Coaches often encourage their players to go the extra yard and leave everything they have on the field, even making comparisons to war or battlefields. On Saturday, U. Illinois head football coach Ron Zook left the UI campus to visit the people who are fighting for the United States on a real battlefield.

Zook, along with four other football coaches, left for a tour across Germany and Southwest Asia to meet U.S. troops. The visit will last nine days and make eight total stops.

“This visit to our troops will be very inspiring,” Zook said in a press release. “I want to make sure they understand we appreciate all that they do to make our world a better place to live. Our men and women serving in the armed forces put their lives on the line every day to help defend freedom, and, if in some small way our visit can help to motivate them, our time will be very well spent.”

Zook said he was unsure of the schedule that they would be taking but knows that it will begin with a visit to troops in Germany on Monday.

He will be accompanied by head coaches Tommy Tuberville of Texas Tech U., Chip Kelly of U. Oregon, Rich Ellerson of Army, and Harvard U’s Tim Murphy.

“The thing that Tommy Tuberville — I was talking to him (Wednesday) — and he said, ‘Pack light, enjoy yourself,’“ Zook told the media last Thursday. “Whatever you take, you’re going to carry it. No one’s going to carry anything for you.’ He said it’s awfully hot. Tommy was in Miami for years, and he said, ‘(The tour location) is the hottest place I’ve ever been in my life, but it’s just a great thing.’”

Zook and the other coaches will be traveling on the Coaches Tour sponsored by the USO, Morale Entertainment and Armed Forces Entertainment in an effort to boost morale for the troops.

Coaches distribute athletic and university apparel from the sponsors of the event in an effort to bring a touch of home to the troops.

Soldiers can join in on panel discussions and have autograph and photo opportunities with the coaches. Additionally, they will be given the chance to participate in flag football games and a football skills competition.

To date, 40,000 troops have been impacted by the Coaches Tour, and this year the coaches are expected to meet and interact with an additional 15,000 to 20,000 members of the military.

“I’ve talked to some of the coaches that have gone on it, and every one of them has said the same thing — it’s obviously a great honor and a privilege,” Zook said. “You’ll have a different appreciation for what those guys are going through.”

A report written by Harvard U. Lecturer Joshua Humphreys and issued by the Center for Social Philanthropy at the Tellus Institute suggests that the “higher-risk, higher-return” manner in which the University invests its endowment has worsened the financial crisis.

In the 2009 fiscal year, Harvard’s endowment decreased 26 percent—roughly 11 million dollars—due to the national market crash in the fall of 2008. The report, titled “Educational Endowments and the Financial Crisis: Social Costs and Systemic Risks in the Shadow Banking System” states that university endowments that engaged in high-risk investments “played a role in magnifying certain systemic risks in the capital markets.”

The paper, which was released on Thursday, examines five other private universities in New England in addition to Harvard. Funded by the Service Employees International Union, the report alleges that university administrators have often allowed members of the finance and alternative investment industries to become trustees with authority over the university’s endowment, representing a conflict of interest. But according to University Spokesman John D. Longbrake, these concerns are “not new.”

“Virtually every issue raised by this report about endowment management practices has been addressed and continue to be addressed by the current leadership team at the Harvard Management Corporation,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Harvard’s large and positive economic impact to the region is well documented, and we consider it an important outcome of fulfilling our teaching and research mission.”

But Humphreys disagreed. “I’m delighted to have our diagnosis of the many problems with the endowment model ratified, but it’s just not true that everything is being addressed,” he wrote in an e-mail. The report suggests that risky investment practices have already had both short-term and long-term consequences for local communities.

The report proposes that Harvard’s 310 cost-reducing layoffs resulted in a $53,709,863 loss and deepened the recession for the local economy. The report also estimates that Harvard’s halt on the construction of the Science Complex in Allston will result in more than $860 million in losses in expected economic activity over the next three years.

Allston, Mass. resident Harry Mattison said that the report’s findings were not surprising to him, because “Allston residents see and live these broken promises every day.” “Walking past the empty buildings, it’s more depressing than the numbers of the report,” Mattison said. “It’s seeing the abandonment of the neighborhood—that’s experiencing it in the flesh.”

Wayne M. Langley, director of higher education for SEIU Local 615, said that SEIU commissioned the report to determine the implications of major universities’ financial situations, which affect many of the union’s members. Langley added that he believes the universities were not the “victims that they pretended” to be in the financial crisis. “I hope it leads to real debate about who was responsible and how to protect loyal staffs, both union and non-union, who bore the brunt of this.”

Florida State Attorney Bill Cervone released a partial judgment Friday stating the U. Florida Police officers who shot a Ghanaian graduate student in his on-campus apartment will not face any illegal action.

Cervone based his judgment on the completed Florida Department of Law Enforcement internal investigation.

The judgment gives UF the ability to complete its own internal affairs investigation, which is being independently reviewed by Margolis Healy & Associates, a campus safety organization, according to a statement released Friday by university spokeswoman Janine Sikes.

Cervone has yet to announce judgment on the student, 35-year-old Kofi Adu-Brempong, who currently faces charges of one count of second-degree aggravated assault and one count of third-degree resisting arrest with violence.

In his statement, Cervone acknowledged UPD’s right to enter the residence, as the officers had a legitimate reason to believe Adu-Brempong might have hurt himself inside.

“Had that action not been taken and had he or others come to harm because of inaction,” he said, “…an equal or stronger issue as to the propriety of police inaction would doubtless have been raised.”

Cervone added that it is not his place to review crisis procedure, just the legality of the action. He said questions of policy were best left to community discussion.

He also found no reason to charge the officers for their use of force, citing that “No one else, civilian or otherwise, was in a position to hear anything directly relevant to those events other than Adu-Brempong,” adding that the student’s credibility was tarnished by his apparent unstable mental health.

Under Florida law, anyone has the right to use deadly force against someone who appears threatening. Cervone reasoned the police reports were concurrent with that law.

Cervone ended his statement with a call to put the issue to rest.

“I would like to assure those who are concerned about the time required for this process to be completed,” he said, “that all involved, including Adu-Brempong’s defense team, have been in frequent and productive contact.”

Cervone said more information will be released as his decisions are reached. In the mean time, he said, community interaction should be continued within the proper public forum.

“[A]ll involved should be cognizant of the dangers of drawing conclusions before facts are established,” he said.

A few days ago, I was browsing Facebook and saw something that peaked my curiosity. I clicked on a link which he qualified with, “No one is safe… dear God…” Little did I know the shock and dismay I was about to experience regarding my personal information, in other words, way TMI (too much information) about myself.

Upon clicking the link for Spokeo.com, I was brought onto a happy-looking, social media-esque search engine which allows users to search names, e-mails, phone numbers and friends. The quote below this search engine pretty much sums up the site: “Not your grandma’s phonebook.”

Of course, being naturally curious, I searched my own name and found my address, a map of where I live, my phone number, and the option to e-mail me. This was only within the first few lines of a very long and detailed profile on yours truly.

Information on my relationship status, my credit rating, amount of income in my household, the music stations I created on Pandora, my interests and hobbies all came bouncing off the page and into my deer-in-headlights stare. While some of the information displayed was inaccurate, the option to pay a mere $2.95 a year was offered to receive my entire, unrestricted profile.

DePaul U. senior Romell Downer, 25, searched himself on the website and was equally as shocked.

“I feel like this is an invasion of privacy,” he said. “Certain things should remain private. How should you be able to search for yourself, or anybody, and be able to see what information is going to pop up? It could be anything.”

Spokeo touts itself as “a search engine specialized in organizing people-related information from phone books, social networks, marketing lists, business sites, and other public sources.” It justifies itself by explaining how all of this information is already public and they just sort it all out to serve up detailed personal information on a shiny, silver platter.

However, this public information service they provide isn’t necessarily the one-stop-shop for accuracy. “The most striking thing I saw about the site was how inaccurate the information was when I searched for people I knew,” said Robin Burke, DePaul associate professor of the College of Computing and Digital Media.

While the website has been around since 2006, Spokeo has progressed in its information-getting ventures ever since. The website can now even “automatically detect online identities associated with e-mails and URLs.”

The website does offer an option to delete your profile from its database in the privacy settings. However, this opt-out requires your valid e-mail address, which then requires you to validate the deletion through an e-mail sent to you.

Also, the website does not promise anything in terms of security as far as what hands your information may already have reached. “Please note that removing your Spokeo listing from public searches does not remove your information from the third-party data sources.”

As far as where the information is being gathered from, the possibilities are endless. A Spokeo’s blog published on April 27 stated that Facebook was removed from its list of supported networks. Facebook is out for now, but Twitter, Yelp, Last.fm, Flickr, Xanga, and MySpace are among the social networking sites which do participate and share information.

While it’s still a mystery where this specific information is coming from, another Spokeo blog posting on March 23 stated the following: “We are busy working on a new feature that would reveal where every piece of information comes from, as well as how you can take steps to remove these public information.”

The vast array of issues and problems this kind of “social networking” incites are endless. Sites such as Spokeo are ever-endangering the public by their exploitation of public information. Regardless of where else this can be found, there needs to be a limitation to the access of personal information that social media sites are deciding that they have the right to.

While there are options such as ReputationDefender that offers varied paid subscription programs for keeping your information off the Internet, the less costly option is going through and adjusting your privacy settings for every social media website you participate in.

Seal the toothpaste and shampoo in zip-close bags, remove your laptop from its carrying case, take spare change out from your pockets, take off shoes and jacket, place your carry-on items in bins to be X-rayed, walk through metal detector and strip and remain calm while strangers inspect your naked body for possible threats. Board your plane and have a nice flight.

You don’t have to take your clothes off, but airport body scanners provide a complete stranger with a visual of your naked body. Of course, there are features of this imaging technology that protect your privacy, according to the Transportation Security Administration website. The officer who analyzes the image is in an isolated location, millimeter wave technology blurs out facial characteristics, and the image is automatically deleted (supposedly). Although the images are meant to be just an outline of the human body, some reports say breasts, buttocks and sexual organs are visible.

It’s OK if people see us naked as long as it helps keep us safe from all those terrorists roaming the airports, right? Besides, you have a choice. If you dislike the idea of someone being able to see body parts that you normally cover in public, or don’t want to be exposed to potentially harmful radiation, you can have another stranger grope you and pat you down like a criminal.

Between privacy rights and safety concerns, the scales are tilting more toward safety. However, I for one, am not keen on giving up personal liberties and privacy. I’m tired of the government spreading fear to restrict the freedom of its people. These body scanners can only reveal items hidden underneath clothing. When people’s intent on harming others gets around this by concealing threatening objects inside their bodies, what will follow? Body cavity searches?

The American Civil Liberties Union website refers to the scanning as a virtual “strip-search,” insisting such screening measures be used only when there is probable cause. It also raises the question as to whether the technology could have “detected the ‘anatomically congruent’ explosives Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab hid in his underwear.” It concludes that although it is the government’s duty to protect its citizens, we should not give up “our privacy for ineffective policies.”

Some bloggers claim that these searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, since it subjects passengers to unreasonable searches. The amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Another concern is that we don’t know the personal integrity of the agents viewing the images, as there have already been complaints about airport staff security abusing the scanners. A Miami International Airport employee, Ronaldo Negrin, was arrested after allegedly attacking a co-worker who had made fun of the size of Negrin’s genitalia.

A similar incident published in The Register occurred in London, when a female security operative accidentally stepped into a body scanner and a male co-worker scanned her and made remarks about her anatomy. If this goes on with co-workers, what’s to stop them from looking critically at our bodies? And do we really know that these images are being deleted and not stored for some alternative purposes?

I wear clothes in public for a reason, and don’t feel comfortable with the idea of strangers seeing an image of my naked body, nor with the possibility that there are some perverts out there that get off on seeing these images, especially when it comes to children. The scanners break UK child porn laws, therefore they do not scan anyone under 18.

So next time I fly, assuming body scanners have not become mandatory, I’d rather go through the cumbersome but familiar pat-down (adherence to Islamic dress code automatically grants me this special treatment without any other probable suspicion) instead of performing a virtual strip for a stranger.

College students and recent graduates have become prime targets for unrealistic job listings and DePaul U. students are no exception.

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), open job boards have been infested with scam artists looking for new victims. Offenders consider college students and recent graduates as ideal candidates for the job and money making scams because of the desire for quick cash.

“It allows for anyone to post any new opportunity,”DePaul  junior Zachary Stafford said. “I think it keeps up with our society’s new ideals around information instant gratification.”

Job boards such as Craigslist, Monster, Bing and Career Builder have all been sources for con artists to target the youth of a jobless America. However, each board claims that they are not involved in any transactions done and therefore cannot be held accountable.

“I’ve seen listings for easy money,” Steven Young said. “I’m always so tempted, but something inside of me says ‘don’t bother.'”

A recent victim of a scam (that did not want to be identified) stated that the criminals who post these listings usually live in a completely different state and are asking for an immediate hire. They use jobs such as personal assistant, mystery shopper and office clerk to get individuals intrigued.

DePaul junior Brandon Bailey agreed that along with the promise of a quick hiring process comes the enticing allure of easy money that can be directly deposited into your bank account. Professional con artists make the process seem authentic and demanding in time so that an individual rushes in making a possible life changing decision.

“I sent them my resume and within the hour I received a response,” DePaul freshman Katie Sneed said (alias per request). “I thought it was weird, but I really needed a job and thought that this was the answer to my prayers.”

Sneed said that an immediate response entails the notification of hire and the description of what is to be expected from your newly found position without an interview.

Craigslist offers scam recognition in which they describe ways to spot a con artist. The job board concludes that the criminals’ demands generally consist of requesting your personal information such as: name, phone number, address and possibly your bank account number while promising cashier’s checks and money grams.

“We have to realize that these things do occur and if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is,” Bailey said. “Someone sent a friend of mine a message saying that they liked his resume for a personal assistant position and they sent him a check to cover expenses, half his payment, and half the payment for outside sourcing. He was sent a certified check for just over $3,500 that ended up bouncing.”

There are actions taking place to change the access these scam artists have to open job boards. The FTC recently announced at a conference on Feb. 17 a new method in cracking down on these criminals.

Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, David C. Vladeck, stated that scam artists are tricking job seekers into parting with their last dollars.

“Operation Bottom Dollar” has brought to close 11 cases of scams that deal with open job boards. However, this ruling only temporarily bars the con artists’ illegal tactics in money making. The FTC is also in the process of negotiating terms that would allow reimbursement to the victims of such criminal activity.

“Federal and state law enforcement officials will not tolerate those who take advantage of consumers in times of economic misfortune,” Vladeck said.

Sneed stated that open job boards were just sites that helped people find jobs.

“When I found out it was a scam it was too late,” she said. “I cut off all communication possible [with the con artist] because there wasn’t much else I could do I guess, except cry.”

Filing a complaint at https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/ or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP provides the Federal Trade Commission with the tools to continue to crack down on criminals and keep job searches safe.

Dr. Rand Paul (son of Dr. Ron Paul) of Kentucky secured the Republican nomination for the United States Senate last Tuesday. His nomination has sparked a media firestorm. Jack Conway, the Democratic nominee for Senate, claims that Rand Paul plans to “repeal” the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He cites an interview Paul did with Kentucky’s Courier-Journal Editorial Board. I found the video Conway references and at no point does Paul ever call for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nor could I locate any video of Paul calling for such action.

Paul’s position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act is clear: he supports nine of the 10 sections that dealt with removing discrimination by the government. The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of institutionalized racism on the part of the government; the majority of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did was remove any government discrimination. However, Title II of the act deals with discrimination by “public accommodations” which gets into how private business owners can run their businesses.

Specifically, 42 U.S.C. §2000a states: “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion or national origin.”

This is the part of the act that Paul has an objection with. While he does not support racism in any form, he strongly believes in private ownership.

Business owners ought to be able to run their businesses the way they want. This position does in no way, shape or form endorse racism. As Paul said, “We should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation.”

There is a big difference between supporting people’s right to act a certain way and supporting their actual actions. The First Amendment is a great example of this; while many people believe strongly in our First Amendment rights, that doesn’t mean that they agree with what everybody says.

“In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior,” Paul said.

This is exactly the spirit of America. We are a country that allows people to express their views, even if we disagree with them. Similarly, we should allow places of public accommodation to be run as their owners see fit, but if in the case they make what we determine to be poor decisions (discrimination based on race for example) then we can boycott them and speak out against them.

An interesting argument that Paul raised is the controversy with Starbucks allowing people to carry firearms into their stores where it is legal. Some customers have called for Starbucks to prohibit firearms from being carried into their stores, regardless of whether it is legal or not. I’m very much pro-second amendment, but even I think that if Starbucks wants to prohibit their customers from carrying firearms into their stores, that they should be able to. However, this thinking conflicts with the thinking of people who believe places of public accommodation should not be able to discriminate based on race; either the government controls how businesses are run and prohibits discrimination, or the government allows businesses to be run by their owners and leaves the decisions up to them.

One of the reasons why I wanted to share this story is because I think it is somewhat typical of recent political discussions on race. Racial discrimination is still a serious problem in this country and I recognize that. I also recognize however, that in order to move past racial discrimination we need to be able to talk about race openly and respectfully. When people like Paul speak about racial discrimination (and are even opposed to it) but get derailed by any seemingly discriminatory views, it undermines the entire movement to eliminate racial discrimination. I think we need more open discussions on race and not less, and that’s only going to happen if people are open-minded.

This March, Richard Grenell, a former spokesman for the United Nations (UN), lamented that new health care reform legislation in the United States would further enable a generation of slackers.

Health care reform, which passed into law on March 23, 2010, will allow young people to stay on their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26, beginning six months after enactment. Prior to the reform bill, depending on their state of residence, most young adults were required to seek their own health insurance coverage once they turned 19 or were no longer full-time students.

“Generation Y and millenials will be enticed to continue slacking, without a job, well past college graduation,” Grenell wrote in a column for the Huffington Post.

“I think it’s nonsense,” said Robert Moore, Ph.D., assistant professor of sociology at Saint Joseph’s U., in reference to Grenell’s prediction. Grenell’s claims that Generation Y is the most entitled generation in history “are painting with a very broad brush,” Moore said.

“There are derogatory stereotypes that this generation is the boomerang generation: that they leave but then always come back home,” Moore says. “But the job menu looks very different now from when I graduated college in 1977.”

Moore added that those who are critical probably come from a different era—in which it was easier to find a job after graduation.

Rather than looking at the stipulation in the health care bill as a negative, Moore said students’ job searches could be affected positively by the bill, serving as a cushion for young people to be able to build up a record and expertise in their field without having to worry about insurance.

“If there is a great concern over insurance, you might not take a job in your field because it lacks benefits, but take a job which isn’t but has them,” he said.

Laura Hurst, MSN, director of the Student Health Center at Saint Joseph’s University, pointed out the advantages of being able to stick with mom and dad’s insurance.

“Usually parents’ plans include group coverage because they’re covered by work,” Hurst says. “They can be much cheaper. The idea is that some people will use more, some not at all.”

Hurst said that although college and graduate school-age people are a generally healthy population, they have been the group most at risk for not being covered by insurance and neglecting treatment. Hurst said she thinks the bill could help establish habits of preventative treatment.

For Mary Alysse Metzger, a psychology major, landing a job with benefits is important, but the new health care bill makes such a job less essential.

“I am still looking for a job with benefits if possible, although it’s not my most important factor,” Metzger said. “I am not as stressed, though, because there is still that chance I can fall back on my dad’s insurance.”

English major Jennifer Burrini, has been paying for her own health insurance since she was 18 but thinks that the bill will benefit many of her peers, noting that “being approved by a comprehensive plan for an affordable price is hard.”

“It takes some of the pressure off of those of us just finding jobs and settling into our career paths that may not offer full coverage,” Burrini said. “Knowing that you have that security to fall back on is nice. It makes the process just a bit easier.”

Marketing major Tracie Jones, also said she feels some relief.

“I’m still looking for a job with benefits,” Jones said. “But I don’t have to worry about getting a job right after graduation. I have a place to live at home, and now my health insurance is taken care of.”

Humans might be getting the calcium in their bones from somewhere a bit more cosmic than milk, according to U. California-Berkeley scientists.

A new type of supernova may explain the large amounts of calcium in the universe and in the human body, according to a study published May 20 in the scientific journal Nature.

The supernova, SN 2005E, was originally discovered five years ago by UC Berkeley’s Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope. It is one of eight known calcium-rich supernovae, according to Alex Filippenko, a UC Berkeley professor of astronomy and one of the study’s 28 co-authors.

Scientists analyzed the light from SN 2005E and found that the explosion could not be explained given what is understood about currently known supernovae.

“The explosion could not be interpreted in the standard context of normal stellar explosions,” Filippenko said in an e-mail. “The observed characteristics differ significantly from those of normal types of supernovae, suggesting that the explosion mechanism was different.”

Supernovae are divided into two classes based on their optical spectra according to Brad Cenko, a UC Berkeley postdoctoral fellow and co-author of the study.

Type 1a supernovae are thought to result from smaller, older “white dwarf” stars that have a small mass, become unstable and release energy that unbinds the star and ejects material at high speeds.

Type II supernovae, also known as core-collapse supernovae, result from the explosion of massive and short-lived stars that leave behind black holes or neutron stars.

Filippenko said the new discovery provides scientists with a more complete understanding of the endpoints of stellar lives.

Initially, the object looked as if it was the explosion of a massive star – similar to core-collapse supernovae – but after detailed analysis, scientists concluded it was the explosion of a white dwarf star, though this star had exploded in a manner different than other exploding white dwarfs.

According to the study, the original star was a white dwarf stealing helium from a companion star until its mass became very hot and dense, causing a nuclear explosion.

According to Filippenko, SN 2005E stands out not only because it does not fit into either of the two classifications of supernovae, but also because it produced an unusually large amount of calcium.

Researchers concluded that about half the mass thrown out of the explosion was calcium, meaning a few occurrences of such supernovae every 100 years could account for the large amounts of calcium in our galaxy and in all life on Earth.

“Although it is a bit early to know for sure, the discovery of SN 2005E could have several broader implications for astronomy,” Cenko said in an e-mail. “The unique nucleosynthetic products from this explosion could help solve some outstanding puzzles regarding observed overabundances of these elements in our galaxy.”

Many of the co-authors of the paper, including Filippenko and Cenko, are involved with the Palomar Transient Factory in conducting a comprehensive exploration of the universe.

“We hope to be able to find further examples of supernovae like SN 2005E, as well as other new and exotic transient phenomena,” Cenko said in the e-mail. “The universe is, after all, full of surprises!”

U. California-Berkeley is used to getting a lot of attention for its scientific breakthroughs. It is also used to getting a lot of flak on issues of scientific ethics. Although these questions often relate to serious issues, such as a multi-million dollar deal with an oil company or a professor who denies that HIV causes AIDS, last week saw a storm of nationwide controversy based on … a cotton swab.

Perhaps that oversimplifies the issue too much. The theme for the College of Letters and Science’s On the Same Page (OSP) program for incoming freshmen will be personalized medicine. The most notable aspect of the program is a cheek swab for DNA that would analyze how well participants can tolerate alcohol, metabolize lactose and absorb folic acid.

Genetic testing is an issue of legitimate controversy. For example, access to one’s genetic information can allow insurance companies to discriminate against those predisposed to certain diseases. Those suspicious of the OSP program have also raised concerns regarding the lack of personalized genetic counseling.

The concern over this genetic test is overblown. This program offers a relevant platform for students to engage the very questions of bioethics that the critics are so concerned about. And it appeals to science-oriented students who would’ve felt left out by the more humanities-oriented OSP offerings of the past.

These critics may have had a point if the gene markers tested for how likely one was to develop cancer or heart disease. But in fact, the markers are for innocuous conditions that do not indicate the likelihood of developing a disease.

Moreover, the campus Institutional Review Board has approved the program, indicating it meets basic ethical standards for informed consent. The testing is confidential: Its design makes it difficult for anybody to be able to match the results to a particular student.

Genetics has been a loaded issue for more than a century, so this controversy is not surprising. But it is unfortunate that a safe program with strong educational potential would inspire such vocal opposition.