The “We Are One Body” event demonstrates that Christian students on campus are seeking more than dialogue; they are seeking a place of genuine Christian fellowship where we can come together as one body of faith, unified by our belief in God, to support each other and learn from one another. This kind of community cannot occur unless the worship of students who hold different denominational faiths within Christianity is recognized. The “We Are One Body” event underscores the need for more attention in recognizing all Christians on this campus, not just those who worship in accordance with ELCA theology. In order for this to happen, students, administrators, and faculty must ask questions and engage in intentional conversation around this issue.

This conversation needs to include questions such as: how does our Lutheran tradition empower us to engage and accept Christians of other denominations? Where does dialogue regarding intra-faith cooperation fit in as our campus strives for a more pluralistic community? What is worship on this campus, how is it defined, and who defines it? In order to increase dialogue and foster an environment in which students feel comfortable exploring their faith, these questions need to be answered in a way that allows more faith perspectives to come fully to the table.

The purpose of a liberal arts institution grounded in a faith tradition should not be to screen or filter the worship that occurs in this place; rather, the purpose of such an institution should be to foster a diverse environment in which students are able to fully express themselves and explore their faith. In order to prepare students to become responsibly engaged in a diverse and dynamic world, Concordia college and, specifically, the established Christian communities on our campus, need to reevaluate the way in which we invite diverse faith perspectives to the table. As the “We Are One Body” event demonstrated, we can gain better understanding when we promote this type of cooperation. In order to foster acceptance and cooperation, we must engage in intentional dialogue and encourage relationship-building between diverse Christian communities. While we may come from different backgrounds and understandings of our lives as people of faith, at the end of the day, we are, indeed, one body, and this is what makes our community beautiful.

This letter was submitted by the “We Are One Body” planning team.

I will be ending my junior year, and it has gone faster than any year here at Cord. I am feeling the finality of having to get everything together in order to leave this place.

This year is a sad one for me because I have a lot of friends that are seniors who will be leaving me, but I am realizing quickly how weird college is.

Think about it, we have to apply to go to a place where we pay to learn, live and eat. We get put in social groups that start out as helpful but soon degrade into a group of people whose habits you detest. You live in a building with 250 other people, only to end up liking about 5.

You are forced to deal with people you haven’t grown up with, and you have to balance your real life with work and school without your parents telling you how to do it. Money is an object that dictates how much or how little you can do, but only the money you have—don’t count the many loans because those aren’t real for four years. For the first time, you are working to impress a significant other that isn’t known by everyone in your life already, finding out who you actually want to hang around with.

It is such a concentrated time to be with people, where you make friends with people who leave in a couple years, you get jobs for only four years, you work your butt off to get into a position of power and then pray that all of that work you did in the super condensed time pays off somehow.

And then, in true over-analyzer fashion, I sit and ponder if anyone who graduates will keep in contact. Because contrary to popular belief I like you sick over-worked people. I also know that unless you unfriend me, I will watch what you do forever because I like to see where everyone goes.

So I guess what I am trying to say is pardon me while I existentially ponder the meaning of my life and what it is going to be next year as a senior, and how I am going to handle leaving the place I have made a home in for three years. Until next year, stay classy Cobber kids.

Not only would using their own laptops cost no money, but also, the functionality of laptops far outweighs iPads for the uses described in the article.  iPads are designed for a single user and wouldn’t allow a user to log in and save data.  Users can use the Internet but that’s about it. To download apps would require an Apple account, which is user specific and requires credit card information.   Users could type up notes using Pages, but if they wanted to keep that information they would have to email it to themselves.  It would be much easier to do all of these things on a computer in the first place, rather than borrowing an iPad to use only during meetings.

Another option for taking notes, rather than using Pages would be to use online word processors like Google Docs, but this could also be done on a laptop just as easily.  If SGA is concerned with some of their members not having laptops, there are many places around campus were students can check out computers for a short period of time including Digital Media Services and the Knutson Info Desk.

Not only are iPads not practical for their intended use, they are also incredibly expensive.  An iPad 2 starts at $400.  Even accounting for a bulk purchase discount of around $20 dollars for each of the first 10 iPads, the cost would total $6,200.  Add to that the cost of the keyboard cases, which are around $60 per iPad, that comes to a grand total of $7,040.

The budget for SGA comes from the Student Activity Fee, meaning that every Concordia student contributes money to fund SGA, thus contributing to this iPad purchase.  In The Concordian article Levi Bachmeier, current SGA president, was quoted saying, “We were trying to decide how can we most responsibly invest (the left over money) into our organization to promote long-term growth.”  But how will investing in iPads create long-term growth?  Functionally, iPads are not the best choice for SGA, and I’m sure that the SGA members were informed of this fact during the discussion process before ordering.  Furthermore, technology becomes outdated very quickly. In a couple of years, the iPads will need to be replaced if SGA want to continue using them during their meetings.  That means an added cost down the road.

At the last SGA meeting held on Friday, April 19, the 2013-2014 budget proposal was reviewed and approved by the current SGA members.  Surprisingly, the total budget was the same amount as for the 2012-2013 school year.  Why, when SGA had a $7,000 surplus, do they require the same amount for next year?  SGA doesn’t require this same amount and should amend the budget to a more reasonable figure.

It is not in the best interests of the student body for SGA’s money to be spent on iPads rather than on something that will directly benefit the campus community.  I call on SGA to reevaluate their need for iPads and take more care in where they spend their money in the future.

This letter was submitted by Mike Rose, Concordia class of 2014.

First, you gotta go work somewhere alone. I know that Katelyn’s article mentioned spending the night working with friends, but if you’ve got a nine-page-paper due the next morning, you don’t have the time of day (pun intended). Go somewhere by yourself, or if you have to go somewhere with other people, say a dorm computer lab, then wear some headphones. You’ve gotta stay forcused to get through the wee hours.

Second, get yourself a lightly caffeinated beverage. I don’t recommend energy drinks or coffee unless those drinks have little effect on you; I drink tea because coffee and soda make me way too jittery to concentrate well. If you can, use the hot water heater your parents got you when you moved in freshman year so you have a couple cheap drinks to sip throughout the night.

Third, get yourself some binaural beats and utilize these exclusively for studying. A few years ago some researchers discovered that by playing two notes that were similar in pitch through stereo speakers they could alter brainwave patterns. By manipulating the frequency of the pitches, the scientists discovered they could coerce the brain into mimicking brainwave patterns for pretty much any type of activity—including brainwave patterns for concentration and learning. This technology literally induces your brain into a focused state of mind so you can study and work more effectively. The binaural beats sound like white noise in the background and depending on the program you find online (e.g. NeuroProgrammer), you can use them with or without headphones. Some people may find their heads get warm using this technology and that’s simply because the program forces the brain hemispheres to synchronize and so they use more energy. If you want a great free version of this software, check out healingbeats.com. Before you think this sounds like absolute hooey check it out for yourself—I’ve used this technology for the last four years of college to successfully navigate all-nighters. Of course, if you have a psychological condition you should never try something like this without speaking with a physician, but I digress.

Finally, although you may call it an ‘all-nighter,’ give yourself the opportunity to sleep if you really need it. Working on an assignment with your tiredness levels turned to 10 will accomplish nothing. Give yourself a bit of rest if you need it. I suggest sleeping in 90-minute intervals if you really need the Zzz’s as this gives your brain the greatest chance of going through an entire REM cycle. That way, you’re more likely to wake up feeling refreshed than zombified, despite the annoying red 2:00 a.m. on your clock.

I hope that you share these tips with your readers and that any kids studying late for finals or any last-minute assignments take these techniques to heart. They really do help and believe me, without them I could never have overcome the “April from Hell” without professional help.

This article was submitted by Max Muehlip, Concordia class of 2013.

What we ought to question, however, is whether the drastic growth in higher education spending that has ironically made it less affordable for students to attend college has produced desirable results that we should continue. We should also question whether parents and schools ought to be steering more students toward traditional four-year colleges when more and more data indicate that there are literally millions of unfilled high-paying technical jobs waiting for qualified candidates from technical and vocational schools. The market is telling us something important: our higher education priorities are not in order. We are investing in the wrong things, and underinvesting in crucial areas that require greater attention.

I fully acknowledge that, as a privileged recipient of a liberal arts education, it seems out of place for me to criticize the underlying assumptions and practices of American higher education and suggest that liberal arts colleges in particular are providing less of a value than they suggest. But here at Concordia, I think the spirit of “responsible engagement in the world” demands that we deepen conversations about the value of a liberal arts degree in a way that doesn’t necessarily assume its inherent worth from the outset. Perhaps places like Concordia need to reevaluate the emphasis they place on traditional humanities-related subjects and promote science; perhaps they should spend less money on music and athletics and steer more resources toward professions that are slated to grow drastically in the coming years (such as computer science, a field whose absence from this campus baffles every person who understands the value knowledge of coding and programming have in the 21st century innovation-based economy). Perhaps, instead of expending resources to make students physically comfortable during their stays on campus, maximal efforts should be taken to constrain unnecessary spending and control growth in tuition rates. Perhaps, rather than congratulating itself for producing graduates dedicated to the life of the mind and committed to vague Christian values, Concordia ought to really evaluate, at its core, the inherent value of what it does.

There are many immensely talented individuals at this institution. My greatest wish for Concordia is that it emerge as a leader, an innovator and a model other institutions are eager to emulate. I think that part of that leadership must include a role in reforming American higher education and the way it is funded and organized. There must be a greater role for the market to determine which professions and fields receive emphasis in funding. There must be a serious moral debate about the desirability of continually raising the cost of education. Above all, there must be a way for people aware of these realities to step into leadership roles and influence the policy scene today. The competitive future of the U.S., together with the lives of millions of students and recent graduates, are at stake.

When we first set out to get the Secular Student Community approved, we did so with the hope that we would be able to remove some of the negative stigma around identifying as a secular and offer a place where anyone could have positive, open dialogue regarding secular identities. Since then we have expanded our goals beyond that. We hope that this group becomes a community that welcomes all students and can offer them a safe place for dialogue they would otherwise be unable to find. Most of all, we aim to fit our group to meet the needs of its members and in turn, act as a resource for them

We look forward to meeting the goals of both of members and the college. The Secular Student Community is excited to have the opportunity to work alongside other organizations through volunteer work both on and off campus in the following years to help construct a stronger campus community built on mutual respect and honest dialogue dedicated to the common good.

If we hadn’t had your support from the beginning, none of what we hope to achieve would be possible. Last semester, this was only something we could dream of. Now that the Secular Student Community is a reality, we hope that we are able to achieve the group’s full potential and pay back our gratitude to the college, and everyone who is a part of it.
From the Secular Student Community, we thank you Concordia.

While I may spend much of my day hopping back and forth between Facebook, Twitter, news outlets, Mashable and a couple of blogs, I want to make it clear that it is a dangerous slope to be that “wired in” to social media.

I use the word dangerous because being that connected and addicted to social media may make you (and me) feel a sort of interconnectedness to the rest of the human internet population, but in reality it’s foolish and unwise to let those online services take over our lives and replace our in-person relationships.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve written several articles about how awesome social media can be in breaking down physical barriers and connecting us with people we wouldn’t connect with otherwise. Different companies or brands have tweeted at me and made me feel like a valued customer. Rich Sommer (former Cobber and current Mad Men star) tweeted me a couple months ago, and it was one of the highlights of my year!

But where social media stops becoming social and turns into a life-sucking, time-sucking, villain (much like Spiderman’s look-alike/bad guy Venom) is when we let our real life, in-person relationships suffer because of it. It’s when we ignore our friends at dinner because a Tweet comes up. It’s when we choose not to make eye contact with anyone walking in the hall and check Facebook instead. It’s definitely when we are Facebook messaging someone and then we see them on campus later and don’t say hello.

It’s detrimental to human relationships and connections when we forget that social media is meant to complement our interactions with one another, not replace them. If we all replace our in-person interactions with social media and texting, what does that say about who we are and what we care about?

I know that I’ve been there before. I’ve made some pretty stupid decisions where I intentionally have a conversation through texting or Facebook chat instead of in person because it’s easier. I bet you have too.

But just because something is easier does that mean we should do it? Don’t we owe it to ourselves to engage with one another? More than just online?

A lot of bad habits are formed when we use social media as a crutch and those bad habits are only strengthened when you intentionally choose the easier path. Sure, today it might be something minor like sending Grandma Florence a text to say happy birthday instead of that phone call that she’d like, but tomorrow you might turn into a cotton-headed ninny muggins like me and decide to break up with someone in a text. Don’t be that Cobber, Concordia.

As always, tweet your thoughts @jtleeman.

I would like to specifically address the tabling in the atrium during Earth Week. I found it ironic that the very group promoting sustainability efforts on campus would promote the buying and selling of more things. While it may be “cool” to sport a novelty item to show support, it is also two steps back from the movement that Concordia now trumpets. The buying and selling of more things is counterproductive to the age-old mantra of “reduce, reuse, and recycle.” Those “snapbacks” (which I am assuming are those ridiculous trucker hats) do not merely fit in with the “reduce” part of the mantra, but they cannot be “reused” in future years, as the number on the front signifies the current number of students on campus (which will change from year to year), and frankly do not hold much meaning outside of the past week (they join the ranks of many other things cluttering our closets). And perhaps they do fit in with the “recycle” aspect, as in, one could donate that hat to someone who may need a flat-bill cap, but purchasing this cap only adds to the underlying problem that should be addressed…

Which is the capitalistic notion that buying a product creates the type of positive change that the product advertises. “Purchase this product, it was made from 100 percent recyclable material,” when in reality, you may already have that product but you just don’t use it. The novelty of being able to contribute, no matter how arbitrarily, is enticing for those of us who feel helpless in the face of all these different movements, and so we, buy into this system in order to have a claim in this “change” we are constantly pursuing. This is further driven by our instant-gratification culture, in which our love of instant reward outweighs the long-term effectiveness of taking the time to educate yourself on your topic of choice. It is so much easier and simpler to pay $50 for a pair of shoes and know that somewhere in a third-world country a “victim of poverty” will receive a pair of shoes because of your contribution. It is quick, relatively painless for those who can afford it, and we feel good about it. We made a difference. It is this need to be recognized that drives this type of pseudo-sustainable, socially-conscious capitalism.

So what is my point? My point is to think twice about the purpose of purchasing a product that might not be so environmentally friendly after all. Think of all of the well-intended campaigns that end up as passing fads. These campaigns may receive a large amount of attention in the beginning, but become lost in the midst of newer, trendier efforts. To really make change means to constantly be engaged in the movement, not just purchasing a t-shirt and calling it a day. This level of commitment to the sustainability effort (or any effort) demands time, energy and patience, and that is the breaking point for many people.

In my closing remarks, I hope I have mentioned a few points that the reader will consider the next time they contemplate the purchase of a “socially-conscious” product. Again, I am not an expert, but I do believe that in dealing with social justice issues, we must all hold each other accountable for our actions. In order to pursue positive change, we have to begin to question the very institutions that ask us to engage in the issues at hand. Yes, this can be difficult and sometimes painful, but critically thinking has never been easy. No matter how small the step, whether you forgo the shower for the day or turn to minimalism, real change begins in the patterns of our everyday lives.

This letter was submitted by Amy Tran, Concordia class of 2015.

For our main ceramics project in Art and Environmental Activism, we decided to foster increased awareness of students, faculty and especially administration of the sustainability efforts at Concordia, or lack thereof. While there have certainly been efforts that have increased our campus’ sustainability, many of the efforts are insignificant and misguided. These efforts have all been funded by investments in oil, as well as from alumni who work for unsustainable businesses and follow unsustainable practices. The majority of the time, projects seem to be started due to the fact that they will save money or will give Concordia an improved reputation, and not to save our world. Concordia cannot preach about sustainability efforts on campus when they have been so insignificant and misguided, and there is a long way to go.

We knew that some people would be offended by our artwork, “Irresponsibly Engaged in the World,” but that was exactly our point.  To be an environmental activist, we need to speak up and alarm people to get a message across. We understand that some messages can be unpleasant, but the actions taken against our piece were disrespectful.  Instead of feeling proud of our art when walking into the art exhibit, “From the Earth,” we experienced incomprehensible shock. For a piece that we worked on for months and an artist statement that we fought to be published, it was frustrating to have the meaning our art piece, indicated in our artist statement, forcefully changed by the gallery hosts without our knowledge.  Not only was this statement rewritten, but we believe the message was completely changed. Our names were placed on a statement that we do not believe in, nor did we write.

As students we are taught to not put false information in our assignments, so we wonder why it was done by superiors at an institution where it is frowned upon. The actions taken upon our artwork and statement were not only disrespectful, but the censoring of our art and its message was outrageous. It should not have happened, and if we have anything to say about it, it won’t happen again.

This letter was submitted by Sadie Fliegel and Sarah Vlasak, both members of Concordia class of 2013.

Original Statement for
Celebration of Student Scholarship Presentation:
“Throughout our 4 years at Concordia, we cannot begin to count the number of times we have discussed BREWing in the classroom and seminar setting. We cannot count the number of times we have written a paper about BREWing. We can, however, easily count the number of times we have witnessed and participated in BREWing.
While Concordia College has taken many steps towards a more sustainable campus, the steps have often been insignificant and misguided. Most of all, such sustainable steps have been founded on investments in oil, and donations from alum of environmentally harmful businesses. Our piece conveys this message through the bad and the worst of Concordia, seen on each side of the globe.
Join the collective movement for Concordia College to act on what it preaches and bring sustainability to the forefront of our school’s mission to be responsibly engaged in the world. If we can’t be responsible at our campus level, what irresponsibility are we engaging in at the global level?”

Revised Statement
“In the context of their belief that Concordia College has been minimally involved in environmental efficiency, Vlasak and Fliegel reflect on the concept of BREWing, which has been implemented into the curriculum over their college career.
The artists’ intent is to convey their belief that sustainability and global engagement are responsibilities that Concordia College should deem as an integral part of its mission. It shows that the lack of environmental awareness has global effects.

1) The Beanie. When you’re a freshman walking with your clubbies, sporting those lovely yellow beanies, and suddenly you feel a tug and turn around to see a guy running off with your beanie in hand. You yell and you yell but he does not turn around. Thus the animosity towards the Dragons begins. (Even creepier is when that dude finds you on Facebook and asks to be friends…)

2) The Dining Service Mints. Have you ever notice how those DS mints last forever? Emily Carlson ’14 knows the feeling well. “I always put one in my mouth” she says. “And then I find myself later saying ‘what….how am I still sucking on this mint?”

3) The Awkward Walk.  You know all those long sidewalks across campus, like from the music building to Knutson? The walks where you can see whoever is coming toward you from half a mile away?  Yeah.  You know the place.  Ripe for awkward encounters with those casual acquaintances. Worst case scenario: you both make eye contact long before you are in acceptable hearing distance.  Then you both have to knowingly kill time, until at last it’s socially acceptable to say “hey”. Or you can do what Sam Odegard ’14 does and just have a dance-off.

4) Getting Scared by the Bell Tower. When the bell tower finds it funny to wait until you are right next to it, preferably on the phone, and then it goes off and scares you crapless.

5) Post-Winter Joy. The moment it hits 30 degrees and the entire student body is outside, covering Olin, tossing footballs, walking to the Red River to gawk at the flood. This year, seeing how it’s still snowing in April, it hits 20 degrees and people are in flip flops and t-shirts, singing Hallelujah in the streets (in six part harmony, of course.)

6) Choir Chaos. Realizing choir just got out and sprinting to DS in the hopes of snagging a seat before the musical swarms set in. Or worse, when choirs have mass rehearsal and the line for DS is all the way past the Info desk, and the line for the sweet-n-sour chicken is past Bliss. Madness!

7) Singing “Alone”. Making eye contact with someone as they are singing loudly to themselves because they thought they were alone. Or better, when you’re the one singing. And singing very loudly. (This happened in Hoyum all the time.)

8) Awkward Library Encounters. When you are in the library at a desk that is split down the middle so computers are facing both sides, and someone you know walks up and takes the computer opposite of you. Their face is right in front of you as you sit down, but do you look up? Do you say “hey”? Without fail, I always look up at them, and then look away right when they look back, and this happens a few times, until I just keep my eyes down, feeling guilty.

9) Cornstock. When Cornstock rolls around and you walk through campus and keep hearing “USA! USA!” The only day when Concordia turns into an amusement park (besides maybe Homecoming.)

10) Cobber Lore. We know them well, but let’s take a moment to appreciate the legends of Concordia.

•Don’t walk under the bell tower alone, or you’ll be alone until you die. Or walk under with someone and you’re bound to be married.

•There is an 80% chance you will marry a Cobber. And then get married under the bell tower.

•If you rub the statue outside of Grose called Ole and Lena, you’ll have good luck on tests.

•The haunted places in Concordia: Fjelstad (someone once told me they had their socks rearranged by a ghost that haunted their room), the Theater, Old Main, Hoyum (it’s debated between 5th floor and 6th floor), and according to Prof. Cathy McMullen, her office.

•The highest and lowest points in Moorhead are Olin Hill and Prexy’s Pond, respectively.

•BREW.

•It was once said that an old president of Concordia misspelled the word Cobbers at the beanie toss that year: instead of C-O-B-B-E-R-S he shouted, “Give me a C! Give me an O! Give me a B! Give me another B! Give me an A!” Give me an R! Give me an S! What’s that spell?” All the freshmen: “Cobbars…?”

•The mystery of “Why are the Maize fries so freaking delicious?!”

11) Concordia Celebrities. Rene Clausen, regarded by all Cobbers (especially Concert Choir) as a god among men. Bruce Vieweg, known by even the most secluded of Cobbers for his line, “Please excuse my intrusion to your day.” President Craft, also known as P-Craft, one of the happiest presidents anyone has ever seen. Also, I have to include this even though this is only relevant now: the celeb couple Joel Leeman and Natalie Decker, aka “Deckman” (or “Leeker”?). Everyone agrees they’re just the cutest couple.

12) Friends. Everywhere. It is such a Cobber thing that you can walk around and basically recognize everyone. Naturally this can be good and bad. But overall, it means you are a part of a great big community. People smile at you as you pass, even when the wind is freezing your eyelids shut and the temperatures are dropping to twenty below zero. People guest pass you into DS when you’ve forgotten your ID, just out of the kindness of their heart. It’s that Cobber camaraderie. It’s something that anyone who is getting ready to leave suddenly greatly appreciates, and suddenly realizes how much it will be missed.

As I write these words, I realize how I will miss each and everyone of these Cobber Moments. I leave you to appreciate them to the fullest. My wise old senior advice to all who still have memories to come, can only be phrased in the words of a great man names Ferris Bueller: “Life comes at you fast; if you don’t stop and look around every once in a while, you might miss it.”

I am here to let you know that no, these are not smart and make me slur my words like I was doing a different type of BREWing. They make me significantly more aggressive than my gentle personality is ever thought to be.

That being said, I know there are many out there who will be pulling these beasts within the next couple weeks, and I have some tips and warnings for you.

At the beginning you need to prepare and stock up. This means food and many different types of drinks. Water is a necessity because if you are like me, you can slam a few Red Bulls in no time and feel awful within a few hours. When you have all of this prepared you will feel more committed like the tinfoil-hat-guys who never gave up their space dreams.

About seven hours in you feel giddy like an 8-year-old at a sleepover. If you were smart you had gathered a few friends for moral support, and at this point all of you are giggling to yourselves. You are thrilled that you will be able to spend all of this new time with your friends and wonder why you have never done it before.

At about hour 10, you start to realize how annoying your guy friend’s sniffle is and your roommate has this awkward habit of tapping her forefinger on the side of her laptop. The tap is just grating enough that you have fantasized leaping across the table and strangling her with her headphone cord. At this point you should start drinking an energy drink and try to focus on the hum that will soon start to build in your head.

When hour 15 rolls by, your friends have either bailed to their rooms or fallen asleep on the basement couches, which to be honest is better. You toss back your third energy drink and wrap the blanket you have tighter around your face to form a tunnel. The tunnel will hopefully force the information from that dry Religion 300 article into your brain better, like a semi-permeable membrane of knowledge. You have eaten all of the food yourself, and the grease stains on your sweatpants are starting to make shapes. At this point I suggest getting outside and walking a lap around the building, or you will start to see you face melt in the computer screen reflection.

You hit 7 a.m., and you feel like a bird. What I mean is that the six energy drinks you consumed have hit you so hard that your body feels like it is buzzing into flight. You gather you finished homework and computer to head upstairs and see people just getting up for the day. You feel accomplished and smart because it is like you have a leg up on them, you don’t have to “wake up!”

Your classes start at 10:30 a.m., and you decide, since you have all of this extra time, to get dressed in real clothes. I suggest showering for sure, it can trick you a little bit into believing that your day has just begun. You realize you have one energy drink left and you pound it on your way to Bish-Whip to get your religion on, only to find out that the paper you worked on all night has been moved back a week.

Procrastinating hurts everyone—tomorrow.

Next to the convoluted tax code and the increasingly overregulated area of health care, there is probably no field that has been more contorted by decades of inert policy and misguided thinking than immigration, and I mostly blame the Republican Party for the snail’s pace at which serious attempts at reform have taken place. Even though the U.S.’s economy is unparalleled dynamism remains one of the world’s top destinations for aspiring immigrants, the loopholes through which those immigrants have to jump in order to establish themselves here are so vast and complex that they threaten to choke off the key competitive advantage of America’s ever-growing and diverse pool of human talent. What this country needs more than ever is a revitalized immigration policy that recognizes the enormous economic boon of both skilled and unskilled immigration and that makes it easy for America’s most critical and yet chronically understaffed industries to find the talent they need to grow and thrive.

The problems with America’s immigration system extend far beyond illegal Mexican aliens, who in the years preceding the financial crisis and late-2000s recession received enormous attention from the media and elected officials.

A number of border state Congressmen continue to demand the construction of a highly fortified fence with Mexico and refuse to acquiesce to any policy proposal that remotely sounds like “amnesty.” It’s worth noting that although there are an estimated 11 million foreigners illegally residing in the U.S. at the moment, the tide of immigration from our southern neighbor has virtually halted in recent years. The Pew Hispanic Center reports that net immigration from Mexico has stopped and actually may have reversed, and this can be attributed to this country’s relatively weak economy.

While in various quarters one often hears demands for all illegal immigrants’ immediate deportation because of their callous violation of America’s sacred laws, this suggestion has to be dismissed outright as a matter of policy. Regardless of anyone’s fervent opposition to “rewarding” people who break American law with pathways to citizenship or other means of normalizing their immigration status, the reality and immensity of illegal residence in this country make expulsion an unworkable and totally undesirable “solution.”

Finding a way to normalize illegal immigrants’ status would bring their labor out of undocumented sectors of the economy, enable them to pay taxes normally even as they continue to make use of services ranging from welfare to education and very likely contribute to an upward trend in domestic wages and working conditions. I wholeheartedly support what some detractors would refer to as “amnesty.”

But as I said, there are problems with America’s immigration system that are, in my view, far more urgent than even the glaring issue of trying to deal with 11 million undocumented residents. Earlier this month, on Monday, April 3, the government began accepting applications for its annual distribution of H-1B visas, which are granted to highly skilled workers in chronically understaffed fields such as computer science and engineering.

According to immigration attorney Jared Leung, by the Friday of that week, the number of applications exceeded the program’s statutorily imposed limit of 65,000. The government had to sift through the 124,000 applications through a randomized lottery process.

A diverse array of American companies, particularly in clusters of innovation such as Silicon Valley, have spent years and millions of dollars lobbying the federal government to expand the pool of highly skilled individuals who can qualify for this visa. As the Cato Institute points out, the fact that H-1B slots are being filled so quickly even as companies willingly fork over thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees in individual cases to hire workers demonstrates that America’s highly skilled immigration system is in desperate need of expansion and reform.

It’s virtually impossible to understate the crucial role immigrants have played in America’s economic vitality.

As the Cato Institute points out, 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or immigrants’ children. The National Foundation for American Policy found that 48 percent of those companies had at least one immigrant founder; 75 percent of firms surveyed had one or more skilled immigrant as a key member of its product development or management teams. Companies from Google to Intel to eBay are all direct byproducts of immigration, and it is difficult to imagine how differently our lives would look without them.

The myopic focus on creating an impenetrable border with Mexico while simultaneously figuring out some ludicrous way to deport 11 million illegal residents distracts from the major problems the U.S. will begin to experience if it doesn’t emerge as a more attractive place to immigrate.

Countries like Canada could provide a potential model, particularly as the Canadian model relates to filling short-staffed technical sectors. Regardless, it’s crucial for politicians and policymakers of all stripes to agree on one indisputable point and that is that immigration enriches this country beyond measure, and the competitive health of the American economy will depend on its further facilitation.

I was having lunch with someone who was supposed to be watching the marathon with his friends just a few buildings over from where the devices exploded. He’s from Boston but was delayed in flying back home because of our little snowfall on Sunday.

From the minute we saw the breaking story announced on the screens at the restaurant, I checked Twitter constantly to stay posted as the story continued to unfold. I luckily follow a number of news sources and social media journalists who uncover and share information literally the second it happens. I use Twitter as a way to stay informed as well as to share with those who follow me (but may not choose to follow news sources).

Twitter is so much more than just a one-way street. It’s the central nervous system of communication and the avenue for rapid-fire dialogue. It’s where social news and current events meet and blend together as one. It’s a real-time forum for conversation and discussion about important, and in this case, horrific events. And I know my computer-mediated communication professor may cringe when I say this, but it connects us with one another and makes physical distance feel obsolete.

Not only did Twitter and other digital and social media connect the larger American and global audience, but authorities used these online tools to disseminate important messages with specific actions to take such as “clear the hotel,” “don’t block the phone signals unnecessarily” or “make room on the streets for the police.” Social media is literally embedded in emergency response strategies, and the nation watched and listened in awe and terror for updates by the minute.

But what really got me thinking about the role of social media in this disaster is the thousands of tweets that were spread virally by respectful, thoughtful, and engaged fellow human beings who poured out support for Boston. While I’m not trying to equate Twitter users to heroic first responders, I thought it was amazing to see so many engaging in discussion and sharing important messages of hope and love amidst the chaos.

Because of social media, I think we all felt a little closer to Boston on Monday. Amazing stories and photos from the incident were shared at rapid rates and we all offered our thoughts and prayers to the city, the marathon participants, first-responders and everyone affected by it.

What do you think? Did social media help us be more interconnected as human beings on Monday? Tweet me your thoughts @jtleeman.

Honestly, I’m guessing most of you who are taking the time to read this are already going and already know the value of going. However, we need your help to spread the word.

I could tell you to come because of the grand prize: an iPad mini. I could you tell you that you have to come because of the pita chips and hummus coupled with Starbucks Coffee. I could go on and on about what a great networking opportunity this is, or how big of a deal our keynote speaker really is. I could talk about the live Twitter board that will be displayed throughout all the sessions—something that I don’t think we’ve ever done at a Concordia event.

Yet, these facts are not what I want to focus on. Those things are fun add-ons, but they are not what makes the Social Media Summit cool.

Social media in its many forms is here to stay. It’s not some fad. It’s not just for teens. And it is certainly for much more just than creeping on your friends. Twitter is the central nervous system for all kinds of news. Blogs and microblogging sites record our personal stories in new ways. Businesses connect to their customers and have new ways of listening to feedback and incorporating it in the product life cycle. Global barriers are being torn down as we can connect to our fellow human beings without the limit of location.  Collaboration, communication and connections are entirely new and different than they ever have been. Job hunting and job searching has transformed. Bullying has a new playground. Social justice movements gain momentum in entirely new ways.

With these ideas in mind, and with the knowledge that social media plays out in many areas of life, we planned this event. However, the summit will only be as successful as you make it. We are relying on your ideas, your experiences and your discussion to make the event unique and different from any other. Everyone is an expert in this field. Everyone has something to say. Everyone can teach someone else something new.

Remember, we’re the digital natives who grew up online and have been IMing since 6th grade and Facebooking way before it was cool worldwide.

If the $2 entry fee that goes DIRECTLY to a charity by the way is too much for you, let me know, and I’ll cover it. That’s how much I want you to be there on Sunday and take advantage of this entirely new kind of event.

Questions? Not convinced you should go? Tweet me: @jtleeman.

Those of us, like myself, who frequently spend time in Old Main, could point to the lack of political power that the organization possesses (just ask the administration about their reception to SGA’s desire to reduce tuition to $3,000). Olin inhabitants might argue that much of the work that SGA does goes unrecognized, failing to be communicated to the student body. Students in Offutt could cite the lack of a demand for the supply of SGA services because really, when you think about it, we’re dealing with some choice first-world problems. Despite all these weak attempts at justification, one simple fact remains: Student Government cannot be the legitimate organization it ought to be alone. We need student input and feedback, just like an O-Chem student needs the puppies in the Atrium on Finals Study Day; it’s a symbiotic relationship.

Looking forward to the next year, it would be easy to promise to work on accomplishing our platform initiatives, and kudos to you if you can recall three of them. We’ll certainly do whatever we can to improve the parking situation and increase building access hours, but I feel like that’s a cheap answer. My goal for the upcoming year is to give students an organization they can be proud of, one that does more than throw its name behind campus projects but, instead, is transparent in its activities and aggressive in its workload.

I wish I could promise that SGA will hold tuition at its current level or install a three-level parking garage, but let’s be honest, we know that is simply not possible. Instead, we will undertake any and all work where we have a chance at improving the Concordia student experience. It all comes back to forging a stronger connection between SGA and the student body. To use an analogy, just like my favorite sport, SGA is very similar to a pole vaulter—utterly worthless without a pole, the means by which he or she attempts to accomplish goals. Concordia’s students are the means that gives SGA the opportunity to achieve worthwhile goals.

We need your voice, your passion and your support to accomplish anything truly worthwhile. In the next year, we hope to make our meetings more accessible to students (check us out on Thursday nights) and utilize newly created student committees, comprised of both SGA and non-SGA members, to follow through on some of the initiatives that have fallen through the cracks in the past. I can’t and won’t promise something we can’t deliver, but I do promise to do everything in my power to give Concordia College the Student Government Association that it deserves.

This letter to the editor was submitted by Levi Bachmeier, President of SGA 2013-2014.

Although it is nearly 23 years since she left office and formally ended her political career, there are few names or legacies in our times that continue to inspire as much nostalgia and passion or to elicit as much divisive rhetoric or anger as that of Margaret Thatcher. She forged a consensus on government’s proper role in society that permeated Britain’s Labor Party and served for 20 years as a model other countries would emulate in their struggle to build prosperous societies, transforming not only British politics but also her own Conservative Party.

The essence of Thatcherism—the name of the policies and attitudes that came to be most closely identified with her—is best understood in the context of the time during which it emerged as an ideological force. In 1979, Great Britain was a weak, stagnant country that was pushing further and further out into the periphery of irrelevance on the global stage. Its state-dominated economy was moribund and routinely thrown into upheaval by violent trade union protests and hugely disruptive strikes. Its state-owned companies were among the least productive and least efficient in the entire developed world. The savings of its people were being eroded by rising inflation and decreasing standards of living even as, abroad, the Soviet Union emerged as a renewed threat, and the omnipresent specter of nuclear war intensified. With firm pro-market convictions emanating from her earliest days as the daughter of a simple English grocer who taught her the value of hard work, self-reliance and virtue of entrepreneurialism, Thatcher initiated a series of controversial and initially painful reforms that privatized dilapidated industries, raised interest rates to tame inflation, clamped down on trade unions, and deregulated sectors of the economy ranging from finance to transport.

The results of the reforms speak for themselves. They were, as she and others termed them, a painful dose of medicine that simply had to be endured if Britain were to shed its terrible state. It’s true that, especially at the beginning of the 1980s, Thatcher’s reforms were hugely disruptive to the economy and presided over a period of rising unemployment and social discontent. But at the end of her tenure, all levels of income were better off than they had been in over a decade. Millions of Britons came to own shares in companies, previously moribund industries roared back to life, Great Britain became a revitalized center of finance and commerce as well as a new magnet for international investment, and—perhaps most significantly—Great Britain emerged as a self-confident nation that no longer lamented that its best days were behind her.

It was in Thatcher’s close political and ideological relationship with U.S. President Ronald Reagan that her ideological commitment to liberty was arguably most pronounced. She—together with Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Lech Wałsa, and a remarkable cast of almost providential individuals who seemed to spring up at just the right moment in history—stood up to the Soviet Union, denounced communism as an evil ideology and a failed system and encouraged the oppressed peoples of Central and Eastern Europe to stand up to their Soviet masters and rid themselves of their shackles. The legacy of Margaret Thatcher stands at the center of the great transatlantic relationship between the U. S. and Europe, particularly Great Britain.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the 2000’s economic crisis, the world has moved away from the Thatcherite consensus she forged and that shifted British politics toward the right. Nevertheless, Tony Blair, her eventual successor, admitted that after Thatcher, “the presumption should be that economic activity is best left to the private sector.” As this week’s edition of The Economist points out, Blair’s own Labor Party came to accept the role of markets, no longer pursued nationalization or tolerated the stranglehold on the economy previously enjoyed by powerful labor unions. The challenge in these post-economic crisis times is to remember the fundamental truth Thatcher articulated both in word and deed: the source of prosperity is not the state, but most fundamentally the entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking of individuals who are at the heart of creation and growth. The government without a question has an important role to play as a guarantor of rights and as a safety net for those who cannot take care of themselves, but in summation the most important driver of economic life should be the private sector, not the state.

Margaret Thatcher arrived on the world stage at a time when she was most urgently needed, not just by the people of Great Britain who for decades had been trapped in the poisonous molasses of socialism and relegated to humiliating decline but by the whole human race. She, together with Reagan and others, hastened the Soviet Union’s demise and confronted it by calling it the evil that it was. She made Britain a great nation again by unleashing the entrepreneurial power of its people and saving it from the burdensome state that had made it “the sick man of Europe.” What a grand woman, a kind of hero that humanity experiences maybe once every century. May she rest in peace, and may we forever cherish her legacy and memory.

What I am saying is that everyone seems to be hunkering down in their end of year study holes—our foxholes of fortitude and our trenches of tears, if you will. I tend to gravitate to the Maize, but only at midnight. Similarly, music students either start sleeping in practice rooms or move to other more quiet places. Our study habits have a personality, much like us as students.

I mean, as a loud and obnoxious person, I tend to gravitate to places with people because I know myself. I also know that I can’t focus to save myself and have invested in some pretty serious headphones. I don’t mind studying with people around, and I think the Maize has a personality that says, “Hey I study hard, but damn I want me some Cheetos.” I like the Maize. People listen to music and watch TV. It’s kind of  like a giant living room. The Atrium is similar, but more like sitting at the island in your kitchen, rather than the living room. People are chatting pretty loudly, but you are okay with it. You still feel connected to the outside world.

Then we have the library, where you don’t talk, and if you aren’t in Serendipity, then you are definitely hiding somewhere you don’t want to be found. The library is like doing homework in the basement of your house. You sit near a window to have some light, and whenever people come near you, you hiss in a bat-like fashion to ward off evil non-study spirits.

Ivers/Jones is where you go if you want to feel awful about how much you’re not doing. Want to procrastinate? Not here. Bring coffee and some flashcards, and go hard. Because if you don’t, know one will make you feel guilty about not studying like the future of our medical force will.

Any of the study lounges in any of the dorms is not meant for studying. The people who “study” here are actually people who mean to bring their significant others, holding hands while surfing Facebook. When all of that gets exhausted, they then complain that they don’t have their papers done at 6 a.m., break the inter-visitation policy and ask their professor for an extension. When you hang out here, it is a lot like studying in your bedroom. You have great intentions, but you end up falling asleep with the lights on and hating yourself with incredible amounts of coffee in the morning.

Studying in the music building is an interesting affair, seems to be upon invite only. I once was brought in as a “plus one” and have been too terrified to ever go back. There were people “opera-ing” until wee hours, and at one a point, a well-known music major took to running laps at midnight. The music building is like studying in the confines of a closet that is over-stimulating. You feel over and under whelmed at the same time and can’t quite function correctly until you have had some semblance of a mental breakdown.

Personally, I vote to study in your own home so that I don’t have to deal with your late night unsightly-ness, or your weird habits. But hey, we obviously can’t have it all. Finals are evidence of that.

I will not stay silent any longer.

In light of the hearings on marriage equality in SCOTUS, a movement on Facebook began, changing your profile picture to a red equal sign. While the symbol is an excellent campaign tool for raising public awareness of the issues that were being discussed in the Supreme Court and for demonstrating who supports marriage equality, the act of changing your profile picture on Facebook does nothing. The true travesty within this movement is that those who support marriage equality are not doing enough.

Now, I’m not saying that changing your profile picture doesn’t mean anything. I changed my profile picture to the red equal sign. However, I did it in the hopes that people would ask me what it means—why I support this movement—in order to start a conversation, and that is, in fact, what happened. The conversation that ensued is the reason I am writing this.

I received the private Facebook message from someone with whom I haven’t had a real conversation in probably eight years (because we all know that happens on Facebook). Rather than engaging in a discussion, however, this individual began an interrogation. Rather than asking questions with an attitude of honest, intellectual curiosity, this individual asked questions in anger, defiance, intolerance and bigotry.

I believe that marriage should not be relegated to the status of “separate but equal.” I believe that the government should provide equal rights for all of its citizens, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation. If you believe that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is wrong based on your personal beliefs, convictions or religious background, fine. The problem arises when you force others to live according to your beliefs, based on your holy text, or based on your personal distaste for the LGBT community—that is discrimination. You cannot expect every individual in the nation to live according to your beliefs. We have seen this in our nation’s history before with the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Suffrage Movement. According to the laws by which we all live, all men and women are created equal, and must be given equal rights under the law.

Another MLK Jr. quote for you, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”

At some point, we will reach the limit of tolerating intolerance, and we will take action. Action is not simply changing your profile picture on Facebook; it is contacting your representative about the rights that will be denied the LGBT community if HF1054 is voted down in the Minnesota legislature. Action is not simply posting inflammatory articles on your social media pages. It is doing. It is showing. It is achieving.

Because at some point, those who insist that marriage can only be between a man and a woman must realize that denying the LGBT community equal rights is to be on the wrong side of history. We can achieve equality. We must no longer stay silent. We must do.

This letter to the editor was submitted by Ellen Pugleasa, class of 2013.

The world is well aware of the enduring conflict between Israel, the Palestinian people who live within its borders and its Arab neighboring states. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the small Jewish state has fought seven recognized wars, featured very prominently in the center of Cold War geopolitical strategic competition between the Soviet Union and the U.S. and, to this day, elicits powerful emotions from people around the world who either vigorously defend its inherent right to exist and defend itself from threats or who powerfully condemn its policies towards Palestinians living within its orders.

Sixty years of complex history, intense political intrigue and negotiations and heartbreakingly brutal conflict have succeeded in proving only one thing with regard to Israel—the way one approaches Israel and evaluates its basic nature and the way in which it conducts itself to the Palestinian people and its surrounding Arab neighbors depends entirely on the philosophical and historical assumptions from which the various parties involved in the conflict choose to view it.

These assumptions are so numerous that referring to a single “Israeli” or “Palestinian” position on any issue is stunningly superficial and naïve. Here’s one basic example affecting a very foundational issue: critics of Israel allege that the Zionist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries displaced a people that had already been living in modern day Israel. How can a state whose establishment depended on denying an entire nation the right to practice self-determination enjoy legitimacy?

Note that this claim only makes sense if one accepts the assumption that the people who had been living in the lands of the Ottoman Empire that roughly correspond to present-day Israel constituted a separate “nation.” While Arab people had been living in the “Eretz Israel” before the various “aliyahs” of Zionism began to bring Jews to their historical homeland, the idea of a Palestinian nation separate from the Arab peoples of the decaying Ottoman Empire emerged roughly at the same time as Zionism rose as a political force. If that is indeed the case, then the legitimate winner of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse is simply whatever side can bring its historical claims to the same land into reality. That is, after all, the underlying root of the conflict to this day—two different groups of people claim the same land as their historic homeland.

In this brief space, we could never go through a substantive overview of the many issues that complicate the Middle Eastern peace process. Generally, Israeli policy (with the exception of some political parties and interest groups that do not advocate sacrificing Israeli land won during the 1967 6 Day War in peace negotiations) supports the establishment of a Palestinian state; this has also been the official U.S. policy for decades. If that’s the case, what exactly is the hold up?

One of the enduring issues preventing the emergence of a negotiated settlement of the Palestinian issue involves both sides’ perception that the other is preventing such a settlement from emerging. Israel, for instance, demands that Hamas—the principal Palestinian group that governs the Gaza Strip and which is regarded as a terrorist organization by both the United States and Israel—end its refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a precondition for any negotiations. The Palestinian side, on the other hand, demands that Israel cease constructing settlements in territories that, in the event of an agreement, would constitute sovereign Palestinian land. Both sides believe the end of the conflict basically lies in the other’s hands.

As far as I can tell, the solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict will likely prove elusive even during our lifetimes. Israel simply has no incentive to consent to a Palestinian state that could be controlled by organizations that refuse to recognize its existence and which could emerge as an unstable, destabilizing and potentially hostile neighbor on its borders.

The various political factions among the Palestinians cannot agree on a single, unified policy to approach Israel, and this internal weakness will be detrimental to their ambitions for statehood, particularly on the international stage. In my view, the Palestinians need to practice realism to achieve statehood. They must recognize that moral battles or attempts to circumvent negotiation with Israel by making political gains in the international community, particularly the United Nations, cannot substitute for Israel’s upper hand in all of this. Policy and strategy grounded in a hard assessment of the facts on the ground are the only routes to success in any issue. Moral disagreements are, at the end of the day, inconsequential.