I understand some of my peers’ concerns regarding “guns on campus.” From my perspective, their opposition to concealed carry on campus is largely based on fear of further violence, a fear that has been largely misplaced but nonetheless capitalized on by gun control groups at the national level.

But I question this first-response intuition that has been propagated by the mass media. To begin, I want to point out that guns on campus already de facto exist: A person with Concealed Handgun License (CHL) is allowed to carry his or her guns on 21st Street, Dean Keaton, and for that matter, all other public streets, sidewalks and outdoor areas. We attend an open campus where anyone may walk in and out. In this regard, those with CHL are already allowed to have guns on certain parts of campus. Guns are not allowed, however, on University premises, such as buildings and educational facilities.

The equation of guns with violence has been so pervasive in our culture that the possibility of guns curtailing violence is simply lost or rejected. After all, it is harder to prove if guns have prevented crimes than if guns were used to perpetrate crimes. Here are some thoughts and statistics on concealed carry on campus:

1.  According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education’s statistics on campus safety, there were about 1,000 criminal offenses in 2011 across four-year public universities in Texas. Those offenses include: rape, burglary, aggravated assault, robbery and vehicle theft, among others. The question is, should individuals be in control of means for self-defense within reasonable limits against significant campus crimes? I know very little about mental issues, but it occurs to me that a person who is mentally unstable would find means to carry out heinous acts regardless of regulations, if his or her fragile psyche compels such action. Therefore, regulating against the lawful bearing of arms is simply a perverse exclusion of law-abiding citizens from self-defense. Whether you personally agree with the choice of means for self-defense is secondary to the person’s right to choose, especially considering the means in question conform with existing laws regulating concealed carry — namely, through a permitting process.

2. To obtain a CHL in Texas, a person has to complete 10 hours of training on gun laws, proficiency, storage and nonviolent dispute resolutions taught by a Texas Department of Public Safety-certified CHL trainer, on top of strict eligibility requirements that cut out those with criminal backgrounds and psychiatric disorders. The process ensures that only law-abiding citizens are allowed to qualify for concealed carry licenses. TDPS reports that out of all the criminal convictions in Texas in 2011, only 120 out of 63,679, or about 0.2 percent of total criminal convictions, were of CHL holders. This strongly suggests that CHL holders are largely law-abiding citizens who simply want to have a means for self-defense.

3. Existing evidence does not point to a potential influx of guns on campus. Young people ages 18-29 constitute only about one out of every nine CHL applicants in Texas. The dominant college-age group (18-24) constitutes less than 5 percent — about 7,000 in raw numbers — of the total applicant pool in the state of Texas. Thus the notion that somehow universities will be flooded with guns as result of allowing law-abiding faculty and students with a CHL to exercise their right to self-defense is mere illusion and, frankly, demagoguery.

Taking these factors into account, it seems far-fetched to alarm against the sort of “armed matriculation” proposed by another columnist last week.

Over winter break, I was arrested with seven other students for staging a lock-in at the Westborough, Mass. office of the TransCanada Corporation in protest of the Keystone XL pipeline. Bound together with chains, sitting beneath the corporation’s logo and the American flag, we made the point that TransCanada is locking our generation into irreversible climate disaster by pushing forward new fossil fuel infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.

Growing up, I never expected to be arrested for civil disobedience, but today I find myself and my generation in a desperate situation. We are living in a time of great crisis—the climate crisis. The World Bank recently published a report announcing that we are on track to warm the planet up by four degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The report details predictions of intense heat waves, widespread water shortages, massive wildfires, and the disruption of livelihoods around the world. These alarming details, however, are overshadowed by the authors’ terrifying statement that “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world would be possible.”

We may not be able to adapt to global warming. The basis of our civilization could fall out from under our feet within our lifetimes. Everything we have ever worked for—all the cities, the families, the art, the science—could be lost.

Unfortunately, the unbendable rules of chemistry and physics have set a very narrow timeframe for action against the climate crisis. After humans have warmed the planet up a certain amount, we will cross a natural “tipping point,” such as the melting of the arctic tundra and the accompanying release of potent greenhouse gases locked under its surface. After these tipping points, the Earth will begin to warm itself, and any success we have in lowering our own greenhouse gas emissions will not stop the warming. No one knows exactly when the tipping points will arrive, but the International Energy Agency has projected that we will be “locked in” to irreversible climate change in four years because of our continued construction of fossil fuel infrastructure.

Rage boils up inside of me when I look at these numbers because the world did not need to let things go this close to the edge. Scientists have been calling for action for more years than I have been alive, yet our government has failed to act. The costs of inaction grow each day, as the timeframe left to transition to renewables shortens and the impacts of climate change, from last summer’s droughts in the Midwest to Superstorm Sandy, start to take their toll. Even today, our government has failed to act with enough resolve to really solve the problem. Its failure is inexcusable.

If our government will not stop these corporations on the basis of strong scientific and economic arguments, then we must produce the political will to stop them through our actions. The traditional methods of political mobilization—rallies, lobbying, even opinion polls that show 88 percent support for government action on climate change—have failed to overcome the stranglehold that fossil fuel corporations have on our government. Civil disobedience has thus become a logical and necessary next step for the increasingly powerful and desperate climate movement.

Our action in Westborough was not an anomaly but rather an addition to a growing nationwide narrative as more and more people turn to civil disobedience to stop the climate crisis. Over 1,200 activists were arrested for a sit-in against Keystone XL outside the White House, while dozens of Texan activists have taken courageous direct action to prevent and delay construction of the pipeline’s southern leg. Coal mines, natural gas fracking wells, and other fossil fuel infrastructure projects are becoming hotbeds for civil disobedience, as are the offices of the decision-makers who irresponsibly let the projects proceed. In a sign of the times, the Sierra Club recently made the first exception in 120 years to its policy against civil disobedience.

By putting our bodies on the line in acts of peaceful civil disobedience, we are making the ultimate moral statement. The message sent by our sacrifices will reverberate through society until the corporations give up or the government finally finds the political will to stop them.

The task of transitioning to renewable energy may look daunting, but as our acts of civil disobedience make clear, our commitment to survival is non-negotiable.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is the single largest contributor to the Boy Scouts of America, stated that if the Boy Scouts allowed homosexual members then the church would withdraw all financial support from the organization. Accordingly, making a business decision after receiving such pressure from a religious organization, the BSA complied.

This was a paragraph in a column I wrote last July after the Boy Scouts made a public reaffirmation of its anti-homosexual policy after a two year long internal debate. Two years of internal debate must show that they were conflicted to begin with.

Earlier this week the Boy Scout organization has eaten the words it once so firmly stood by last July, saying they plan on revisiting the decision to not allow homosexuals in the organization, and instead leave it up to individual troops to decide.

Already pressure was mounting for the organization to rewrite its policy, at the same time held at gunpoint by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints over potential funding leading to the Boy Scout’s July decision.

Outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other religious funding, there are many corporations that support the Boy Scouts. In the last several months, after the Boy Scout’s reaffirmation of its anti-gay policy, these corporations have also put some heat on the Boy Scouts claiming it violates their nondiscrimination policy.

With the Boy Scouts already on a membership decline over the last several years (20 percent over the last decade), a loss of support from its many corporate sponsors would be crippling, regardless if its top two contributors are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and United Methodist church.

Last July I also wrote, “No law needs to change; the BSA is still completely protected by the Constitution, and that is the beauty of a free society. The change of becoming a less discriminating organization needs to happen internally; and this ruling, though pathetic, might just finally teeter the Boy Scouts towards a truly moralistic organization.”

In 2000, the Boy Scouts went all the way to the Supreme Court on the matter of discriminating against gays and the court ruled a split 5-4 in favor of the Boy Scouts of America. So long as the group is a not-for-profit, private organization, they can discriminate against whomever they choose.

Just this last May, Eagle Scout Zach Wahls of Iowa City, Iowa, turned in a petition containing over a quarter million signatures that called for the lifting of the gay ban. Since Wahls petition and the Boy Scouts’ failure to act upon it, many other online petitions began sprouting up, amounting to signatures in the millions.

Many major corporations have pulled their funding from the organization due to their continued, active discrimination. A few of these CEOs are taking an active effort in actually lifting the ban, including members on the actual BSA Board. The National Council Board includes CEOs of major international businesses. Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, supports lifting the ban, and he is next in line to take control of the board.

At the same time, the ultimate reason why the Boy Scouts organization is so readily thinking about reversing its July reaffirmation soon, is thanks to the grassroots movement it forged itself, essentially digging their own grave.

Troops, leaders, parents, boys, civil rights advocates and Eagle Scouts such as myself caused an uproar. Be it total troop defiance of the policy or Eagle Scouts immolating their own rank in front of the council, all over America (and the world), the Boy Scouts of America National Council was marked as one of the greatest bigoted organizations of our time.

Though not a final decision, both President Barack Obama and his former competitor Mitt Romney stated the association should be all inclusive, mounting even more weight on the board’s shoulders. The board is said to meet and discuss next week.

Just as I concluded my July column, I will conclude this column with the posting of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council mailing address. As stressed before, please voice your opinion to them, personally. A discriminant society is a primitive and amoral society.

Boy Scouts of America, National Council

1325 West Walnut Hill Lane

Irving, Texas 75015-2079

Better late than never, I guess. Such was my initial reaction to USC coach Lane Kiffin’s apology of sorts for the disastrous 2012 football season. In a two-hour interview with ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski, Kiffin accepted blame for all that went wrong last season, admitting that he is a “coaching work in progress” and that he needs to “grow up.”

For once, I don’t think many USC fans will disagree with him.

First, I’ll give the man his credit: I agree with most of what he said. The odds were stacked against the 2012 Trojans. With so much pressure to be perfect, anything less than an undefeated season would have disappointed many, so it was unlikely that the third-year coach would please everybody.

But he didn’t do himself any favors along the way.

At this point, it would be quite redundant to hash through all of Kiffin’s missteps last season, which went far beyond the win-loss figures. The jersey switching, the football deflating and the beatwriter banning have all been well-documented.

Kiffin’s off-the-field transgressions have proved to be distractions and, if we are to believe his words, distractions were something that his players already had had enough of.

“When you have all the hype that this team had around it coming into this season — [the players said], ‘See you in the Orange Bowl [site of the Discover BCS national championship],” Kiffin said in the interview of his team’s mindset coming into the season. “That’s where their minds were, regardless of what we [coaches] said.”

This is where many have taken issue with Kiffin. Over the course of his relatively short career, he has been called many things: petulant, arrogant and dishonest, to name a few. His reputation precedes him wherever he goes to the point that I’m not sure many people outside of his defenders at USC have any nice things to say about him.

But he has also been called something else: a good football coach. A current USC football player said just as much recently, while also criticizing Kiffin for the lack of control he had over the USC locker room. That lack of control was evidenced by the reported incident involving several players. It has been characterized as a “disagreement” by some and a “full-on brawl” by others following the loss to Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl.

Regardless, few have questioned Kiffin’s knowledge of the Xs and Os. He has excelled in that regard, as well as in recruiting. But it is in the area of managing and leading people, namely kids in their late teens and early 20s, that Kiffin appears to have failed. One needs to look no further than his comments about his own players making plans for Miami before the season even began.

For Kiffin’s sake, and for USC’s, he must improve in this facet of coaching. Whether or not he can remains to be seen. But admitting there is a problem is the first step in combating it, and Kiffin did that this week — a reassuring development. But his other comments were equally troubling.

With respect to the infamous jersey-switching incident that occurred against Colorado, Kiffin claims that the tactic was “100 percent legal,” according to NCAA rules. But, according to Wojciechowski, the NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations manual states, “The following are unethical practices: Changing numbers during the game to deceive the opponent.”

Kiffin claims there was “no intent to deceive.” If that is the case, then what was the intent? To see how redshirt freshman quarterback Cody Kessler looked wearing jersey No. 35?

Kiffin’s refusal to budge on this topic speaks to his stubbornness, a trait that has its positives and negatives in the college football world. With national signing day right around the corner, it will most certainly be an asset in persuading high school players to come to USC following last season’s poor showing. Even with scholarship reductions, Kiffin’s 2013 class has already been lauded as one of the nation’s best, and a strong finish will earn him some goodwill among his detractors.

But past incidents like the jersey switch will always find their way into the conversation, and as a result, forming an opinion on Lane Kiffin will never be as simple as black and white.

In the results-based institution that is college football, I believe Kiffin can succeed. He proved it two seasons ago, and I believe he can do it again. You may never consider yourself a “Lane Kiffin fan” because of his many offenses, but he doesn’t need to win a popularity contest to be the right man for the job of USC’s head coach. He needs better results on the field, not to convince people to like him.

But by winning more games next year, he might just be able to do both.

This Wednesday, U. Louisville announced that a new contract had been established between the university and the football program’s head coach, Charlie Strong. This new contract maintains that Strong will remain the head coach of U of L football through the year 2020.

The deal will make Strong the seventh highest paid coach in college football, with a base salary of $3.7 million per year—a $1.4 million raise. This move now makes Strong the highest paid coach in the Big East conference, and when Louisville switches to the ACC, it is expected that he will remain the highest paid coach.

Louisville Athletic Director Tom Jurich frequently claimed money would not be a problem in keeping Charlie Strong. Jurich adamantly said Louisville would not be outbid for the services of Strong as head football coach.

Jurich left the proof in the paper, as Strong turned down the vacancy at Tennessee in early December with a promise to rework his contract at Louisville.

On Wednesday, Jan. 23, Strong’s new contract made him the seventh highest-paid coach in college football. Strong will make a base salary of $3.7 million per year, a $1.4 million raise from what he made last year.

Also, the deal was crafted for the long term; the eight year extension takes Strong through 2020.

This deal makes Strong the highest paid coach in the Big East. When Louisville switches to the ACC, he will most likely remain the high paid coach.

After three seasons at Louisville, Strong is 25-14 overall with two Big East Championships and two bowl victories, including the Sugar Bowl victory over Florida. This was enough evidence for Jurich to restructure a new deal.

“He’s already lived up to it; he’s already earned it. In every aspect of his coaching ability, he has an A+ to me,” Jurich said.

For players, fans and recruits, the details of the contract provided comforting plans for the future.

If Strong leaves in 2013, he must pay a $5 million buyout. That number decreases by $625,000 every year, but still remains a substantial sum for any program interested in Strong.

“Charlie did not balk at anything. It’s a hefty buyout, but we want to make sure this is a long-term contract for both parties,” Jurich said.

The two-time Big East Coach of the Year is put into the ranks of Nick Saban, Les Miles, Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops and Mack Brown in regards to salary.

Along with the move to the ACC in 2014, Strong’s new contract should improve the stability of the program, an ever present factor in recruiting battles.

This is not Jurich’s first long term deal with Louisville coaches. He emphasized the importance of keeping good coaches for numerous years.

“I like stability.” Jurich said. “I believe in stability.”

The coaching world is always subject to change, but Strong’s words echo the new contract that could potentially keep him employed to the age of 60.

“You can buy a person a lot, but you can’t buy his heart,” said Strong. “His heart is where his enthusiasm is, where his loyalty is. My heart and enthusiasm is with the University of Louisville.”

Opposing teams fear her. She has become the face of women’s college basketball, and she is now an NCAA record holder.

That defensive pressure comes from senior center Brittney Griner, who is a force to be reckoned with on the court not just because dunks or the amount of offense she brings to the games. The intangibles are what make the difference.

“Griner, best player in the country, bar none,” West Virginia head coach Mike Carey said. “She’s gotten better every year and she’s under control at all times. As a coach, you think she’s going over somebody’s back. She’s really not. She’s jumping over them.”

The six time Big 12 Player of the Week is the lone collegiate player to make the USA Basketball roster. Griner also holds the NCAA record for career dunks at 11 and the NCAA record for blocked shots at 665. Griner is also the first player to score over 2,000 points and record 500 blocked shots, which displays her effect on both the offense and the defense.

On the offensive side of the field, Griner is ninth in the nation in points per game with 21.5 and 408 points this season. She is also ranked sixth in the nation, and first in the Big 12, in field goal percentage at 59 percent, making 170 out of 288.

But Griner doesn’t do it all herself. She has a great supporting cast to help her out. They play as one unified squad.

Griner opens up the field for her other teammates to score, and they help her with assists or shooting, which takes some of the pressure off of her. Playing team basketball is a skill that she has acquired while playing under head coach Kim Mulkey.

“Last year, I guess I started getting even more patient,” Griner said after the National Championship game against Notre Dame. “I couldn’t get my hands on the ball, keep moving. Whatever I can do, I will do. I took it a play at a time, post up strong when I had to. Did whatever I could to help my team out.”

However, Griner’s effect on the defense is what stands out. Not only does she hold the NCAA record for career blocks, but also she is a big reason as to why Baylor only allowed one team to shoot over 50 percent in 235 games. Many teams have to change their offense because they have to deal with having a talented 6-foot-8-inch center protecting the basket. Because of Griner’s presence, teams settle for more outside shots against the Bears.

This season, teams have shot 414 shots from 3-point range against the Lady Bears, but the rest of the Big 12 averages 316.1 3-point attempts, with Kansas allowing only 220 attempts. This is the pressure that Baylor’s defense puts on opposing teams. The key to her success is the versatility she brings. This allows for head coach Kim Mulkey to draw up creative plays. Griner draws two or three people allowing other players to have more open looks.

“She didn’t really know a whole lot of moves,” Mulkey said earlier this season about Griner’s first days at Baylor. “She just turned, shot, dunked, jump shot. But she’s learned how to read the defender; she’s learned how to feel the defender. Brittney is an athlete in that body. If I wanted to draw up 3-point plays, Brittney Griner could shoot 3-point shots, easily. If I wanted to draw up something where I give her the ball and set screens and say take them off the dribble, Brittney Griner can do that.”

Griner has 2,835 career points and needs two points to break the Big 12 scoring record, held by Oklahoma State’s Andrea Riley. She will likely break this record during Baylor’s next game at 7 p.m. Wednesday against Texas Tech.

There is a definite imbalance between the male and female ideas of oral sex and whether it should be reciprocated. Many students I interviewed on the subject stated that the act was something that should have limitations imposed upon it and that it was something that is most commonly expected during a hook up.

A student I asked reported that “it depends on the girl” and that he would only perform oral sex if she was “clean or shaved and if I was dating her.”

The general consensus among male students seemed to be that going down on girls was something that was restricted to a committed relationship. The majority of the men I asked were unlikely to perform oral sex on their female partners while hooking up, but agreed that hooking up would usually include blowjobs, although they wouldn’t ask.

Although baldly asking for fellatio is construed as rudeness, boasting about it is not. The boys declared that only “jerks” and “bros” bragged about girls giving them head, and that it’s usually not an act that is discussed among men, with the exception of close friends.

Cunnilingus on the first date and/or meeting seemed to be less of a concentrated issue for the boys, and was merely thought of being something that wasn’t for casual sex. Although the boys regarded dental dams and/or condoms for oral as more of a suggestion rather than a necessity, they all seemed to take pains to not catch sexual diseases by limiting oral sex to monogamous relationships.

On the other hand, female students believed that there was more of a social stigma against giving head to women. One female student scoffed that it was seen as “subservient for guys to go down on girls and that the main focus is his orgasm, not hers, even though it should be equal.”

Guys see girls going down on them as an act of dominance, they want to assert to you that “they’re the man.” In addition to this, there is also the opinion that a woman who gives blowjobs is “a total hoe, it means that she does a whole bunch of dudes probably.”

This thought process is mostly likely due to the surplus of media images that involve women performing fellatio on men, as opposed to it being the other way around. It is seen as ‘acceptable’ and ‘normal’ for women to give blowjobs, but the image of cunnilingus in film is still a fairly new concept.

However, this is directly contrasted with the patriarchal concept that women should enjoy embracing their sexuality, but should only do so to benefit and/or produce the male orgasm.

“The only way it’s seen as good for guys to give head is if they get something good in return,” a girl said, “but there should be equality in it. There’s no guaranteed reciprocity because I’m supposed to focus on his orgasm, and that’s messed up.”