Yet the president’s challenge to Republican leadership meant next to nothing in terms of actually generating bipartisan support for his partisan policies. Instead, he sought to launch a preemptive strike in the blame game already playing out to decide whom voters ultimately will hold responsible for Congress’s record in the November elections. With the near-universal healthcare plan, the cap-and-trade legislation aimed at fighting global warming, and other key initiatives now facing likely failure or at least significant reduction in scope, Democrats hope to blame Republicans for the lack of major legislation this year.

With all due respect, however, I believe President Obama has it all wrong. Rather than blaming Scott Brown and the Republicans for gridlock, we ought to thank them for at least temporarily slowing the political sausage-making machine. Regardless of Obamacare’s propriety, its legislative history has been embarrassing. From the Democratic negotiations with healthcare corporations hoping to making even more profit by getting in on the deal to the special treatment included for Louisiana and Nebraska to secure the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, respectively, the appearance of corruption and insider deals marked every step in Obamacare’s progression from lofty campaign promise to the House and Senate bills. As for the president’s audacious campaign pledge to open healthcare negotiations up to the public, or at least the political junkies, by broadcasting the sessions on C-SPAN, the Democratic leaders now seem to believe that industry and union lobbyists and Democratic politicians represent our interests, so the people apparently don’t need to actually see the great ones at work.

Besides angering conservatives and many independents, the Democrats also disgusted and disappointed some genuine progressives, who watched their priorities, such as a separate floor vote on universal healthcare and a meaningful public option to compete with the corporate health plans, die in the negotiations. The corporations and Democratic political insiders, along with the Democratic leadership itself, have thus far succeeded in manipulating and defeating the people power movement of hope which gave the Democrats the presidency and the largest congressional majorities in decades. Likewise, the “Tea Party” movement, itself an angrier version of people power, may well sweep the Republicans into Congress this fall only to discover just how quickly the Republican power players manage to crush their anti-government dreams.

The healthcare reform process reveals the structural weaknesses of representative democracy, which remains what British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill called “the worst form of government except for all those other forms.” The voters arguably hold their representatives accountable in elections, but congresspersons rarely face serious reelection competition and can use their connections to raise significant amounts of money to fight off any legitimate challengers who emerge. Whether “conservative” George W. Bush or “liberal” Barack H. Obama sits in the Oval Office, and whether a Republican or Democrat holds the House Speaker’s gavel, the political realities remain the same. Most voters don’t have the time or interest to effectively organize, while the bureaucrats of Big Government and the lobbyists of Big Business and Big Labor have a much easier time making their voices heard. This fundamental collective action problem undermines democracy’s ability to represent the people and maintain limits on government power.

With the State’s machinery gridlocked through the 2012 elections, perhaps we can actually voluntarily work together to address our problems. President Obama and many of his Republican opponents operate on the simple premise, usually left unstated, that only the government can address major problems such as healthcare and so, despite the problems with special interests, we should rely on the government to fix healthcare, banking, the BCS, and anything other industries or activities important to us. By channeling our aspirations through the State’s system of control, we lose hope in our ability to meaningfully and concretely act on the status quo through our own consumption choices, boycotts, and voluntary organizations. The combination of political gridlock and voluntary action will not magically solve our problems, but it has to be better than waiting on our political would-be messiahs.

According to Wisconsin State Statute 967.02 (5) a law enforcement officer is anyone who “…by virtue of the person’s office or public employment is vested by the law with the duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for crimes while acting within the scope of the person’s authority.” Given that DPS officers and staffers are employed by Marquette University they fail to meet the most basic requirement of this position. As such, they cannot be termed law enforcement officers. As a result DPS officers do not have the authority to arrest people. They can, however, act upon citizen’s arrests, as can any other person. Through a series of Wisconsin Supreme Court Rulings, including Radloff v. National Food Stores and Waukesha v. Gorz, a series of crimes have been determined which allow for citizen’s arrest. According to both the “Spring 2005 City of Madison Legal Update” and a 2008 Memorandum from Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to the Brown County Sheriff’s Department, felonies and a handful of misdemeanors are cause for citizen’s arrest. The misdemeanors which are severe enough for one to be subject to citizen’s arrest are battery, fourth degree or greater sexual assault, endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, and disorderly conduct. From this analysis one can see that DPS has absolutely no authority whatsoever to enforce the law, outside of that of citizen’s arrest power.

One need only to read the weekly DPS reports in order to discover reports of DPS officers exceeding their authority in order to “protect” Marquette students and “uphold” the law. While their intentions might be good, they still are beyond their legal authority. An example of this is the any one of dozens of instances of DPS officers detaining students on public property for underage possession of alcohol. While I am not advocating underage alcohol possession nor consumption, the fact still remains that DPS officers cannot detain these students. Stopping students in alleyways, searching them, and seizing the alcohol is well beyond the legal authority of DPS.

Another example of DPS exceeding its authority occurred on the night of Friday, September 11, 2009. A group of area residents were standing on a sidewalk between 17th and 18th streets along Kilbourn. The residents were approached by a DPS officer in a patrol car, who angrily ordered them to leave the sidewalk area near the alleyway. The residents then informed the officer that he did not have the legal authority to demand that they leave public areas. The officer then left his vehicle approached the residents, and again ordered them to leave the area. He then threatened to run over the residents with his patrol car. He then contacted his superiors, and informed them that he had encountered “uncooperative individuals.” The fact that he assumed that he had authority over people standing on a sidewalk shows the mentality of DPS. After contacting his superiors, two commanding officers and five other officers arrived in four separate patrol cars. The officers proceeded to surround the residents and interrogate them. The commanding officers eventually admitted that no in fact they did not have the authority to order residents to leave sidewalks, and that in addition they did not have the authority to threaten to run over residents.

While one can argue that this case is an extreme and does not represent the actions of the majority of DPS officers, the fact still remains that DPS officers do patrol the area and do in fact step beyond their legal authority, given that they have no legal jurisdiction and cannot act to enforce the law to any degree more than any MU student can. The extralegal actions of DPS are further shown through their use of cameras to monitor the campus area, which they claim are to enable them to respond to crimes. The problem with this is, however, that cameras, in all likelihood, do not meet the definition of presence in regards to the law. As such, DPS officers are not present during the commission of the crime, and cannot act to respond to it, given that one has to be present when a crime is committed in order for a citizen’s arrest to occur. I cannot, for example, watch a crime on live television and then go and arrest the person, much the same DPS cannot watch a crime being committed on its security cameras and then go and detain the person, for doing so would, in all likelihood, be the equivalent of illegal imprisonment, which is a Class H felony under Wisconsin State Statute 940.30.

Marquette’s DPS officers are just ordinary citizens with no special authority or privileges. They cannot do anything that you and I cannot do. I therefore urge all people who read this to openly resist the assault upon the rule of law which is represented by DPS officers acting as law enforcement officers. If they can do whatever they please in the name of the law, then we might as well hire Xe (formerly known as Blackwater) and DynCorp to protect us, because at least they have helicopters and assault rifles and could really protect us. We must remember the quote from Benjamin Franklin, “those who would sacrifice liberty for temporal security deserve neither liberty nor temporal security”, and fight against this assault on freedom and the law.

The Madoff scandal that has unfolded over the past months will forever be a pockmark on the finance profession; a stark reminder of the failures of human beings and government oversight. It is ridiculous that Madoff was able to run a fund founded as little on reality as Willy Wonka’s fictitious chocolate factory. The only person that can be entirely blamed for that scandal is Bernie Madoff, but there is certainly some culpability on the part of the SEC and other oversight organizations that somehow failed to uncover the largest fraud perpetrated in US history. Bernie Madoff’s scheme may be the largest fraud in the US to date, but, as it turns out, it is not the largest Ponzi scheme.  That dubious distinction belongs to Social Security.

By definition, a Ponzi scheme relies upon an inverted pyramid of investors. As the number of investors grows, their money is used to pay off the people below them in the pyramid. Social Security follows the same logic – money citizens are supposedly investing in their own future retirement is being used to pay the people lower in the pyramid – today’s retirees.  Therefore, this system will only work so long as the pyramid of population growth remains inverted; if it does not, it will collapse.  Well, the population of social security eligible people is now growing faster than the people paying into the system, and this enormous Ponzi – like scheme is teetering on the edge. In 2017, Social Security will reach the critical point at which the pyramid is no longer growing upside down.

Spending in Washington is out of control, and will require a comprehensive strategy to reclaim control over the national debt and the fate of the dollar. That article will be for another day but the point is Congress cannot spend the US into $2,000,000,000,000 deficits and expect social security to right itself.  The social security system requires that either people working pay more, that people retired take less, or that the government figures out a way to prevent both options from becoming necessities.

The Social Security tax taken from every paycheck in America is currently insufficient: there are too many retirees in the near future and there is no motivation to fix the problem – all of which spells a collapse of the sort to make Madoff look like a spitball in a hurricane.

A pragmatic approach to fix social security must come from both sides of the aisle in order to gain momentum to pass through Congress.  A combination of the following steps would help reduce the problem, although not fix it in its entirety:

Raise the Social Security age to 70 over the next four years, grandfathering those already receiving benefits or within a year of receiving benefits into the system at the current age cutoff of 66.  This will delay the influx of 78 million Baby Boomers who are nearing retirement and reduce the total benefits paid.

Currently Social Security is only deducted from the first $102,000 of income.  This limit should be done away with and Social Security should be assessed against total incomes.

Benefits should be cut 10% over the next decade – the US (and the AARP) cannot have Medicare, Social Security, 78 million retirees and not be willing to make some concessions.

Allow well-off retirees to defer benefits which would then be paid in full at a later date.

The Social Security trust fund, which is the primary mechanism to offset the short fall, should be invested along the guidelines recommended by proponents of privatizing social security in order to reduce costs and increase the return on investment – in three varyingly aggressive investment schemes designed to improve growth, mitigate market declines and diversify risk away.Both parties must stop dragging their feet at reform and drop ideas that are simply never going to get passed.  This includes the Personal Savings Account (privatization) idea, which ultimately will make Social Security pay more to those who need it less.

These steps draw on the good ideas of both parties, and passing any combination of the above would help fix the problem of having many millions of retirees counting on a Ponzi scheme for their retirement. It should also be noted that Social Security is a benefit, not a retirement plan; it is not meant to sustain retirees and Americans would do well to remember that.

Ultimately, it is up to Congress to, for once, make some tough decisions.  The problem is that no one seems to want to compromise.  The US cannot afford to be all things to all people; citizens looking for that level of government control may be interested in moving to China.  It would help if political parties could even come to an agreement on what a successful fix would look like, but every representative and interest group seems to have a different song and dance on the issue.  Imagine a Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in which each Oompa Loompa was on its own program with a unique song.  It would be no way to run a Chocolate Factory and it’s no way to run a government. Bernie Madoff may have succeeded in running the biggest fraud in US history, but unless Congress finds a feasible song and dance to buy into, they will go down in history as the culprits behind the biggest Ponzi scheme.

On the surface it seems like a good idea. Violence fueled by hatred and carried out by private citizens destroys not only harmony between people in a society but also a sense of safety felt by all living within it, thereby disabling a government’s ability to seriously protect the people. If groups within society are merely going back and forth killing each other, we might as well not have a society at all.

However, this legislation is not about protecting the common good or the community. Barack Obama intends on forcing his ideas on morality upon everyone. It seems he does not mind the idea of having someone legislate morality so long as he agrees with  the one doing it.

If Obama was truly concerned about stopping crimes caused by hate, why didn’t he suggest laws to give special protection to anti-abortion protesters? They have been the victims of hate just like others who are covered under “hate crimes.” Two have been assaulted in the month of September, about a month before Obama signed the Defense Authorization Bill. One was Jim Puoillon, who was also killed, and another was a 69-year old man named Johnny Wallace. But Obama is not even remotely concerned with this issue. Considering how recent these two incidents have been, you have to wonder why he wouldn’t add these as “hate crimes.”

“Hate crimes” are merely a tool for politicians to favor one group in society over another and attack another. In this case, it is an attempt to vilify Christianity. He merely gives shape and form to the mainstream idea that unless Christians agree with liberal doctrines they are utterly crazy, violent, and mob-like. Obama’s signature endorses this theory.

The problem is not just with the expansion of “hate crimes,” but with “hate crimes” in general. Whereas laws failing to protect people from mobs bring about anarchy, laws granting people certain special protection based on how they are viewed in the White House will certainly destroy our republican form of government. Hate crimes starts the nation down the slippery slope of having groups in society jockey for political favors merely to ensure their own safety. If this is to be the way things work, we might as well scrap our Constitution and fold our government as it is. We would be no better than an autocracy without any checks or balances whatsoever, since nepotism and favoritism dependent upon the whims of the White House would govern our political system and ultimately our morality.

In today’s world of many faiths and creeds, believers should never actually take their religion seriously enough to try to convert others to it.  That, at least, has become the message of the politically correct international powers that be.

For many supposedly open-minded individuals, freedom of religion has been shrunk to freedom of worship.  In other words, believers should have the right to read their holy texts, observe their high festivals, and participate in their worship services.  Before going on, let me make clear that the battle even for this basic freedom of worship in the world has not been won yet, and it remains important.

Stopping at freedom of worship, though, ignores the freedoms of individuals to convert to another faith and try to convert others.  Unfortunately, many “tolerant” people don’t support the freedom to proselytize.  Proselytizing simply means actively working to convert others to your religion.  For example, the West often heralds Morocco as one of the most religiously tolerant Islamic states, which it certainly is.  However, Article 220 of the Moroccan penal code prescribes up to a six-month imprisonment for anyone who “employs incitements to shake the faith of a Muslim or to convert him to another religion.”  The Moroccan government continues to arrest foreigners suspected of proselytizing and bans all formal missionary activity.

In its best form, proselytizing marks a decisive turn to non-violence.  Throughout human history, plenty of religious leaders have advocated the use of force to spread their gospels, and wars of religion have killed countless people.  Although the proselytizers may use offensive or ineffective methods, such as haranguing passersby on the street, the important thing is that they are trying to persuade and are not brandishing guns and shipping people off to reeducation camps.  Any criticism of proselytizing should start with praise of its nonviolent nature.

Proselytizing is a cornerstone of our civil liberties, the intersection of free speech and freedom of religion.  A society where individuals are free to try to convert others to their beliefs is a society that respects open dialogue and freedom.  Proselytizing in many ways represents the ultimate in unpopular speech because it often involves people telling me my core beliefs about meaning and morality are wrong and that I need to adopt theirs.  In some ways, we are no freer than the most unpopular proselytizer, whether he is the Jehovah’s Witness knocking on our door or the driver of the Jesus-mobile rolling down Wisconsin Avenue.

Marquette University officially bans proselytizing in the official religious activities policy.  This policy provides defines proselytizing first as coercion and misrepresentation and then later as making converts to another religious affiliation or group and only reinforces the negative societal perception of proselytizing.  We can all agree with the administration’s decision that “no individual or organization can coerce or pressure others or misrepresent themselves,” but, with all due respect, that is not proselytizing.  That is simply coercion, and classifying it as proselytizing simply confuses things and makes it harder to have a rational discussion about proselytizing.

Marquette does not engage in proselytizing nor does it let any other group do so.  The college years compose some of the most dynamic years in many people’s lives when they confront life’s hard questions.  Campus Ministry, student religious organizations, and many professors work hard to bring religious concerns and perspectives into the campus dialogue.  Their activities have greatly impacted my life and challenged my Christian faith.  So, what is wrong with taking campus religious activity to the next level and allowing students to not just share their faith but seek to convert others?  Are we students so easily manipulated that we need the loving umbrella of our university to protect us from this apparently grave threat?

In a response to Dr. Christopher Wolfe’s 1988 criticism of the ban, Father David Haschka, then head of Campus Ministry, defended the ban as a decision by Marquette to forego Catholic proselytizing as trade-off to create an environment more friendly to non-Catholics.  He then added, “It seems to me totally unacceptable for non-Catholics to be confronted, on this campus, with deliberate efforts to persuade them away from their faith, whether such efforts are decent or not.”  As a non-denominational Christian considering which college to attend, I would have been attracted to any university confident enough to appropriately seek converts to its faith and allow other traditions to do the same.

For the administration to dismiss all proselytizing, even if done respectfully without coercion, as unacceptable reinforces the view that proselytizing is always inappropriate.  This contributes to the public opinion which allows oppressive governments to jail and punish people who want nothing more than to convert their neighbors.

Marquette University has a unique opportunity to defend proselytizing and contribute towards its legitimacy around the world.  As a private university, Marquette can legally ban proselytizing, but, as a Jesuit university named after one of history’s great proselytizers, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.  As Dr. Wolfe proposed in 1988, the administration could ban coercive activities and lift the general ban.  Marquette could become the catalyst for a rethinking of proselytizing within higher education.  Although this is not always the operative question given his historical context, perhaps in this case we should look at our namesake’s disproportionately cerebral statue in front of Wehr Chemistry and ask ourselves, “What would Father Marquette do?”

Look around Marquette…in every classroom across campus there is crucifix, often with a plaque stating its country of origin. On November 3rd, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that crucifixes hanging within each classroom in Italy violated “the freedom of parents to educate their children according to their own convictions and of the religious freedom of the students” (CNS).

Unlike the United States in its origin, Italy has been a traditionally Catholic country from birth. Religion and faith are tied very closely to the cultural and historic identity of the Italian people. As is typically the circumstance with many morals-pertaining court cases, the case was brought as an exception to the norm, and now will be enforced upon all. In this particular scenario, the case was submitted by a Finnish-born Italian, who had been fighting for the removal of crucifixes from her sons’ school in Abano Terme (Italy) for almost eight years. In previous attempts to pass the case, Soile Lautsi, the above-mentioned mother, had taken it to Italian courts, where it was refused because of the engrained Catholic cultural identity on Italians. Hence, Lautsi then took the case to the European court located in Strasbourg, France.

In reaction, the Italian government says it will appeal the European court’s decision. Even Mariastella Gelmini, the minister of public education in Italy, believed that the crucifixes “[do] not mean adhesion to Catholicism, but is a symbol of our tradition” (CNS). She even went further, so as to say that “…removing [the symbols] would be to remove a part of ourselves” The Catholic bishops, however, suffered sorrow and grief at the ruling. The Italian Conference of Bishops expressed their disappointment in the following written statement: “It does not take into account the fact that in Italy the display of the crucifix in public places is in line with the recognition of the principles of the Catholicism as ‘part of the historical patrimony of the Italian people,’ as stated in the Vatican/Italy agreement of 1984” (CNN). The bishops also noted the significance of the crucifix is meant for all of humanity, not solely Catholics. The crucifix represents God’s love to every human person, the gift of his life for every member of the human race. Hence, it is a symbol that should be respected and revered by all, whatever the nationality, religion, or age; it is the universal symbol of love that transcends time and space. Must a mother really go to such an extent if she is, in fact, the “exception” in her desire for the removal of crucifixes from her children’s classrooms? Must she really make such a statement? In doing so, she has offended not only Our Lord, but all of Italy, including the wealthy and governmental rulers. As Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re concluded, “It is a God that teaches us to learn to love, to pay attention to each man…and to respect the others, even those who belong to a different culture or religion. How could someone not share such a symbol?”

This issue of The Warrior is filled with something for everyone. We have a piece on the MUSG Student Organization Allocation Committee, an investigation on religious freedom and proselytism on campus, a winter sports preview and even a wedding announcement.

The Warrior continues to exist through the support of the Marquette student body, our advertisers and a dedicated group of staff writers, editors and business managers, all who work hard to deliver a real student voice in campus journalism and a fair, investigative look at campus issues that would otherwise go unreported. Our paper receives a diverse range of responses from readers: some hate us, some love us, and some are indifferent, but the response I find most appalling is the one we so often get from Marquette’s own administrators, faculty and staff. Although there are those who do support our efforts and have been very helpful, we continue to be routinely stonewalled by certain departments on campus for either no reason at all or for bureaucratic desires to protect and shield the University from a critical eye.

The pushback from Marquette has occurred since our founding in 2005, but this issue’s center spread provides a clear example of what continues to occur when our reporters ask for comment.

In this issue’s feature, comment was requested from Campus Ministry regarding their role in the formation and implementation of the University Religious Activities Policy. I received no response from most people I contacted in that department, but one staff member e-mailed me and refused to comment because of the paper’s continued embrace of the name “The Warrior”, which he said reflected an “unfortunate part of our Marquette history.”

If Marquette exists, as we so often hear, to not only educate students but facilitate debate and the exchange of ideas on campus, why are some at Marquette so reluctant to provide comment to a completely student-run paper like The Warrior seeking to do just that? The Warrior exists to support the free exchange and discussion of ideas on campus, and we welcome a robust debate regardless of one’s background, ideology or views. Don’t agree with an article we’ve published? Write in, contribute! Want another side represented or have an idea for a story or an issue to be investigated? Let us know and we’ll do our best to find the answers for you.

As a proud Marquette student, it is truly disheartening to see such a closed-minded and unwelcoming attitude from so many in the administration and various departments across campus. I would hope University administrators, faculty and staff would be proud to see Marquette students dedicated to the pursuit of truth in print with no strings attached, no subsidies from the College of Communication, and no oversight from a faculty member; just students, caring enough to face the challenges of working on an independent paper and dedicated enough to stand outside in wind, rain and snow to pass our product out.

But unfortunately that hope has yet to be realized.

?????? ????? ????

??????? ????? ?????

It is gestures like this that are indicative of most conservatory measures taken to save the environment: time, money and effort are often spent only to yield absurdly minimal results at a cost of maximum inconvenience. Even with the amounts of water that will be saved by not using such wasteful things like trays, it will still pale in comparison to the amount of water used by the campus everyday as students shower, cook, clean and drink. In fact, I’m even willing to bet that almost as much energy was wasted in printing out all the posters and billboards that will be advertising efforts to save the earth this week. There are areas of both the country and the world running out of clean water, but Marquette is in no danger of running out of water as a mile down the road lies one of the world’s most abundant supplies of fresh water.

If we at Marquette really want to do something that will produce actual results, we need to be willing to make changes to our lifestyles, not just inconvenience ourselves to save a few measly gallons here and there.

Here are some suggestions to actually affect the environment in a positive way: (1) stop watering and cutting all of the grass on campus – this will save much more water and cut emissions from gas-guzzling lawn mowers; (2) stop caking sidewalks with copious amounts of salt during the winter – as a chemistry major I can assure you that salt corrodes almost anything it touches and wreaks havoc on vegetation, not to mention I hear it’s a pain to clean off of Ugg boots; (3) Issue students LED headlamps for walking at night and turn off all street lights. This will drastically cut electricity use as well as light pollution; and finally (4), stop cooking grade F foods at campus dining halls so students will be less inclined to throw it away. The measures that I have laid out are extreme by most standards, and I’m sure come off as being quite crazy. I would be extremely surprised if anyone implemented any of these suggestions. I merely aim to illustrate the point that inane efforts such as putting aside trays for a week, replacing inefficient light-bulbs or installing solar panels won’t ever amount to a significant reduction of energy consumption and carbon emissions. If Marquette, and the rest of the country for that matter, is actually concerned about the environment, we need to be willing to drastically change our way of life and standard of living.

• ?????? ????? ????

???? ???????? ??????

??a?a?? ????? ?????? ?????

????? ??????? ?????? ?????????

Firstly, it would be hard to deny that the vast majority of students have encountered at least some financial obstacles since enrolling at Marquette, challenges which should be expected when attending private school. While I would never advocate for any private school to simply dispense funds, it would be nice to see more scholarships offered, not only of an academic type, but other types as well. I have a friend who recently confessed to me that he was considering leaving Marquette because he could no longer afford it. He had gone to talk to representatives from the Office of Student Financial Aid, but let’s be serious, the red-tape within the University’s departments is outrageous. More dismaying to my friend than possibly having to leave Marquette was his experience with the University’s various offices that seem to care more about making money than about serving students. Many schools will give scholarship aid to people who have done large verifiable amounts of community service, have served in the armed forces or have engaged in many other categories of laudable activities. Marquette often talks about increasing student financial aid; merit based awards for service and achievement might be a good place to start.

Secondly, addressing spirituality, Marquette is a Catholic university, a fact that is reflected in some places better than others. I’ve lived in residence halls for three years, one as a resident and two as a Resident Assistant, and in that time I have encountered some useless hall ministers. In fact, in those three years I am very confident I have done more ministering than most of the hall ministers I’ve known. Now, it’s a tough job – especially when the minister is older; students cannot always relate to a prim and proper graduate student in theology, nor can they always relate to a Jesuit priest. Because of this void that occurs early on in a student’s collegiate journey, many students never connect their daily lives to a spiritual reality. Hall ministers need to do a better job of reaching out, they need to be more visible and make themselves more available. Father Majka in Schroeder does a good job of this when he prowls the dining hall and engages random students. Many students come to Marquette wrestling with questions about their identity and spirituality, and if given the opportunity almost every student will talk about their views on faith, morals and God. As a Catholic institution, Marquette needs to do a better job of answering their questions. The University offers plenty of resources, but since most students are not proactive enough to seek out those resources, Marquette needs to do a better job of seeking out students. ??????? ? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????

• ??????????? ?????? ?????????

Finally, there are many things the University can do to enhance the experience of students, and make their collegiate journey less financially terrifying and more spiritually rewarding. While I am sure every student could talk at length about how to improve the University, I know that the suggestions I have offered here are practical ones that the University administration will value and appreciate. I hope that readers have time to reflect on how Marquette can improve, and how each one of us can help make those improvements.

• ??? ???????? ???? ? ????? ???????

However, the most glaring need for improvement at Marquette is in raising capital for scholarships and financial aid. Although this sort of fundraising has not necessarily been the major focus of campaigns in the past, it is an essential component to securing the future of Marquette University. In these rough financial times, short of investing in canned goods, there is nothing more vital to the success of Marquette University than canceling future building projects and transferring these dollars into the general scholarship fund. ????? ????? ??????

• ???? ???? ????

Though some might protest and say that the new College of Engineering building would be a great addition to campus, or that a new soccer stadium would do wonders for athletics, there will be no students to fill it in a few years without raising the general scholarship fund. I understand that others have suggested tearing down Coughlin and Lalumiere, saying that these changes need to be made in order to better our campus. Don’t do it Marquette. Save the money, give out scholarships, bring great students to campus. There cannot be any more pressing issue facing our university than this one, and the solution is simple. Stop building, start saving.

????? ?????????