995 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
The campaign “hashtag” “Why I Don’t Need Feminism” became popular at the end of summer when the Tumblr blog “We Don’t Need Feminism!,” and others like it, went viral.
All too often, students don’t immediately seek medical assistance for those believed to be suffering from an alcohol-related injury or illness. Sometimes, this is out of fear that they will be prosecuted or penalized by law enforcement if it is revealed that they, too, had been consuming alcohol underage. The Indiana Lifeline Law was written to protect such individuals. It’s a law that prioritizes saving a student in need versus arresting a few intoxicated ones.
In the Monroe County Community School Corporation, when you’re learning about the Bill of Rights, you can now also learn about your Miranda rights.
Israel and Palestine have never played nice.
The Catholic Church has long struggled with priests not being able to keep their habits clean. Is Pope Francis the hero we need, or is it too late for change?
The Editorial Board isn’t a huge fan of the ?Transportation Security ?Administration.
The United States government is a big spender. We have a bit of a debt problem right now.
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The CEO of Tesla Motors, Elon Musk, released his company’s patents on its electric cars to the public June 12. The Editorial board believes this is a smart move that could help jump-start development between automakers toward a more electric future.While it may at first smack of self-righteousness, it poses a tantalizing potential payoff when other car companies may be able to work towards an all-electric automotive future. Mr. Musk has taken a risk in making his company’s technology available to the masses. His company could potentially lose millions, but we believe it was a bold and ultimately profitable move.This is an unprecedented risk, especially for a small cog in a machine as large and powerful as the auto industry. Tesla will certainly face problems. General Motors created an electric car, the EV1, in the 1990s, but it was quickly removed from the market. Many believe a combination of car companies and the oil industry lobbied heavily to keep it off the streets. Even as Tesla opens up its patents, it’s possible the current leaders will fight smaller startups to maintain the status quo. The game of patents and copyright has always been a very bloody battle. Witness the billion dollar penalties between Apple and Samsung in court concerning such trivialities as “Slide to Unlock” for a taste for how tenuous modern intellectual property laws are being used and abused by several parties. Musk certainly knows the dangers of patents impeding scientific progress and in recognizing both the potential benefits and drawbacks, he has made his stance on the issue quite clear.Currently the gold standard of electric cars and quickly becoming a hot-ticket luxury item, Tesla Motors stands as the premium alternative to gasoline-powered cars but also at premium price points. Still, we believe Musk’s idea to be the Henry Ford of electric cars might be somewhat grandiose, but if it works and his patents eventually allow for a breakthrough, that might very well be the case.Technology is changing quicker than ever. Especially with the level of connectedness we experience today, information free-flow is becoming harder and harder to stop. Maybe Musk will lose money initially, but think of the environmental benefits. And if people take the patents and improve on them, imagine the benefits to Tesla and the electric car industry. In the age of RIAA, DRM, SOPA and rootkits, it is refreshing for a company to embrace the novel idea of cooperating to improve technology, rather than hoarding it away like some other companies based in Silicon Valley.True innovation lies in taking risks, in going against the grain and doing something no one else is willing to try. The auto industry can’t stop the spread of information forever. And after the dust settles and we run out of oil, who will be remembered for launching the new era of vehicles?Right now, our money’s on Tesla.opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Editorial Board thinks there is such a thing as too much concern for public safety.Take Franklin, Ind., for example. Located south of Indianapolis, Franklin has a population of around 23,000. Their sheriff’s department just purchased a 55,000-pound Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle from military surplus. The vehicle is equipped with heavy armor, bulletproof glass, and a gunner’s turret. We at the Editorial Board find it hard to justify the need for such a vehicle in the streets of a small city in the middle of the United States.Franklin does have a property crime rate slightly higher than the national average, but their violent crime rate is below the average. They did see a spike in violent crime in 2005, but it has since been decreasing. Point being, it’s a city in Indiana, not a war-torn pile of rubble in the third world. Such purchases aren’t restricted to one city. Eight Indiana law enforcement agencies have obtained MRAP’s since 2010. The total number of SWAT actions in the U.S. has risen to more than 40,000 per year. We are witnessing a militarization of our police. Why the heavy-handed tactics?Pulaski County sheriff Michael Gayer, whose department also obtained and MRAP, said such gear is necessary.“The United States of America has become a war zone,” he said. “There’s violence in the workplace, there’s violence in schools and there’s violence in the streets.” The Editorial Board disagrees, since actual statistics show violent crime has decreased in the U.S. by 37 percent during the past 20 years. We understand that without enough security, freedom is pretty much worthless. If you’re in danger of getting robbed or killed, you probably aren’t too concerned with midterm elections. But the U.S. is not in such a crisis. And focusing on security too much is just as bad. Not only can it restrict rights, but it can breed a culture of fear that escalates violence even more.For some reason, America believes it is getting more dangerous. The Editorial Board thinks it’s partially the media’s fault for sensationalizing tragedies and not providing context—that’s something we as members of the media need to work on.But police also don’t need to act like they’re in a war zone, because this will just alienate them from the public and make it harder to fix the problems they see. Their job isn’t to scare people into line; it’s to be protective, responsible parts of their communities. They should be who we look up to, not who we curse under our breath.As citizens, we must not stand for this. We aren’t a nation of criminals. We’re actually reducing crime. We need to not be so afraid of each other. And we need to spurn anyone who tells us otherwise.The Editorial Board thinks we should work to reduce police weapons and armored vehicles. That’s the best way for them to protect and serve.opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The National Security Agency has gotten a lot of press recently. With the revelation of its metadata collection and its ability to spy on U.S. citizens, it got caught with its hand in the cookie jar.More recently, the Snowden documents have provided the unwelcome news that the NSA has collected even more data.This time it’s photos, and the goal is facial recognition through a program called “Tundra Freeze.” The NSA collects millions of images a day, though most of them are not of high enough quality for facial recognition.The kicker is that the NSA is expanding its spying methods and types of data collected. It’s not just telephone and email. One of the documents says the NSA is taking “a full-arsenal approach that digitally exploits the clues a target leaves behind in their regular activities on the net to compile biographic and biometric information.”In other words, the NSA is increasing invasive practices to build digital dossiers on everyone, no longer limited by Congress or the president. Thankfully, the NSA would have to receive court approval for American imagery just as with wiretapping and email intercepts.But that isn’t much relief with an administration that has taken a rather loose interpretation in respecting Fourth Amendment rights.To the Obama Administration’s credit, it does say many terrorist plots are foiled using these measures, and the NSA expedited the development of Tundra Freeze after the 2009 attempted Underwear bomber and the 2010 Times Square bomber.But when the NSA has the capabilities to intrude on teleconferences, to cross reference spy satellite imagery with personal photos, and to try to gain access to iris scans from foreign governments, the Editorial Board thinks it has gone too far.Programs like Tundra Freeze might pass underneath the notice of many, but the truth is they are infringing upon our civil liberties as outlined by our founding fathers and the Bill of Rights.The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution says we are to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.No matter what the legal definition of a search or a seizure is, we think the mining of our digital shadows certainly proves invasive.Though the administration might believe these programs and algorithms are in our best interest, they are far from it.When the advancement of computer technology gives the ability to track and recognize people through a camera, that is too much. Executive powers have limits. Of all people, President Obama should know about the dangers of executive overreach because he warned about the abuses of the PATRIOT Act. We, the Editorial Board, wonder when we will finally give up all our rights in return for promises of stability and security.That does not sound like America.That sounds like serfdom.opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As former juveniles ourselves, the Indiana Daily Student Editorial Board feels comfortable saying adolescents don’t generally enjoy the gift of foresight. Not that juveniles aren’t great people. We are totally down with the youths.We’re just saying some teens fail to connect the dots between actions and consequences.But common lapses in young judgment are why the board is thrilled that no one in Indiana younger than 16 will be able to use a tanning bed starting July 1. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds can only use the beds with parental consent.Under this new law, kids can still use sprays and lotions to get the sun-kissed glow they so desire, but they will no longer have access to the beds. Tanning beds are considered Level 1 carcinogens, according to the American Cancer Society.Other Level 1 carcinogens include tobacco products, formaldehyde and plutonium.Because we don’t let kids buy cigarettes, mainline formaldehyde or bask in the nuclear glow of plutonium, it’s nice that lying in a box of cancerous ultraviolet rays for hours is off the table now, too.So now that teens can’t give themselves cancer this way, it’s important that adults don’t, either.Being an adult means more freedom, including more freedom to make bad decisions. When it comes to taking care of our skin, we generally make pretty bad decisions.Skin cancer is something many of us struggle to care about. Multiple applications of sunscreen throughout the day might keep our skin from burning, blistering and peeling off, but it’s such a hassle and it smells weird. And sometimes a sore, bright red back from one sunblock-free afternoon just takes a day or two to turn toasty brown.Toasty brown is more attractive than inflamed orange, but we, the board, would take pale before cancerous any day.And no doctor, ever, in the history of dermatology (probably), has recommended tanning.We all should limit our tanning time, question why we feel the need to tan in the first place and try healthier habits on for size.Doctors recommend everyone regularly wears sunscreen that protects from both UVA and UVB rays and has an SPF of at least 30. Sunscreen should be reapplied every two hours, especially between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.Hats and sunglasses also provide important sun protection.We know this law, and similar protections, are good for our kids. Now if we could only figure out they’re good for us, too.opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Every semester, Opinion has plenty to talk about. The spring semester of the 2013-2014 academic school year saw the continuation of changes that have been in motion not only since the fall, but since the beginning of a decade that has continued to bring about changes both on campus and across the country. Here at IU, we saw the continued inaction of a student government so out of touch and so oblivious to what actually matters to the average undergraduate that taking the IU Student Association to task has essentially amounted to one of the outstanding responsibilities of the Indiana Daily Student Editorial Board. The issue of substantive student input and student voice in the University took center stage this semester, including in what eventually amounted to another non-competitive IUSA election. Despite this, the incoming administration is positioned to push for IUSA to actually do what it’s supposed to be doing — represent students. The push will be needed in the face of significant changes being pushed on the campus by the administration, as outlined by another highlight of this semester, the Campus Strategic Plan. The majority of it is little more than feel-good rhetoric and opaque wording. But the reason why it has come to matter and it will continue to do so is because, for better or worse, it presents the direction our University is heading.Some other primary semester highlights for the Editorial Board include the significant donation to Assembly Hall and the necessary revitalization of other more important parts of our campus, IU’s timely and necessary push for gender-blind housing in our dormitories, campus safety after the Purdue shooting, President Michael McRobbie’s unnecessary withdrawal of the University from the American Studies Association, IU’s misguided expansion of its smoking ban, the raising of the University’s minimum wage and the possible deportation of IU junior Qun Sunn for owning a business. In keeping with national trends, this semester we tackled some of the more troubling parts of greek life both on and off IU’s campus. The dangerous cultures that exist in some chapters are issues that are increasingly receiving national attention. But likewise, greek chapters are also addressing these issues and leading the charge in how we talk about fraternities and sororities, which we hope will lead to more progressive greek systems that college students deserve.Sexual assault also finally became a national conversation during the course of this semester. From the White House to our campus, we’ve witnessed the transformation of rape from a hushed conversation in public discourse to a roaring national campaign demanding action. IU currently a faces a probe from the Department of Education in how it handles sexual assaults. Unwittingly or not, we’ve become part of that conversation, which we hope can lead our University to even better ways to address one of the most perverse issues on college campuses. Nationally, we continued to see and be part of the ongoing social change the country is undergoing. From the inevitability of marriage equality to the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition to setbacks for affirmative action, 2014 is turning out to be quite the year for some of the biggest issues we care about. This semester might be ending, but we’re bound to continue to see and feel the aftermath of what’s happened during its course. opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last week, the men of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter at Gettysburg College each donned a pair of tall high heels before going out. No, it wasn’t for a dare or a tasteless party — instead, it was part of an effort to raise awareness about sexual assault on campus.Clad in red and orange pumps and stilettos, the group of more than 100 men embarked on Walk a Mile, an event to spread vital information about the statistics concerning rape and harassment women face in college.As the student-led Walk a Mile reminds us, an average of one in five women across America will experience the terror and trauma of sexual assault by the time they have graduated. Even IU is not immune to this threat, as demonstrated by the frequent reports of rape printed by the Indiana Daily Student and the knowledge that many rapes go unreported.So the fact that a fraternity has taken an active stand against sexual assault in such a bold manner is fantastic news. Though it surely raised some eyebrows, we say, “Keep it up, boys.” The Editorial Board believes it is incredibly refreshing to see such a proactive, supportive stance taken by a fraternity. Our campus could definitely benefit from something similar. Though many schools, including IU, support similar assault awareness events such as SlutWalk, their inclusion of more male-focused events like Walk a Mile would be especially important as they have the possibility to reach an even broader audience. By encouraging IU’s fraternities to participate in a hands-on learning experience rather than a “don’t rape” lecture, the message behind sexual assault awareness might garner less eyerolls and actually stick. Males encouraging sexual assault awareness in such a way is also beneficial because it highlights the dichotomous way in which we view it. In American culture, heterosexual rape is sometimes regarded merely as a “feminist” or a “woman’s” issue, while male-male rape is scoffed at or ridiculed. Both of these issues are entirely problematic, as sexual assault is everyone’s problem, and it is never something to be taken lightly. The Editorial Board believes encouragement of male organization and participation in events such as Walk a Mile will dispel the harmful idea that rape is a predominantly female concern and that we must work together in order to make our communities aware and safe.Though watching grown men try to hold their composure while traveling in heels for the first time is admittedly hilarious, it serves as a sobering reminder of the realities many women face right here on our campus. After SAE’s roaring success with the Walk a Mile march, maybe we’ll see some of our own fraternity brothers careening down the sidewalks of Third Street in a pair of strappy slingbacks next spring.opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A guest speaker recently visited my journalism class and said something that surprised me. She stressed that in this modern age, it is important, even necessary, to have an online presence. If people don’t have an online presence, it actually hurts their potential to be hired at a company. The primary reason was not to show if a candidate has the ability to function normally in this technology-inundated time, but because social media accounts brand a person so a company actually knows a candidate is human. I find this concept absolutely remarkable, not because companies want people to fall into nice and easy categories branded as this or that, but because people are expected to reduce themselves into a simplified version of who they are. Let’s say, in order to get hired at a sporting goods company, a person decides to brand himself as a snowboarder. He becomes the snowboarder. Not only is it disturbing that, with enough time and effort, people can pass themselves as whoever they want to be, but the branding reduces his level of humanness. He becomes this one-sided construct: the snowboarder. Of course, he will naturally throw in more intriguing details about himself such as, “I have toured the world looking for the best gyro” or “I’m a huge fan of Breaking Bad” so he stands out among the masses of other faceless applicants. However, he becomes known solely by these interesting, though ultimately paltry, details. That is not to say he himself believes he is a sum of his accomplishments or that his closest friends believe him to be the snowboarder, but he portrays himself to the business world through this superficial persona. Businesses begin looking for the most interesting people who might indeed be the most accomplished and proficient for the job, because the interesting people stand out.This is extraordinary stress placed on having interesting facets of someone’s character. Someone’s potential career relies on an anecdote that makes some recruiting agent laugh for a few seconds. I believe this stress places far too much emphasis on the immediate differences between people. I did X and he did Y, this is how we are different, and you should hire me because I’ve had the ability to experience more than he has. Not defining people based on their accomplishments but on character quirks does not take into account the enormous complexity of the human life — the joys, struggles and trials which make us human. These intriguing details ignore everything that makes us what we are. Perhaps it is just me, but if I meet people planning to build a professional relationship, I would not want them to introduce themselves by saying, “Yeah, we raise pet guinea pigs as a hobby.” Sure, it’s interesting, but that doesn’t define their character. I would rather them tell me about themselves, interesting parts and not, and be entirely genuine because getting a true scope of their character would make me want to hire them.allenjo@indiana.edu@IAmJoshAllen
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Supreme Court recently made headlines when it decided, in a 6-2 vote, that an attempt by Michigan voters to ban affirmative action in the state was and is constitutional. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion, stated, “This case is not how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.” Affirmative action itself isn’t why the Court ruled the way it did, Kennedy said.Rather, it’s because a majority of Michigan citizens voted for the amendment. The Editorial Board finds it disconcerting that our nation’s highest court chooses again and again to simply ignore the idea that race is still an issue in this country. The reason affirmative action was created in the first place is because it was widely believed and agreed that people of color were afforded fewer opportunities than white people. Unfortunately, it seems members of the Supreme Court, the supposed créme de la créme of intellectual Americans, have simply chosen to put their fingers in their ears when it comes to racial inequality. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 29 percent of Americans older than 25 had a four-year college degree in 2009.Meanwhile, only 17 percent of African-Americans and 13 percent of Hispanics had four-year degrees. The real question remains, however, as to what exactly causes this gap in higher education.Conservative justices on the Supreme Court would prefer not to talk about that, but in reality it’s because there’s a huge monetary gap between races as well.As of 2009, the median household net worth for white Americans was $113,149. Black Americans had a median household net worth of only $5,677, and Hispanics didn’t fare much better at $6,325. Now, that isn’t to say affirmative action is a perfect program in any stretch of the imagination.Rather, the Editorial Board finds it disconcerting that the Court deemed it acceptable for a majority of citizens to theoretically limit the opportunities of the minority.In her dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “Without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.” At IU, there’s obviously a racial gap between students. For the freshmen class this year, only 19 percent of students were not white, and an additional 8 percent of students were international.The Editorial Board firmly believes affirmative action, when applied correctly, can give those who are less fortunate in Indianapolis or Gary a shot at getting an education and bettering themselves. Justice Sotomayor is absolutely correct in her dissent. The people of Michigan have voted to limit the opportunities of the less fortunate.Is there a better solution than affirmative action? There might be. The point, however, is that we are still unsure of what that better solution really is.Meanwhile, the high court seems to be more comfortable with doing nothing than at least attempting to address racial inequality.The answer to solving racial inequality is not going to be found by burying our heads in the sand and hoping the issue solves itself.Society has shackled people of color with unnecessary wage, employment and education gaps. And now the Supreme Court wants to only tighten the cuffs. opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>We do not live in a post-racial age. We don’t even live in an age where cultural sensitivity is prevalent enough to avoid nasty episodes of racially-based offensiveness. Whether by watching Paula Deen, Donald Sterling or Cliven Bundy, we’ve got a pretty good idea of what racism looks like in 2014. But there are lesser, more contrived forms of it.And if we needed a reminder, Avril Lavigne delivered it. Recently, the “Sk8r Boi” singer released a catchy new song called “Hello Kitty.” Seemingly harmless, the song is bouncy and fluffy and declares that behind the “good girl” image of Hello Kitty is a bad girl. Nothing we haven’t seen from Katy Perry before.The music video, on the other hand, is a different story.Lavigne flounces around a candy shop in a cupcake skirt, backed up by robotic Asian women in a Tokyo-esque setting.Asian images and stereotypes are played up to such an extent that Billboard called the video “an embarrassment in any language.” Lavigne herself is claiming a pass for her Hello Kitty-themed music video by arguing she loves Japan and Japanese culture. For us, that hints at a bigger problem.It is entirely possible to be racist toward a culture you love. Even if you feel absolutely no ill will toward Japan, fetishizing a culture as Lavigne has done is problematic. Racism is about result, not intention. If it were the other way around, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.Lavigne argues her video isn’t racist, because she went to Japan to film it using Japanese producers, dancers and other elements. Lavigne’s intentions were clearly not racist. Unfortunately, her result was. Simply because you went to Japan and used Japanese people to develop your concept doesn’t mean the result avoids causing real, racially-charged harm to the cultures involved. Context is also important. If a Japanese pop artist had created this video, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, either. But watching a blonde Western woman dance among stereotypical trappings of Japan necessarily evokes memories of colonialism and the accompanying oppression and racial fetishes. Saying that blonde Western women should not treat Asian cultures in fetishizing ways does not oppress white cultures; it acknowledges the historical realities that inform all of our perceptions of race. Race is not removed from history any more than we today are post-racial. Regardless of your intention, ignorance can lead to racism, even if you profess a love of Japan.On a shallower note, it just makes us look bad.Many Japanese fans did not react as strongly to the video, saying that it’s not really racist, just funny in its inaccuracies. Even if the idea is funny, celebrities should know better.Many base their impressions of North American culture on celebrities. Even if we took race out of the picture, Lavigne made a bad impression.The next time Lavigne decides to make a music video, we hope she thinks it through. opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_Opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There’s a difference between recognizing history and glorifying it.Since 1937, the United States has officially recognized Columbus Day as a quasi-official federal holiday. The day, meant to commemorate Columbus’ 1492 arrival in the Americas, has been touted by many as a major historical occurrence given the “discovery of the Americas.” Meanwhile, others have condemned it as a holiday commemorating a man whose actions would set in motion the eventual genocide and destruction of countless existing cultures across the Western hemisphere. Recently, the city of Minneapolis decided to take a stand in how it “celebrates” the arrival of Columbus. The Minneapolis city council, in a unanimous vote, moved to recognize Indigenous Peoples Day on the same day as Columbus Day starting next year. Indigenous People’s Day will now be celebrated on the second Monday of every October. And the Editorial Board applauds the city’s move. Despite the fact that the city’s decision will likely be seen as an escalation in our country’s continuing culture wars, the symbolic recognition of indigenous peoples is a necessary and justified step in reconciling the white-washed narrative of history we’ve been taught since elementary school and the reality of what actually happened. What should also make us take pause is that there are people who would rather not present this untold — or purposely forgotten — side of history. One of those people is Purdue’s current president and former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. In July of last year, emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed Daniels attempted to stop the works of historian Howard Zinn from being taught in Indiana schools.Zinn, the author of a “A People’s History of the United States,” has been both credited and criticized for authoring historical records from the viewpoint of those whose plights have been marginalized, if not completely ignored, in the majority of texts taught in school. The attempted revisionism by one of our governors should make us weary of the history we’re sold, while also making us appreciative of IU’s commitment to diversity of thought. After all, it was IU using Zinn’s texts in a course on feminism, civil rights and the labor movement in the School of Education that prompted Daniels to write, “This crap should not be accepted for any credit by the state. No student will be better taught because someone sat through this session.”The Editorial Board disagrees. It’s this sort of mindset that continues to blind a lot of people to the historical disenfranchisement that continues to affect indigenous Americans within and outside the Untied States. Additionally, the ignorance surrounding indigenous peoples inside our own country had led us to have embarrassing debates that should not longer be the debates, like the Redskins’ refusal to change their name despite it being a racial epithet or the use of Native American headdresses as fashion accessories. This is why Minneapolis recognizing Indigenous Peoples Day is so important. Though it might only be a symbolic gesture, it’s an important one nonetheless. opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Whether you drink or not, Little 500 is the party weekend of the school year. One way or another, we all eventually hear about the metaphorical river of booze that flows through Bloomington during this weekend. But though we might be quick to associate Little 500 with alcohol, we can’t forget that drinking is not the only way some students at IU party during “the world’s greatest college weekend.” Marijuana, the second most often used drug following alcohol, no doubt partially plays into how we party this weekend. But the student that gets cited for alcohol related reasons and a student that gets cited for possession of marijuana will face systematically different consequences.While one has mechanisms that often result in a slap on the wrist, the other, in theory, can pull the rug under the college education of students for no better reasons than because at one point in our history we made a misguided attempt at legislating morality, with very little to no knowledge on the drug itself. But that’s changing. And fast. Colorado and Washington approved the legalization of cannabis through voter initiatives in 2012. The District of Columbia is in its final stages of doing so itself. Meanwhile Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island are all vying to be included in the next round of legalization. And that’s not even counting the 21 states that currently have medical marijuana laws. Obviously momentum is there to change the discourse about pot and punitive marijuana laws. But when it comes to Indiana, the timeframe to get on the same path might be a little different given how “Honest-to-Goodness” our state sees itself as. But despite it, the Editorial Board believes it’s not too soon — even in Indiana — to start talking about seriously changing marijuana policy in the state. Though definitely not in the same league, Indiana has taken a baby step. Earlier this month Indiana petitioned the federal government for permission to start growing hemp, marijuana’s non-intoxicating cousin. Gov. Mike Pence signed off on the bill earlier in March. Meanwhile, Indiana has its own champion for decriminalization. State Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, has previously introduced decriminalization bills that unfortunately so far been defeated. But it’s important to note even opponents like Sen. Carlin Yoder, R-Middlebury, realize it’s only a matter of time. “I think it probably is inevitable,” Yoder said. “But that doesn’t mean I’m going to step aside and let it happen.” Legalization opponents have also pointed to questionable studies suggesting marijuana might actually have adverse effects on the brain and the heart. But until the federal ban on cannabis is overturned, research will remain inconclusive. Legislation proponents, however, should also not overlook the fact that marijuana is not a miracle drug. It is after all a drug, and can still — like any other drug — be abused. Hoosiers should be able to make decisions for themselves. So while you enjoy this Little 500 — partaking or not — know you might just be witnessing the quiet beginning of the end of another sort of prohibition. opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today, the Indiana Daily Student published a story regarding the work of Mark Houlemarde, a Ph.D. student whose work involves speaking to men on campus about preventing sexual assault.The story brings attention to alarming statistic — 46 percent of rapes on campus last year were committed by members of a fraternity, according to the Office of Student Ethics. There were at least 35 sexual assaults reported in 2012 that occurred on IU property. The problem is that any sexual assaults that don’t happen on IU property do not have to be publicly disclosed. This means we’re getting only a fraction of the entire picture. And though not all of these crimes are exclusive to the greek system, we cannot ignore its part in this problem. Each year, the Student Organization Ethics Board provides a list of campus organizations on probation, suspended or expelled. Every organization on the current list is a fraternity. Yet on that list, an important piece of information is missing — the reason for the disciplinary action.Leaving people unaware of what offenses certain fraternities have committed in order to find themselves on judicial watch not only does a disservice to our greek system, but also to our campus at large.It’s important to note that when something as atrocious as a rape is committed, it is committed by individuals, not an organization. But we cannot ignore the existing culture in some chapters on our campus and the role it ultimately has on the actual perpetrating of sexual violence.This is why the Editorial Board — composed of both greek and independent students — believes the Student Organization Ethics Board should make this knowledge public. If a fraternity is on probation because its members were found responsible for a sexual assault, students should be able to access this information so they can make an informed decision whether to attend events where they are at risk of predators. Perhaps the Ethics Board thinks by not releasing the cause of the disciplinary actions, they are protecting victims. But the organizations, which would have the most motivation to antagonize victims that get them into trouble, already know why they have been chastised. They know what and who got them in trouble, so further secrecy in the name of the victim is moot. We aren’t asking for names or dates. We aren’t asking for descriptions. A simple box labeled “sexual assault” with a check beside it would serve our campus well. Adding some public accountability would work as a preventative method. Fraternities and individuals don’t want to be labeled as sexual predators. So if the simple moral obligation doesn’t prevent attacks, perhaps the public shame and threat to their image will. Many students are already aware of the different reputations different greek organizations have in regard to sexual assault and other illegal activities. But incoming freshmen, who some might argue are already the most vulnerable because of their unfamiliarity with the college lifestyle, aren’t in the loop. They are sometimes left to learn where not to go the hard way.In order to prevent these situations, everyone should be aware of the infractions made by fraternities that are severe enough to result in probation. The Editorial Board absolutely acknowledges not all fraternities, and certainly not all fraternity brothers, are guilty of sexual assault. But it would be naïve to think it isn’t a problem on this campus.If the Student Organization Ethics Board were to be more transparent in regards to the specific infractions of fraternities on probation, the student body would be better able to know which chapters to avoid, instead of casting a wide net of suspicion over our entire greek system. opinion@idsnews.com@IDS_opinion
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Mayor Mark Kruzan showed his soft spot for all things furry when he vetoed Bloomington’s deer sharpshooting ordinance, preventing a proposal that would allow professional sharpshooters to control the deer population at the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve. Kruzan rejected the ordinance, which was backed by research and proposed to protect the preserve’s environment, “as a matter of conscience.”The Editorial Board thinks it’s sweet our mayor has a soft spot for animals. We just wish he showed the same sensitivity toward people. Kruzan has repeatedly voiced his opposition to extending the season of the Interfaith Winter Shelter, Bloomington’s only low-barrier homeless shelter, into the summer months.Interfaith was forced to close its doors April 1, leaving its residents on the hard pavement until the shelter opens again in the winter. He refused to work with Interfaith to let it shelter residents in places under the city’s jurisdiction, such as vacant lots or empty city-owned buildings. Kruzan said he opposes Interfaith because its services entice people experiencing homelessness from other communities to come to Bloomington, encouraging the migration of people from around the country. However, this is just an excuse to hide what the real problem is — Kruzan does not want people experiencing homelessness to give the city a bad image. The problem is more cosmetic than logistic. Kruzan does not want to sponsor a low-barrier shelter because he does not want Bloomington to be known to outsiders as a homeless Mecca or for an influx of people experiencing homelessness.People in our own city have been denied a chance to survive under relatively safe and stable conditions. And yet Kruzan’s real moral dilemma is saving deer. We would like to know where the mayor’s “conscience” was when he threw nearly 60 of Interfaith’s residents out on the streets.In his letter to the City Council, Kruzan said he sees the ordinance’s proposal to kill deer as outweighing the environmental benefits.Using this same logic, we see human survival as outweighing the cosmetic problem that comes with a large population of people experiencing homelessness.Bloomington likes to think of itself as progressive. In this community, we all deserve a chance to succeed, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation or, theoretically, economic status. The mayor’s lack of action to save Interfaith reflects his refusal to address that last category. He is ignoring real problems that face real people in our community and instead is apparently mounting an animal rights campaign. The Editorial Board would much rather the mayor confront the issue of homelessness instead of hoping it goes away on its own or becomes another city’s problem. If Kruzan wants to summon his sentimentality and sense of values for a city ordinance, he should direct it toward a proposal that allows Interfaith to stay open year-round. Or support any proposal to help the poor and homeless in the Bloomington community. The mayor needs to get his priorities straight. People trump deer, always. opinion@idsnews.com@ids_opinion
