CHANEL PALACIOS ’14

OPINIONS EDITOR

What should I write about for my last opinion piece of the year? I’ve written so much about Chartwells, the social policy, construction, administration, advising, manners, and some other random things. It’s the end of the year though, and there are just a couple things on everyone’s minds: finals, summer, and next year.

First, we all need to get through finals. By the time this is read, students will have finished most of their classes. But on the off chance that students still have classes, here’s a little tip. Don’t let your ever growing frustration with the semester make you disregard all etiquette. No matter how sick you are of your classmates and professors, bite your tongue and just start counting sheep. It’s a lot better than arguing over the most trivial things. Trust me on that one. Stick it out, and leave everyone with a good impression. Leave your rants and tirades for those course evaluations they make you do, which apparently professors actually read. Who knew. Another tip as you approach finals. I’ve said this before and it deserves to be repeated. Don’t keep complaining about how much work you have. Go in the library and get it done. Also, don’t bother asking people how they are in the library. The answer is always the same. They’re swamped with work and sleep deprived. Instead, ask them something that’s so ridiculous they’ll actually pause and think about what on earth you just said. Don’t put me on the spot right now though to come up with a funny question, that’s just too much pressure and I’m sleep deprived.

Another note on finals and the end of the year. Just because it’s finals doesn’t mean you can’t have fun. There’s no time to make questionable decisions late at night on the weekends, but study breaks are necessary. Make time to eat. You won’t be able to focus with your stomach growling, but you will manage to get weird looks from other people in the library. Go to an ihop before you take your place in the library. Don’t underestimate the value of Chipotle and Starbucks. It sounds like I’m suggesting eating away your stress, and maybe I am, but hey, the gym will still be open also. Another way to relieve the stress, just go lay out on the quad. It’s finally nice out, which is almost cruel. You don’t have the go all Spring Weekend on the quad, just relax. Play Frisbee if you want to, but don’t knock someone’s head off. Eat lunch on the quad, do something out there. Trinity can be really beautiful at times, so don’t waste all of the spring sunshine being in the library. If you do, it’s going to be a huge shock during summer break when you step out of your cave and get blinded by the sun.

Second, SUMMER. Summer. Despite all the jobs and internships that’ll be going on, it’s still summer and you can’t deny your excitement. For seniors, maybe you’re taking the summer to travel or relax or do anything before entering the world of employment. All I can say is, Hakuna Matata. For everyone else, enjoy your internships, your part time jobs, or enjoy being a bum. Don’t underestimate the value of being a bum. Downside, there’s no money for Disneyland. Upside, laying out on a beach is free (except for gas) and that’s a beautiful thing. I’m not sure what everyone else’s plans are, but I do miss my California beaches, and I will take many days to lay out. Be like Superman, and let the sun rejuvenate you from an exhausting and stressful semester.

We need to remember what summer break is about. You may have to take classes, or get internships, but it’s still very different from the full course load of a semester. It’s also a break from the social scene at Trinity. If you’re tired of the small school where you see everyone everywhere, then you should really appreciate summer to see old friends, get away from drama, and basically get the choice of who you see constantly. Because when you come back in late August or early September, you’re in for another fun round of not being able to avoid certain persons. Good luck, dolls.

Everyone knows how to have their own fun over summer. I don’t need to give suggestions on that. But in my humble opinion, you should balance going crazy and relaxing. Personally, I know I have some plans that aren’t the most relaxing of events, but I know how exhausted I’ll be when I get back. And that’s what the beach (Cali beaches over east coast beaches any day) is for. Take the time to visit your friends outside of the Trinity atmosphere. I know how annoying it’ll be to make the seven hour flight, plus layovers, to see my friends on the east coast, but it’s worth it. It’s my last summer as an undergraduate, and I’d like to go crazy and also chill out with my friends before entering senior year, and then eventually the world of employment.

Third, try not to think ahead to next year. Or only think of the excitement for next year. Maybe you’re really excited to no longer be a freshman. Maybe you’re excited for your housing situation. Maybe you’re excited for that awesome schedule you created for yourself. Whatever it is, keep that excitement in mind.

If you’re dreading next year, I hope you’re just thinking of how busy it’ll be and how you’ll keep yourself sane. In which case, buy a lot of bubble wrap. Problem solved. There’s no use stressing about next year when you should only be worrying about how you’re going to pay for gas money over the summer. Now I have to mention quickly, I’m excited to be a senior next year. I’ve fulfilled all my requirements already, and as a result have a pretty sweet schedule for next year. I know that isn’t the case for everyone, so I’m sorry that I had to brag really quickly. But the other side of being a senior is the nostalgia. It’s going to be a really fast summer if you keep thinking about how fast the time has gone. If the summer must go by fast, then make it go by fast because you’re too busy having fun. Go visit your friends, even though it’s a seven hour flight each way. It’s worth it.

Coming back next year, I don’t have any suggestions. I’m good at ranting, but not so much at giving advice. I would just say that come in next year forgetting all the nonsense that happened this year. Be excited for Mather food, because you’ll have approximately four meals before you get sick of it again. Be excited for those first two weeks of great weather, before blizzards and super storms hit. Or just be an optimistic person in general.

Students should be glad that the year is finally coming to a close, if only because it’s time for a change. Make vacation more than a cliche, and enjoy the time with family and friends. We all need a break from classes, professors, Chartwells, and even from other students. It’s the end of the year, and if you want to reflect on what that means, then go for it. If you choose not to reflect, hopefully you won’t make the same mistakes as years past. Come back bright and happy faced. When us students come back, we should look like freshman again, with hope shining all over our naïve little faces. We’ve got a while before things starts kicking in again, so enjoy finals (not), summer, and be excited to come back next year.

ABHILASH PRASANN ’16

CONTRIBUTING WRITER

“I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this–however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”—Constable Michael Sanguinetti on crime prevention at a York University safety forum at Osgoode Hall Law School on January 24, 2011.

This was the statement that triggered the “SlutWalk” protest marches in 2011. Does it depress you or anger you? Wait until you hear some of the other statements that have been made by policemen, politicians and other people when asked about rape.

These are some of the statements that have been made by some men across the world on the issue of rape. I have not written the name of the individuals who made these statements on purpose.

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

“Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.”

“The girl was drunk and was asking for it. Why blame the perpetrators?”

“Under the influence of western culture, women have begun to wear short clothes and thus are asking for it.”

“The girl should not have got out in such a late hour. If she had not, then she would not have been raped.”

On April 14, 2013, a five year old was raped in New Delhi by two men. She was abducted from her home and then raped. Doctors recovered a bottle and a candle from her genitals. Her condition is known to be critical. The suspects were arrested within a week.

What was the excuse this time? She was not wearing short clothes. She was not under the “Influence of Western culture.” She was not drunk. She was not “asking for it.” She was not out of her home at a late hour as she was abducted from her home.

Such incidents sadden me, not just because I am an Indian, but as a man. What saddened me more were the reactions to rape all over the world as shown by the statements quoted above. If we blame the woman before we look at the suspect then there is something seriously wrong with our psyche. Somewhere down the line we, as men, have slipped. Somewhere down the line we have become too disrespectful towards the opposite sex.

If you are a man and thinking to yourself “Oh, others are like this, not me,” let me ask you a few questions. Have you ever looked at an intoxicated girl and made a physical move on her thinking that she won’t be able to refuse you? Have you ever referred to your girlfriend or a girl who has said no to you and yes to someone else as a “bitch”? Have you ever thought that you can push a girl to get in bed with you just by forcefully planting a few kisses on her? Have you ever been with a girl only because she looks attractive? Have you ever thought that a certain girl was of loose character just because she is scantily clad on a regular basis?

If the answer to any of these questions is a yes then you have an attitude problem towards women.

I will admit; I found myself saying yes at least once when I asked myself those questions. I am not trying to preach here but we seriously need to introspect where we, as men, went wrong. So how can we stop this? Stronger laws? Some law makers around the world have asked for the death penalty believing it will serve as a deterrent to rapists. Countries have death penalty for murder, we know how much of a deterrent that is. But to put restrictions for women? I am not going to even delve in such Taliban like measures.

The real problem lies in our approach and attitude towards women. Laws can play their part but what we need more than anything else is a little course correction with our attitude.

If you find a girl in a vulnerable, insecure or intoxicated state, just take her back to her room or escort her to safety irrespective of whether or not she remembers you the next day. You have to treat a woman like a lady without expecting something out of her. Don’t look at a woman as only someone who is “looking for the D.” The only thing that they need and deserve is respect from us men.

We can appreciate a beautiful woman on the sidewalk without demeaning her with whistling or groping hands, or worse. You can offer a rape victim compassion, support, and an attempt at justice, not blame her or force her to hide in the very shadows where she was attacked. The shame isn’t on her – it is on those who perpetrate, justify, and ignore.

We need to appreciate women more. Don’t objectify them. Is all this too much to ask? Just try to be the man you would want your daughter to be with. There is more to women than just their bodies. You came out of one after all. You may spend your life with one. They are the best thing to have happened to us men. They complete us. Love them, appreciate them, and respect them.

To quote Jules Michelet- “Women are a miracle of divine contradictions.”

CHANEL PALACIOS ’14

OPINIONS EDITOR

Another Spring Weekend has gone, meaning it’s time to really focus on finals. For those who aren’t ready to face that kind of stress just yet, we can reflect on this past weekend, and look at what made it successful this year. Even as I write this piece, I’m feeling nostalgic, knowing that it’s time to buy gallons of coffee and live in the library for the last couple weeks here.

My first two years here, Spring Weekend meant perfect weather on Friday and Saturday, and then clouds and rain on Sunday. Friday and Saturday on the main quad there would be students playing games I’ve never heard of, or just listening to music. There would be a main concert on Sunday, but since it always rained on Sunday, it would be moved from the LSC quad to the Koeppel Center. Turnouts at the concert would always be smaller than the amount of students on the main quad, because of the bad weather, the far walk, and the fact that students were too tired to walk over. Only the most dedicated students continued their weekend festivities. It was a bit different this year.

For one, the weather was terrible on Friday. It was cloudy and gray, and at times raining. Only the bravest students were outside on the quad, interacting with society on Friday. Props to these students. It wasn’t until later in the day that students decided not to let the weather ruin their fun. Considering it was still warm out, I was surprised at the amount of students that weren’t outside. Shame on you guys. There was a moon bounce. There was silly string. There was music. But the unexpected bad weather was a small price to pay for that sunshine on Saturday, finally allowing the main concert to be outside. It was beautiful.

The coordinators of the various events this past weekend should get a little shout out here. The quad on Friday was filled with tables and events and moon bounces, everything that adds up to pure fun. And also, there were hydration stations located around campus. Wise move, Trinity. Better than sending emails banning alcohol, there were tables with water and snacks. Keeping students hydrated was a better response to excessive drinking than emails preaching abstinence (from alcohol). Besides that, jumping up and down during Alesso non stop got to be really tiring, and those waters and popcorn really helped get the energy back up. Even at the concert, there was a moon bounce chair, if that’s what you call it. While it seemed a little bit like a school dance with the designated picture area, it was perfect. You sat, listened to Alesso, bounced without putting much energy into it, and hoped a friend caught a picture before you fell off.

Another wise decision was moving the main concert from Sunday to Saturday. It always confused me why the concert would be on a Sunday, when students need to be recuperating from an exhausting weekend. The move allowed students to spend Sunday doing work, or more realistically, thinking about all the work they would do on Monday. The sunshine continued on Sunday, prompting students to lay on the quad despite the coldness. Any students who had hopes of being productive found themselves laying on blankets in front of the long walk, just listening to all the different music.

But everyone who was here this weekend already knows all of this. They know what they did, either from memory or from infamous stories. What we don’t know is how we’re going to make ourselves focus. How are we going to reconcile the fact that Spring Weekend is indeed over? How are we going to immerse ourselves into academics, when the sun is finally out on the quad. The library is only so effective if we keep staring out the window at the beautiful weather. Last year I wrote an article about enjoying the quad more often, and I still stand by that. There’s no reason not to capture the feelings of Spring Weekend every time it’s warm out. Except for the fact that we have classes, exams, papers, all that fun stuff. If I didn’t value sleep more than I valued money, I would say just do your work at night, once the sun has already set. That’s just not possible though.

The reality of Spring Weekend, besides coming together as a campus to enjoy the weather, is to give you a little break before finals. It’s supposed to relieve some stress beforehand. Professors are eagerly awaiting our insightful papers, proving that we did indeed pay attention during class and take notes instead of going on the interwebs during class. You’ll have to find a little dark room in the library, and do your work there away from that distracting sun to impress them.

We’re coming up on those last classes, and we need to focus on that first. Be glad that you made it to your Monday morning class, and finish the semester on that note. I’ll see you guys in the library. Spring Weekend will come again. Even better, summer months are coming.

JEFF SYBERTZ ’13

STAFF WRITER

This past week was a tumultuous one for all of the residents of Boston and its suburbs after a terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon killed three people and injured nearly 200 others on Monday, April 15 and then a statewide manhunt paralyzed the city this past Thursday and Friday. Due to the exhaustive work and cooperation of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, along with the help of civilians, officials killed one of the suspected bombers in a shootout on Thursday and then were able to capture and detain the other suspect the following night. In the wake of this tragedy, there are countless questions to be asked. How could this tragedy have happened? How could two men who had spend most of their lives in a country that granted them refuge carry out such a heinous crime? Why the Boston Marathon? Were they working as “lone wolves” or were they working with a larger organization? Many of these questions will likely be answered in the coming days and weeks, especially as federal authorities question the second suspect. Nonetheless, we have learned one thing in the past week. We have discovered the incredible resolve and determination of Boston’s emergency responders, law enforcement officials, nurses and doctors, athletes, and everyday citizens. In a matter of seconds, these people became heroes. Although the attack caused a number of deaths and hundreds of injuries, the terrorists ultimately failed in their attempt to paralyze the city of Boston in fear.

Like many Trinity students, I grew up in the suburbs of Boston and knew many people who attended Marathon Monday. This day is a uniquely Boston day that few people from outside the Commonwealth can truly understand. First of all, the day in and of itself is a state holiday, Patriots Day, when most businesses are closed and most people would not dare doing anything productive aside from cheering on the Sox and thanking God that we only have to watch the Marathon runners compete and not actually attempt the 26.2 miles themselves. In fact, throughout my educational career in Massachusetts, we got an entire week’s vacation for this one holiday. Consequently, Marathon Monday is one of the most important days of the year to the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Therefore, when two young men decided to plant two homemade bombs at the finish line of the Marathon and detonate them in the presence of thousands of spectators, they were trying to send a message to not only the people involved in the Marathon, but also the residents of Massachusetts, the United States, and the entire world. Although their exact motives have not yet been discovered, there is no doubt that these two men were trying to cause terror and unrest and destroy what the Boston Marathon and Presidents Day represent. They were trying to make people live in fear and question the values on which this country is based.

However, in the seconds after this vicious and barbaric attack, the residents of Boston made sure that terror would not win. Almost immediately after the two explosions occurred, videos showed police officers, Marathon staff, first responders, runners, and spectators running toward the bomb site to do whatever they could to help the wounded. These people had no idea if the explosions were terrorist attacks, mechanical failures, or isolated events. They did not even know if there was a chance that there could be more explosions. Nevertheless, despite the chaos and uncertainty, these people ran into the face of evil to do whatever they could to help those who could not help themselves. One of the most documented heroes of this day was former professional football player and New England Patriot, Joe Andruzzi. This giant of man helped carry an injured woman to safety after the woman’s two daughters were unable to transport her among the chaos. When asked to comment on his actions, Andruzzi, who has three brothers who are New York City Firefighters and were first responders to the 9/11 attacks, he replied that he was not a hero. He was simply a bystander who acted on his instincts during this time of conflict.

Andruzzi’s comments exemplify why the terrorists failed in achieving their goals. Although there was chaos and unrest immediately following the attacks, people sprang into action in a matter of seconds to help others. An iconic photograph has been circulating that was taken seconds after the attack. It shows a marathon runner who was knocked to the ground by the explosion. Three Boston police officers surround the runner, guns drawn and ready to do their job: to protect and serve the citizens of the Commonwealth. In the aftermath of the explosion, people were neither rioting in the streets nor staying cooped up in their homes because of fear. They lived their lives. They went to work and watched their favorite hockey team take one step closer to another Stanley Cup victory. They belted the National Anthem as one and held massive candlelight vigils for the victims of the attack. Once officials realized that the two suspects were still armed and dangerous and in the area, they warned civilians to stay inside until the terrorist were apprehended. People complied and the streets of Boston and its suburbs were deserted on Thursday night and Friday. These empty streets led to the killing of one of the subjects and the apprehension of the other by Friday night.

Although these two attacks caused an indescribable amount of suffering for the victims and their families, the people of Boston have continued to live their lives. This tragedy has brought people around the country closer together instead of pushing them further apart. It has made the relationship between civilians and law enforcement officials stronger than ever. It has shown us that everyone has the capacity to be a hero.

This country may still be vulnerable to heinous acts of violence, but this attack has shown us that it will take more than two bombs to break our spirits. In the aftermath of the attacks, many people have begun to question humanity: how could two people commit such terrible attacks against innocent civilians? In my opinion, we should not let these types of terrible acts make us question our faith in humanity. We must let the responses to these acts by normal people confirm our faith in humanity.

FORREST ROBINETTE ’16

OPINIONS EDITOR

Video games have never occupied a place of respect in our society. To many Americans, they are either a severely corrupting influence or, at best, a guilty pleasure. I am a lover of video games, but I also understand and agree with some of the criticisms that people have levied against the industry. I believe that video games have never really been given a fair trial in the American conscience. They are too often branded as evil and written off as an inherently bad influence. These accusations may indeed be true, but I don’t think that the main critics of video games have closely examined what they are criticizing. I write this article in the hope of giving video games the fair examination that they never seem to have received.

Opponents of the industry argue that video games are time-wasters, they “rot” the brain, they decrease social behavior, and they increase violent behavior. The greatest criticism of video games rests on that last point: violence. In 2001, Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman published a scientific study that claimed video games increase aggressive thoughts. They concluded that the interactive nature of video games makes children susceptible to more violent tendencies. It is true that in most games the player is rewarded for being violent. In games such as Halo and Call of Duty, the only way to win the game is through killing enemies. Anderson and Bushman argued that the repetition of violence and the reward for being violent serves as an effective learning tool and therefore teaches children to be violent. Other studies such as that of Anderson and Dill in 2000 as well as Gentile, Lynch, and Walsh in 2004 have contained similar findings.

The fact remains, however, that the debate over whether video games increase violent behavior is ongoing. Many defenders of the games are arguing that the reports mentioned above wrongly imply causation from correlation. For example, after the Columbine High School massacre it surfaced that the two shooters were fans of violent video games such as Doom and Wolfenstein 3D. Some individuals believed that the violent behavior of these boys was the direct result of their frequent playing of violent games. Other people argued that this theory implied causation where it wasn’t justified. Defenders of video games argued that the boys’ choice to play violent games was a result of their violent tendencies, not the cause.

There are some scientists who argue that video games actually reduce violent behavior because the games are a safe place to take out aggression. Henry Jenkins, an expert on video game critical studies at MIT, claims that a decreased rate in juvenile crime in recent years corresponds directly with an increase in the popularity of games such as Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto. I have little knowledge regarding cognitive science so I will just say for now that there are scientists on both sides of this debate and that all parties have convincing evidence.

Many people believe that video games hurt an individual’s brain and mental capacity. Some studies have shown that academic achievement is directly and negatively affected by the amount of time one spends playing video games. Anderson and Dill claimed that the more time a child spends playing video games, the more his grades will drop. This correlation would make sense because heavy gamers spend so much time playing video games that they leave no time for their academic work. Another study by the National Institute for Media and the Family suggested that video games are addictive for kids and that this addiction increases risks of depression and severe anxiety. Video games have also been blamed for making kids more socially isolated. Large amounts of time spent playing video games often come at the cost of time spent reading, playing outside, or bonding with one’s family. Lastly, it has been argued that gaming decreases a child’s attention span. One study published in 2012 in Psychology of Popular Media Culture claimed that video games improved a child’s ability to concentrate in short bursts, but that games severely damaged an individual’s ability to concentrate for prolonged amounts of time.

The effect of video games on one’s brain is just as divisive as the violence issue. Countless scientists line up on the other side of the fence and argue that video games actually help one’s brain. Many people believe that video games give one’s brain a great workout. Most video games require abstract and high-level thinking in order for the player to succeed. In this way, video games are far superior to the activity of watching TV during which the watcher does not need to be mentally engaged at all. Video games have been shown to teach countless valuable skills, which include problem solving, logic, planning, resource management, logistics, multitasking, strategy, and quick thinking just to name some. Some researchers have argued that video games introduce children and adults to computer technology and the online world. The games make the player comfortable with the concepts of computing which is very important in our increasingly digital world. Video games have also been shown as a possibly revolutionary learning tool because they make learning fun. I specifically remember how I learned to type with a game called Dragonkeys. I learned valuable typing skills at an extremely young age because the means by which I learned was both fun and engaging.

I think many of the video game debates ignore the fact that gaming is just plain fun. I can’t even count the many blissful hours that I’ve spent immersed in the world of Zelda or Bioshock. For me, they are the perfect way to release stress. There are few things that I find as calming and relaxing as delving into a good video game. That being said, video games can be a huge waste of time. In high school, many of my assignments suffered because I couldn’t pull myself away from Super Mario Galaxy. I think video games are so difficult to handle because they invite extremes by their nature. I either play games constantly or not at all. For example, I am completely guilty of engaging in video game binges.

I go through periods of addiction, which are always difficult to break out of. During my vacation, I can be found on daylong Skyrim marathons. But while I’m at school I don’t play any video games at all because I know my GPA would plummet. I wish I could find a middle ground in my playing, but I have the hardest time doing so because of the addictive nature of the games. But just because this middle ground is hard to find doesn’t mean we should stop working to achieve it.

I wanted to list the many cases for and against video games to show that they are neither wholly good nor are they completely evil. I believe that the effect of video games is an extremely complicated issue and that it cannot be simplified and crystalized down into a simple, one-sided solution. People who attack video games as purely evil are denying the countless ways that video games can be beneficial to children and to society in general. Those who hold video games up as perfect are ignoring the serious problems that they create.

Going forth in this debate, I hope that all the parties involved will seek to empathize with and understand both sides of the issue. We as a society will only be able to harness the positive aspects of video games if we approach the issue with an unbiased and fair-minded attitude.

CHANEL PALACIOS ’14

OPINIONS EDITOR

Get ready guys. It’s yet another article about Chartwells. Chartwells, that ever so beloved food provider, has made their next misstep. I’m not referring to charging students for sauces now, or charging for one slice of cheese when they don’t have the cheese the sandwich comes with. This time, it really isn’t about the food either. It’s about their attempts to advance their technologies. They’ve gotten an app to order food from the comfort of our own dorms and pick them up when they are ready. This app is called Tapingo.

Now let’s keep in mind why this model would normally work. Take a look at Chipotle, or Panera, or any large food chain with an app. You make an order on your phone, pick a time for it to be ready, and then go on your merry way and pick up your delicious food. This works because people may want to pick up a meal quickly on the way to work, without running into the food crowds. In theory, this should also apply on campus. However there is a big difference in the way Chipotle runs, and the way the Cave and Bistro run. Chipotle has the resources to make this technology effective. Chartwells does not.

Quite honestly, there is no reason for students to order food from the Bistro or Cave through an app. Imagine a person who lives in Hansen placing an order for a sandwich at the Bistro. It’s barely a few steps away from this hypothetical person’s dorm. This is called laziness at its most extreme. If a person doesn’t have the extra ten minutes it takes to wait for a meal, then time management skills are definitely lacking. There’s a difference between ordering Chipotle and Panera, because it already takes another 15-20 minutes to get there, and then more time to order and get a meal. These places end up being an hour long process simply for a really delicious burrito. Obviously, not everyone has time for that and it then makes sense to place an order beforehand. This is not the situation on campus. It takes about five minutes to get to a food place, and another five minutes to get a meal, unless you go during the crowds, in which it’ll take ten minutes. Students generally have no problem waiting these few minutes. Yet when orders start coming through online, it creates another issue for those patient and not lazy students who are waiting in line and interacting with humanity.

The Bistro and Cave are understaffed. It’s very simple. If you go to the food places during lunch and dinner hours, it’s packed. It’s a huge hassle to get a meal, and this is when the waits are lengthy and students might actually consider ordering ahead of time through Tapingo. But ordering through Tapingo takes away valuable staff from the already busy schedule to make a meal for someone who hasn’t the time or patience to wait in line. Everyone else who actually walked the two minutes are now stuck waiting for a selfish student’s meal to be prepared before theirs. Alright, maybe they don’t realize the problems this creates. Chipotle has extra staff members to handle the online orders, but the Bistro and Cave do not. It’s the same staff, who already have a lot of students to serve in person. This is not sufficient to make the app something that doesn’t take away from those students who do make the effort to walk for a few minutes.

This app just makes it easier for lazy students to keep being lazy and for other students to stay apart from the community by making things even more impersonal. I am not arguing about apps that make things easier, but when the Bistro is so close by, there isn’t a need. Things are already pretty simple. Tapingo sounds like a great idea in theory. If Chartwells is going to continue using this app, they need to hire more staff to handle the crowds or else Tapingo will make things even more hectic and stressful.

Chartwells gets a lot of negative attention, but it generally isn’t about the food. It’s about the actual service. Students are charged an extra 50 cents for a side of sauce, charged extra just for substituting a different kind of cheese, and hassled when they question why they are being charged more. For all their claims that customer service is important, Chartwells doesn’t have the resources to maintain a business the way Chipotle and Panera do. Things are overpriced, making me question why Chartwells cannot afford to hire more staff. Obviously I don’t know the inner workings of Chartwells, and I’m sure things like Bistro Late Night have cost a lot more, but students are paying a lot more than they did a couple years ago. Perhaps there should be just one more person hired to handle the online orders. Perhaps there should be more than one toaster for sandwiches. These are more expenses, but they are necessary if students are expected to deal with even more wait times.

Chartwells make it very clear with all their declarations on posters that customer service is very important. But using this app just kind of suggests that they don’t want to actually interact with students at all. It may be a reach, but why would a company introduce something that isn’t actually helpful? Either they don’t care to interact with us, or they didn’t think this new app through very much. The latter seems the most likely, so in a nutshell it causes more delays and leaves a disconnect. I could go on a rant about things becoming too dependent on technology, making everything more impersonal, but we’ve heard it all before from hipsters. A last note though, it really isn’t that hard to walk to the cave and pick up your own food. Stop being the epitome of lazy.

FORREST ROBINETTE ’16

OPINIONS EDITOR

Ever since James Cameron’s wildly successful “Avatar,” Hollywood has thoroughly and foolishly embraced the 3-D movie. Today, the average movie theatre is almost always playing at least one 3-D film and more often theatres feature two, three or even four 3-D movies at any given time. As of this very moment, a sizable theatre is likely to be playing some or all of the following 3-D films: “G.I. Joe: Retaliation,” “The Croods,” “Oz The Great and Powerful,” and “Jurassic Park.” And it is likely that the number of 3-D films will only increase over time because they have proven themselves to be so profitable.

“Avatar” changed the 3-D game because it made the technology more accessible, mainstream, and impressive than ever before. Since then, big budget blockbusters have sought to recreate Cameron’s stunning box-office receipts. My question is this: what is so great about 3-D? What does it add to the essential movie-going experience that makes it so much better than the now inferior “2-D?”

First, tickets to a 3-D movie are typically six to seven dollars more expensive than a 2-D counterpart. So what makes the $11.00 ticket so worth it? Roger Ebert beautifully wrote about how a film does not need to jump out as us to engage us. He said that a great 2-D film “completely engages our imaginations.” Ebert went on to think about what “Fargo” or “Casablanca” could possibly gain from being shot in 3-D. The entire notion of 3-D film insults the moviegoer. It’s a gimmick, plain and simple. Novels and short stories rely completely on the reader’s imagination and we don’t feel a need to technologically renovate the novel.

Many critics of 3-D have also noted that movies already exist in 3-D in our minds. When we look at a film, the characters and the set do not exist in a two dimensional space. For me, the term “2-D” conjures the image of the early Super Mario games in which Mario could move left, right, up, down and in no other direction. I think it’s clear that “2-D” characters such as Gandalf and Buzz Lightyear are not similarly limited. In 2-D films we see and experience depth, perspective, closeness, and distance in a completely sufficient and enjoyable way. 3-D films attempt to bridge a gap between the audience and the screen that never needed bridging.

It’s not just that 3-D doesn’t add anything substantial. In my opinion, it actually degrades and detracts from any movie going experience. First of all, the brightness is severely reduced in 3-D films. The technology currently being used for 3-D doesn’t allow for the same production quality that is always the standard in 2-D film. Lenny Lipton, considered by some to be the inventor of modern 3-D technology wrote about today’s digital projectors saying they are “intrinsically inefficient.” Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination.” A 3-D film, despite any massive budget, is dimmer and less vibrant than a 2-D film.

For me, 3-D makes my head hurt and makes me a little queasy. And I know I’m not the only one who has had such an experience with 3-D. By its very nature, 3-D is an unnatural visual experience. Our minds can easily become strained attempting to process it, resulting in frequent headaches. Critics of 3-D have noted that the technology is not calibrated in the same way that our eyes are. The way that 3-D movies force us to experience depth and perspective are foreign to how our own eyes are designed to experience those sensations.

Countless movies are being retrofitted with 3-D, which is probably the most horrifying thought imaginable. Movies that were not originally made in 3-D are being degraded in an attempt to update them. The most recent victim of this sick practice is Steven Spielberg’s visual masterpiece “Jurassic Park.” I refuse to go see this newly imagined “Jurassic Park” because all I can imagine is how the awe and absolute terror of the original will be degraded and bastardized in this cheap, gimmicky, money-grabbing rehash.

The “reimagining” of classic films into 3-D exposes the blatant commercialism of Hollywood that has been present for many years now, but seems to now be reaching new heights of artistic corruption. Hollywood has always had the goal of making money, but few times before has that goal so maimed the artistic integrity of the industry. Great films are being refitted with this new technology and are being passed off as “better than ever before.” Stunning Disney classics such as “The Lion King” and “Beauty and the Beast” have reentered theatres in a downgraded and subpar fashion. But imagine the moneymaking potential of this recent marketing ploy. Why spend the money to create anything new or original when you can just degrade something great by presenting it in the latest gimmicky and inferior medium? Remaking old movies into 3-D is a crutch for an industry that is struggling to remain meaningful and valued.

The current 3-D situation is not that bad for people like me who hate 3-D movies. I thankfully still have the option to just go see the 2-D version. However, my fears are as follows. First, big budget 3-D action films are becoming par for the course for the movies these days. The comic book film has reigned supreme for the last several years because the superhero premise is an excellent way to justify a two or three-hour special effects show.

Can you imagine a meaningful drama shot in 3-D. I’m trying to imagine a version of “The Social Network” in which the characters jump out at me. The more that audiences encourage the 3-D action film trend, the harder it will be for serious filmmakers to find funding and support for their projects.

As of right now, audiences are flocking to special effects showcases, which often sacrifice a strong script, interesting characters and creativity for shock and awe. If this trend continues, directors who want to make meaningful (but less flashy) films will find themselves at a disadvantage as Hollywood will only want to support huge special effects shows that they know will pay off at the box office.

Hollywood seems to have turned to this new artless practice as a crutch for its inability to create meaningful art. As movies fail to attract audiences with great stories and artful direction, they turn to tacky technology to make up for their weaknesses. I do not take issue with the notion of 3-D as a side option for those who are interested. My fear is that it will continue to grow and come to consume an already flagging film industry. 3-D signals an increase in commercialism and sacrifice of quality across the board. Everyone has the right to go see a 3-D movie if they want to, but I will be horrified if ever a film is offered only in 3-D and not in 2-D. As for now, I hope audiences come to their senses about 3-D and stop encouraging it. And I submit the following message to the rehashers who are destroying classic films in 3-D remakes: If anyone touches “The Lord of the Rings,” there will be blood.

JEFF SYBERTZ ’13

STAFF WRITER

At the start of this semester, I wrote an article regarding the current state of gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I wrote of the need for the federal government to enact tougher gun laws, despite political bickering and powerful lobbies, in order to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening and help decrease the number of gun related deaths in America’s urban areas.

Although the federal government is still struggling to enact any sort of substantive legislation, the state of Connecticut was finally able to implement substantial gun reform this past week. Many have said that these reforms have made Connecticut’s gun laws some of the toughest in the country. Although some people may argue that some of the measures are too extreme, these reforms represent an example of bipartisanship in the wake of one of the worst national tragedies in our history.

After a gunman killed 20 children and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, all of American society knew that there needed to be changes to the nation’s gun laws. The gunman used legally purchased assault weapons. In the wake of the tragedy, the Obama administration and the Democratic Party vowed to enact significant federal gun control measures to prevent the more than dozen mass shootings and nearly 10,000 gun related deaths in 2012. However, in the four months since the shooting, the federal government has been unable to enact anything significant because of obstructionist politics in Washington and the power of gun lobbies.

Although the call for federal gun law reform has been much louder, the state of Connecticut also vowed to enact significant state gun control laws because of the fact that the Newtown shooting took place in the state of Connecticut. With much less fanfare than the federal gun control debate, the state of Connecticut established the toughest gun control laws in the country last week. Some of these new laws included adding more than 100 weapons to the assault weapons ban, created the nation’s first dangerous weapon offender registry, and enacted background reforms for all firearms sales.

The bill also included measures that would attempt to address some of the state’s mental health and school security deficiencies. The bill was easily passed in both the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support and has been lauded as an example of officials from both sides of the aisle banding together to create legislation for the benefit of their constituents.

The bill is not as comprehensive as it was originally designed to be, as gun control advocates were unable to get magazine size limits into the legislation. Nonetheless, this bill shows that governments can effectively respond to the demands of their voters, especially in the wake of a national tragedy. Granted, Democrats own large majorities in both the House and the Senate in Connecticut and widespread support from the Republican Party was not needed to get this legislation passed. Nonetheless, lawmakers wanted to make sure that this law transcended petty political issues. No matter what one may think of the overall gun control debate, one does not have to want every gun in the United States confiscated by the government to realize that something had to be done after the number of mass shootings in the US in 2012.

Although the legislation may not be as extensive as it needs to be, the fact that something has finally been done helps restore the faith in government for many American citizens. Connecticut went from being one of the states with the weakest gun laws in the country to having some of the strongest laws. These laws will not prevent all future mass shootings and gun related deaths. People who should not be able to use firearms will always find ways to acquire firearms.

Trying to prevent all gun related deaths is like trying to stop all people from drunk driving; it is simply impossible. But this does not mean we should not try to do everything we can stop gun crimes. In the wake of dozens of mass shootings and 10,000 gun related deaths in the past year, it is obvious that we have not done enough. Despite the limitations and controversy surrounding the recent Connecticut gun laws, it is a significant first step. Lawmakers from both sides came together to address the state’s worst tragedy in its history. However, we will be able to truly evaluate our lawmakers and this law in the coming weeks and months.

If lawmakers simply enacted these reforms to show their commitment to their constituents in the wake of tragedy and then fail to follow up on this law in the future, gun crimes will not decrease. However, if lawmakers stay committed to this issue and continue to implement reforms, then the deaths of those 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary will not have been in vain.

CHANEL PALACIOS ’14

OPINIONS EDITOR

This week is advising week. Logic indicates that next week is when students pick their classes for next week. Oh boy, isn’t everyone excited? Every semester begins the race for the best classes, the best schedule, and the best professors. There are some things students should think about if they haven’t already.

First, your advisors are not some supreme entity that you should only speak to once a semester. While there are many advisors that are very unapproachable, it is very important for students to take an active role in speaking to their advisors. Advisors are extremely busy, so don’t be surprised when they don’t go out of their way to monitor your progress. That is your job as a student. If you have questions about what classes to take or what to do with your life, set up a meeting with your advisor. They aren’t psychic, and won’t know when you’re going through an academic crisis.

For freshmen and sophomores, your advisors are especially there for you. They are your first year seminar professors. They have had class with you. They know you better than you would like. They are there to guide you into your first years of college, before releasing you into the wild that will become your major and new advisor. Personally, I had a fantastic advisor for my first year and a half. (Shout out to Professor Gregory.) She helped me pick classes that I had to take outside my major, she scolded me when I wasn’t putting in enough effort, and she was excited for me whenever I accomplished something more than just showing up for class. So in my experience, I can say that your advisor as an underclassman will be the most approachable professor you encounter here. Of course there are students who didn’t particularly connect with their first advisors, and in that case bummer. You missed out, and I hope your new advisor can fulfill that void.

For juniors and seniors, you should be getting to know your advisor, or already have known them so much that they wish you would stop emailing them. If you don’t like your advisor, try someone else. You are supposed to be able to speak to your advisor about anything related to your academics or possibly future career, so if you can’t even tell your advisor about a class you want to take, something isn’t right. Once you find the right advisor, whether it be a professor you really liked or someone you only met once you declared but discovered how amazing they were, things should be a smooth ride. At that point, you just have to worry about what classes to take, and your advisor is there to share in that worry and excitement.

Next week it’ll be time to sign up for classes. Ideally, you’d have an idea of what you want to take beforehand, but if not then here are some words of wisdom. Don’t take more than two or three English classes in one semester. In other words, don’t take too many classes that are going toward your major. You will get sick of reading similar things over and over, and you will want a break. Everyone should take an easier class every semester, or a class outside their major that just seems interesting. I’m not telling students to take a class just because it’s easy and you can cruise through. It’s just better to have classes in different fields. You get to meet new people, and you keep yourself from viewing classes in your major as routine and typical. Don’t be in a little history bubble.

Everyone keeps in mind their actual schedule when signing up for classes. Please don’t be the kind of student that won’t take an interesting class just because it’s early in the morning or meets on a Friday. There are definitely professors who are worth going to that early class for, because you just can’t help but match their enthusiasm. That early morning class goes by a lot faster than an afternoon class that bores you out of your mind. Professors will appreciate that you have chosen to take this ridiculously early class, or at least my professors appreciate it. It shows a genuine interest in the class, and they’ll be more willing to help you on your paper topics or problem sets if they know that you are trying. The opposite end of the spectrum is night classes. I don’t recommend taking an 8:30 a.m. class and then also taking a night class. It isn’t ideal. It’s not impossible either, but eventually one class is going to get a lot less attention when all you can think about is the warm, comfy bed waiting for you.

Unfortunately for freshman, you get last pick. You may feel completely frustrated at your lack of choices when it comes to classes, but it’s the same system as with the house lottery, for better or worse. It’s based on seniority, and complaining to upperclassmen about it is just like complaining about puberty. Everyone goes through it, and this is the way of the land. You are more than welcome to leave a revolt to inspire change though. This isn’t to say that you won’t get what classes you want. Many spots are reserved specifically for freshman and sophomores, so have fun battling it out with your classmates. Just remember to talk to your advisor first, because if you don’t do so this week then you’ll have a hold and you won’t be able to get any of the classes that you want.

As everyone meets with their advisors and chooses classes, kind in mind your capabilities and be realistic. If you aren’t going to be interested in a class, don’t take it just for the schedule. Remember that your advisors are full of rafiki-like wisdom, and talking to them can only help. Happy hunting everyone.

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education calls for student freedoms to be upheld in new social policy

The following letter was originally sent on March 13, 2013:

Dear President Jones:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) unites leaders in the fields of civil rights and civil liberties, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of liberty, legal equality, academic freedom, due process, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience on America’s college campuses. Our website, thefire.org, will give you a greater sense of our identity and activities.

FIRE is deeply concerned by the threat to freedom of association presented by the new Trinity College Social Code that takes particular aim at fraternities and sororities. The Social Code dramatically reduces the freedom of association of such organizations, threatens the rights of all Trinity students, and is wholly inconsistent with Trinity’s stated policies and promises.

The following is our understanding of the facts. Please inform us if you believe we are in error. In October 2012, the Board of Trustees of Trinity College unanimously approved the recommendations presented in a report by the Charter Committee for Building Social Community at Trinity College. The report makes wide-ranging recommendations for the purpose of “build[ing] community and promot[ing] the intellectual life of the College.” Among the recommendations is the enactment and enforcement of the new Social Code aimed at “social organizations with a facility, selective membership comprised predominantly of Trinity students, and/or an initiation process.” Listed among the “key outcomes” to be enforced by the College are requirements that “

All Trinity students will have equal access to membership in social organizations. Membership will be determined on the basis of student interest alone. Hazing or blackballing will be prohibited and grounds for judicial proceedings. […] Social organizations whose members are Trinity students shall not be affiliated with national organizations that do not adhere to a coeducational philosophy. Exceptions include academic organizations (e.g., professional and scientific organizations) and athletic and musical organizations.” [Emphases added.]

The report states that “as of fall 2012, no new single-sex fraternities or sororities may be formed,” and mandates that existing fraternities and sororities must annually increase thresholds of “minority gender” participation, ultimately achieving a minimum of 45% minority gender membership and a minimum of 40% minority gender leadership by October 1, 2016. Fraternities and sororities are additionally required to provide Trinity with a “complete and up-to-date membership list at the beginning of each semester” to demonstrate compliance.

Additionally, Trinity plans to eliminate the classification of some groups as “unrecognized” social organizations, which previously were able to associate at Trinity without official recognition.

Social organizations in the future will either be classified as “approved” or “prohibited,” and all current social organizations wishing to remain recognized at Trinity must receive approved status. Social organizations failing to meet Trinity’s new requirements—including organizations that make good-faith efforts but fall short of compliance with the required thresholds—may become prohibited organizations at Trinity. If an organization owning a facility becomes prohibited, the College plans to “establish a fair sale price for these assets with alumni owners and reassign them to another organization for the betterment of the College.”

Finally, the report states that “[s]tudents who participate in prohibited organizations will be subject to separation from the College.”

Trinity’s new Social Code gravely violates its students’ right to freedom of association—a right Trinity explicitly guarantees in its policies. The Trinity College Student Integrity Contract states that

“According to the mission statement of Trinity College, excellence in liberal arts education relies on critical thinking, freeing the mind from parochialism and prejudice, and encouraging students to lead examined lives. Free inquiry and free expression are essential for the attainment of these goals. Therefore, we deem it necessary to establish the basic rights and freedoms of the students of Trinity College. Fair grading, protection against improper disclosure, and protection of freedom of association are guaranteed under this contract.” [Emphasis added.]

Trinity’s new Social Code violates this promise—explicitly referred to as a “contract”—in fundamental and chilling ways. Under the code’s mandates, fraternities and sororities will be forced to choose between abandoning their founding principles and the long-established organizational structure under which they had chosen to gather or disbanding entirely under pain of expulsion for members and the forced sale of organizational assets for alumni. Under the new Social Code, social organizations that do not wish to be officially recognized at Trinity do not even have the option of operating, however peacefully, outside the university system. Thus, despite its own promises of freedom of association, Trinity has entirely banned certain kinds of private associations among students.

Further, for those organizations that remain, it is not enough simply to be open to co-educational membership or to be affiliated with organizations espousing a co-educational philosophy: their composition must meet gender quotas as well. The resulting mandatory thresholds of “minority gender” membership and leadership, combined with the requirement that “[m]embership will be determined on the basis of student interest alone,” erode a most basic protection of freedom of association: the ability of groups to self-select their membership based on those who best fulfill the common objectives and interests of the group. Under Trinity’s new Social Code, social organizations are forced to sacrifice their autonomy and their discretion to decide who best fits their group to avoid being sanctioned.

These problems are especially apparent in the matter of electing leadership, when it is of particular importance for organizations to ensure that they select officers who best exemplify the principles of the organization and enjoy the broadest support from the organization’s members. Under Trinity’s new Social Code, a sorority or otherwise predominantly female social organization, for example, must allocate a minimum number of its leadership positions to male students, regardless of their qualifications for leadership. Again, social organizations are forced to cast their own judgments aside to comply with Trinity’s demands, as evaluating potential officers solely on the basis of their perceived merits puts a group at risk of official sanction.

Fraternities and sororities are specifically targeted by the new Social Code, while certain other types of organizations—including academic, professional, athletic, and musical organizations— are not required to comply with Trinity’s onerous and intrusive requirements. As a result, social organizations are significantly discriminated against in the freedom of association they enjoy at Trinity.

FIRE works toward preserving freedom of association for all students and student groups on college campuses nationwide because we understand that freedom of association is a crucial complement to freedom of speech. Underrepresented groups, for example, have relied on the protections of freedom of association in forging their identities and agendas for the advancement of their causes. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly recognized the importance of groups being able to self-select their members and leaders, as well as the ability of groups to control their own messages. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 11 (1986) (plurality opinion) (“Since all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid, one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide ‘what not to say.’”); Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984) (“[F]reedom of association plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.”). The protections of freedom of association enshrined in First Amendment jurisprudence make clear that, in addition to violating its explicit promises of freedom of association in its Student Integrity Contract, Trinity’s new Social Code also violates the College’s charter, which directs that Trinity’s policies shall not be “inconsistent with the Constitution and Laws of the State, or with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.”

In abridging this fundamental right for fraternities, sororities, and other social organizations, Trinity evidently believes it has solved a substantial social problem. In reality, its assault on the associational rights of social organizations is so dramatic as to be a threat to all student groups at Trinity, particularly belief-based organizations such as religious and political groups. While Trinity claims in its own policies to value and promise full rights of freedom of association to its students, its new Social Code makes clear that Trinity is willing to negate such promises for the purpose of curing perceived social ills. Whatever the issues Trinity seeks to remedy with its new Social Code, however, Trinity faces costlier long-term consequences to its reputation by establishing itself as an institution willing to impose its own judgment for that of its students and to disregard basic rights in doing so.

FIRE asks that Trinity College and its Board of Trustees reconsider and revise its Social Code to fully protect the right of freedom of association it promises to all Trinity students and is morally bound to provide. We request a response to this letter by April 3, 2013.

Sincerely,

Peter Bonilla Associate Director, Individual Rights Defense Program

This letter was also copied to the following persons, in addition to President Jones: Paul E. Raether, Chairman, Board of Trustees Philip S. Khoury, Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees Frederick Alford, Dean of Students Amy DeBaun, Director of Campus Life Mary Jo Keating, Secretary of the College and Vice President for College Relations

JEFF SYBERTZ ’13

STAFF WRITER

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article thanking the Trinity employees who worked so tirelessly to keep this institution running after the February snowpacalypse. The Chartwells employees who braved the terrible weather to feed us were among workers to whom we should all be grateful. Although many of us have very strong relationships with a number of Chartwells employees, the overall public opinion of Chartwells as an organization is overwhelmingly low among the student body. Some complain about the quality of food, others about the unavailability of healthy or alternative foods, and others about how busy the three areas get during the peak lunch and dinner hours. However, all of these factors are to be expected of a typical college dining service.

The real reason why there is so much discontent for Chartwells as an organization among the student body is the blatant price gouging done on seemingly a daily basis. Examples of this price gouging include having incredibly limited services during non-holiday periods, cutting the hours of the more popular dining locations, over charging for convenient and healthy options, and having a virtual monopoly on all major food sales on campus. Even though most of us have tremendous relationships with Chartwells employees, the organization must address these issues if they want to truly regain the approval of the student body.

Although it is not the first to bemoan the services of our food service provider, this article was motivated by a recent trip to the Bistro this past Sunday. I went there expecting a simple Sunday dinner after a thesis and job application-filled weekend. To my surprise and anger, there was a sign on the door saying that the Bistro was closed in observance of the Easter holiday.

Disappointed, I made the long walk to Mather only to find an incredibly limited selection characterized by lukewarm food. Although I recognize that Easter is an important holiday to many people and that a large number of Trinity students go home to have a meal with their families, not all students have the opportunity or desire to go home and I do not think that they should be subjected to second-class dining services.

Unfortunately, the Easter holiday is not the only example of times when Chartwells’ services are incredibly limited. Another instance of these limited services comes during Trinity Days. During these days, when the college is still open but classes are not held, Mather’s food selection is limited and the Cave and the Bistro have severely shortened hours. Once again, I recognize that many students like to go home during this long weekend. However, many other students stay on campus because home is too far away or they want to use the extra days to catch up on work. In fact, the college actively encourages students to stay on campus and not use the days as a vacation. However, those who choose to stay are once again forced to bear second-class dining services at hours that may not be conducive to their schedules.

Finally, both the Cave and the Bistro close nearly a week before final exams end. During the time when people’s schedules are the most hectic, they cannot go to the more convenient dining locations because Chartwells wants to close early and pay fewer workers to keep the services running. Given the thousands of dollars that we shell out to Chartwells every semester, we deserve a dining service that is at least close to fully functional throughout the times when the college is in session.

Another point of discontent among the student body of Chartwells is the inconvenience of the hours of operation. Although Bistro Late Night has been a huge success and an example of Chartwells implementing a successful reform after listening to the student, the weekend hours of the dining services are inexcusable. Not a single dining location is open before 10:30 a.m. Yes, the weekend is meant to relax and sleep in a little bit but the fact that there is no food available before 10:30 a.m. promotes unhealthy eating habits and more late night customs.

Overcharging for convenient or healthy goods is another example of the disconnect between what we students are paying for and what we are receiving. Some of the most popular goods that the Cave and the Bistro sell are Greek yogurt and Cliff Bars. Because these two products are non-Chartwells’ brands and Chartwells has a virtual monopoly on the sale of food services, the company can sell the product for more than four times the price of the same good at the grocery store. For example, Fage Greek Yogurt is sold for approximately $1 at Stop & Shop or Whole Foods. At the Cave and the Bistro: $4. Cliff Bars will run you about $1 at a normal grocery store, but approximately $3.29 at the Cave and Bistro.

Considering these products are likely bought from a wholesaler in bulk, Chartwells is reaping an incredibly lucrative profit by selling these goods that are both healthy and convenient. Another recent implementation that we have all noticed at the Cave and Bistro has been the extra charge for extra meat, bacon, extra cheese, or sweet potato fries. For a measly two to three pieces of bacon, it is an extra $2.50. This blatant extortion is infuriating, especially since Freshman, Sophomores, Juniors, and a large majority of Seniors are forced to be on the meal plan either through decree or because there is a lack of an alternative.

Ironically, the Trinity College Administration appears to be responding very well to student discontent with the dining services on campus. However, this refreshing response has largely alienated Chartwells. By adding alternative dining options in the new Vernon Social Center that will provide more food than a coffee shop spread and building new townhouse-style dorms in which students may actually want to live, it appears that students will have the option to say no to Chartwells.

If Chartwells wants to avoid losing further support, they must implement some changes. Along with improving some of the features discussed above, the blatant price gouging must change. Once again, this article is not an indictment of the Chartwells employees with whom we all interact every day. These employees love their jobs and the students with whom they work. Many of them are also often displeased with the price gouging forced upon them by higher management.

Yet, they still do what they are required to do tirelessly and with a smile on their face. If the company continues to upset both its employees and the student body, fewer people will utilize its services and Trinity College may consider making the permanent reforms that Chartwells has been reluctant to enact.

CHANEL PALACIOS ’14

OPINIONS EDITOR

Trinity is becoming more and more inaccessible on campus, in many different respects. On the literal level, it’s simply becoming too difficult to maneuver around campus, owing to all the construction. There are construction sites in three different locations on campus. This makes things problematic and also unsightly. Student parking is always limited. But more recently, facilities essential to academic learning are either less available, or inadequate for students.

In simpler terms, student needs are not being met. While parking and construction are temporary issues we can all manage, there are certain actions in place that aren’t conducive to learning. For instance, the library hours are not practical. I’m not arguing for later hours, because for many that is not an issue. I’m arguing that the library resources need to be available earlier than 8:30 in the morning. Two years ago, Peter B’s would not open for coffee or pastries before 8:30 a.m. and it made no sense for students who had class at that time. Peter B’s has since adjusted, knowing that students have very early classes and people can’t survive without coffee. The coffee shop has managed to notice student needs, and respond accordingly, but the actual library services have not responded. Students need to come in and get work done occasionally before their morning classes, and when the front desk doesn’t open until 8:30 a.m. there is no possibility for using materials and doing work before classes.

I am by no means an early bird, but having a ridiculously early class necessitates the need for more resources. I can’t look at a book that is on last-minute reserve right before class. Even reserve materials are problematic. There are textbooks open for the class to use, but just one generally. When a class of 50 students needs to all look at the same book for a test or exam, it becomes a race to get the book. There should be more copies on reserve, so that it isn’t a battle for the books.

The Writing Center is another inaccessible building on campus. The hours of operation are extremely difficult to make, as they are generally during class times. This leaves writing associates under utilized, and often complaining about having nothing to do. Even the website is hard to navigate, a characteristic of many Trinity websites.

Other buildings on campus need to be accessible as well. The library is always open to everyone, but it’s not enough. Despite what tour guides say, there isn’t enough room for students to all be in the library at the same time, let alone faculty as well.

Especially during midterms and finals, places like Seabury and MECC need to be open for students to study in. Having to call Campus Safety and come up with some excuse to be let in to the building makes students feel like we are not in fact young adults, but reckless children who need to be monitored in their playpens. Even in the mornings, students don’t have easy access to buildings. If you need to get into the English building at 8 o’clock in the morning, well then tough luck. It’s a game of chance in figuring out when the building is open. I’m not trying to critique the English building, because it’s a beloved home to me, but it’s just one example of inaccessibility on campus. With all the construction on campus, some of the handicap accessible entrances have been removed. While there is a real need for repairs between Austin Arts and McCook, there is also a need for students to get to class. It seems that little thought was given to things like this.

Trinity is by no means completely inaccessible. There are still many ways around campus, and many resources, but with a growing student body the school needs to expand on various things. Often times, little changes can be made to allow for students to reap all the benefits of a higher education. Multiple copies of items on reserve would alleviate the tension between students who should be helping each other. Earlier hours for both buildings and food services could make it easier for students to be productive and not lazy bums.

While construction on campus is temporary, it seems a bit excessive to have three different construction areas on campus and expect students to park in assigned spots, or even make it to class on time. The on campus shuttle is yet another example of difficulty with students. Their website is generally not ever working, and many students find themselves wondering when and where the shuttle will be. Simple solutions on campus simply include making things more clear, such as pathways, websites, hours of operation (which should also be extended). Seemingly small things to complain about would make a big difference.

While it is easier to point out all the issues and ignore the things already done well, students are always striving to make things better for themselves and others. Trinity wants to have a lasting impression that reveals all the good it has done. When we graduate, many will be praising the different positive aspects of Trinity, but while we are here, constructive criticism is necessary to make Trinity a better place. It’s just a little reminder that each Opinion piece I, and others, contribute isn’t just a rant. There’s definitely ranting in there, but the main point is how to make things better.

JEFF SYBERTZ ’13

STAFF WRITER

On Tuesday, March 5, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez died after a long battle with cancer in his Caracas home. The socialist president had led Venezuela since 1999 and made a name for himself in the international community for his policies regarding the country’s vast oil fields and executive power, his confrontational views toward the United States, and his close relationship with controversial leaders such as Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Many Americans and middle and upper class Venezuelans regarded Chavez as a dictator. However, many Venezuelans and other Latin Americans see Chavez as a liberator and reformer who challenged American neoliberalist policies and represented the interests of the people of Venezuela. Although many have celebrated Chavez’s demise as the death of a tyrant, people should recognize the advancements he achieved and the legitimacy he held. Some of his policies were controversial and others were outright reprehensible but the man also won more elections during his time as president than any other elected official in the world. Chavez should be held accountable for his reprehensible actions but these policies should not be the defining aspects of his legacy. He should also be remembered for his representation of the marginalized members of Venezuelan society and his role in the creation of the movement throughout Latin America that stressed a more humane version of capitalism.

Hugo Chavez came to the forefront of Venezuelan and international politics as a lieutenant colonel in the Venezuelan army in 1992 when he was involved in an unsuccessful coup d’état attempt against then President Carlos Andrés Pérez. Chavez was arrested, prosecuted, and eventually released. Seven years later, he was democratically elected President of the Republic.

Continue reading Death of Hugo Chavez calls for look at his role in global scheme

FORREST ROBINETTE ’16

OPINIONS EDITOR

Liberal arts schools emphasize critical-thinking and intellectual curiosity. The goal of such institutions is to instill a sense of civic responsibility in its students and to create informed citizens who think of learning as a life-long process. This is quite a grand definition. Trinity being a liberal arts school, I am always considering what the value of such an education is in our society today?

First of all, a liberal arts education is meant to endow a person with flexibility and an ability to adapt to new challenges. Specialization in a particular field is forgone in a liberal arts education for a more broad approach to learning. Schools like Trinity work to give students a set of skills that can be applied to a variety of professions. The ability to adapt seems particularly important in today’s ever-changing society. The average person in our generation will change their career path several times and will hold no less than eight completely different jobs. These facts definitely show that the days of specialization are gone. I’ve heard it said that many of the jobs our generation will be working have not been invented yet. With so much uncertainty in our futures, now more than ever, a flexible set of work skills seems like a great asset to have.

Howard and Mathew Greene wrote an education guide called the “Hidden Ivies: Thirty Colleges of Excellence.” Trinity is listed among these “colleges of excellence” along with other NESCAC schools, schools in the South such as Wake Forest and Washington and Lee, schools in the Midwest such as Grinnell and Carlton College, and more. The Greene brothers wrote an extensive definition of what they considered to be the definition of a liberal arts education and what they thought the strengths of such an education are. He writes, “In a complex, shifting world, it is essential to develop a high degree of intellectual literacy and critical-thinking skills.” For the Greene brothers though, liberal arts extend beyond one’s mental skills. They say that students at liberal arts school develop “a sense of moral and ethical responsibility to one’s community,” the ability to “respond to people in a compassionate and fair way,” and to “continue learning new information and concepts over a lifetime.” This is a big promise for a single type of college. I’m not sure these goals are lived up to all the time at every liberal arts school, but I think that it is still good to keep such goals in mind.

Continue reading A liberal arts education proves valuable in all aspects of life

DAISY LETENDRE ’13

CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Gun control supporters look to capitalize following a horrific tragedy. In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting Democrats in Congress and President Obama are scrambling to push any and all gun control legislation possible. Obama sees the Sandy Hook shooting as a call for stricter gun control laws and yet he overlooks the fact that law-abiding Americans, while sharing in the grief of what happened in Newtown, Conn. still value their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The President’s initiative to reduce gun violence contains within it various restrictions including four legislative proposals and 19 executive actions. The legislative proposals include universal background checks for all looking to purchase firearms, a crack-down on gun trafficking, a ban on military-style assault weapons and a ban on ammunition limiting magazines to 10 rounds, among others.

The first issue with the President’s proposals is that they would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre or the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado from occurring, as the weapons and ammunition used in both assaults were purchased legally (The weapon used in the Newtown shooting was purchased legally by Nancy Lanza whose son Adam stole it from her). Second, the President’s proposals define military-style assault weapons according to how a gun looks, not according to the firearm’s effectiveness or actual killing power. Many guns used for sport, and untouched by the President’s proposals, are more dangerous than these so called “military-style” assault weapons. In fact, according to FBI data, less than three percent of murders in the United States for which the murder weapon is known are committed with military-assault rifles, regardless of how we define them.

Continue reading Gun control reform should not be emotionally motivated

JEFF SYBERTZ ’13

STAFF WRITER

This past Sunday, the 85th Annual Academy Awards took place amidst the pomp and circumstance of Hollywood. Some of the biggest winners of the night included films that were based on historical events, such as “Argo,” “Lincoln” and “Zero Dark Thirty.” These films either detail actual historical events or portray a particular time in history. Due to these portrayals of controversial times or events in our history, these films have come under heat from both film critics and American politicians, despite their commercial successes. These experts have criticized the films for historical inaccuracies, over-dramatizations, an obsession with assigning a hero to every major event, and a desire to sacrifice the truth in order to reap a larger profit. Although the directors and writers have the right to artistic expression in their portrayal of these events, they also have the responsibility to maintain some semblance of the truth.

Considering the amount of influence these filmmakers have over the masses, they often have the power to bring previously unknown or rarely discussed political and historical events into the public eye. It can be potentially dangerous to bring these issues to light without showing the whole truth.

One of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed films of the past year was Argo. This political thriller details the true story of an outlandish CIA plot to save six American hostages after Iranians stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Continue reading Oscar-winning films skew controversial historical events for profit