OCR Text |
Show A8 OPINIONS APRIL 08, 2013 Or would you rather have the flexibility to take classes at your own pace, balancing work and other life requirements, while having great social and learning experiences along the way? TYLER DEAN MUNDY/UVU REVIEW 15 to finish is a way to rush through college missing all the fun times and new experiences. RACING from A6 The push for this system is relatively obvious. When you graduate in four years, you actually make money. You earn more money at a job by having a college degree, saving that money to pay off student loans, a house, or other expenses you cannot do as a college student. You could also start graduate school earlier to start earlier at an even higher paying job. Yet again, this is a positive push for the students, but how does it benefit the university? One idea could be that by getting us to graduate, UVU can get more students into school and bring in more money. So now students fly through school, only focused on classes and grades, leaving the genuine college experience behind. Many high school students look forward to enjoying their new freedom. By accelerating students, the school insists that you will be able to experience life when you graduate sooner because you can move on with your life and pursue your dreams. Apparently not the dreams connected to college. Many of the things you experience and learn while attending a university are unique to that style of living, and can't be replaced. The key to this system working is not changing your major or adding a minor at all during your four years. Even if you have harder classes, you will still need to take 15 credits each semester, or take less and make those credits up in a later semester or during the summer. There are many working students and others in various circumstances that cannot handle taking 15 credits each semester. Along the way, you would need to talk to your advisor, who would plan out your schedule for you. Help from your advisor for effective planning is awesome but how much freedom would you have to take the classes you want, and when you want? The information given on the one site about "15 to Finish" is vague, so questions like these stand until you talk to your advisor about it. L. Gae Robinson, Heidi Greer and Erin Donahoe-Rankin are advisors from various departments, and all agree that this program is b-imor Silen ..... ,•w ‘ AMW - &W A 111111111111/ y iN SCOTUS from A6 /Arpin/ Ael41111111114710^ „,' \.- VATC,f} , "R'S Vitt .. ._ 3COW 7 :T i_j . the Co Sew , /13t-,S.4. n if Needs 74. lie Tnt R 9.1. ' 1 V. 11 ' 4t I4A. '1 1 /' i 7k . M1- por4t. °At ry 1611'' E) 1 I-, i< INIG "S" • 0 Nl i SELr %.0 ' i Ail you isS - ER! 4wI -ft , I11, 1- • 14 v. -14r 111r O Wig 1 .4140,5r4 gil FAC14E1101 CONNOR ALLEAVUVU REVIEW These images are too powerful to caption. Taken at the clothesline project. It may happen behind closed door, but it's time to open the door. By Vanessa Fraga Perkins Editor-in-Chief @nessa rose7 We may not see it in the media, and it may not be reported often, but domestic violence happens more often than we realize. Chances are that at least one person in one of your classes has somehow been personally affected by domestic violence. Every semester, the UVU Equity in Education Center presents the Clothesline Project, a nationwide program started because during the Vietnam War 58,000 soldiers were killed, while 51,000 women in the U.S. were killed by intimate partner violence. And it's still happening today. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, on average, more than three women in the U.S. are murdered by intimate partners every day. And that's deaths alone. Millions of people suffer because of domestic violence every year. For anyone who isn't familiar with the Clothesline project, it is an exhibit or display of T-shirts made by people affected by violence in today's society and features them on clotheslines. Though domestic violence and intimate violence aren't the only types of violence addressed, those are definitely prominent. I've heard some people who have attended say that it was too intense for them; it was too much for them. But this is someone's reality. Yes, reading those shirts and learning about people's experiences with violence can be heart wrenching and difficult. But real people lived through those experiences, and it is our duty as a society to hear their stories, spread the word and help raise awareness. Everyone should go through the Clothesline Project. I feel strongly that it should be mandatory through a course at UVU, and displayed at more Real people lived through those experiences, and it is our duty as a society to hear their stories. schools and universities. We talk about issues like gay marriage, immigration and gun control, and I agree for the most part that those topics are of high importance, but let us not forget that violence happens everyday is people's homes, schools, places of worship and workplaces. And we most certainly do not talk about that enough. We need to talk about violence and start educating at an early age. Reading some of the not for everyone. It is a studentspecific program that can work for some but not for all. Most of them said that they would only recommend this to about 25% of their students. The only students they would recommend the program to, are ones that would be able to put school as their top priority, and could therefore handle that kind of load. While we hope that our advisors understand what is best for us, individually, the decision ultimately comes down to what we want out of our college experience. Do you want to finish your T-shirts at the Clothesline Project, I realized we could maybe help prevent some of these situations if we educate our children and teenagers now. It won't solve everything by any means, but think about how many more children will better understand that it's not okay to be touched or treated a certain way no matter who it is. Or vice versa, that it's not okay to do that to others. I feel like there's a stigma with domestic violence that it's none of our business, or that it wouldn't happen if the victims took themselves out of their situations, but that's a very naïve way of looking at this issue. It makes us sound petty and uncaring, and I hope that we are more compassionate and courageous than that. This shouldn't be a taboo topic. The Clothesline Project encourages people to "break the silence." So let's start talking. For those who think this doesn't matter and there are other important issues to discuss, I say this: It's a lot closer to you than you think. nized marriage approved by the court license and contractually binding union. Doesn't this official obligation to represent each other in all binding contracts just act as a facade of the Power of Attorney? Move out of a state if you don't like the regulations. Find a place where you can drive a junker of a car and pollute the environment or move to the one with the highest regulated clean air emission standards but still has the dirtiest air. There is no law prohibiting you from crossing the border between states. Recognizing LGBT individuals is not a skill we teach our children, so I am quickly startled by people who define people with these labels. The real problem is this instant judgment. Any scenario requiring the notification of next of kin or medical emergency needing the legal guardian of a child or spouse can become an insurmountable hurdle. This is especially true if you have a legal union in one state but the state you're currently in does not recognize it. Reciprocity used to be a wonderful thing protected by the Constitution. Now we have a court system that dictates what can and can't be delegated to the states. Upholding the Articles and Amendments is their job. The right to marry the person I love is not regulated. The recognized legal bond I enter into with that person has some hurdles but can be accomplished in certain places. The difference is the extra privileges that come with choosing a member of the opposite gender. There are far more if that path is chosen. If the SCOTUS strikes down the DOMA, it could open the legal benefits coffers to those previously excluded. Many things would change. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis ... for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them?" On the other side of the bench sits the chief justice. His view on the issue is very different. "The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their undergrad in four years while focusing mostly on school and have your social life struggle in the process? Or would you rather have the flexibility to take classes at your own pace, balancing work and other life requirements, while having great social and learning experiences along the way? So decide what is best for you, and what you want out of your college experience. There will be people racing by or smelling the roses while you are jogging along, but when it comes down to it, your life is yours to direct as you wish. nature, didn't include homosexual couples," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He is defending marriage. I'm a big fan of religious marriage. I just don't think the government needs to protect marriage. Churches have gotten pretty good at protecting their beliefs and traditions. Does another minority have to march on Washington to drink from the same fountain or enjoy the right to fill out the same paperwork at the county courthouse? "You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet?" asked Justice Samuel Alito. Yes, yes we do. At some point, our representatives, judges and executive officers must stop projecting how difficult things may be by choosing to be inactive because it's too difficult to deal with the result and just do what is best. "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead," said Admiral David Farragut. The effects of any decision are far reaching. Adoption agencies run by religions would see a change in funding from the federal government. The list stretches endlessly on to the subject of tax shelters. I other words, LGBT people would have rights too. What is the world coming to? Equality I hope. Justice Anthony Kennedy has only one of nine votes. The SCOTUS is a one-man-band waiting for him to play the song. DOMA defines marriage as, "Between a man and a woman." Maybe marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe what needs revision is not the name we give the religious matrimony, but the legal bond between two equal partners. The arguments are too numerous. The federal government passed a law in 1996 that just isn't good enough in 2013. Issues of discrimination, individual power of the states, federal interpretation of the 10th Amendment and religious freedom are just a few. My opinion, if worthy of your ears, lets get a new constitutional amendment. It's down to the final vote. Final score 5 - 4 Whigs defeat robes. PHOTO COURTESY OF PLANTING PEACE |