voices heard and see their passions manifest into civil action. However, this newspaper does not believe these protestors comported themselves in a manner that deserved the kind of respect they demanded the administration show students. Although it was only the actions of a few that were truly disrespectful, that does not exonerate the rest of the students involved who were just as responsible for this protest and should have controlled their rowdy members.

The controversy over Cynthia Carroll was well evident before this latest act of protest and it is understandable that these protestors wanted the administration to address the issue more directly. What this newspaper finds unfortunate is how quickly the protestors concerned with Carroll's background escalated the matter. With the exception of a small group of largely SGA affiliated students that includes one member of Friday's protesters, the student body has not  appealed to the administration with any meaningful action. About twenty students have written letters to the President to complain about Carroll and demand the administration do more to address the issue, but an email that could have been placed in  junk inbox or missed among the hundreds of other emails the President's office receives every week is not enough. If the students had taken any strong action before this latest protest; if they had sent a signed petition( with at least 100 names, not even a twentieth of the student body) demanding the administration justify their choice and take more action to redress the protestors' grievances;  if they had organized an open event that invited the administration to address the student body; or even if they had first held a sit-in at the President's office, and the administration had continued to ignore this group, then this latest protest may have been justifiable. But these protestors took no visibly significant action first. They acted in a manner that should have been a last resort of protest and interrupted and disturbed the faculty meeting.  Furthermore, the fact is that the administration has been overly eager to engage in dialogues with students in regards to the Cynthia Carroll controversy, and have gone so far as to secure a teleconference with Carroll for next week so that students can question her directly. This upcoming teleconference, oddly, was already known by the protestors, but they chose to carry out their protest anyway.

These protestors made a pitiful attempt to speak with the administration and then barged in on the faculty meeting, with a few insulting President Glotzbach. Even if we excused the few discourteous protesters, the protest as a whole remains immature.

Moving forward, those who oppose Cynthia Carroll as a commencement speaker need to conduct themselves in a way which deserves the kind of respect that they demand. It is unclear how many students of the graduating class are so firmly against Cynthia Carroll -- just because the anti-Carroll voices are the loudest does not mean they speak for the majority. Opponents of Carroll need to demonstrate that they have the support of the senior class in their actions. This could most easily be achieved through a petition. Opponents should also initiate the dialogues with the administration that they claim to want. Students need to take charge and responsibly initiate the change they want to see. Lastly, it is quite unlikely that Carroll will be dropped as a commencement speaker. She was chosen over a year ago and this year's commencement already has one less speaker than usual. Instead of demanding that Skidmore withdraw her invitation to speak, concerned students should ask for the administration to reexamine the way that commencement speakers are selected in the future. It is a fair request that students be included on this decision, and this newspaper asks that the administration gives due consideration to this issue.

This is what those 40 students should have done and should do now. To now directly address those 40 students -- you held your protest and got our attention, now prove that you are mature enough to deserve our regard. If you decide to continue down this disruptive road, though, this newspaper and many of the graduating seniors only hope that you are considerate enough to not attempt something similar at graduation and spoil one of the most important days in the lives of the members of senior class.

And to the administration: one of the complaints made by the protestors was that the administration is dragging out the current discussion in place. The administration needs to be thorough and careful, but they cannot just hold out until graduation has come and pass. Time may be on the administration's side but to not address these issues in a timely manner is just as irresponsible as the actions of the student protestors.

Senior Gift and the change we don't wish to see.: Why The Office of Development should leave Senior Gift the way it is

Posted by The Editorial Board

Note: We originally attributed the proposed changes mentioned in the following editorial to the Office of Alumni Affairs. That was incorrect, it was the Office of Development that engineered these proposed changes. Our apologies.

Also, The Office of Development has as of now rescinded their proposed changes.

Senior Gift is one of Skidmore's few lasting traditions and, since 1980, has asked seniors to donate money towards a scholarship for a rising senior who is burdened with a significant amount of debt and does not enjoy any other scholarship. Generally, this rising senior is in good academic standing and has proven him/herself to be a valuable contributor to the community.

Senior Gift is arguably the first time the graduating class gives back to Skidmore. After being the recipient of all the college has to offer for four years: the education, professors, friends, events and general college experience, seniors, through this act of largesse, allow one student the opportunity to look back upon their time at Skidmore after that time expires, without being crushed by the financial realities of the Skidmore experience. It relieves them of the enormous debt that would have weighed them down upon graduation, hampering them from pursuing their own goals and hopes.

Recently, the Office of Development was able to secure alumni matching, meaning that each dollar donated by a senior is matched with a dollar donated by an alumnus. The Office of Development -however - is now contemplating and moving ahead with offering seniors the option of choosing a beneficiary to donate their senior gift to that is not a traditional scholarship fund. Seniors will have the option to donate money to the athletics department, sustainable Skidmore, office of campus life ( in which donations could fund other awards or clubs, for example), or the traditional scholarship fund.

The Office of Development's logic behind this drastic change is that, disappointed with the amount of senior donations, they hope this change will increase senior participation to 80% of the class.  The change then, seems economic; the thinking goes that athletes would be more willing to donate to the athletic department, environmentally-conscious students would donate to sustainable Skidmore, and those that did not necessarily fall under any of the new categories could still donate to the original scholarship.

This paper feels the need, however, to suggest that the Office of Development has underestimated the detrimental nature of this change and - most importantly of all - has forgotten the purpose of Senior Gift. Senior Gift is one of the few acts of solidarity a class truly experiences. A class may come together for school events, but these events are hardly conscious endeavors to better Skidmore and its students. Senior Gift is one of the few events that unite a class in the act of giving back. It is meant to foster camaraderie, to bind students in a final act of magnanimity and charity, in the hopes that it will set them on a philanthropic track for the rest of their lives. It is the opportunity for a whole class to come together, for each student to give just a little, but, as a result of their collective efforts, relieve a fellow student of their debt. Offering students a choice of preferences divides the senior class into their respective cliques that has defined them in their four years at Skidmore. Senior Gift will be reduced to nothing more than donating money - not to some worthy student in need of aid - but to the student's own individual taste, one that is already being funded by a multitude of other sources. This change will remove the benefit of seeing the tangible results of the seniors' generosity.

Senior Gift is just as much about tradition and the senior community as it is about philanthropy. This newspaper asks that the Office of Development does not tarnish one of Skidmore's few worthy traditions. There must be better ways to raise the money needed to finance Skidmore's other activities.

Commencement speaker controversy : Cynthia Carroll misrepresentation of Skidmore

Posted by Luke Conley

Recently, there has been heated debate over one of the individuals that Skidmore's board of trustees has chosen to speak at commencement: Cynthia Carroll, Skidmore alumna and former CEO of the mining conglomerate Anglo American, a corporation with an absolutely dismal social and environmental record. Supporters have painted Ms. Carroll as an important figure in the advancement of women in the corporate world and a proponent of positive change in the mining industry. Both claims are, at best, dubious.

Perhaps more disturbing than the choice of Ms. Carroll as a speaker is the administration's dismissive response to student outrage, as well as their disregard for the mountain of evidence against Ms. Carroll and her company. Only now, after repeated hounding of administrators and an unequivocal statement that students will not accept the "father-knows-best" attitude, has a genuine dialogue begun.

The administration has been presented with a great deal of data condemning Anglo American's activities in the pursuit of profit during Ms. Carroll's time at the helm. In 2007, she became CEO, in addition to joining the oil company British Petroleum as part of, among other things, their Safety, Ethics and Environmental Assurances Committee - the Chairman of which was recently forced to resign due to outrage over BP's infamously disastrous handling of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

In Sept. 2009, the Ghanaian National Coalition on Mining condemned AngloGold/Ashanti for allegedly burying forty people alive.[i] In 2010, the company received the Ghanaian EPA's worst possible environmental rating.[ii] In Jan. 2011, The Berne Declaration and Greenpeace awarded the anti-accolade "Public Eye Award" to AngloGold/Ashanti. Daniel Owosu-Korentang, President of nominating organization WACAM, stated upon the presentation of the "award" that mining waste contaminated the only available sources of water for villagers and that "local residents were occasionally tortured in the company's guard house; some cases resulted in fatalities."[iii] Mr. Owosu-Korentang, recently told students that that such issues remain major problems for locals, despite dialogue with AngloGold/Ashanti.

I could, regrettably, go on and on.

There are those who suggest that Anglo American's actions do not reflect directly on Ms. Carroll. It is true that accidental fatalities have decreased during her time as CEO. This does not, however, invalidate the overwhelming evidence that much of Anglo American's activity is harmful to the environment and to the human beings who live near their mines. Ms. Carroll was chosen as a speaker because of the unique position she occupies in the business world. She is where she is because of what she and her company have done. This is not who we, as students, want to represent Skidmore.

The administration faces a much deeper choice than whether or not to bring Ms. Carroll to commencement. They must decide on a fundamental level what kind of institution they are running. Prospective and current students alike are told constantly that Skidmore fosters global citizenship, civic engagement and personal integrity. Parents are told that they are entrusting their children to an institution that will foster not only their intellectual growth, but also their commitment to social justice. Ms. Carroll's honoring flies in the face of all that.

Whether to bring Ms. Carroll to commencement is ultimately the board of trustee's decision. But they must have no illusions about what that decision means. To present Ms. Carroll with an honorary degree and ask her to impart wisdom to our graduating class is an active endorsement of all the indefensible things that her company has done in the pursuit of profit. It is a clear statement that money is more important to this institution and in adult life than justice. And it is an unequivocal admission that all the talk we hear about creative thought, social responsibility and the encouragement of activism is just that: talk, and nothing more.

[i] http://www.twnafrica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=183:ncom-condemn-anglogold-ashanti-aga-for-allegedly-burying-alive-40-small-scale-miners-&catid=50:ncom&Itemid=75

[ii]http://www.epaghanaakoben.org/rating/mines/2-3

[iii] http://www.publiceye.ch/en/news/press-release-january-28th-2011

SGA: the passing thought in need of change

Posted by The Editorial Board

As Student Government Association elections are happening, it is a relevant time to consider how we hope to improve SGA in the upcoming year.

Skidmore's student body is very involved -- we have an impressive number of clubs, which contrasts the lack of interest in SGA. SGA should be the most important organization on campus; it represents the study body to the administration, organizes the few events that bind this college as a community, and is responsible for the budgets and finances of other clubs. Yet SGA often doesn't garner enough interest to even fill its open positions. An organization chartered to fulfill so many important roles should be a topic of interest among students; the fact that it is not is a gross failure.  

This shortcoming cannot be attributed to a single party, but to both SGA and the Skidmore student body.

SGA needs to advertise itself better, and part of this issue can be addressed by making SGA more visible to the community, as many of the candidates on Speech Night pointed out. When important topics of interest arise, why not survey the community on their opinion? It would not only make the jobs of SGA officers easier, but include the rest of the student body. Perhaps every once in a while the Class Presidents can hold a short thirty minute session at the SPA to update interested classmates on current events and plans, and to answer any of their questions. The occasional email and open-around-the-clock front desk are both helpful, but are clearly not enough. More visibility in students' lives will directly lead to an increase in the importance that students attach to SGA, which in turn will galvanize more student involvement.

What may dissuade students from joining SGA, though, is that they do not know exactly what the SGA does. One too many people at Skidmore understand SGA as a glorified party-planner. While SGA is responsible for organizing events such as Fun Day and Moorebid, it does much more than that. SGA needs to better convey what the exact functions of each and every one of its offices are --from SGA President to Class Secretary to Senator.  And feel free to glorify these roles as much as you please. Send students these descriptions, post them on your website, and certainly post them on your underutilized Facebook page.

If the student body understood the purpose of SGA, a few more students might just run for open offices, and it would certainly be encouraging if so many candidates running for office did not do so unopposed.  Wednesday night's Speech Night quickly grew long as the few who attended listened to countless monologues and endured pointless Q & A sessions directed at the sole candidate.

The lack of interest in our SGA and community is an embarrassment, and SGA needs to do what it can to improve its current stature among students. Hopefully, the new SGA will bring the needed change it has promised.  Albeit, most of those who will take their seats at fall's first SGA meeting will be the same that led this current SGA.

But SGA can do only so much. Students at Skidmore need to take an interest in their school; being involved does not require one to run for office, just to read the occasional email from SGA and bring your needs and ideas to their attention. SGA's officers have expressed many times their eagerness to listen, and while they are ultimately responsible for the change that will improve our school and community, they cannot do it alone, and as mere representatives of the student body, they shouldn't have to.

Cynthia Carroll, Controversial?

Posted by The Editorial Board

There has been, in the past few weeks, a notable rumbling amongst the Skidmore student body about a topic few people pay much attention to until graduation day - the commencement speaker. Earlier this month, in a letter to the senior class and their families, President Glotzbach announced that David Brooks of the New York Times would speak, as would Cynthia Carroll, a 1978 alumnus of Skidmore, and former CEO of the mining conglomerate Anglo-American. David Brooks seems not to have spurred much attention (which is a shame, he is a great reporter). Ms. Carroll, conversely, has caused much outcry. Students have pointed out that Anglo-American has a less than perfect environmental record, and has been accused by some of human rights violations.  Others are upset that even just the name of her former employer - Anglo-American - is a slap in the face to students of color.

We, however, defend the choice of Ms. Carroll as a commencement speaker. The purpose of a commencement speech is - if we may steal words from a commencement speech given by David Foster Wallace in 2005 - to be "about your liberal arts education's meaning, to try to explain why the degree you are about to receive has actual human value." The purpose too, of a commencement speech, is to broadly instill upon the graduating class a final piece of advice that will somehow help those graduates after they leave college And, for the love of god, to do it in less than half an hour. And there is no arguing that Ms. Carroll has been successful - she was named Forbes' fourth most powerful woman in 2007, and ran the second largest mining firm in the world. It is in this that we see the virtue of Ms. Carroll as a commencement speaker, as surely, somewhere in her long path, she has gleaned some piece of insight into how to live, and how to be successful at whatever you choose.

Students have questioned what message the choice of a former CEO of a mining company with a dubious environmental record sends, especially after Skidmore just won a national environmental award.  We feel the need to point out that Ms. Carroll has not been brought in to give a speech on environmental activism - which would rightly require much outrage - nor has she been asked to give a speech as an advocate of the mining industry. She has been asked to give a speech as a Skidmore graduate, as a woman, and as a successful woman. She has been asked to give a speech as someone who has worked hard, who has managed to balance a rich family life as the mother of four children with a distinguished career. She has been asked to give a speech, most importantly of all, as someone who the board of trustees think might just be able to impart some wisdom upon the graduating class. We ask only that they listen. 

The benefit of hydrofracking

Posted by J. Galt

Note: In an earlier version of this article, I tied the production of hydrofracking to the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. That was deplorably incorrect and a lamentable demonstration of poor research on the subject. I appreciate those who pointed out my error and now present a revised version.

A week ago, I found a poster in one of the dorm's hallways deploring hydrofracking for polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, poisoning local water sources and causing earth tremors. If these are the only problems that critics pose for stopping the development of fracking, then there really is no problem at all.

First, opponents argue that fracking causes earthquakes, but there is, in fact, little risk of fracking causing earth tremors. There has so far been only one such incident confirmed which occurred in the United Kingdom. In response, the U.K. carried out an extensive study to discover any causation of earthquakes by fracking before dolling out licenses to fracking companies. The U.K., after finding insubstantial evidence and declaring that the risk of fracking causing seismic activity was minimal, has started granting these licenses.

Second, critics claim that fracking poisons groundwater. Hydrofracking, as the name alludes to, uses water mixed with chemicals to flush out the natural (shale) gas in the ground. This toxic water, claim critics, can contaminate underground water and poison local inhabitants. The evidence supporting this, too, is inconclusive. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency tested groundwater for contamination at a fracking site in Pavillion, WY, and found that there was indeed evidence of contamination. Oddly, a second group that also tested the site in conjunction with the EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, did not. Instead, USGS and many others accused the EPA of using equipment that contained paint which would have added the trace chemicals they were looking for,  and which would have tainted their own samples of water.

A recent report released at a conference of the Association for the Advancement of Science found that contamination did occur but generally occurred near the surface, where poorly constructed wells or storage pools for the released gas allowed the gas to leak and then contaminate neighboring reservoirs. This is certainly egregious, but it also denotes that contamination is not an inherent quality of fracking but of poor, corporate oversight. A few more regulations mandating that companies use state-of-the-art technology and monitor local bodies of water for contamination and the issue is mitigated.

The third issue is, of course, that natural gas is not a renewable source of energy and contributes to global warming. This is undeniable, but what is beneficial about natural gas is that it contributes less greenhouse gases than petroleum and coal, the two major sources of energy. According to the EPA, natural gas produces 43 percent less carbon emissions than coal and 30 percent less than petroleum. The main issue with natural gas is it can produce more methane, which is more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide, the poster child of global warming. Fortunately, there is technology that can prevent methane from leaking into the atmosphere during fracking, and methane only has about a twenty year lifespan before it decays, whereas carbon dioxide can hover for centuries in the atmosphere.

So far I've only discussed the three most common reasons propagated for prohibiting fracking. What hasn't been mentioned is that fracking can, if allowed to reach its full potential, create 3.5 million jobs by 2035 (according to a study commissioned by the U.S Department of Commerce.) Furthermore, fracking will allow the United States to wean itself off dependency of the Middle East (read: no more Gulf wars), will allow the United States to reach energy self-sufficiency by 2020 (at the earliest), and to begin exporting natural gas, which will finally shrink the trade deficit and budget deficit. An abundance of natural gas will also keep gas prices low for the mean time.

Natural gas won't replace the search for greener technology, as many environmentalists fear. Ernest Moniz, President Obama's nominee to replace Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, advocates for the development of fracking as he considers natural gas a bridge to a cleaner-energy future. Natural gas is not the ideal choice for energy, but it is the most feasible and it is much better than what we use now: coal and petroleum. If we hinder the development of fracking, it will not accelerate the installation of solar panels and construction of windmills. We will just invest more heavily in coal and petroleum; that is how the economy works, for better or for worse. Advocating against natural gas and fracking is not only doing the economy a disservice, but the environment as well, and for that reason, fracking should be fully utilized for the time being.

Spring break in Vero Beach: a case for choosing the alternative spring break

Posted by Andrew Shi

Sunny, 70 degree weather, Florida, Vero Beach specifically; these sound like the components of the standard spring break. But factor in that the week was spent nailing on a roof and organizing a home-depot sized thrift store and the picture no longer includes a bucket of Coronas on white sandy beaches.

I, along with six other Skidmore students, spent spring break working with Habitat for Humanity, a charity organization that constructs houses and sells them at substandard mortgages to lower-income families. The house we worked on was going to a single woman with three children and two jobs.

Our workday started at 7:30, which meant we were up by 6:30. We worked until 3, lugging around planks of wood, organizing dusty shelves until they  resembled some level of professionalism, and hammering in nail after nail until our wrists developed carpal tunnel. The work day ended early enough, but despite a day that saw sunlight past nine, most of us were sound asleep by 10 p.m. Sound fun yet?

Vero Beach, obviously, had a beach, several in fact, but it certainly wasn't Cancun. Yet, there's a reason why, if someone offered me a week partying in Cancun or constructing houses in Vero Beach, I'd still choose the latter.

The work is unbelievably gratifying. Arguably, we attend college to become highly contributive citizens that give back to our community. Why wait until then to give back? When there are 52 weeks in the year there is a redeeming effect of donating one of those weeks, especially during spring break. It's an opportunity to give back to the community, as we were all beneficiaries of the kindness of others at one point; it's an opportunity to pay it forward. It's an opportunity to forget the stress and pressure of school and toil away the anxiety. And it's an opportunity to discover lasting friends, and ones from other schools too (we worked with students from The University of Georgia and Saint Louis University).

An alternative spring break is hardly relaxing, but despite physical exhaustion it permits mental recuperation. It'll leave you ready to tackle the rest of the semester, but the purpose of an alternative spring break is to find a meaningful way to spend a week off from school. It's a choice between a week of catching up on sleep, a week of little sleep from partying or a week of little sleep from enabling a needy person to find comfort and a place to call home. But there is no need to justify an alternative spring break on moral grounds. I chose it because it was more exciting, more fun, and much more warmer than my home in dreary Boston. Still, I found working for Habitat for Humanity to be a rewarding experience, one I would encourage for all and for reasons beyond the weather. And it's not like an alternative spring break is all work and no play; it was, after all, a trip to the beaches of Florida. 

Fullbridge: an opportunity to prepare for the real world

Posted by Sam Lawfer

Given the length of our winter break, I sought to turn my ample free time into an opportunity. That's where The Fullbridge Program came in, and all it took to get started was a 300-word essay.  The Fullbridge Program is a group of professionals who provide the necessary skills to transition from school to employment by providing students with an accurate simulation of the professional environment. In this program, the mistakes you make are not treated like they would be with a real job, but rather are treated as opportunities for you to learn and grow from. Fullbridge coaches encourage risks and see them as real learning experiences. Make the mistakes at Fullbridge and learn from them so that when you start your real job or your next internship, you won't make such a mistake again.

You may be wondering what kind of information The Fullbridge Program provides. The Fullbridge Program attempts to make each participant literate in the language of business.  Participants choose between two separate tracks: Business immersion and Entrepreneurship, but both tracks begin the program by learning the Common Core until these paths diverge at the midpoint, leading to unique final projects focusing on their respective styles of business.

A typical day is broken down into two four-hour segments that have a distinct business theme (e.g. strategy, innovation, brand, etc.). Within each segment, there are individual deliverables required of participants, as well as group deliverables expected from your team of five or six students who you work with intimately to achieve the common program goals. Much like in a real professional environment, these teams are made up of diverse participants with different backgrounds, majors, schools, interests and levels of expertise. The segments progressively build on each other, providing students with the opportunity to really handle the material and make it their own.

If you think that this program is not for you because you are not a business major or you think you do not understand business, do not despair. As a business major, I worked side by side with students pursuing degrees in English, economics, neuroscience, art history, gender studies and mathematics. They were able to pick up and become literate in the language of business because the supportive network at Fullbridge is unparalleled.

For business majors, this is a phenomenal opportunity to check and deepen your understanding of the global business world, as well as to get out of your comfort zone and work with liberal arts majors, pre-med students and others not typically in your classes - much like in the real world. The fact is that there is a necessity for business sense in our lives, and this program is capable of facilitating and complementing anyone's course of study.

While the focus is on professional skills, Fullbridge dedicates a portion of the program to the individual and personal career visions of its participants. For students who already know what career path they want to take, the program will provide a unique perspective on why that particular path might be a good fit for you, as well as providing new avenues to explore.  For the overwhelming majority of students who do not know what they want to do after college, participation in The Fullbridge Program is seriously worth considering.  I went into the program thinking I knew what I wanted to do and came out with an entirely different list of careers that were far better tailored to my interests and skills.

For more information go to: http://fullbridge.com/program/.

To apply for Summer 2013 go to:  https://portal.fullbridge.com/application.

Application Deadlines for Summer 2013:

Monday, May 6th

The value of being alone: A response to Bryan Walsh's Time magazine article "The Upside of being an introvert"

Posted by Kristina Kassis

I love people. I always have. I thrive on the energy of others. While for some, entering a room full of strangers evokes panic, I feel a rush of adrenaline, a thrill. Consequentially, I hate being alone. Over the years, this dislike of solitude has gone from crippling fear to minor anxiety, but it is something I must live with everyday, and something I admit is not entirely healthy. I love that others make me happy, but sometimes I wish I COULD be on my own without feeling overwhelmed by loneliness and needing someone else's company.

Bryan Walsh recently wrote an article in Time called "The Upside of Being an Introvert" (and Why Extroverts are Overrated)" Despite my affinity for people, I have to agree with Walsh's assertion.

Over the years, I have found that being an extrovert has done me more harm than good. I trust people far too easily, and I tend to skip from superficial friend to superficial friend rather than having long-term or meaningful relationships with one person.  And worst of all I can't be alone.  I really wish this wasn't the case.

 In a world that is constantly frenzied, I believe that being alone, even for a few minutes a day, is essential. I am convinced that part of the reason I am constantly anxious is because I am relentlessly inundated by people and noise and unable to separate myself from these people. As a result, I have made a concerted effort to spend at least an hour a day alone. While it was difficult at first, it has become somewhat cathartic. I have felt more relaxed, focused, and motivated to tackle the challenges of everyday life. Extroverts, I encourage you to take time out of your busy schedules and simply be alone. Listen to music, read, or draw, whatever helps you relax. Cherish this time. It will make you value your time with others even more. 

Praise for drones

Posted by J. Galt

One of the most compelling arguments against the use of armed drones is the high civilian casualty rate. Of recent, stories that drones could be used to target American citizens have been highly publicized. In fact, this has already occurred. In 2011 three Americans were killed: Anwar al-Aulaqi, a known Al-Qaeda leader in Yemen, his nephew Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, a known Al-Qaeda propagandist. Is should be noted, that of these three men, only Anwar was targeted. Samir died in the strike that killed Anwar, and Abdulraham was a casualty of a strike that killed Ibrahim al-Banna, a senior Al-Qaeda figure.

The issue of targeting American citizens isn't an inherent flaw of the drone program. That problem derives from the American government bypassing due process with impunity. To redress this flaw, President Obama must create protocol and instructions for its use; he must make the drone program transparent or accountable. But all in all, America's drone system should be highly admired and encouraged.

But how can a program that kills civilians possibly be admired?

The New America Foundation calculated in a widely cited report that between 1,953 and 3,279 people have been killed by drone strikes since 2004, and that 18 percent to 23 percent of those casualties were civilian, although the report states that in 2012, civilian casualties were down to 10 percent. Assuming the worst, that 23 percent of the 3,279 killed by drones were civilian, the number of civilian casualties since 2004 is 754, an absurdly high number. Several other authorities estimate the number is even higher. Nothing can defend the killing of civilians, especially from a country that justifies its actions as defense against terrorism. The only consideration to be brought up is, if drones were removed from service, what would happen?

The reason that America is taking action in Pakistan and Yemen is that Pakistan and, to a certain extent, Yemen, are incapable of fighting these insurgencies on their own (Osama Bin Laden was found in Abbbottabad, a Pakistani city home to the Pakistan Military Academy, their West Point Academy). Pakistan's intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, is a venal and shadowy agency, often accused and connected to the very terrorist organizations they are instructed to extirpate. So, if the United States removed drones from Pakistan, the Pakistani government may try to combat the insurgents and terrorist organizations, but would likely fail. In the end, the United States, if they wished to prevent the failure of the state, would have to send in troops. How many deaths would that amount to?

Furthermore, terrorists don't often direct their attacks on military troops - they attack civilians. That's what makes them terrorists. So while there is an important distinction between terrorists and militants, the question is from the approximately 1504 to 2689 militants and terrorists killed since 2004, how many lives did America save?

Perhaps some of those militants and terrorists would have been killed regardless, but Navy Seal Team Six can't be sent in every time a top Al-Qaeda official is found. Undoubtedly, that would be a lot messier than the drone strike that hits its target within six meters.

While reprimanding the drone strike program, it's important to consider the unquantifiable good it has done, and ponder what the American government would have to do if it was shut down, because the government by no means was going to just lie down and wait for these insurgents and terrorists to gain strength. By removing the drone program, the government is forced to take its next best option, one that will likely produce more civilian deaths. The drone program is by no means perfect in its current form, but to outlaw its usage in warfare would be an egregious mistake and would leave both American troops and Pakistani and Yemen citizens in more danger than they are under the auspices of the drones.