Almost two weeks after the Kansas basketball team’s loss to Virginia Commonwealth University in the NCAA tournament, Jayhawk Spirit owner Tom Wilkerson, whose store sells KU apparel, is still agonizing over the game.

But while the rest of Jayhawk nation can turn off ESPN and try to forget the loss, Wilkerson has to deal with the daily reminder of lost revenue and the question of what to do with the boxes of KU Final Four T-shirts he pre-ordered.

“Right now they are sitting in a warehouse,” he said. “As long as we don’t distribute them, they can sit there forever I guess, but obviously space is important for us so we’d just as soon get them on their way.”

When the men’s basketball team made the Elite Eight this year, Lawrence businesses such as Jayhawk Spirit and Jock’s Nitch ordered hundreds of pre-made KU Final Four shirts to sell to the crowds that would have appeared on Massachusetts Street had Kansas won the next game.

However, what happened — well, happened — and now stores are left with boxes and boxes of T-shirts commemorating a Final Four berth that never happened.

“I don’t really want to give you the exact number, but it’s in the hundreds,” Wilkerson said referring to the number of T-shirts he ordered. Now Wilkerson is looking for an organization to take the shirts and distribute them to people in need.

At first, entities like Goodwill or Salvation Army come to mind, but the donation of the shirts has a catch. According to the contract Wilkerson signed with Adidas, the company that made the shirts, the shirts must either be donated to somewhere outside of the U.S. or destroyed.

“My guess is the NCAA and Adidas enter into an agreement that none of them will be on the market unless they win,” he said referring to the T-shirts.

Wilkerson said he had destroyed pre-ordered shirts in 2003 when Kansas lost the national championship, but this year he hoped he would be able to find a place to take the shirts.

“It’s the idea that they might actually do some good,” Wilkerson said. “If we had a contact or something that was going to take them to Japan that would be a perfect place for them to go.”

Wilkerson has another reason to donate the shirts. The last time he destroyed shirts, he had to destroy each shirt by hand with scissors.

When asked how long the destruction took he laughed and answered, “Too long; that’s why I would rather donate them.”

Jock’s Nitch is also looking for a place to donate their Final Four T-shirts. Jock’s Nitch general manager Ryan Owens said the company hopes to hear back in the next few days from World Vision, an organization that accepts product donations and distributes the donations as humanitarian aid. He said the shirts would then be shipped overseas, likely to Africa.

According to World Vision, product donations can be counted as tax deductions for qualifying companies.

Five hundred dollars could pay for an iPad, a cruise, a month’s rent—or a slave’s freedom.

The Auburn chapter of the International Justice Mission aims to raise money to free victims of human trafficking.

The chapter contributes money to the international organization which buys the freedom of those who have been trafficked.

The $500 pays for the IJM to free a slave and provide him or her with an aftercare program.

At Sunday’s Freedom Fest at Town Creek Park, the IJM raised $600 through donations and registration for the Walk to Freedom around the park.

Of the 60 people who attended, 35 participated in the walk.

“They literally go in and get these girls out of brothels,” said Grace Ann Hollis, IJM president and sophomore in accounting. “A lot of times the government is actually working with the pimps and stuff.”

When trafficked victims have been rescued, the aftercare program helps them get back on their feet.

“A lot of them don’t have anything,” said Morgan Bethea, junior in public relations and IJM director of publicity.

“If they’ve been kidnapped or taken from their homes, they have to start over.”

Of the traffickers themselves, 42 percent are women, according to the IJM.

“What makes it all the more sick to me is that a woman will come into a village and talk to a lot of poor people about opportunities for their girls to become secretaries and executive assistants and professionals, and then they just capture them and take everything from them,” said Bill Deutsch, research fellow and chapter adviser. “They run them through these brothels. They have a global distribution system.”

A pimp can make $250,000 a year from exploiting one girl, making human trafficking more profitable than drug trafficking.

Deutsch has made about 60 international trips to 25 countries.

“I think there’s a general sense among our students, faculty and staff on campus that this is an issue, but I think as terrible as it is, it’s something that’s very easy to sweep under the rug,” Deutsch said.

“It’s just appalling how much of it is either based in or active here in the U.S. It’s not just a Cambodia thing or a Thailand thing or Ghana thing. It’s insidious. It’s everywhere.”

Human trafficking hits close to home, as the Atlanta airport is the most heavily trafficked in the U.S., said Hannah Flayhart, sophomore in human development and family studies.

In a period of one month in Atlanta alone, there are 7,200 instances of sexual exploitation of a child, according to the IJM.

In many instances, men fly to Atlanta seeking a sexual encounter with a child, make a purchase and then fly home to rejoin their families.

In addition to sex trafficking, the IJM fights forced labor, especially child labor.

“There’s kids getting made to work 14, 16 hours a day in brick factories in India,” Deutsch said. “Or made to put soles on Nike shoes with benzene glues in a room you can’t even stand up in. There’s just a lot of inhumanity.”

Read more:The Auburn Plainsman – A spirit that is not afraid

Imagine, instead of a flashing light on the top of an intersection, a radio-operated system that could cut off music inside a private car and give a message that emergency vehicles are in an intersection.

This system could be in cars by 2013.

Larry Head, department head of systems and industrial engineering, is spearheading research to make intersections safer for emergency responders and public transit more efficient. He’s working to make it a requirement for all passenger cars, pending approval from a committee in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

“It’s like seatbelts (the technology) and the savings benefit from reducing crashes and saving lives,” Head said.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced Friday that the number and rate of traffic fatalities in 2010 fell to the lowest levels since 1949. Arizona had the second highest drop in fatalities in the nation, 11 percent, and Head is hoping their 5.9-gigahertz technology, which operates like wireless Internet between intersection receptors and car radios, could make that decrease even larger.

“Last year’s drop in traffic fatalities is welcome news, and it proves that we can make a difference,” LaHood said in a news release.

Head’s team has been capitalizing on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s development and use of technologies to prevent crashes, such as electronic stability control, forward collision warning and lane departure warning systems.

After testing the system at the intersection of Speedway Boulevard and Mountain Avenue, the team partnered with Maricopa County to replicate the system formulated in the Living Transportation Technology Lab. In a two-decade partnership with the city of Tucson, UA researchers have been studying traffic, from the evolution of traffic patterns to this new research.

“What’s new about what we do is that the intersection knows about multiple vehicles, but for a car, there’s no feedback from the intersection,” Head said. “Operators of fire trucks and ambulances are trained to enter an intersection safely, and that slows them down. They are always going to have to watch out for the driver that’s not paying attention, but we’re making it safer for fire truck to fire truck.”

On average, emergency vehicles respond to more than 30 million calls annually, but their crash fatality rate is 10 times higher than those of other high-risk road vehicles like heavy trucks. Nearly 13 percent of first responder deaths are actually attributed to traffic events over other dangerous situations, according to a report by the Transportation Safety Advancement Group.

If the newest test area, an operation in the Phoenix area, runs successfully, then “it’s time for technology transfer,” according to Head.

The technology will be adapted to freeway on and off ramps and school and city buses.

“And then it’s on to the next problem,” Head said.

As the April 8 deadline approaches, lawmakers in Washington are struggling to pass a budget in order to avoid a government shutdown. With Republicans unwilling to accept deals proffered by Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic congressional leaders, and conservatives like Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan (head of the House Budget Committee) unwilling to compromise, it seems likely that the two sides will reach an inconclusive deadlock. What then, is going to happen on April 9?

The answer: Not much, because, according to the AP, most Americans won’t be seeing much of a change. In total, roughly one in four government workers will be staying home. The mail will still come, air traffic controllers will still man their posts and the FBI will still investigate crimes. The IRS will still accept checks, though they won’t send out any refunds. All in all, the real ramifications are rather small.

There is, however, one huge downside to a potential shutdown: the cost. The Government Accountability Office, the auditing branch of Congress, estimated that the 1995 government shutdown, the last to occur, cost the US government about $200 million. If 1995 were to repeat, the result would probably be a similar cost to a deficit-ridden nation.

The similarities between the 1995 shutdown and the potentially upcoming one do not end there. In 1994, the Republicans rode a wave of anti-Clinton sentiment and ended up with majorities in both the House and Senate. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich followed what he believed to be his mandate to cut welfare spending, grants to NPR, PBS and the arts, and other government services that he and his party believed to be part of the “welfare state.” Gingrich’s refusal to compromise with Clinton led to a government shutdown. It was a classic case of over-reach: Voters elected Gingrich and his fellow Republicans to inject some sanity into what they saw as a rapidly expanding federal government. What they got was a Republican leadership unwilling to compromise and unwilling to find a solution. The result? Clinton’s approval ratings rose, and he sailed into reelection in 1996. Gingrich’s presidential aspirations were shattered, and he ultimately resigned in 1998.

This historical precedent begs the question: what are the Republicans thinking? The answer seems to lie in the fragmented nature of the party. Speaker John Boehner seems to recognize that a government shutdown would harm the image of the Republican party and leave the President either unscathed, or worse for them, more popular than before. Unfortunately, he’s finding it difficult to keep the firebrand freshman Congressmen and women, mostly from the Tea Party, from sabotaging his efforts to work out a deal. Congressman Paul Ryan, among others, has proposed a rather radical budget, one that would cut programs like SCHIP, a popular federal program that helps states pay for the health insurance of underprivileged children. The politically motivated nature of cuts to programs like Planned Parenthood, whose piddling federal budget of $317 million seems infinitesimal compared to the 2011 deficit of $1.27 trillion, certainly doesn’t help bolster the Republican party’s claim that this is all in the name of balancing the budget.

In the end, however, both parties miss the point. Non-defense discretionary spending, the kind that most lawmakers are arguing over, is roughly 15 percent of the overall federal budget. The majority of the budget goes into pensions, in the form of Social Security ($695 billion in 2010), the Defense Department ($663 billion) and federal insurance and welfare programs like Medicare ($453 billion) and Medicaid ($290 billion). Arguing about whether or not cuts should be made to such small programs as SCHIP or Planned Parenthood is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And with the coming wave of retiring Baby Boomers, expenditures on Social Security and Medicare are only going to increase. It seems that defense spending isn’t going to fall anytime soon, either. The intervention in Libya cost the US government an astounding $600 million in its first week.

In light of this, it seems that lawmakers from both parties need to have a sane, rational discussion with the American people about what we can and cannot afford to do. Yes, hard decisions will have to be made. Republican leadership will not be able to simply pluck the low hanging fruit; they will have to realize that we cannot afford to spend half a trillion dollars on defense. And Democrats will have to accept that spending billions of dollars on untenable entitlement programs is not sustainable in the long term. The sooner we have this discussion, the sooner we can begin to fix the problems that ail this nation.

The fad of sexting among minors can be destructive for young lives. For Margarite, a young girl from Washington, a naked picture she sent to her boyfriend Isaiah would come to have massive consequences. After the two broke up, Isaiah sent the picture to a former friend of Margarite. That friend disseminated the photo to as many students as possible. The former friend and another girl who helped in distributing the photo were charged with the dissemination of child pornography—a Class C Felony—and ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of telephone harassment for their crimes. This event raises serious questions about the implications of technology on social lives.

The actual act of sexting is not illegal, nor would I argue that it should be. For the more prudish among us, the idea of people sending naked pictures to each other over cell phones may seem disgusting; nevertheless, at the end of the day we live in a country that respects the rights of consenting adults to send sexually provocative photos to each other.

The issue, however, becomes more complicated when the question of sexting by minors is brought up. That is especially true in a case such as Margarite’s, where the picture ended up being used as a way to disparage and defame her. The three teens that sent out the picture deserved to be punished for what they did, as the picture still continues to haunt Margarite a year later. She tried transferring schools, but the story of the picture was soon discovered by students there. She decided to transfer back to her original school, where she still had friends. Due to the mass distribution of the photo coupled with the media storm that erupted following the arrests, the event is still known amongst Margarite’s peers.

In the media storm that erupted, the question was raised as to whether Margarite should have also faced legal repercussions for taking the picture in the first place. The local prosecutor decided not to press charges, and I fully agree with that decision. In some cases, the underage minor who took the photo of him or herself has been charged with distribution of child pornography. This seems unnecessarily cruel. Possession and distribution of child pornography has been criminalized so as to protect minors from those who would exploit them. Underage sexting may be stupid, but it seems to be taking matters too far if the child who took the photo of themselves ended up being charged; minors who are the victims of sexting scandals in no way intended to distribute child pornography in the way actual child pornographers do.

In Margarite’s case, she has already had to face social exclusion and cruelty from fellow students. That already is an undeserved punishment for one impulsive decision made in the midst of a relationship.

Underage students should of course think twice before sending a nude picture of themselves to anyone with whom they are in a relationship. That being said, the practice probably will not stop. Only the most idealistic amongst us could hope that adequate education—such as, for example, the public service advertisements the three guilty teens were ordered to make as part of their plea agreement for distributing Margarite’s photo—would bring about the end of underage sexting.

The technological age we live in has completely redefined social relationships in ways that we are only now beginning to understand and address. Sexting is just one of many facets that we have to consider when we consider the behavior of youth in the age of cell phones and Facebook. There are also, for example, pictures from parties that get posted on Facebook that could come back to haunt one if a future employer or college admissions staff member runs a Google search on one’s name.

It is a scary fact to consider that our social lives and actions are now available for others to see in a way that would not have even been imaginable 20 years ago. A simple status update about marijuana is there forever. A tagged photo on Facebook of a wild night of debauchery can be seen by anyone if the proper precautions are not taken. A naked picture sent to a romantic interest can end up tearing your entire life apart.

Cases such as Margarite’s will not stop irresponsible behavior in the new technological era in which we have found ourselves. They do however serve as a grim reminder of what can happen when we make one silly decision. Our lives are now under a microscope and any decision that is made digitally can serve to haunt our real selves for years to come.

In an admittedly funny but nonetheless childish move, the National Republican Senatorial Committee released a parody video of President Barack Obama’s bid for reelection in the 2012 race. In the few days since it was posted, the video has garnered more than 688,000 views, with more to come by the time this is published. Obama’s real campaign launch video, on the other hand, has only racked up 168,000 views as of press time. Some people have been interpreting this as indicative of the number of Obama’s opponents versus his the number of his supporters. Others see it as a lack of energy on the part of Obama’s campaign. We, however, see it differently. The number of views the parody video has says more about our entertainment-oriented culture than it does about Obama’s campaign.

Just a few weeks ago, everyone watched as Rebecca Black’s atrocious “Friday” racked up tens of millions of views in a span of days. But that video did not go viral because of how much everyone loved it. Instead, it went viral for the exact opposite reason — people found it hilariously entertaining because of how downright awful it was. This tends to be how many people operate these days. People spend far less time investing themselves in what they sincerely care about on emotional or intellectual levels, instead devoting their time and energy to things, which are quick, cheap, and mindlessly entertaining. As a culture, we have, in many ways, chosen hilarity over sincerity. The common thought process for a view of the parody video probably went something like this: “Yeah, sure, I like Obama and all, so I probably know what his video is going to be all about. Let me see this joke one. It might be funny.”

Another factor, which we hate to admit, is probably the length of the videos. The parody video is about half the length of the real one, and it is a lot easier to watch because it isn’t supposed to be taken seriously. It is meant only to impart a few laughs in about a minute, and then the show’s over. This makes it more likely that more people will watch it and that those people will watch it multiple times.

The disparity in video views is not something anyone should really be taking seriously. It most likely says absolutely nothing of substance about what will happen to the Obama campaign in the upcoming race. What it does represent, though, is what we like as a culture. But perhaps a little more sincerity and care about what’s really important wouldn’t hurt.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln hasn’t joined the Big Ten Conference yet, but the move is already sending ripples through the country, with UNL becoming more attractive than ever to out-of-state high school students.

With such invigorated recruitment, university officials are expecting a bump in enrollment thanks to a shift in UNL’s recruitment pool from the Big 12 Conference, especially Texas, to northern states like Minnesota and Illinois. That increase in the number of out-of-state students could potentially impact UNL’s tuition, financial aid and scholarship awards, according to Craig Munier, director of the Scholarships and Financial Aid office.

As Alan Cerveny, UNL’s dean of admissions, told the Lincoln Journal Star last month, out-of-state interest in UNL from has already spiked – the percentage of next year’s accepted class from outside Nebraska is the highest ever, and recruiters venturing into Big Ten territory are encountering unprecedented hospitality.

Munier said much of that impact is due to one word: money. UNL’s total cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, room and board and other payments is exceptionally low among Big Ten schools.

Only the University of Minnesota has a lower total cost for other states’ students. By itself, the University of Michigan’s out-of-state tuition, the most expensive of the conference, eclipses UNL’s total cost by almost $10,000.

“I do think we will be seen as a value,” Munier said. “And we are a value.”

Munier said the circumstances for Big Ten schools also could play into UNL’s favor. Big Ten schools can’t accommodate all of their potential students, Munier said, and thus have had to tighten admissions standards.

For example, the University of Illinois has more than 30,000 undergraduate students, or 50 percent more than UNL, yet serves a state with six times Nebraska’s entire population.

UNL, with its long tradition of accessibility, doesn’t have the same problem.

Pat McBride, an associate dean of admissions, said the Big Ten name and reputation lends still more strength to the excitement over Nebraska.

“(The Big Ten name) shows where the top research, land-grant, flagship universities are located,” McBride said, adding that people are taking notice. “They’re stopping to look a bit more.”

Munier agreed, taking the perspective of an investor in a UNL education as the university joins what he called “some of the very, very best public, four-year research universities.”

“I would argue that the University of Nebraska’s stock will go up based on (its company in the Big Ten),” he said.

Whatever their reasons, a larger student body will likely add to the burden of aid and, according to Munier, could potentially shift the playing field of financial aid and scholarships, though the university’s system of aid could mitigate those effects. He focused first on need-based grants.

“We have about $5.5 million of institutional gift aid … and it’s almost exclusively for residents,” Munier said. The small portion that is available to out-of-state students is part of UNL’s university tuition assistance grants program, or UTAG. Those students must meet several academic requirements to gain access to these funds.

Most of that aid money, along with funds from the state and Pell grants distributed by the federal government, would not be impacted by any surge in out-of-state enrollment, Munier said.

The same was true of most merit-based scholarships as well, since they are generally only available either within or without the state line. The one scholarship available to both in- and out-of-state students is the National Merit or Chancellor’s Scholarship, which pays tuition and an additional stipend.

However, some would say increased out-of-state attendance has a possible negative impact on tuition, Munier pointed out.

“I think that, given our comparative cost to the Big Ten … there will be some who will argue that, in making that comparison, the University of Nebraska may be overpriced,” Munier said.

The possible outcome of that argument is higher increases in tuition, which by itself isn’t necessarily unusual or problematic when it comes to need-based aid, according to Munier.

“We have an agreement that this (aid) will increase that same percent,” he said.

That arrangement does not take into account a simultaneous increase in tuition and enrollment, however, and UNL could experience both.

“Any substantial enrollment growth will have to come out of state,” Munier said, a scenario he thought likely. With Knoll Residential Center and other residence halls completed or in the works and downtown apartment construction, “lots of people are anticipating this being a bigger place.”

An increase in tuition and enrollment could counteract any matched raise in aid money and distribution, potentially leaving each individual student with less need-based aid.

And that’s not even the biggest concern when it comes to financial aid. With the economy still without its former strength and Republicans in Congress eying of federal aid for budget cuts, “students will be asked to bear a slightly heavier burden next year,” Munier said of a situation akin to the double blow of salary cuts and higher gasoline prices for some Americans.

He said additional students can mean more aid given out, but also more tuition taken into university, actually offsetting any aid strain. Any additional revenue should be arranged to help the university remain open to qualified students of any income bracket, but Munier said those plans hadn’t been made yet.

“That is a discussion that we need to have as an institution,” he said.

Once that discussion happens, increased enrollment could help the university avoid possible aid shortages and deal with a flat state budget for Nebraska’s universities. Munier was confident that, instead of out-of-state students increasing competition, the University of Nebraska would maintain its accessibility to Nebraska students.

“That’s part of our mission,” he said. “I think it is something that we all have to keep in mind.”

McBride agreed, saying he hadn’t heard any rumblings of increasing admission standards. To him, the Big Ten move would bring a somewhat larger flow of out-of-state students and would ultimately be to UNL students’ advantage.

“People are very positive that we’re joining the Big Ten,” he said. “This is just going to be another bonanza.”

The administration of President Barack Obama has abandoned plans to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and four co−conspirators in a civilian court. Attorney General Eric Holder announced yesterday that Mohammad will be tried for war crimes by a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.

The Daily reluctantly supports the administration’s decision to allow a military trial. Criminal proceedings for alleged terrorist suspects have historically occurred in civilian courts, and we believe that is where they belong. But we recognize that the alternative to a military trial would be to leave the case tied up in political gridlock for years to come. Since Obama declared his intent to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay when he assumed office, a number of security and political issues have made it nearly impossible to empty out the facility, particularly congressional roadblocks that have effectively prevented the military from moving prisoners into prisons within the United States.

These roadblocks were in place even when Obama enjoyed large Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Now that the balance of power in Congress has shifted to favor Republicans −− and with no signs that this trend is going to reverse itself in the near future −− it will undoubtedly be many years before the process of bringing Guantanamo detainees into the United States can proceed more smoothly.

Obama may have erred politically when he announced in November 2009 that he planned to hold the civilian trial in a court in Manhattan. Many Americans objected to seeing the terrorists behind the attacks return to New York. And though many New York politicians including Mayor Michael Bloomberg initially supported the idea, they turned on it −− the straw that broke the camel’s back −− when the economic costs of securing downtown Manhattan became clear. This put too much political capital in the hands of his opponents and fueled their push for a military trial.

Clearing the way for a civilian trial would take years, and it benefits no one except the defendants to pin the future of the 9/11 trials on the outcome of a contentious partisan issue, for which no end appears to be in sight. Given this choice between holding off the trial indefinitely and holding it in a military court, the Obama administration must opt to hold military proceedings.

That said, this decision comes with considerable drawbacks. Trying 9/11 suspects in a military court casts the attacks strictly as a war crime. The attacks didn’t occur within the context of a war. It wasn’t an act against the American military; it was an unprovoked attack on the American people, on our civilians. A trial by jury would have held the terrorists directly accountable to the victims of their crime. A guilty verdict handed down by a jury of American citizens, rather than by a tribunal of military officers, would have been a much more meaningful and satisfying result.

Still, it is better that a guilty verdict come from our military in the near future than to wait 20 years for a verdict to occur at all.

Yesterday students at NYU and on campuses around the world went about their daily routines without shoes. It may be strange to see someone walking around New York barefoot, but this is a common sight in developing countries, where some children risk disease by walking shoeless for miles because their families don’t have the means to buy them footwear.

“A Day Without Shoes” is part of an initiative by Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS shoes. He witnessed the problem of barefoot children while biking in Argentina. Wanting to help, Mycoskie started TOMS, which donates a pair of new shoes to a child in need for every pair of TOMS espadrilles purchased.

“We take the fact that we have shoes to wear every day for granted,” NYU TOMS member Ramya Velury said. “Having something to put on your feet is a bare necessity. What we’re doing here is an attempt to eradicate the issue of children growing up barefoot.”

“We don’t realize that having shoes is a privilege, not a right,” sad Amanda Alampi, president of NYU’s TOMS chapter. “Many people our age in developing nations don’t have that privilege.”

NYU TOMS isn’t recognized by NYU as an official club, so it doesn’t receive funding from the university. Nevertheless, the club has been able to host events across campus with money from the Torch Chapter of the National Residence Hall Honorary.

“One of the biggest obstacles was that we’re not recognized by the university, and we don’t have funding,” Alampi said. “I had to get a little creative with how we were going to do TOMS events without a ton of money.”

Steinhardt freshman Celina Zheng attended in full support of the cause.

“I’ve been saving up for a pair of their shoes,” Zheng said. “I think it’s a really great idea.”
Alampi stressed the importance of responsible consumerism.

“When you think about community service and giving back, there are little ways that you can contribute to society just by doing something as simple as buying a pair of shoes,” she said.

Professors have until Friday to place orders for fall semester’s textbooks, bringing with that deadline the challenge of securing a good deal for students.

That wasn’t always a focus, said biochemistry professor Paul Siliciano.

“We were leaving untapped the power of the competitive marketplace,” he said, particularly given the school’s size. He said that when publishing company representatives presented new books to professors, their price was rarely mentioned.

“It’s sort of like somebody buying a really loaded car, except they don’t have to pay for it,” he said. “There’s a disconnect there.”

But Siliciano said that has changed in recent years, helped by a trend of some professors who teach large courses, like chemistry, to negotiate multi-year contracts with publishers in exchange for lower costs.

According to University of Minnesota Bookstore manager Bob Crabb, that strategy seems to be working. Despite publishers increasing prices 5 to 6 percent over the last several years, he said, the average price of textbooks in the University’s bookstore has gone down since last year.

“The only way that can happen is if faculty are making a concerted effort to select lower-price books,” he said.

Still, the profit motive of booksellers can frustrate professors.

Professor Tom Holmes said the substance of the textbook for his introductory economics course changes little year to year, but they update the text with different graphics and examples from current events.

“The edition doesn’t change at all,” he said. “They only things they change are the pictures. It’s shocking.”

While Crabb called publishers “relentless in their pursuit” of higher costs despite the scrutiny of those costs, he acknowledged that publishers need to cover production expenses. He said by the third or fourth run of a volume the sales pale in comparison due to used book sales.

Tom Stanton, spokesman for textbook publishing company McGraw-Hill, said publishers’ revenue comes from the first sale of the print textbook only.

“The largest percentages of the wholesale textbook price,” he wrote in an email, “cover author royalties, paper [and] printing,” among others.

Crabb said the business used and rental books take from new books forces publishers to raise prices, which in turn drives students to purchase more used and rental books.

“It’s kind of a vicious circle,” he said.

Despite the appeal of alternatives, Crabb said cheaper e-books haven’t caught on. “It’s got the whole industry baffled.”

He said part of the reason might be because many e-books don’t add any value, despite the potential of their electronic platform.

“Currently they’re pretty much PDFs of paper books,” he said, adding that publishers are developing interactive features on books.

Until then, he said, “They just don’t stand up to a paper book you can flip back and forth in and mark up.”

“We don’t see e-books as a game changer,” Stanton wrote.

Textbook rentals have proven more popular with students. They accounted for 7 percent of the bookstore’s sales in the last year, but among textbooks available in all forms, that rate jumps to more than a third.

The federal government has also become a force in changing the textbook market. Last summer, regulations requiring publishers to detail information about prices, revision histories and alternate formats went into law, according to a McClatchy report. The law also required publishers to sell multimedia supplements to textbooks separately from the book.

Siliciano said he was pleased with the bookstore’s attempts to keep book prices close to cost. He also said he thinks there should be a “renewed, concerted effort” to bring prices down across the University.

“We haven’t come as far as we’d like to,” he said, citing the difficulty of lowering prices for courses that use multimedia software, website keys and other supplements.

“It’s frustrating because we can’t do anything about tuition,” he said. “But the faculty feels very strongly for the students.

“If we can [help] control textbook costs, it’s a good thing.”