The DFW Policy and the Selling Out of NAU’s Education

If you had a son or daughter who wanted your advice on what university they should go to, what qualities would you deem crucial to this decision? Would you want an institution that values critical thinking and getting the most out of each individual student, or one that sees each student as a means to achieving the greatest financial gain?

President John Haeger and the rest of the NAU administration is hoping that you will pick the latter.

In one of the worst kept secrets on campus, NAU leaders have told instructors to avoid handing out grades of D’s, F’s or W’s (withdrawals in the middle of the semester). This DFW policy means that a student could skip practically every class and get away with it. This, to any rational being, sounds ludicrous. How could it happen? The answer lies in the bottom line.

Read more

Dwelling above the Veil: Remembering Joel Olson

During one of my ethics classes, we were discussing psychological egoism, a philosophy favored by Friedrich Nietzsche. I began spouting the beliefs of the self-proclaimed god, much to the boredom of the other students in the room. After the class, my teacher asked me how I knew so much about Nietzsche (as if it was quantum physics and not one of the most influential people in modern history). I told him all about the teachings of Dr. Joel Olson, and how he used primary sources to really make all of his students think in ways we never thought we could. The teacher loved this, and asked for Joel’s email so he could perhaps obtain his syllabi.

That was Tuesday, March 26.

A friend of mine was looking at classes for the Fall 2012 semester. I immediately told her to take Joel Olson’s extremism class. The class content would make her see the world in a brand new light, I said. Getting to know Joel as a person will change her life forever, just as it’s changed pretty much everyone who has ever sat down in one of his classrooms.

That was Wednesday, March 27.

I learned of Joel’s death on Thursday, March 28.

Truth is, this isn’t even that big of a coincidence. Joel has come up often in my life since I first took that extremism class in the fall semester of my sophomore year. Some might call that creepy, but there are few parts of my education that have not been at least partly affected by Joel Olson. He got me to expand my mind in ways no other professor could.

Read more

Bruno Mars or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The 23 Fee

I’ve tried to be a good boy. I really have. “It’s only 23 dollars,” I’ve said. “They’re a bunch of kids. What can you expect?” I’ve asked. “The students should never have approved this in the first place!” I’ve exclaimed. “Meh…” I’ve ellipcitized. Mostly, I’ve behaved myself when I could have very easily not.

And how am I repaid? Here’s how:

Read more

Elections are the last place to look for change

A coalition of students and their supporters from New York University and The New School chant march towards Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan in New York where hundreds camped at the park in the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protest. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, File)

“Change” is a word that’s been thrown around a lot lately. Barack Obama campaigned on bringing change to Washington. The Tea Party has gained support by vowing to change America’s values. You probably get former General Motors workers and real estate agents asking you for spare change. But no matter what, this change never seems to happen.

On Tuesday, the State Press published a column by Will Munsil, who argued that mass protests, such as those taking place as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, are not those medium for which social change happens in America.

“America already has mechanisms for social change,” Munsil says. “They’re called elections.”

According to Munsil, if you want new ideas to infiltrate the government, you must only elect people who share those ideas, and good things will happen. That’s the American way.

Except it isn’t the American way at all, and hasn’t been for over a century. With the exception of Franklin Roosevelt’s election in 1932, no modern cultural movement has resulted in an election that has changed the landscape of America’s politics and culture. In fact, as we all have seen, the exact opposite happens. Washington D.C., as the saying goes, is where ideas go to die. It’s a place where bureaucracy and corruption make it nearly impossible for anything significant to happen. The names on the Capitol’s offices continuously change, but constant deadlock always remains the same.

So what does history tell us about how real social change comes to America? Well, up to 8,000 people marched to Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration in support of women’s suffrage. Cesar Chavez and his followers walked to Sacramento, where 10,000 people met in the name of organized labor. Several times across the country, crowds in the excess of 100,000 protested the Vietnam War. Up to 300,000 people gathered on the National Mall to hear Martin Luther King dream up a new world.

None of these demonstrations were in support of a political candidate or party. They were in support of an idea which could only become a reality if they made it so. The suffragists didn’t have the slogan, “Filibusters, Not Words.” The unions didn’t chant “Si se puede if we have enough votes in the House.” The hippies didn’t say, “Make Legislation, Not War.” And Martin Luther King didn’t rouse his followers by proclaiming, “I have a DREAM that a freshman congressman will be able to earmark anti-segregation rules into a bridge construction bill!” The future was up to them, not politicians.

Despite Munsil’s claims to the contrary, mass protests really aren’t that rare in American history. They are used often, and they are mostly used successfully. These changes that came from the masses gathering together for a single cause have moved America in radical directions. Sure, these types of demonstrations might be in fashion right now, with many people inspired by the Arab Spring, but those who study history know that this is how change happens. You can’t wait for the suits to do it for you. You have to occupy, or be left out.

What’s the Beef over Steve Jobs?

Steve Jobs, Founder and CEO of Apple, Inc., died Wednesday

In the streets of New York, hundreds of protesters were attacked by police officers, and 28 were arrested. In California, the trial of Michael Jackson’s (who died a year ago) doctor was underway. In Birmingham, AL, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, one of the founders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) and lifelong civil rights advocate, died. In Palo Alto, CA Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of Apple Inc. died. The CEO of Bank of America defended his bank’s controversial $5 debit card fee. The NBA decided to go on lockout. Aside from international news, this past Wednesday was a busy day for news.

The story that got a redesigned front page on most websites, designed to fill the entire screen, however, was the death of Steve Jobs. His death was the news topic which flooded facebook and twitter feeds Wednesday evening. There was very little discussion on thousands of protesters filling the streets of New York City, attempting to march through police blockades of Wall Street, and the resulting violence by the police which ensued. Further, there was no discussion at all about the death of Civil Rights movement icon — who was instrumental in minorities gaining equality in the 1960s and 1970s — Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth.

The death of Steve Jobs is tragic, as is the death of any human being. Yet it seems that America’s priorities are not quite in order if we have a spontaneous national worship-fest over a CEO who reaped the benefits of a crack marketing crew and excellent engineers, have biographies written and published about him in the three days since he died, and there is now talk of a major film biopic in the works about his life, and little discussion over one of the leading figures in spreading equality and democracy within America’s own borders.

On October 6, the day after these events occurred, 10,000 people took to the streets of Portland, OR, tens of thousands of people took to the streets of New York City, thousands of students walked out of university classes all across the country, and hundreds to thousands held marches in over 30 different cities all across the United States. That evening, hundreds in most of those cities settled down into parks, mostly illegally, and defied police orders to disperse, and stayed overnight in the cold.

On October 6, the top story was still Steve Jobs.

How can we justify mourning the death of a CEO who had very little hand in the designing of iconic Apple Inc. devices, apart from setting a simple and sleek business model, when we completely ignore the death of one of the key architects of the Project C Birmingham? Indeed, how can we justify mourning the death of a CEO when the United States is beginning to boil with social revolt, against the very practices that Steve Jobs utilized to ensure Apple’s success — including keeping Apple from participating in any philanthropic causes and outsourcing production to sweatshop labor in Asia?

We have lionized a man who has placed profits over people, even when his company became wildly profitable, while ignoring a man who placed the rights of all people over his own personal safety, and only giving small amounts of attention to a movement which aims to combat the very practice of placing profits over people. There is no way to justify that, no matter how much we love our iPhones and iPods.

We should be sad about Steve Jobs’ death, but we should not treat him as a national hero in that sadness.

Debit card fees are a scam

Debit card fees are coming.

Starting on January 1, 2012, many banks will begin charging their customers to use their debit cards, a service which is currently free. The reason banks — including JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America — are creating these charges is the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which placed a cap on swipe charges for businesses. Businesses have found these charges to be exorbitant, and such charges have favored large corporations like McDonalds over small businesses Flagstaff’s Diablo Burger. The Frank-Dodd Act attempted to solve this problem, and to run down prices of products at all businesses. This would have cost banks a small fraction of their yearly revenue, and saved collective millions for consumers and business-owners alike.

The banks, however, would have none of that.

In response, banks have shifted the lost revenue due to the swipe cap over to consumers, effectively charging the consumer twice for buying a gallon of milk — one charge on businesses, one charge on the debit card user. None of this was necessary for their costs, though. For example, Bank of America’s fees are aimed at regaining a measly loss of $193.5 million — .085% of their $228 billion yearly revenue.  To put that in perspective, Bank of America’s CEO had a $1.9 million salary last year, and was given a $9 million bonus. His total income amounted to about 5.6% of the revenue brought in by the upcoming debit card fee. That does not even include the incomes of the rest of Bank of America’s board of directors.

Debit card fees — and most likely swipe fees at businesses, too — are scams, aimed specifically at increasing the bottom line to make stock holders and controlling parties happy. Bank of America, and other major banks like JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo, can more than afford to absorb these fees, and their stockholders can stop their whining about dipping profits and find more stable, useful and productive roles to play in our economy — as plumbers, electricians or accountants. Banks exist to serve societies; societies do not exist to serve banks.

To avoid outrageous fees, and to remind banks just who they are meant to serve, do not switch to credit cards, as credit cards have higher merchant swipe fees than debit cards do, and would result in higher profits for banks, and higher costs for you. Try to use cash as much as possible, and when that does not work, buy gift cards at local stores, buy money orders, or resort to writing checks. Better yet, leave any bank which charges such fees. Banks which choose to not respect the customers which keep them in business ought to be reminded that it is not us who are beholden to them, but them who are beholden to us.

ABOR cautiously optimistic as budget request goes to the legislature

Word on the street is that this year’s state budget will not be nearly as brutal to the university system as it had been the past three years. That sentiment seemed to be present among the members of the Arizona Board of Regents on Thursday as they discussed an operating budget request they will send to the state legislature.

In the request, which will be sent by Oct. 1, the regents have asked the legislature for an additional $119.3 million in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget. Since $198 million was cut from university funding for FY2012, this proposal would effectively bring the system back to within $78.7 million of what it was in FY2011. ABOR Chair Fred DuVal called the plan “reasonable”, especially if money from Gov. Brewer’s one-cent sales tax are actually used to help universities for the first time in its three-year existence.

However, some were more weary of the budget process. Regent Mark Killian, for example, cautioned against dependence on any sort of new revenue, saying that it could go away at any time, leaving the universities in debt. He advised the board to set aside money for a rainy day fund.

As for how any sort of funding will be distributed, the board has decided to hold off performance-based funding, which would primarily give more funding to schools based on retention rates and the number of credits being taken per student, for another year as they accumulate more information on the system. The board will stick with a disparity model where funding is determined by the number of students. In the weirdest moment of the day, Regent Dennis DeConcini said he doesn’t approve of disparity funding because it doesn’t give enough preferential treatment to UA. He said UA should get such treatment because it’s the oldest in the state and “Sometimes the first child gets to go to the best university.”

Other notable actions taken by ABOR include:

  • As part of capital improvement plans for all three universities, the board authorized the building of a new parking structure on San Francisco St., a new lease agreement to be used for the construction of an administrative building and renovations for Ardrey Auditorium.
  • ASU was given the go-ahead to create a new campus branch in Lake Havasu City, with a focus on liberal arts.
  • They held off on approving a new nursing program for UA to be located in Phoenix because many of the board members, including ASU President Michael Crow, did not know about it before the meeting. Regent Anne Mariucci said the communication between the university presidents and the board was “unacceptable.”

My live blog of the meeting can be found here.

ABOR meets to discuss budget proposal

ABOR922

We are live at NAU’s High Country Conference Center, where the Arizona Board of Regents are meeting to discuss the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. I will be live blogging the event on this page, as well as my Twitter page. If you want to follow along yourself, the agenda can be found here, and a live stream can be found here.

Now let’s begin. All updates can be found after the jump.

Read more

Previewing tomorrow’s ABOR meeting

Tomorrow (Sept. 21) at 10 a.m. in the High Country Conference Center, the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR), the governing board of Arizona’s three state universities, will hold its first major meeting of the 2011-12 school year.Though it will have other intriguing purposes, the purpose of this annual meeting is to develop an operating budget proposal to send to the Arizona legislature. The proposal will basically include what the regents determine the university system will need to operate for the next fiscal year.

This proposal, of course, never winds up being passed. The legislature considers the proposal and then comes up with their own, stingier version. That process begins int he winter, with ABOR holding meetings in the spring to determine tuition rates. However, that doesn’t mean these meetings are pointless.

For one, the mood of the regents at this meeting is often a sign of things to come. These people were appointed to the board because they have connections with the government. They have friends who know things. So while they can’t inform the public on what they’ve been told by friends who know things, they can sure tell us what kind of future we’re going to have. It was during this meeting in 2008 that it became somewhat apparent that there was going to be some rocky financial times in the education world.

There’s been a widely held opinion by many analysts that the worst has passed as far as budget cuts to the university system. State revenue is unlikely to decrease dramatically, and the state’s budget is already balanced. However, others point to the end of Gov. Brewer’s one-cent sales tax and President Obama’s stimulus funds as an indication that there might still be more suffering ahead. That’s why it will be so telling to listen to the regents during this meeting.

Of course, being an ABOR meeting, there will also be a lot of nonsense to sit through. For example, I’ve been to all three of these September meetings throughout my college career. In all three, the regents have managed to have the same debate. “Do we send the legislature a proposal that has a reasonable chance to be accepted or do we send them a proposal containing the funds we actually need?” Every year they do this. But if I had to guess, I’d say the “reasonable” side is getting smaller and smaller as it has become more apparent that the legislature just doesn’t give a damn.

Some other notes:

  • The other major items at Thursday’s meeting mainly deal with the approval of capital improvement plans set forth by each university. For NAU, this basically involves continuing the massive redesign of the entire campus. I’ve never seen a project denied by ABOR, and I don’t expect to this year. However, the regents did deny the universities’ request to increase housing cost last year. So maybe there’s a chance.
  • This is the only major meeting held at NAU. As such, Friday’s meeting will begin with a speech by NAU Pres. Haeger about the state of NAU. This appears to be the only interesting item on Friday’s agenda, so I won’t be going.
  • This meeting will feature new ABOR Chairman Fred DuVal. DuVal is a longtime regent who has only ever seemed reasonable and results-driven to me. He will be replacing Anne Mariucci, who was anything but reasonable. Her exit will likely be a positive for NAU.
  • Finally, the agenda for both days’ meeting can be found here. For those who can’t go to the meeting, a live stream will be available here.

Haeger reinforces NAU’s paranoia of perception

In case you missed it, there was a story over the weekend that really wasn’t a story. The NAU Conservatives were passing out flags in front of the University Union to commemorate 9/11. Then it rained. So they went inside. There are rules saying you can’t promote anything inside the Union without approval. This led to an honest miscommunication. The conservatives complained and I guess it was a slow news day or the media are just tools are whatever, because this non-story became a story.

I’m not interested in getting into the issue because there isn’t an issue. It was a miscommunication. The university apologized. There are no bad guys. This is even less of a story than the university wanting to cut down a couple human-planted trees. The story is over.

Well it would be over except NAU President John Haeger decided it wasn’t. He has now called a forum to address the issue, to be held at the High Country Conference Center on Friday, six days before the same facility will host one of the most important Arizona Board of Regent meetings of the year. I won’t be at the forum, because, in case I haven’t made this clear, this isn’t an important issue.

All this forum does is reinforce the opinion many of us have of John Haeger: He is far too concerned with NAU’s perception. This is a president who justifies massive raises for administrators during a time of unprecedented budgets cuts by saying we have to compete for the nation’s top talent. That talent isn’t coming. This is a president who wants to morph NAU’s identity into a research institution. NAU will never be a research institution. Haeger pretty wants to make NAU seem like the Yale Of The Mountains, which of course is bullshit. NAU is a school that admits everyone that applies. There’s no shame to that, but it doesn’t make for an elite university.

So now there’s national media outrage over something that happened on Haeger’s campus. That’s not something the president can ignore. It threatens the fantasy he has created of NAU being a paradise that everyone wants to go to. If there’s a stigma with NAU not honoring the rights of its students, how are they going to beat out MIT for those amazing engineering students?

It may sound like I’m being a dick about this, but I can honestly see no other reason why this forum is being held. In my three-plus years as a journalist at this school, I have covered dozens of events that have caused outrage by a student organization. Haeger’s response has always been a variation of “I understand the concern, but this is what actually happened.” But now, the nation is watching and Haeger’s tail is firmly between his legs. And until he accepts the reality of what this school really is, he will always carry this paranoia around with him.

ABOR passes tuition policies, includes rebates for incoming NAU freshmen

After hours of discussion and amendments, the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) has approved a tuition policy very similar to what the university presidents proposed, with an exception for all three school.

NAU and UA were both faced with using all of their emergency reserves in order to offset any tuition increases. This proposal was vehemently opposed by both schools’ presidents, and a compromise was reached. The tuition rates would be passed as the presidents proposed, but NAU will provide a $350 rebate to all incoming undergraduate students over the course of a year. UA will provide a $750 rebate to all undergraduate students. The rebates for both schools will be paid from the reserves. ASU does not have sufficient reserves for this, but it was placed with a mandatory $6 million cut in operating costs.

This is a very brief explanation of what turned out to be a very complicated discussion. I recommend reading my complete live blog of today’s meeting to see reasons for votes and how these policies came to pass. Last night I wrote a summary of what these proposals included and how we got to this point. You can read it here.

Live updates follow below:

Read more

At NAU, bigger is not always better

Oh, come on.

Maybe it’s just me, but it’s starting to feel a little cramped around here. One of NAU’s greatest strengths is that it’s not ASU. Our school prides itself on its small campus, but that may not be the case for long. The Flagstaff campus is getting more crowded every year, with students pouring in at record rates.

NAU’s growth over the past few years has had serious consequences. Services that used to be reliable — like the bus system — are no longer useful when every bus is overflowing with bodies and backpacks. Students are living in lobbies, in “triple rooms,” and in hammocks hanging out of the freaking windows. Others are forced to live off-campus in apartments — even though all the good places are gone long by the time the lottery comes around. The root of the problem can be traced to NAU’s habit of admitting far more people than it can house. Most universities don’t bother housing students after their freshman year, a policy that allows them to avoid the problems of overcrowding that NAU is utterly failing to address. Does that sound like responsible growth management?

Here is a statistic to ponder: Enrollment at the Flagstaff Mountain Campus in 2010 increased 9 percent from the previous year — meaning there were more than 1,497 more people living on a campus that isn’t getting any bigger, despite having acres of untouched land south of I-40 set aside for just this purpose. More people leads to less parking, more competition for classes and less federal and state money spent on each student, which in turn equals a reduced quality of education.

Anyone who has ever screamed obscenities at their computer because LOUIE crashed while they were signing up for classes knows what’s at stake here. Continually adding more people into the system and putting more stress on the university’s already substandard infrastructure will only make things worse in the long term.

Of course, it is in the best interests of the university’s bottom line to let more and more students in every year. More students means more tuition fees to help keep the beleaguered school afloat. With NAU losing $25 million this year, on top of a $17 million cut in state funding last year, more tuition might be the only option for NAU to remain open at all, but that still doesn’t change the fact that all these bodies mean endless lines at the Hot Spot and buses that feel more like crowded slaughterhouses than viable means of transportation.

Do we really have a better school if we continue to let record numbers of new students flood our campus while we lower the bar of what we expect from a university education? The more pieces of the pie we cut, the less everyone ends up getting. So, no matter how much you’re currently paying for tuition, your education is continually being watered down by this unchecked influx of new minds. More people in every class means you have less time to ask questions, less time to talk with your professor during office hours, and less feedback on assignments. How can we call this an institution of higher learning if we don’t have the opportunity to question and discuss?

Maybe NAU should strive to be a more elitist institution like the Ivy League schools. Why not institute a reasonable cap on the number of students we let in? It would be nice if, for once, the administration focused on improving the quality of education for the students currently here instead of hyping how great the campus will be in 10 years. We won’t be here to enjoy the new amenities in that bright future — we’d all appreciate a little breathing room in the here and now.

Your guide to love, sex and the neverending avoidance of loneliness

College is both the best and worst environment for relationships. The best part comes from the freedom and convenience of being on your own; the worst part comes from trying to turn that into any sort of lasting commitment. This is supposed to be a time to “experiment,” to party and play the field. We’re supposed to find our bridesmaids or groomsmen — not the bride or groom. But try as we might to avoid any and all forms of commitment, love can be a pain in the ass, and it just might sneak up on us anyway.

So this is a story about college relationships. It’s a story about hooking up, breaking up, making up, breaking up again and everything in between. It’s a story about one night stands, friends with benefits, first loves and fuck buddies. It’s a story that will show you what you can expect when it comes to love and sex in college and the terminology you’ll need to sift through it. This is a story about Mary.

Read more

Welcome back to school … now get to work

From the first day on, responsibilities overcome most people's chances of a positive college experience.

Like our high school experience, the university world is a story of high demands and excessive overburden. There is a university culture that thrives on not doing much, but for many, it is the expectation of doing more than anyone else that consumes us, and as people build themselves up, everyone else continually is piling themselves with more work.

Our college experience is about multitasking and intense work. Extracurricular activities are considered necessary to get anywhere. The bar is being raised continually, and those raising it expect us all to abandon life and embrace this “work 24/7” culture. University student suicide rates are going up, and our health as a demographic is not getting any better; we seem to be learning less despite doing more. Our college experience is not healthy.

But it is our experience.

Our lives are fast and busy. This style of living began, for us, with our toddlerhood. Some of us went through pre-preschool, then preschool, then actual school. The aim for programs like preschool is to improve our performance and give us better opportunities. This experience continued for us through elementary school in the form of swim lessons, scouts, sports and martial arts. In high school, it dragged on with clubs, band, drama clubs, more sports and various extracurricular volunteer works — on top of the expectation for us to “figure ourselves out.”  Now we are in college, and the trend continues; our lives are still speeding up, our work is intensifying and this tendency will continue into our adult lives. There is no reason to believe it won’t.

Simply put, the competition to be a better potential employee is eating our lives away and hindering our free development as people. Many of us still manage to develop ourselves independent of these expectations, but that development comes at the price of our loss of other things  like success.

Our university itself is encouraging this frantic experience. We are encouraged to stay up later: Cline Library is open until 2:00 in the morning (to add insult to that injury, we students pay for this encouragement through the 23 fee — a responsibility which the administration should take up instead of driving our costs through the ceiling), with Starbucks closing at the same time … selling coffee. Our government is cutting our aid, demanding we get jobs to pay for our education (our tuition today is approaching $9000; a decade ago the tuition would have been an equivalent to a little over $3000 2010 dollars) — unprecedented in the recent history of this country. We are demanded to get a job, despite course-loads consuming most of our lives. We have to routinely write 25-page research papers, we have 100 pages of reading per class per week, quizzes, exams, homework, other papers … it’s all well and good, but we are expected to do more, as if our academic activity is not thought to be rigorous, or even important.

We are expected to overwork, overplay and overspend, in every area of our life. This is our experience and culture, because we have not been given any other choice. We have never been given any other choice. This lack of options has always been advertised as “look at all of these choices you have!”, but never has the  “none of the above” been an option.

We can make the decision to stay up and study until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, or not get a good job. We have the choice to work on top of our responsibilities as students, or be viewed as a lazy person. We have the option to overwork or be rejected. These are not real choices, but for some reason our student culture has accepted them. It is imperative that we push back against a culture of overworking, because the high stress experiences are not healthy, and we have been pushed toward it for our entire lives — we shouldn’t have to put up with the lack of other options.

Our parents’ generation rebelled against their parents for what they claimed to be the overbearingness of our grandparents. Though this is not our situation, it is our responsibility to blaze a healthier experience for ourselves.

Frantic multitasking and overworking will not make us world competitors. The United States is falling behind in the very things which will make it successful, despite how hard we work. We are told we must work so we can be successful, but we are still falling behind. This life is not working out for us, and we should not put up with it.

Our college experience is so disjointed, so isolated, not necessarily because of our electronic devices or a failure of our generation to live up to the expectations of society at large; it is so disjointed and isolated because we feel obligated to take on more work than we can possibly handle, and put everything else on the backburner.

There is no need to try to synthesize a new college experience. The only thing we need is to break away from the narrow confines of our workaholic generation’s culture and pipe up and express who we actually are. We need to bring out what it is that makes us us — not what we are told we should do, or told we are — but our own interests today, the interests that make each of us individuals, which make us unique and are as fascinating as any 50-inch television or 8-hour shift at work.

No matter how hard we work or how fast we move, we will always be demanded to work harder and faster. The cycle will not end unless we stop the cycle. We are being told to work beyond healthy limits so we may enter graduate school or gain a good career. However, at graduate school we will be told to work harder still, so we can get the career. In the career we will be told to work even harder, so we can get promoted. No matter how far we go, we will always be told to go the next level, even if it destroys our health.

We have a choice to tell them — the school, the advertisers, our parents, our governments and our businesses — no more. We ought to make it.

Putting an end to procrastinating on procrastination

I’m writing this in the study room in Cline Library, where I’m surrounded by people doing homework. There’s one guy hunched over a textbook, taking notes. There’s a girl comparing text from her book and whatever she’s reading on her laptop (I’m not so much a stalker that I read over their shoulders). There are multiple calculators and rulers out. Mind you, this is the first day of school. Nothing is due today.

Therefore, these people, who have no idea their study habits are being published on the Internet, have to be getting a major head start on their homework. It’s something every decent person should be capable of doing, and yet it’s something that has me as bewildered as if I just saw a lion tap dancing with Tom Waits. For you see, Church, I have so long tried to accomplish this habit, and have failed every time.

The dream of full avoidance of procrastination became a ritual in my life around the eighth grade. That was when I had truly realized how bad I had become at putting things off. After that, I made a pledge before every semester that this was going to be the one where I get all my work done right away. No more all-nighters for me! No more stressing out over choosing which test would have to be ignored because there wasn’t enough time to study for both! The mental and physical toll wasn’t worth it, I’d say to myself. There’s no reason I can’t do everything early. It’s not like I do anything productive anyway.

I took this attitude with me throughout high school and through my first three years of college. Every semester I’d try it, and every semester it lasted about five minutes and eight seconds. That’s usually how long it takes the teacher to start writing some sort of notes on the board, and how long it takes for me to ignore them. And then, without fail, my life would snowball to the point where I was sprinting to class with a newly printed essay in my hands.

Well no more delusions for me! I have one year left of school, and by now I completely know who I am as a student: a really crappy one. I’ve come to accept it. My mind can now peer into the future and clearly see the suffering ahead. There will be years taken off my life from the stress of the coming year, and I’m okay with it, because I’m pathetic like that.

And if you’re reading this, chances are you need to accept that about yourself too. And yeah, that means we’re gonna get dirty looks from the decent folk, and we’re gonna disappoint our parents, and we’re gonna feel ashamed at our hypocrisy when we tell our kids to do their homework. But on the bright side, we get to watch every episode of Mythbusters ever and defeat every pig that pissed off those birds. It’s so worth it. As long as we are in it together, the possibilities of failure are endless! Who’s with me?

 

 

You don’t have to answer yet.

 

The best thing $80 million could buy

(UPDATE: In writing this, I forgot to mention the crucial point that this building was in large part paid for by people who will never use it. My post addressing this issue can be found here.)

I’m pretty open with the fact that I hate fees. Other student journalists around here like to pretend they’re objective about the idea and don’t let the public know their opinions. But trust me: They hate fees*. That’s because we’ve looked into the fees closely enough to learn of how much money from the fees goes to waste, and that makes them seem ridiculous. You need only to look at the 23 Fee to see what happens when we decide to give up our money. That’s why whenever there’s a vote for a new fee and the students are like, “Hey, that sounds cool. I’ll give strangers all the money they need!”, it makes me cry. Not really cry. More like angrily blog. Same thing. The fact is, every student can use their own money to pay for their own things that the fees wind up paying for anyway.

*It should be noted that a lot of these anti-fee people are also liberals who don’t have a problem with taxes. I think that’s weird.

That being said, if you’re gonna give strangers your money, it sure is nice when that money is used for something amazing. And the news Health and Learning Center, with its $80 million price tag paid for by student-voted $250 fees, is amazing. It’s gigantic, but not in a macho kind of way. It’s beautiful, but not in a over-luxurious-during-a-recession kind of way. It’s a place where I can look at it and tell, even if there was some waste, the money actually went to something great.

I got in after being told I technically shouldn’t be allowed in because I still have an outstanding balance on my LOUIE account. So apparently you gotta pay that. Anyway, a tour:

Read more

Yes, graduates, you got hosed

IMAG0135

During my ramblings about the new Health and Learning Center from yesterday, I knew I was forgetting something. That’s the downside of the Internet: When you can instantly post something, it’s easy to forget a point. Luckily, commenters on this site and on our Facebook page reminded me pretty quick about what I forgot.

When I was complaining about fees and how you shouldn’t give other people your money, I forgot about why the Health and Learning Center was such a special example of why. The vote on whether to initiate the fee to pay for the building took place in Spring 2008, which was the sophomore year of the class that graduated this past spring. Therefore, those people put three years worth of Health and Wellness Fees toward a project that they are never gonna be able to use.

Whose fault this is depends on your opinion about the integrity of NAU’s administration. If you have a lot of trust in them, then you don’t doubt that a comprehensive vote on the H&W Fee actually did happen, and a majority of the students who voted approve of the fee, having known all the ramifications of the project, including timing. I can only confirm that there was a vote, and the opening date of the center was out in the public as of July 2009.

However, if you’ve grown a bit weary of the school after all the scams they’ve put us through, you’re much more likely to look at the Health and Learning Center (or pictures of it if you’ve moved away), and only feel robbed. I would be in your camp. And, despite the noted excellence of the center’s construction, if tomorrow I could vote on whether or not it should be built, I would vote no. The school (along with its colleagues across the state and nation) have to stop using fees as tools of getting around tuition hikes. It’s sleazy, and not fooling anyone.

I apologize for leaving this out of the original article.

And WTF happened to Liberal Arts?

I studied these for far too long, and was unable to come to a conclusion of what they were for. They're in front of every stairway. They look like something out of a science museum or something. I have no clue.

So we all know that the old version of the Liberal Arts building was a piece of crap. It was the kind of place where all sense of happiness and willingness to live got sucked out of you as soon as you walked in. This isn’t quite as bad as the Adel Mathematics building, which in addition to doing all of the above, will also suck the soul out of your first-born child. But it was still pretty bad. It was also like the Skydome, in that it had so many infrastructure problems that it was almost unsafe to be in it.

So back in 2009, NAU chose the Liberal Arts building as one of three projects (along with the Skydome and the Hotel and Restaurant Management buildings) to be renovated using funds from a stimulus program created by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano in 2007. I wrote about it all back when it happened if you’re really interested in this process.

So here we are more than two years later, and the results are … I don’t even know what to call them. The place looks weird. Instead of sucking the life out of you, it now makes you feel like somebody put something in your drink. A very abbreviated tour of the new building:

Read more

Living in the shadow of September 11th

On September 11, 2001, I was watching TV in my family’s small apartment in Flagstaff. Thousands of miles away, four planes had crashed — two into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and another in a field in rural Pennsylvania. The towers had collapsed and no one knew how many were dead. Ripples of fear paralyzed the nation. Somewhere amid the montage of destruction on the news, I saw a man jump out of a window to his death.

The world would never be the same. It is 10 years later, and on the solemn anniversary of that dark morning, it is clear to see that we have not had a moment of peace since then. Our troops — our friends, our neighbors, our classmates and our family — were sent to fight two fruitless wars that have cost us over $3.7 trillion and 6,000 American lives  Our government’s power increased exponentially. Our country was gripped by a paralyzing fear of everything and everyone of a different race or belief system. We changed a lot in 10 years.

We increased security at airports, at bridges, at ports, and at in government buildings. Sometimes, the security is so obtrusive that you can’t help but wonder if it’s even worth it. What is there left to protect in the post-9/11 world?

In 1775, as revolution was brewing in the American Colonies, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” If you look around, and you will see how completely we have forgotten his wisdom.

The terrorists who planned and carried out the September 11th attacks wanted us to be afraid. They wanted us to give up our liberty. They wanted us to spy on our own citizens and pour our resources into useless retaliation. They wanted to take away everything that made America a great nation. The worst part is they didn’t need to do it themselves. We did it for them.

In the early-1950s, when faced with the blind fear and runaway power wielded by Senator McCarthy, journalist Edward R. Murrow said, “We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility.”

We, too, have a responsibility to our republic. We cannot rewrite the past or bring back the dead, but we can chart a new course for the United States of America. There are two possible futures: One where we allow the vice-grip of fear and the people in power who use fear to rob us of everything that made us great, and one where we stand up and refuse to submit to the tyranny of terror.

Today, we mark the tragic loss of 2,977 American lives and, hopefully, commit ourselves to creating a new America. We should remain vigilant and prepared for a similar attack, but we should not let that serve as an excuse for letting our founding principles slip through our fingers. If we forget who we are and what we used to stand for, then the terrorists have won and we have nothing left to fight for.

When historians look back on 9/11, I don’t know whether they will mark that date as the beginning of America’s decline or its rebirth. We, as a nation, can learn from the mistakes we’ve made since September 11th. We can either choose to bomb our way into financial oblivion, threaten to burn each other’s holy books and restrict freedoms in the name of national security — or we can choose to reassert our identity as a proud, diverse and tolerant Americans.

Follow @jonnyeberle on Twitter.

Switch to our mobile site