One guest speaker, Corey Greaves, spoke about his Native American ancestry. How often does it occur to the greater White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) community that at the same time George Washington was fighting for freedom from tyranny, a whole other group of people were being persectured because of it? Greaves also spoke of a beautiful, deeply-rooted Christianity. The dances, drum beats and songs that define the Native American way of worship have, at times, caused controversy within the Christian realm. But honestly, by whose definition of worship should we be living? Let it be The One in whom all things are created.

A group of students and leaders got to visit a nearby Lutheran church whose members come from all walks of life. The church is situated in the Hilltop community, known for housing low-income families. However, it is the make-up of the area that brings the warmth and sincerity of the church’s members. These people have tasted the precious Water of Salvation, but struggle to afford the bare necessities. Pastor John put it this way,

“It’s the presence of community, wholeness, health, reconciliation, God’s justice. It’s said, ‘Peace begins when the hungry are fed.’ We seek to follow God’s call to extend the feast to all people. We provide free hot meals and clothing, short-term lodging through Tacoma’s Phoenix (Homeless) Housing network, emergency assistance, a community gathering place, and many ministries with children and youth that help them develop holistically (physically, emotionally, academically, and spiritually).”

Isn’t this really what the global church should be about?

Another part of this church is its community center. The center is dedicated to improving academic support for high school students in the surrounding area. It is no secret that among all high school students, it is minority students who are still among the lowest achieving nationwide. How is it that the achievement gap is ever increasing? Is this a racial injustice? Lane Porth, a high school student from Salem, Oregon writes, “While I knew vaguely that racism was still a problem today, I had never noticed the effect it has on students. I learned from African-American students the problems that they have with the achievement gap and disproportional discipline. The fact that they have to convince teachers that they ‘belong’ in honors classes and are assumed to be stupid until they prove otherwise, shocks me. The problems I face in high school are enough without adding discrimination by teachers to the list.”

So, my question to you is, what are you going to do about it? Are you aware of the racial injustices occurring at this very moment? Volunteer at a local school or community center. Seek out opportunities to serve at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. Go to church where the service is not in English! Be involved in your community and build relationships with people of other cultures. The process for racial reconciliation is just that, a process. However, it begins and is continued with you! Here’s to actually walking the Jesus walk.

It is important to keep in mind that North Park faces certain “competitive disadvantages” ranging from our school endowment (which is lowest of the CCIW), number of coaches, player participation, and until recently, facilities to practice and play.  Surridge stated, “the average number of staff members in the CCIW is 21, whereas we have 14. At North Central, their football team alone has 12 coaches, but then again they also have 150 athletes and a bigger budget.”

I asked Surridge if he had ever considered moving out of the CCIW into a conference so that NPU could be more competitive. He answered, “Oh absolutely, we have given it a great deal of thought. When I first came here, the thing that I told the president at that time was that you have got to do one of two things, get out of this conference or build some facilities.  It took us until three years ago to close the gap on facilities, so yes; this is something that I think about currently.”

Looking critically at the revolving door of coaches, from the year 2000 to present, there have been six different head coaches of the track and field team. I find this situation to be very problematic. Surridge stated that of the track head coaches, “three left for their reasons, one retired, and two decided that another situation was a better situation for them.  In general, the most obvious reason why a coach is asked to leave is because he is not an effective recruiter.” 

I question the competence of Surridge if the coaches he hires, leave for a “better situation” or get fired for some unknown reason.

Joelle Farrell from the Concord Monitor reported on a story that should have interested Surridge.  In 2005, Elliott Nott, the former cross country coach at New England College, pleaded no contest to a charge of prowling near campus apartment windows. Nott, who was the head coach of track and field and cross country at North Park from 2005 to 2007, was also “let go” for similar reasons. At the end of the 07’ campaign, Nott was caught watching a female athlete undress and then take a shower.  Though nothing official has been stated about this, the women’s track coach, Tracey McGarry, has repeatedly warned her athletes to avoid making contact with him.

What do these hiring’s and firings imply?  Quite frankly, a lack of competence on the part of Surridge. Outlined in his three “R’s” of a successful program are: retention, record, and recruitment. Within these “R’s” is reason to either keep a coach or have them fired. If former coach Aaron Decker was let go for lack of recruitment, then it would be obvious to state that Stolley will get canned because three fourths of his team will not return if he is the head coach.

The problem is that Surridge has consolidated all of the power for track and field and cross country into his hands.  Surridge believes that with Stolley, “I think that that numbers will change. I would expect the squad size to double in two years, and triple in three.” However, many of the athletes quip that Stolley won’t even have a squad to retain let alone recruit for.  Only time will tell if Surridge’s buying into Stolley will pay off, or if it will be as disastrous as all the other hires. 

Understandingly, change of any kind is a difficult task to bear, let alone a full system change of an institutional identity.  Entrenched systems do not change unless someone is willing to make that change, and each move that is done, will be regarded as highly contentious.  North Park is mirroring the Covenant Church as it is rapidly changing from the traditional Swedish background to a multi-ethnic, urban identity.           

North Park established the three core beliefs of our institutional identity as being: purposefully multicultural, intentionally urban, and distinctively Christian.  The problem with these core beliefs is that the multicultural identity trumps all other identities and compromises all other factions of the university.  In every aspect, from the back alley creation of the “Collaberatory” with its very own Czar of Diversity to boot, to the overly pressured need for racial reconciliation; the priority of multiculturalism trumps all other forms of campus life.  

To be clear: multiculturalism is not the problem; the problem is the process that Parkyn brought it to this campus (by stick). Professor Kurt Peterson has spoken out against the over politicized nature of multiculturalism at North Park, and has called for the administration to bring back this conversation to its Christian roots.

“I have not seen this conversation to be a robustly Christian conversation,” stated Professor Peterson. “I think that when one talks about racial equality, diversity, and multiculturalism, that is a profoundly Christian topic. You begin with the doctrine of creation, and with it is the enmity between races and genders as a part of the fall and not of God’s ordained creative vision. From there you move into the realities of the sciences of anthropologies and human origins, and what you try to argue for is an eschatological perspective, where we began creation as one, and we will end civilization as one.”

Justice cannot be focused on the attainment of diversity; it must always be in connection with Jesus’ establishment of Kingdom on Earth.  Too often at North Park, diversity has become a catch-phrase for the need to be politically correct among blacks and whites.  Though the Collaboratory has tried to include all ethnicities from the student body and surrounding community, by and large, the conversation is retarded back to a black vs. white debate.

Professor Peterson continued to say that, “the divisions, angers, and strife that accompany gender, race, and class divisions, are indeed the enemy of Christian faith and God’s creation.  They are social constructions that keep us from who God intended us to be as people.  I rarely hear that type of language at North Park; I don’t hear that as the grounding of why we think the way we do.  What I hear more is white guilt, white privilege, identity politics, justice as a political category rather than a Christian one.”

President Parkyn needs to better articulate how it is that North Park will move this racial dialogue from being over politicized, to being grounded in Christian theology.  Parkyn needs to do this for the betterment of other marginalized ethnicities here at North Park, and within our diverse community.  It is a shame that we have lost the connection to the Albany Park community by intentionally firing two of our cultural professors in the past two years.  Much is expected now that all of North Park knows that the Collaboratory has been given (figuratively) carte blanche to do what it wills.

Professor Peterson concludes that, “If I had a frustration with North Park’s use of the language of justice; is that it is more than not a political or identity oriented use, rather than it is deeply and fundamentally Christian oriented. I would like to have our theologians more immediately involved in our conversations of justice rather than a formally designated administrative office of justice.”

What remains to be seen, is if the Parkyn administration will continue its diplomatic course of beating students with the diversity stick, or if he will make the necessary moves to increase the marginal utility of carrot politics.

Once I arrived, it took me a good three hours to be functional. At one point, an older gentleman greeted me with a robust and hardy “Good Morning!”  Unfortunately, I was in the middle of a yawn with a hand placed over my mouth.  I do not mind people speaking to me in the morning, but they will certainly be disappointed if they expect a response.  The most I can do is a head nod, which may not be appropriate morning etiquette when greeting church elders.  So, this interaction got me to thinking about what proper etiquette means in certain situations, especially when you want to get out of them.

(1) You don’t have to befriend people you don’t now.

“Think before you poke.”

(2) Birthdays, weddings and engagements are not “virtual” events.  Always send a card or call someone to wish them well.

True friends will not simply send a message saying “Congratulations!”  That’s impersonal and distant, anyone can do it, even that forgotten classmate who sat behind you in that class you slept through in high school.  A genuine response is heartfelt and thoughtful.

(3) Think carefully about your profile picture.  What if it were to end up in the paper?  It could happen.

It happened to me.  A profile pic from two years ago that my roommate took when we were being silly ended up on the Writing Center website in the “Meet Your Advisor” section.  It may not be the paper, but it’s close enough.  Friends don’t let friends post hideous, weird or hideously weird profile pics.  (newslite.tv).

For those of you who have a knack for getting into awkward social situations in real life, here are a few tips for you.

(1) Personal Space Boundaries

Huggers usually have small personal spaces.  For most Westerners, personal space is generally a bit under two feet, but for others it may be more.  Pay attention to the body language of your approacher to decrease your rising heart rate or to prevent someone else from hyperventilating.  If they back up right after you hug them, don’t be offended, especially if you showered that day– you’re probably just standing too close.

(2) Personal Hygiene

Everyone loves a little fun in the sun from time to time. But if you were engaged in an intense session of rugby or sweaty man-on-man rough housing, also known as wrestling (what’d you think I was going to say?), then hugging someone shortly after should not be your follow-up action.  If you’re a girl, you can probably wipe off with a napkin or tissue, but if you’re a guy, there aren’t enough wet wipes in the world to cure you of your natural man musk, which ladies much less prefer to commercialized artificial scents.  Either hit the showers—or fire hydrants—or wave from afar and don’t come near.

(3) The Two Second Rule

Ever had someone hug you for too long and then it just got awkward?  You let go, but they didn’t let go, then they let go, but you already grabbed back on?  Yeeeeah. The next time you’re in the embrace of a “holder,” once you latch arms, count to two, then let go and step back a foot.  You’ve shown affection and no one can look on and whisper, “What was that about?” (hubpages.com/hub/Hugging-Etiquette-Basics).

While the message seemed clear enough, the direction still left something to be desired.  What is at stake in posing this question is as Professor Karl Clifton-Soderstrom said, “whether [or not] North Park actually educates and cultivates students in those ideals.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. commented that “education has a two-fold function to perform in the life of man and in society: the one is utility and the other is culture.” I believe that the educational ideals that North Park tries to cultivate are a good start, but no where near complete. As MLK Jr. stated, education has been, “invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda.”

The role of education, then, is to alleviate those invasions through the promotion of critical thinking, and application.  The core of general education is supposed to do just that. Allow students to think critically about the world and the role they play in it, and then ask the students to apply that knowledge.  It is in the application, however, that I see the downfall.

If we are to perform in the life of man and in society, as MLK Jr. stated is the goal of education, then, how does North Park stack up against those expectations?

North Park is situated in Chicago and it is as President Parkyn often states, “our classroom outside of the classroom.” While North Park has made some good gestures in increasing the city IQ of the student body, it still misses the mark when it comes to application within our own Albany Park community.

The educational platform that North Park uses is very pro-western, which makes sense considering that we are indeed a western, liberal, and democratic nation. However, in being pro-western, we are invaded by problems we just tried to alleviate?

Should our pro-western type of education continue if the world is quickly turning against western (read imperialist) forms of establishments?  Is North Park actively participating with its neighboring cultures, or are our actions and programs (Collaboratory) only furthering the “North Park bubble?”

If education is measured by a student’s ability to pass a test, then we have all failed.  Intelligence cannot be watered down to a multiple choice scantron test.  “Complete education” as MLK Jr. said, “gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate.”

North Park gives the student worthy objectives (Dialogue is a good example); however those objectives are supplementary to the core of most if not all educational programs.  I can’t decide which is worse, having a professor unwillingly try to integrate Christian ideals into the curriculum or some “diverse” subject.

Perhaps the problem resides at the top, where the president has failed to make clear how the university will integrate its “purposefully multicultural” identity within the context of its education. At this point, we can only see it through the ad campaign and whatever the Collaboratory is, but nothing official has been said about it…until my next piece.

We live in a society where it is perfectly acceptable for women to be in the workplace, to have high-ranking jobs, and to run for President. Why is it, then, important for us to dissect whether or not a woman is looking for a career or a husband? Shouldn’t the question be what do people want life to be after they graduate? Women don’t get engaged to themselves, men are a part of it as well, so why not ask them why they choose to get engaged before they graduate?

This article proves to me that men still see women as a lesser sex; like we are weaker and, therefore, it is odd when we want to have a career instead of, or along with, getting married.  This is what happened in the ‘50s and the ‘60s is what resulted from it. Women in the ‘50s were housewives, and didn’t hold careers, but after the freedom they had during the war, they realized exactly what men did to them, and they revolted. The Women’s Rights Movement in the ‘60s and ‘70s is a direct result of the oppression they faced in the 50′s.

Women deserve the same rights and respect that is given men when it comes to choosing a career or choosing a family. I, for one, am excited to be a wife and, eventually, a stay-at-home mom, but I don’t like feeling like I am being judged for not wanting a career. I also don’t want to be seen as just filling my “natural” role as a woman as a stay-at-home mom and a housewife. I don’t think that we should have separate spheres in society like they had in the early 1900’s and before. The world we live in is bigger than that was. Women have gone through a lot in the history of the world, and we have struggled to be seen as equal to men in so many ways. Are you going to undo all of that by relegating college to a mere past time for women until they can find a suitable husband and get married?

I don’t think that is right. I don’t think that in this day and age, with so many women being CEO’s and leading successful careers and having successful families, that an article like this should be printed. The fact that it was written by a man compounds my frustrations. Men have, historically, relegated women to the kitchen. The phrase “A wife should be kept barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen” certainly didn’t come from a woman! In the future, I think that an article that deals with this kind of a topic should look at men and women, it should poll more than a few people, and it should make clear that this isn’t the only way things can be or should be done.

This article has earned the honor of a response based on several reactions from North Park women.

The questions of marriage and career are not oblivious to us. Social change in our culture has had a huge impact on the way we prioritize our lives. While many students fall into the singles category here at North Park, there are still plenty of women who are married or engaged by the time they graduate. Oddly, none of them were featured. Also not interviewed were any women who found the prospect of a career more desirable than marriage. Which brings into question not only Mr. Wallin’s journalistic prowess (or lack thereof) but also his intended portrayal of North Park women. Well, this is one woman, who has an honest response Mr. Wallin won’t be responsible for misquoting.

The problem isn’t that women prefer either marriage or career ; it is that the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction from forty and fifty years ago. After WWII, jobs for women were scarce and husbands were plenty. Today, it’s nearly the opposite. Women are not just given the choice to work; they are expected to hold a job. What Mr. Wallin failed to realize is that marriage isn’t a one-way street. Getting the North Park women’s perspective isn’t going to do much good if North Park men aren’t going to meet them halfway. Is Mr. Wallin asking the men on campus when they’re planning to get married or why they aren’t dating? And does it have anything remotely to do with their career aspirations?

All three of the women interviewed in the article were single, and still in most respects hopeful of the future possibility of marriage. But I would ask Mr. Wallin, who do you think they are going to want to marry: a “Carlson Crazy” or a mature, responsible man? It would be of interest to note that the female to male ratio at North Park is 2 to 1. That already makes men scarce. Is it fair to ask women about their priorities when it comes to marriage faced with those odds? And how many men in that ratio are still single, and actively looking for a marriage partner? These are the questions that should have been asked, but weren’t.

The reason why women are waiting longer, approximately three years after college, to get married is because they’re more likely to meet a fitting partner once they’ve left university. By that time, the men who have also graduated have finally started looking for wives.

I’m unaware of Mr. Wallin’s purpose in writing this article. Whatever the case may be, this article was an inaccurate assessment of the reality of marriage at this campus.

But I have a question, a quandary to ask of you all. What does the future hold for these banners? What will happen ten years from now, after all of us have left and only the faces remain?

The first and most obvious use of the signs would be to turn them into a Frisbee golf course. North Park already has a Frisbee golf course, known only to those who care enough to find out by word of mouth. But I fear these signs present far too great of a temptation. Each spring, as the snow melts and the sun begins to shine, people flock to the green space, and young men take off their shirts and play Frisbee, as is the custom here at North Park. Then, suddenly lighting strikes their brains; why not try to hit the face on the sign with a Frisbee? And behold! A new Frisbee golf course is formed!

When I walk from the library to Carlson Tower and look at the faces I pass, my thoughts instantly stray to the faces of the ancient Greeks. In Greco-Roman culture it was common for cities to line their streets and malls with the images of their gods and heroes. Now, I find this particularly interesting, as well as disturbing, on some levels. North Park claims to be “Distinctively Christian” as the signs themselves, say. However, I must venture to ask how Christian it is to engage in idolatry?

It does not seem improbable to me, that in ten years time or more we will forget the real stories behind these faces, and they will simply descend into myth. As students hurry to class they will say prayers to the visage of Tiffany Hines so that they will do well on midterms. Dating couples will have clandestine romances under the eyes of Adrian Battle. And study sessions will regularly occur in honor of Katie Cavallo. Freshman, transfers, commuters and all other students will claim patron saints. They will fight wars, rage theological battles, and ask the hard questions. Example- “How tall was the real Luc Larson?”

All jest aside, and yes this is all a jest, is it really necessary to have these signs running straight through campus? On some level it seems downright obnoxious, and at the very least slightly embarrassing for the students featured, almost all of whom are still enrolled here. Truthfully, the advertising campaign has given North Park some cache in the Chicago area. But many students are easily questioning, is a school really “Distinctively Christian” if they do not discourage the students from underage drinking and pre-marital sex? Is it “Purposefully Multicultural” when the only culture that has been historically celebrated is Swedish? Is it “Intentionally Urban” if the school was founded in a rural area over 100 years ago, and it just so happened that a city was built around it?

Just how seriously do you want us to take this?

If you are a girl and haven’t enjoyed your pie in the sky (or the maze) experience, then Burgh or Sawyer Court are plausible possibilities.  If you’re moving to Burgh, though, you’ll have to get ready for naked drunk boys (with an occasional good one) and for a life in the epicenter of campus.  If you’re moving to the S.C. then be prepared for small and cramped lodging, although it does have the most “advanced” amenities. P.S., if you choose to live in the S.C. then be aware that it costs more per semester than do the other housing options, and though it is not as far away as, say, Park North, it is still isolating.

If you want to grow up slightly, then I would suggest a campus apartment or even a house.  I wouldn’t suggest living in the Kedzie apartments because you are squished like sardines and, honestly, it is the worst apartment complex that NPU owns.  The best apartments are the Lund 4’s (not the awkward ones) or the Carmen 2’s.  The best house (I am slightly biased because I lived there) is the 6 person brick house.  It has historically been a house that hosts many events and the doors are generally open to most everyone who is around.  Though this year’s crew isn’t with the game plan, I would recommend people apply to this house because it is simply the best.

Now, if you want to make the biggest leap into adulthood, move off campus and never come back!  I have more than enjoyed living off campus this year and it’s for more reasons than having candles and drinking beer, though they are quite nice. Living off campus actually gave me a chance to live up to North Park’s motto of being intentionally urban and purposefully multicultural. I love walking to the local Supermercado to get my weekly supply of food while trying to engage the locals in my broken Spanish.  I also enjoy walking by three distinctively different religious centers (Islamic mosque, Romanian Pentecostal, and Korean Presbyterian) on my way home.

However, how I got there is a different story, altogether. During last year’s spring break my roommates and I decided that we would get a head start on apartment-searching to beat out our rivals for the best location.  We searched Craigslist and walked around all of the neighborhoods encompassing North Park.  We made a good list and started to make appointments. Long story short, we got scammed, big time.

If I were to offer some advice it would be the following: 1) never pay your potential housing manager in dollar bills, because money is liquid and cannot be tracked. 2) Make sure that the apartment complex is actually owned by a company and that they give you written receipts of your transactions. 3) If the location looks sketchy, it probably is and you shouldn’t live there. 4) Be aware of the local crime by checking with Campus Security on the crime rate of the neighborhood. 5) Make sure that you have a good relationship with your manager and that your manager is located locally.

If you do move off of campus then I hope that you research the location extensively before you make the choice to move. Also, be aware that by moving off campus the university waves students’ rights to keep university scholarships which can result in the loss of up to $3,500.  Lastly, if there is roommate tension over a decision to move, either on or off campus, don’t be passive-aggressive; just put your feelings out there. Good luck and good hunting.

I will be honest with you, I have felt the burden of responsibility in my stomach ever since I got off the bus.  I am burdened because I (as well as all Whites) must claim that we have knowingly benefited from a White privilege that began back when America was being founded.  Everything that America has laid claim to was either stolen from its native people, or forcefully produced by a large slave population. Though this may seem shocking to some, for every Black person that has been oppressed by racist America, this fact has been as much a part of them as is the hair on their heads.

Though I have no control over others, I still bear the markings of the system that continually oppresses minority groups in America.  Make no mistake, I am and never will feel “guilty” for being born White.  It is my Christian duty, however, to repair the damages that have occurred because of this system that I regularly benefit from.

Some of you may be asking, “to what system does Andrew refer to, and how can I really be benefiting from it?”  I must answer by stating that the system, which was made by a White often “Christian” majority, has imposed on society the view that African slaves (now African-Americans) were and continue to be inferior in every measurable way to Whites. It began with scientists, politicians, and ministers who used their discipline to exact dominance over the “impure,” and “savage” African slaves.

Though White ownership of African slaves is long over, the system of dominance continued through the historical Jim Crow era of America, and it still continues today. Some members of the trip were “shocked” to hear that atrocities continue daily for minorities within the United States, and it took watching several documentaries to reveal this truth.  Personally, those documentaries (When the Levies Broke and Tulia Texas) stirred within me the responsibility to claim my privilege even more.

Is it that difficult to see the disparities between Blacks and Whites in education, affordable health care, unemployment, and the prison system? No, truthfully it is not.  It is however, easily ignored by those who choose not to see it, or willfully disregard it as “not their problem.”  I know that I, for one, am guilty of this.

It is far too easy to be cliché in this North Parkian climate of “social justice meets Jesus freaks,” yet it is my responsibility to take ownership of what I have said, and hold those accountable who I know are ignorant of the privilege they benefit from every day.  I leave it at this, I am as prone to err as anyone else, yet with the knowledge that I now have it would be a slap in my Black friends’ faces if I choose to remain a “White moderate.”

As with many such afflictions, I blame my parents. As a kid, every four years my family would spend Saturday afternoons glued to the television set watching the Olympics. We thrilled at the exploits of the athletes, reveling in worlds that were foreign in more than geography. We stumbled through names that seemed unpronounceable and analyzed every event as if we actually knew something about throwing a javelin or kayaking white waters or playing that other game of football (not the real kind). We agonized over the falls and defeats and applauded the victories. Every once in a while there were also moments of truth; those moments when, even as a kid, you know something special has happened even though you aren’t really sure what it is. Those moments when the person who lost the race seemed truly happy for the winner; when you watched two athletes from different countries walk out arm in arm; and yes, those times when you saw the tears in the eyes of an athlete as they heard the Star Spangled Banner being played and the Stars and Stripes were raised above the medal stand.

It wasn’t until recently that I began studying the Olympics. My original interest was in how the introduction of new technology has influenced sports in general and the Olympics in particular. The Modern Olympics were established by Pierre de Fredy, Baron de Coubertin. De Coubertin was born to an aristocratic French family. He grew up during the Third Republic when modernity was overwhelming and changing society. As a young man he struggled to find a vocation that would give him the opportunity to exhibit prouesse: “spontaneous, irreproducible, unique and conspicuous moral acts, undertaken for honor.” He traveled widely trying to find his niche and discovered it on the playing fields of Rugby (the school, not the sport). He established what has come to be considered by some as one of the most important social movements of the twentieth century. “Olympism is a philosophy exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles..”

Over the years, the Olympics have become a laboratory for finding the limits of the human body. This bond of science and sports originated with the purpose of enhancing performance. Unfortunately, this tinkering with the human machine has often led to tragic results. We are all aware of the conflicts of conduct inherent in this system. The Olympics in recent decades have been darkened by the controversies created by doping.

However, another conflict has also arisen: a conflict of identity. What sort of human being is now competing? Just what does it mean to be human? From ancient Greek sculpture to modern advertising, athletes have represented our ideals of the perfect human. The modern version of this can be seen in the promotion of female Olympians such as Tanith Belbin and Lindsay Vonn as “Model Olympians”. What does that say about me if they are what it means to be human? “The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport.” But what are we saying to our youth? Where do they fit in with the Michael Phelps, Apollo Ohnos and Nastia Liukins?

Surprisingly, de Coubertin had a response to these questions. Who is a part of this Olympic Movement? It is simply anyone who is willing to be guided by its principles: athletes and spectators; Usain Bolt and Derek Redmond; you and me. Without knowing it, all these years we’ve all been part of something noble, whose goal is “the harmonious development of mankind, with a view to encouraging the establishment of a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” That doesn’t sound too bad to me. So, yeah, I’m kind of proud to admit it: I am an Olympic junkie.

“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”

Baron Pierre de Coubertin

In the pre-trip phase, participants learned about race from a sociological perspective provided by Professor Simms, who is a professor of Africana Studies. Simms required students to write down his thesis, which says, “The racism that White America created during slavery was a reality in this society during the Civil Rights movement, and is a reality in this society today.”

During the ensuing conversation, participants discussed a range of topics, including “the politics of race, white privilege, discrimination, Black and White identity, and a concept called the ‘white collective.’”  For outsiders to this conversation, white privilege is the ability of a dominant group to establish standards and norms through various mediums that negate progress of subordinate or minority groups.

This dominant group is exclusively considered by minorities as the ‘white collective,’ or better put, anyone who has descended from a White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant lineage.  This definition includes everyone who fits the description, disregarding their political or cultural influences.  So they could be anywhere on the scale from neo-Nazis to peace-loving hippies.

Terrance MacMullan in his book Habits of Whiteness stated, “White people remain ignorant of white privilege because of the fact that all aspects of our lives—our institutions, practices, ideals, and laws—were defined and tailored to fit the needs, wants, and concerns of white folk.”

The United States has moved away from the active racism that embodied our nation from its inception, and has now moved toward the trend of institutional or passive racism. Where racism once manifested in the horrific actions done to many African-Americans, it is now suggested that racism doesn’t exist - especially after the Civil Rights movement and the election of President Barack Obama.

Under the assumption that racism is dead, it is difficult to explain the studies showing that Black households earn $606 for every $1,000 earned by white families, that Blacks suffer unemployment rates double that of Whites, or that Blacks are incarcerated at rates triple that of their White counterparts.

To say that there is a current race problem in America stemming from the tainted past of slavery and racism is to point out the obvious.  To state that since Barack Obama is our President, racism is on a decline is an ignorant statement, as well. How, then, can this conversation transcend a topic that is often a very toxic subject?

In my opinion, it should start with the understanding that because we live in a fallen world, we are fallen people who are prone to failing. Thus, grace is a must in this conversation.  Secondly, White’s should not feel “White guilt” and if they do it is probably because of a lack of respect from all parties concerned.  Thirdly, all should challenge “the institution” whether that manifests itself at North Park or within local, state, or national government. Lastly, there needs to be accountability from both sides during this conversation to ensure a centrist perspective that allows for a plausible course for future actions.

By studying Arabic, one can see the world in a whole new light.  No longer will students require material on the Internet or in newspapers to be translated into English.  Instead, with practice, they will be able to enjoy what the Arab media can contribute in addition to what the media in the United States has to offer. 

Furthermore, learning Arabic makes students appear more valuable in regards to career potential.  The United States’ government is in need of employees that have the ability to understand and utilize the Arabic language.  There is a high demand for Arabic speakers in the West, but unfortunately, the number of Westerners that attempt to learn the language is relatively low. 

Students who study the language might not be fluent—certainly, mastering any language takes plenty of time and practice—but they will definitely have an advantage over the other potential employees.  Finally, the United States’ media mainly focuses on the negative aspects of the Arab world.  Because of this, as well as a lack of exposure to Arabs, many Americans only see people from the Middle East as infidel-killing terrorists, destitute beggars, or exorbitantly wealthy sheikhs. 

However, when students have the ability to converse with the average Arab and Arab-American man or woman, their eyes will be opened to a world outside of themselves.  They will see that the American media has often presented a tainted view of the Arab people.  Students will understand that Arabs are like people of any other culture, with eloquent poetry, beautiful music, and delicious food. 

This understanding will enable students to strive toward a more peaceful coexistence between non-Arabs and Arabs, one free from suspicion, stereotypes, and fear.  In conclusion, students who study and learn the Arabic language will possess the ability to build bridges of communication with Arabic-speaking individuals, obtain better jobs, and minimize anti-Arab views among those students.

Something that you probably are not aware of yet is North Park’s new institutional survey of student engagement.  Come again? According to the NSSE website, “The National Survey of Student Engagement is a survey specially designed for students like you to provide information about your undergraduate experience, including your views about the quality of your education and how you spend your time.”

The general idea is that random members of North Park’s incoming freshman class and the outgoing senior class will take an evaluation of their experience while being students.  The categories include everything from how often you study, watch T.V., were tutored, and participated in group projects, to how your relationships have been with various professors, pastors, and administrators.

The NSSE website states, “Institutions use their data to identify aspects of the undergraduate experience inside and outside the classroom that can be improved through changes in policies and practices more consistent with good practices in undergraduate education.”

The results of these new surveys provide an estimate of how we as undergraduates spend our time and what we gain from attending North Park. In charge of initiating this program is Mr. Robert Stanley who is the University’s new Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Research.

Mr. Stanley stated, “These surveys are based on the objectives that the professor has set for the course, so if the professor has selected three main objectives, then the students rate their learning based upon those selected objectives.”

Thus far, the only negative feedback that I have heard about these course evaluations from students is its length.  How I have replied is that unlike in the previous years, this evaluation is actually pertinent to students taking a course. Previously, there were only 13 questions, of which half were unreliable indicators to the successes and failures of the course or professor. If students answer truthfully to the questions being asked, then the student voice can better regulate class policies, procedure, and effectiveness of their professor.

While these new surveys attempt to be relevant to students’ life in and out of the classroom, I am naively optimistic that actual results will move forward an institution whose standard is mediocre at best.

What then is religious extremism and through what context is it played out?  In American society today, and especially after 9/11, the average Joe views with a skeptical eye anyone who is Muslim. Why? Fort Hood, what better example of religious extremism is there than what just happened in Texas.  Through a skewed belief system, and incited by speech of his Imam, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29.   

Thus as logic would dictate, all Muslims are evil people, and are hell-bent on committing acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens. Wrong.  What that logic fails to rationalize is that extremism is a belief held by a minority that is exposed through such attacks as Fort Hood. Americans must also realize that acts of religious extremism occur within Christianity as well. The slaying of 67 year-old Dr. George Tiller, who was one of few late term abortion providers in the nation, was an act of religious extremism. 

What leaders of the United States lose sleep over at night is the concept that religious extremism predicates terrorism.  President Bush “declared war on terrorism” after the attacks on 9/11, and it seems that our foreign policy has not lifted from that first design.  Guiora was quick to state that when Bush declared war on terrorism he, “de facto recognized Al-Qaida as a state, and made Osama Bin-Laden equal to a president.”

Well first of all, Al-Qaida is not a state (therefore we cannot technically declare war on them) and Bin-Laden is not the president, but kudos to you President Bush for internationally recognizing them both.  Guiora was adamant that the United States, “cannot defeat terrorism, we can only manage or minimize its effectiveness.” 

The question that Guiora posed was, “to what extent does the United States take action to prevent future acts of terrorism either against a country or its citizens.”  Guiora believes that all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the restraint imposed by religious extremist via acts of terrorism.

The road that Guiora was traveling down was to restrict the first amendment right to freedom of speech if in the case that in a church, synagogue, or mosque a speech was made to entice its members to act in a way that would incite terror against another citizen then the leader of that establishment would be prosecuted by law. 

This poses monolithic ethical problems to our society that is already inundated with satellites and big brother programs meant to keep citizens from harm.  On the other hand, if Guiora’s system was in place could that have stopped the massacre from taking place in Fort Hood?  What I do know is that a frank conversation needs to occur on the future role that Americans will play in our foreign policy. Well we be in Iraq and Afghanistan until the second coming? Probably, considering that terrorism is not going away any time soon.

A modern administrator, for example, whether in the public or private sector, uses statistical data to provide a factual basis for decisions.  Politicians use statistics and polls to lend credence to their arguments.  A social scientist uses statistical methods in various areas of psychology and the socio-economic life of a nation.  Researchers in science and those engaged in medical fields are dependent on statistical results to make appropriate decisions. As citizens, we are bombarded with statistics daily.  If we cannot distinguish good from faulty reasoning, then we are vulnerable to manipulation and to decisions that are not in our best interest.  Statistics provides tools that we need in order to react intelligently to information we hear or read. Any person who sits on a jury uses statistical thinking when determining whether the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” or not.

The American Statistical Association has stated that all college graduates should have training and experience in statistical reasoning, in designing studies, in exploratory analysis of data by graphical and other means, and in a variety of formal inference procedures. Statistics is not just manipulating numbers, but rather, it is a way of thinking. One of our recent graduates claimed that the statistics course had changed her life because she could not listen to a presentation or read an account in a newspaper anymore without wanting to say, “Prove it,” and that she could design a study to do so.  She went on to law school and later commented that the introductory course in statistics at North Park was one of the best courses she had taken in preparation for studying the law.

Every ten years, the U.S. Census Bureau is required by law to take a snapshot of our population, determining how many people reside within the nation’s borders, who they are, and where they live.  The results help determine our representation in government, as well as how federal funds are spent in each community on things such as roads, parks, housing, schools, and public safety. Currently, the U.S. Census Bureau is visiting college campuses to recruit temporary, part-time census takers for the 2010 census, and it is interviewing students on the North Park Campus this week .  These short-term jobs offer excellent pay, flexible hours, and paid training. A census taker makes a vital contribution in making sure that everyone is counted. Students who have bilingual skills and cultural knowledge of communities are especially needed.

The North Park statistics department has been a pioneer in statistics education at smaller colleges/universities.  The types of technology and examples which are used in classes not only deal with the obvious uses of statistics, but also with social justice issues, and the question of why a result is important in making this world a better place to live.  In the next few years, the mathematics/statistics department plans to offer topics courses in a variety of areas such as bio-statistics, statistics in the courtroom, clinical design, and exercise science and sports.

The article reported that political scientists across the country are wringing their hands over a proposal by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to eliminate funding for political science research from the budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF). According to a spokesman for the senator, “political science would be better left to pundits and voters” and tax dollars would be better spent on things like medical research (did I mention the Senator is a physician?).

Coburn is a deficit hawk, a self-proclaimed crusader for cutting government waste. This is admirable, of course. No institution in history has perfected the art of throwing away money like the United States Congress. But this proposal is not about deficit reduction.

The NSF spends one quarter of one percent of its $3.7 billion annual research budget on political science studies. No, other motives are at work here. These include the mistaken beliefs that (1) there is nothing scientific about political science; and (2) the only difference between a political science class and “Meet the Press” is the presence of a tweed sport coat in the former.

I have firsthand experience with these assumptions. After college, I worked on a congressional campaign and subsequently as a legislative assistant for a first-term member of Congress. Like Tom Coburn (who was elected the same year as my former boss), the congressman I worked for was a political science skeptic.

He pointedly expressed this during one staff meeting, telling us that he had never met a political scientist who told him one useful thing about winning an election or governing. I interrupted him and asked if I could do a quick survey of his staff. “How many people in this room majored in political science?” I asked. Every hand went up. “And you hired us,” I told him.

Indeed, political science students run congressional campaigns and manage legislative offices. But they also prosecute criminals, organize humanitarian aid efforts, pastor churches, mobilize voters, lobby city councils, teach civics, and anchor the evening news. Further, using the tools of impartial scientific inquiry, political scientists have identified the variables that lead countries into armed conflict, explained what makes people vote, and provided a deeper understanding of democratic institutions.

This research has affected the lives of millions of people around the world. As Arthur Lupia, a political scientist at the University of Michigan observed, “when Eastern European governments were writing their constitutions [after the fall of communism], I can guarantee you they weren’t calling George Stephanopolous.”

Just how relevant is political science? The rest of the content of that day’s newspaper answered that provocative question: healthcare reform; Afghan elections; the war in Iraq; economic stimulus; Russian nuclear weapons; African immigration; Texas’ use of the death penalty. Those of us who study politics and government have never had so many interesting questions to explore or so many opportunities to contribute answers. Political science has never been so relevant.

Believe me; look no further than at the nearest billboard announcing the 2010 Census, or a McDonald’s marketing push geared toward fostering better relations amongst a Latino’s estimated $800 billion in annual spending power.  What’s happening?  Latino’s, the fastest growing minority in the United States, are expected to be the majority by 2050 in some estimates.

What that means is that an intense fight is brewing over the rights to the Latino vote, better known as present day gerrymandering.  However, states Rudy Ruiz founder of RedBrownandBlue.com, “One of the greatest challenges for minorities in any democracy is that their priorities often differ with those of the majority.”

During President Obama’s election campaign, along with the numerous promises he made, none made more of an impact for Latino’s than that of immigration reform.  Thus far, the president has only mentioned immigration reform on happenstance, which is not good enough for Latino’s.

Ruiz states that, “What we call ‘immigration’—in the case of Latinos—is actually a pattern of migration, a natural movement of homo sapiens dying of thirst and hunger, seeking water and nourishment in more fertile grounds.” Infused into this mix is a provocative debate over the role that illegal immigration is playing into the United States national unemployment rate that is nearing 10 percent.

It’s unfortunate then for those who reside on the opposing side of illegal immigration to learn that Latino’s hurt more than the national average in unemployment rates.  Latino’s like their Black counterparts bear the brunt of unemployment highs at 12.7% and 15.4% respectively, and this isn’t a new trend either.

At the center of this conflict is, “what does it mean to be a Latino?” Or more pointedly, “how do you feel being a minority that isn’t generally accepted in American societal norms?” Ruben Navarrette Jr., a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com, believes that the media is accentuating the negative stereotypes of Latino’s—“I’ll take an order of high school dropouts, with a side of gangbangers and mix in some gardeners and housekeepers.”

In communities across the country, minorities who make up a lesser portion of the population breathe more toxic air than their white counterparts, are trapped in a circular cycle of poverty, and lead the nation in number of arrests and convictions.  These “issues” don’t just happen; they are perpetuated by city planers who are racist masterminds.  Look no further than where Gary, Indiana is located compared to the wealthy northern suburbs.

What am I asking of you then? To open your eyes to a world that lies outside of your comfort zone. Ask the hard questions, debate what is going on in the very city that you live in, and cleanse this world of these ills.  Too much, well we are North Parkers…