As Harvard sought to bookend its massive cheating investigation with an announcement last Friday, students implicated in the scandal said the new information raised more questions than it answered.

On Friday morning, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith sent an email to the Harvard community to offer what he called “a few final, general words” on the academic integrity investigation that has rocked Harvard’s campus for the past five months.

Smith’s email concerned the Administrative Board’s investigation of about 125 students in last spring’s Government 1310: “Introduction to Congress” who were accused of cheating on the class’s take-home final. He was writing, he said, “to shine a bright light on the important issue of academic integrity and what we are doing on this issue.”

In his announcement, Smith reported that more than half of the implicated students—a figure that translates to approximately 70 undergraduates—were forced to temporarily withdraw from the College following the Ad Board’s investigation. Smith wrote that of the remaining investigated students, half received probation, while the other half received no punishment.

Even so the email did not name the class and provided no precise numbers about how many students were disciplined.

One investigated student, whose case resulted in probation, said he was disappointed by the contents of Smith’s message.

“I think that it was a bunch of fluff, had absolutely no significant content, and trivialized how unfairly every student involved was treated,” said the student, who was granted anonymity by The Crimson because he was worried about retaliation from administrators.

Smith provided the details about the distribution of punishments nearly 800 words into his email, following a lengthy explanation of the general purpose and procedures of the Ad Board. Some students said they did not immediately realize Smith’s email concerned the cheating scandal.

“I didn’t even read all the way through the email because I thought it was just another administrative announcement,” said Emily J. Reese ’14, who took Government 1310 last spring and was not investigated by the Ad Board. “I deleted it right away.”

Several accused students said the email also failed to address lingering questions about the scandal, the way it was handled, and what criteria were used to reach their decisions.

The father of a varsity athlete implicated in the scandal said he was frustrated that the email did not acknowledge the mistakes that he believes Harvard made over the course of the investigation.

“I find the whole letter insulting and offensive,” said the man, whose son lost NCAA eligibility after he was forced to withdraw late in the fall term. “There’s been no acknowledgment of [Harvard’s] responsibility.”

In his email, Smith wrote that due to the “unprecedented number and complexity of cases,” some students did not receive their verdicts until December, more than three months after the investigation was announced.

Delays in the investigation also caused concern among implicated students about tuition payments. According to the student handbook, students who withdrew from the College for any reason this past fall were required to pay tuition in increasing increments up to $18,788 after the Sept. 11 study card day. But to “create greater financial equity” for students who received their decisions later than others, Smith announced in his email Friday that anyone who was asked to withdraw after Sept. 30 would be issued refunds for all tuition paid past that date.

The father of the accused varsity athlete, as well as another implicated student, said that while they appreciated Harvard’s gesture, they questioned its timing, saying that the move seemed like a last-minute public relations effort.

The latter student, who was notified in late August that his case would go before the Ad Board, said Smith’s email came too late for him. Last fall, he decided to withdraw even before his case was heard so that he would not be a financial burden on his family.

“I had to make a hard decision with my family and withdraw, which included implicitly admitting to something I did not do, because I couldn’t be sure when my case was going to be heard,” he said. “My biggest consideration in terms of withdrawing was the tuition increase.”

That student said he was dismayed when he learned of Smith’s email, which was sent to the Harvard community around 11 a.m. Friday morning. He had been notified of Harvard’s decision to reimburse his tuition earlier that morning, just hours before Smith sent his message to the Harvard community, according to a copy of the student’s letter obtained by The Crimson.

In an emailed statement, Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesperson Jeff Neal declined to comment on when Harvard made its decision to partially refund tuition for students who were required to withdraw.

“Communications about tuition, fees and financial aid are between the College and students and their families,” he wrote.

Who would have thought that a zombie could be the next fictional heartthrob? In that vein, who would have thought that a zombie’s heart could even have a throb? “Warm Bodies”, directed by Jonathan Levine who previously turned a potentially depressing cancer story into the comedic drama “50/50” (2011), is a surprisingly funny and romantic take on the zombie film.

The romantic comedy, adapted from Isaac Marion’s novel of the same name, is told through the eyes of R, perhaps the most charismatic zombie to ever exist on−screen. Nicholas Hoult absolutely shines as R — who can’t remember his own name, except for its first letter −— and whose wide−eyed innocence and shy but likeable persona make him easy to root for. R self−describes his “boring” life to viewers through a series of witty voiceovers that reveal that zombies not only have conscious thoughts, but are also capable of having emotions. “I’m lonely, I’m lost,” R laments in his inner monologue as he is shown wasting away each day wandering around a rundown airport. “I mean I’m literally lost, I’ve never been in this part of the airport before.”

The story is a post−apocalyptic “Romeo and Juliet”: two people from vastly different backgrounds fall for each other. R meets human survivor Julie (Teresa Palmer) when her friends’ raid for medical supplies goes awry. He feels an instant attraction to her even before eating the brain, and therefore gaining the memories, of her boyfriend Perry (Dave Franco). Instead of making her his next meal, R brings Julie back to his airplane−home to protect her, and the two begin an unconventional friendship. They bond over old vinyl records, drive a red sports car up and down the landing strip and boom — there goes his supposedly undead heart: it beats.

Viewers will likely identify with R’s adorably meek attempts to get closer to Julie, his love interest. “Don’t be creepy. Don’t be creepy. Don’t be creepy,” he thinks as he catches himself staring at her again.

But their relationship isn’t easy, as Julie’s dad (John Malkovich) is a general who leads a zombie−slaying army. Understandably, the bitter general absolutely does not want his daughter to be in the presence of, let alone fall in love with, a brain−munching corpse. He firmly declares that the zombies are “unfeeling” and “incapable of remorse,” but R and Julie hope to use their growing emotional connection as counterproof. And of course, there’s a balcony scene, and Julie’s best friend, Nora (Analeigh Tipton) wants to be a nurse. These are parallels that don’t even take the characters’ names into account.

The film is refreshingly humorous, and both R and best friend M (Rob Corddry) prompt numerous laughs, despite only being able to communicate with body language, moans and the occasional one−word grunt. The undead Corddry in particular gives a new meaning to the phrase “deadpan humor”, and delivers a number of laugh−out−loud one−liners.

Analeigh Tipton, “America’s Next Top Model” alumna and “Crazy, Stupid, Love.” (2011), actress exhibits a knack for comedic timing which is much more developed in “Warm Bodies” than in it is in any of her previous films.

The film only has a handful of action sequences, but the storyline of R and Julie’s budding romance is more interesting than the killing scenes anyway. The movie also gets bonus points just for trying to step out of the zombie box, a genre that has taken over the entertainment world. The soundtrack also has a unique twist to it; the clever guy who chose Bruce Springsteen’s “Hungry Heart” deserves a pat on the back.

“Warm Bodies” isn’t perfect. The second half of the film is less entertaining than the first, and the conclusion is a bit too convenient. Hardcore zombie film purists may hunger for more blood and gore, but the movie overall is a delicious treat that doesn’t need piles of guts to generate suspense and emotion; “Warm Bodies” already has heart. This is the perfect date movie for Valentine’s Day, as guys and girls will both find entertainment in the undead−fight scenes, the romantic tension and the hilarious enigma that is Corddry’s M. The star−crossed lovers’ journey is a definitely a satisfyingly fun one to follow.

Among the highly skeptical political appointments over the past month, Chuck Hagel’s appointment to the secretary of defense position has been the most controversial. Why is that?

Hagel, a former republican U.S. senator from Nebraska, is a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran and a recipient of two Purple Hearts.

Hagel has mostly stayed conservative over his career in politics on issues ranging from abortion to school prayer and school vouchers. Be that as it may, his track record on foreign policy and defense is somewhat liberal.

Hagel called on his military experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee in the late 1990s to support a treaty against land mines and accused the Bush administration of a “cavalier approach” to the rest of the world in the months leading up to the Iraq War.

The current Georgetown University professor has long been considered an isolationist in regard to foreign policy. In 2002, he wrote that the U.S. should be inspiring allies to work on “making a better world” as opposed to ruling by a sense of “divine mission,” particularly when accusing a country of having weapons of mass destruction without clear evidence — something Hagel was clearly skeptical of.

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Thursday brought together a shameful narrow spectrum of ideas, and here’s why: With the plethora of unique opinions Hagel has held on various issues, the most overwhelming topic of discussion wasn’t his support of chemical weapons in 1997, nor was it his opposition to 2007 surge in Iraq. No, it was Israel.

Conservatives, such as Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Republican Sen. John McCain, stamped Hagel as the biggest threat to Israel’s national security in ages, claiming he was soft on terrorism and a modest supporter of the Israel state. Democrats bombarded Hagel with questions, using the hearing as a time to exhibit their full-fledged support of Israel.

Hagel claimed that, above all, he was a U.S. Senator, not an Israeli senator. This, of course, is referring to the Hagel’s controversial opinion that the influential “Jewish lobby” intimidates lawmakers into supporting Israel’s foreign policy, even if it’s detrimental to U.S. interests.

Israeli lobbying has been a large part of American politics since the beginning of the 20th century. After all, Zionist lobbying in the U.S. aided in the creation of the State of Israel in 1947-48.

Our Middle East ally has received the most U.S. foreign assistance — mostly in the form of military aid — of any other country in the world: roughly $115 billion. This comprises only a small percentage of the U.S. budget every year, but when everything is on the chopping block — or supposed to be — it’s hard to look away from such a substantial cash flow.

Lobbying groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Christians United for Israel funnel millions of dollars into American campaigns each year. Organizations such as AIPAC and CUFI spend countless hours traveling to Congressional offices of both parties just before appropriations take place, keeping checks on those who are beginning to waver their support.

The consequence of lost support is a flood of donations to a candidate’s opponent in the next election. At a time when donations and special interest have clouded honorable campaign tactics, this has simply added fuel to the fire.

These claims simply define the background of Hagel’s argument and they don’t necessarily represent my opinions. However, Hagel does represent a new era of American defense — one that is beginning to represent our generation, one that is a bit more isolationist-friendly and one that begins to question our previous ties to other countries.

Because what’s the point of staying true to traditional conformity when it’s not questioned once in a while?

If Israel needs $2-3 billion of our tax money every year to comfortably defend our nation’s best interest, then so be it. Our mutual allegiance is an integral and strategically unique piece in the puzzle of world affairs.

If not, it may be beneficial to bring some back to those suffering within our own borders.

After a game of scoring sprees and slumps, No. 3 Indiana emerged with a 81-73 home upset of the top-ranked Michigan Wolverines that will likely elevate the Hoosiers back to No. 1 themselves.

Sophomore forward Cody Zeller, with 19 points, led a balanced IU offense that saw all five starters reach double figures.

The first eight attempts for the Hoosiers, across all shooting categories, were perfect. Zeller started the party with a pair of free throws before six straight IU field goal attempts, four of them from 3-pint range, sank through the net.

Freshman guard Kevin “Yogi” Ferrell was responsible for a pair of the long shots as he continues to show an improved outside jumper as the season wears on.

With a 28-13 lead less than halfway through the period, IU seemed almost too in-control before Michigan reeled off a 10-0 to close within two possessions and remind everyone of its top ranking.

Even the crowd, loud and rowdy from well before tipoff through the early scoring spree, was deflated, until a 3-pointer by senior guard Jordan Hulls injected enthusiasm back into the masses and ended the Wolverine run.

Michigan continued to chip away at the lead, though, and a 3-pointer by Trey Burke, who had 14 first-half points, cut the lead to less than five points for the first time since the opening three minutes.

The second half opened with more of the same, Michigan cutting the lead to two, then one, then a tie on consecutive possessions.

The score deadlocked for the first times since tipoff, IU reeled off another run to take a lead, scoring 11 straight points on a combination of contested jumpers and nifty moves in traffic. Junior guard Victor Oladipo’s successful and-one on an under-the-basket move and another Hulls 3-pointer seemed to give IU the momentum once again.

Much like in the first half, though, Michigan responded with a methodical run of its own to slice away at the lead, their workman-like effort cutting the lead back within two points.

IU was highlighted in the stretch with a failed alley-oop attempt from Hulls to Oladipo.

Zeller had a pair of put-back dunks to boost the lead back to six. The teams traded baskets for a few minutes, before an increasingly desperate Wolverine squad forced several shots as the IU lead built back up and time ran down.

Playing all five starters late despite the lead, IU rode out a battle of free throws to the victory and, come Monday, quite possibly the No. 1 ranking.

In sharp contrast to the speedy and near-unanimous Jan. 29 confirmation of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) for secretary of state, Georgetown professor and former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) faced a contentious first day of questioning Thursday at his hearing for secretary of defense.

Hagel testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which consists of 14 Democrats and 12 Republicans. Although Hagel is a Republican, some of his most vocal critics since Obama nominated him Jan. 7 have been fellow party members. Some Democrats on the committee also voiced concern with Hagel’s nomination at the hearing.

The first criticisms of Hagel came in the opening statements from committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

While Levin noted Hagel’s service in the Vietnam War, he also criticized the former senator’s willingness to engage in talks with Iran as well his stance on U.S. relations with Israel.

Inhofe expressed dissent towards the nomination, saying that he and Hagel are “too philosophically opposed.”

“Sen. Hagel’s record is deeply troubling and out of the mainstream,” Inhofe said.

Hagel had support, however, from former Chairmen of the Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and John Warner (R-Va.), who introduced him prior to his own remarks.

“War for Chuck Hagel is not an abstraction,” Nunn said. “I’m confident that if he is confirmed, he will ask the tough questions.”

If confirmed, Hagel would be the first enlisted person and first Vietnam War veteran to be secretary of defense.

In his opening statement, Hagel said that as secretary of defense he would focus on counterterrorism and training Afghan forces in addition to enforcing his policy of prevention —as opposed to containment — of Iranian nuclear capability.

He also stressed his commitment to the men and women in the armed forces.

“Their safety success and welfare will always be at the forefront of the decisions I make,” he said.

Once the committee began its questioning, the hearing atmosphere became more heated.

Several senators grilled Hagel on Israel, but he emphasized that his record shows a clear support of the country and said that he had never voted against Israel in his 12 years in the Senate.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) countered Hagel’s statements by bringing up a letter that expressed support for Israel.

“The lack of signature [on that letter] by you sends chills up my spine,” Graham said.

Another recurring theme was Iran. Hagel came under fire following his nomination for his beliefs that the United States should engage with Iran, which has been called a state sponsor of terrorism.

“Engagement is not appeasement. Engagement is not surrender,” Hagel said at his hearing.

.Nuclear disarmament, particularly Hagel’s involvement with Global Zero — an  organization pushing for the elimination of nuclear weapons — and a report co-authored by him in 2012 was called into question by several senators.

“I’m uneasy about that vision expressed in your committee report,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said.

However, Hagel’s most difficult moment may have been Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) questioning regarding the military surge in Iraq, which sent over 20,000 troops abroad in 2007.

“I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer,” Hagel said on whether the surge was correct or incorrect. “I’ll defer that judgment to history.”

“I think history has already made a judgment on the surge and I think you’re on the wrong side of it,” McCain said.

Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was one of the few senators today who openly expressed support for Hagel and said that he would vote for the nominee.

If Hagel’s confirmation is approved by the committee, it will be brought to a full vote in the Senate, where politicians from both parties have pledged support. The Wall Street Journal predicts that Hagel’s confirmation may take several weeks. Proceedings will continue next Thursday.

Playing in its first game ranked No. 1 in the country in 21 years, the Michigan men’s basketball team certainly looked the part.

Despite playing without their starting center, redshirt junior Jordan Morgan, the Wolverines (7-1 Big Ten, 20-1 overall) used a high-powered attack to jump out to a 15-point halftime lead and never looked back, defeating Northwestern 68-46.

“That was huge for us,” said freshman forward Glenn Robinson III of the first-half run. “It got a lot of people’s confidence up, and coming out on a run like that is always great for the team.”

After trailing 7-5 in the early minutes of the contest, Michigan used hot shooting and a speedy offensive attack to take control against the Wildcats (3-6, 12-10). Sparked by 14 consecutive points from freshmen, the Wolverines electrified Crisler Center with an 18-4 run, which included two 3-pointers from freshman guard Nik Stauskas and two dunks from Robinson.

By the end of its run, Michigan had connected on 10 of its first 11 shots and sank all three of its shots from behind the arc.

“Northwestern gave us different looks … so it was important to get into the middle and kick it out to the open man,” said sophomore guard Trey Burke.

The Wolverines, who played as close to mistake-free basketball as possible in the first half, held a 36-21 advantage at halftime. Led by Burke’s 10 points and six assists on 4-of-6 shooting, Michigan entered intermission with 10 assists and no turnovers, while committing just one foul.

The freshman trio of Robinson, Stauskas and McGary combined to shoot 9-of-10 from the field in the opening stanza, totaling 23 points. Stauskas had three of the team’s five makes from downtown.

“(In the first half), the assist numbers were really something,” said Michigan coach John Beilein. “Trey set the tone early. He found Nik, he found (junior guard) Tim (Hardaway Jr.), he found the big men — he did a tremendous job. That’s really how we have to play.”

The Wolverines came out of the locker room a little flat, and Northwestern took advantage, cutting Michigan’s lead to nine points in the opening minutes of the second half. Even after Beilein called a timeout five minutes into the stanza, the Wolverines continued to display a lack of intensity.

But with a 10-point lead with seven minutes gone by in the second period, the Wolverines revved up their energy. Sparked by four straight points from Burke, and hounding team defense, Michigan went on an 18-7 run to stretch its lead to 21 points with six minutes remaining in the game.

“I think that we just needed to step up defensively, and that’s what we did,” Robinson said.

Northwestern never got closer than 19 points the rest of the game. Though Michigan’s shooting wavered late in the contest, the Wolverines kept up their defensive intensity, applying pressure up until the final minutes of the game.

The Wildcats shot just 37 percent from the field, connecting on four of their 19 3-point attempts. They were led on the offensive end by center Alex Olah. The freshman totaled 10 points and three rebounds and was the only player on Northwestern to reach double-digit points.

Burke ended the contest with game highs of 18 points and eight assists, and turned the ball over only once — half of Michigan’s season-low two giveaways.

Replacing the injured Morgan in the starting lineup, redshirt sophomore forward Jon Horford finished with a season-high 10 points, seven rebounds and three blocks. He gave a big boost to the Wolverines, scoring all of his points after halftime. McGary came off the bench to contribute a season-high 11 boards and six points.

“(Horford) really performed well,” Beilein said. “He’s doing a better job of playing big and was huge tonight. He got a couple rebounds tonight that only redshirt freshman forward Jon Horford can get.”

America’s veins are filled with the carbonated, sugary sweetness of Coca-Cola.

These soft drinks — the more than 650 products made by Coca-Cola — have become a part of the fabric of America. They are the drinks of our childhood, birthday parties, school lunches and sports games. However, these drinks and those who sell them are also slowly killing us.

American U. is a “Coke university.” Any beverage you purchase at AU is produced by, owned by and is a subsidiary of Coca-Cola. From the Eagle’s Nest to the vending machines to the Terrace Dining Room, AU supports the company behind the largest health crisis in the U.S.

Yet Coca-Cola is now urging Americans to come together to fight obesity. In a latest ad campaign entitled “Coming Together,” a soft female voice extols the efforts of Coca-Cola to be a part of the obesity solution over a slowly building piano sonata and images of school children, families, scientists and flashy graphics.

Don’t buy the deceptive concoction.

It is easy to get lulled by Coke’s coercive advertising. The commercial begins by talking about more than 125 years of Coca-Cola bringing people together and their voluntary efforts to offer low-calorie choices, smaller sizes and healthier options in schools. The narrator proudly states that “All calories count, no matter where they come from, including Coca-Cola and everything else with calories. And if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you’ll gain weight.”

Thank you, Coca-Cola, for that pearl of wisdom.

Behind the smoke and mirrors, there is a company that has created a global brand that is directly linked to higher obesity, diabetes, tooth decay and malnutrition. All calories are not created equal, and the mixture of high-fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors and caffeine that make up many of Coca-Cola’s products are a toxic combination.

I decided to call Coca-Cola to learn more about their campaign against obesity and was reassured that Coca-Cola is 80 to 90 percent water and is part of your daily fluid intake (but not a replacement for water). They forgot to mention the 39 grams of sugar in a 12-ounce Coke, which far exceeds the daily requirements.

Coca-Cola’s duplicity goes beyond a marketing campaign designed to confuse and disorient Americans. Coca-Cola, along with other members of “Big Soda,” have virulently fought efforts to limit the size of soft drinks.

Christine Quinn, a New York City mayoral candidate, has received $10,000 from Coca-Cola, as have many other New York legislators and candidates (Coca-Cola spends millions each year on lobbying as well). Coca-Cola has also brought in the NAACP to fight New York City’s soda ban, despite the fact that obesity disproportionately affects minority communities.

Big Soda was also intimately involved in defeating the proposed D.C. soda tax in 2010, spending over $300,000 for grassroots campaigns, testimony before the city council and likely much more on anti-tax advertisements (that do not need to be reported).

Soft drinks are in many respects the contemporary Big Tobacco. Their coffers are deep, and they are supported by misinformation, denial and millions of dollars in lobbying.

The impact is just as severe. America’s addiction to soft drinks is a public health and food crisis, and blame can be placed squarely on the largest drug-dealer, Coca-Cola.

While Coca-Cola may proclaim that a can of Coke is “140 happy calories,” those 140 calories (all from sugar) are very different from the 140 calories in a banana. The deliberate distortions of Coca-Cola are deplorable but not all that surprising. Coca-Cola’s rebranding effort is a pathetic attempt to extend an addiction of its own creation, an addiction that must end.