By: Christopher Getowicz, University student

The Minnesota state Legislature currently has a state version of the DREAM Act before it that will allow access to higher education to the highest-achieving undocumented students. The University of Minnesota is amongst many institutions, including the Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools, the Minnesota Private Colleges Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, the city of Minneapolis, the Citizens League and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce that support the legislation.

The bill before our state representatives will allow young undocumented students in Minnesota access to financial aid and in-state tuition.  The legislation includes three important requirements. First, the students must have attended a Minnesota high school for three years; second, they must graduate from a Minnesota high school and finally, the students must sign an affidavit of normalized immigration status.

The annual impact of this legislation will be only a fraction of 1 percent of graduating seniors in Minnesota, and estimates predict that number to be only about 332 students. These students most often have been brought to the U.S. at a very young age, some as young as a few months old. They know only Minnesota as their home. They are high-achieving academically and actively contribute to their communities. Their families have contributed to the Minnesota economy both by spending money in Minnesota businesses and paying taxes via Minnesota state income taxes.

This issue is not a partisan one, as similar legislation has been passed through a Republican Legislature and governor in Texas. This is a common-sense bill that supports both the ambitions for young people to get an education in the state of Minnesota. This legislation could offer an incentive for students that could help bridge what is the United States’ worst achievement gap. It will also lead to a more educated and engaged community. Education is a human right, and this legislation will only contribute to the prosperity of Minnesota.

By: Elizabeth Regalado, University student

Thank you so much for posting the April 30 article titled “Boynton to examine international student sexual concerns.” I think it is so important for people to be aware of some of the cultural differences at our school. I find it sad that many students are becoming pregnant because they are unaware or have had a lack of sexual education in the past. I think it is also great that they are making a huge point of looking into this subject and seeing what kind of education the international students have received in the past — if any. My hope, though, is that more articles like this one are published,  focusing not only on international students but also focusing on student sexual health as a whole. I think so many students are unaware or misinformed about sex. There is so much unsafe sex happening, and this article teaches us about condoms, birth control and how to practice safe sex with our partners. In addition, I hope that students will be willing to talk about what happens when safe sex does not happen. Although it might be hard, I think students need to be aware of what can happen and how their life could change very drastically.

By: Derek Moore, University student

This year, due to the high rate of influenza, the University of Minnesota temporarily suspended two policies. The first was that students must attend the first day of class or risk losing their spot in the class, and the second was that a student must provide a doctor’s note if they missed class due to influenza or other illness.

Like 34 percent of all employees in the U.S., students get no time off for being sick. Faculty and staff have guaranteed paid sick leave. According to University policy, students must show up on the first day of class even if we are sick, tired, feverish and have a cough that could spread to the whole class, or risk losing our spot in the class.

If we lose our spot, it could jeopardize our full-time status, scholarships and even graduation date. If someone gets the flu, the average cost is $130 between doctor’s visits and all those flu remedies that rarely work. If only 5 percent of students, faculty and staff got the flu this year, that’s a total of $468,000 in direct costs, not including lost wages.

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the 8 million people who stayed at work while sick infected an additional 7 million people by staying at their jobs. At that rate, if I have the flu or something just as nasty, for every five classes I attend, I will infect at least four other people. I guarantee if you call a clinic and tell them you have the flu, they will tell you to stay home lest you infect other people and put a drain on their resources.

Even the Boynton Health Service website recommends me to stay home since most flu cases cannot be treated by a doctor. Since the creation of the policy in 2009, the University has suspended it twice: during the H1N1 pandemic in 2009 and this winter when Minnesota had a particularly large number of influenza cases. If an academic policy has been suspended two of five years since it was created, it is reasonable to question the intention and effectiveness of the policy. According to the University’s website, the reason for this policy is to “clearly indicate the number of students committed to taking this course.” I may be committed to a course, but I’m not committed to making everyone else around me sick. I’m sure my classmates and professor would also appreciate me staying at home.

The University administration needs to create a new, simpler, more effective policy. If you have the flu or a similar illness on the first day of class, stay home. Get well soon. No doctor’s note needed.

By: Editorial board

This fall the University of Minnesota may begin sharing grades by program, instead of by college.

The Faculty Consultative Committee recommended providing this information to the public after years of discussion on problems plaguing the University, such as grade inflation and separating grade reporting between programs in the same college. The specific information that may begin to be published online would include the percentage of students receiving an A grade and the average grade received by academic program or major and by level of course. Though a grade only tells employers, potential students and/or parents so much about a particular major, this information is useful in evaluating programs for grade inflation and pinpointing problems in grade assignments. With so many students in each program, the University community will be able to read trends among programs.

It is an assumption that many of those looking at a student’s transcript already use common understandings of “grades-in-context” information, such as stereotypes regarding different majors. This works with students as well, who may not know how to judge their own grades. This in-context information will begin to more accurately adjust these assumptions.

Grade reporting is especially important with programs that do not widely include courses with curved grades, which provide their own context, though curves would not show up online or in a student’s transcript. It is most appropriate for this information to be reported online and not specifically on a student’s transcript. Because this style of grade reporting is not universally accepted among colleges and universities, there is a real fear that grades-in-context may alter the success — such as hiring rate — of University students. Grade reporting opens a dialogue about grade inflation in a transparent way for the academic community to address.

By: Editorial board

On April 26, the Wall Street Journal published an essay written by Jeffrey Selingo, the author of a forthcoming book addressing the future of higher education.

While admitting that there are problems with higher education, Selingo’s essay misrepresents earnings potentials as a criticism of the four-year degree from what he calls “Podunk U” as a derogatory term for state colleges and universities, vis-à-vis Harvard University.

First, Selingo states that degrees from those institutions carry a premium over state colleges. However, Selingo offers little to dispel other moderating factors, including geography. Schools that Selingo cites include Harvard and Stanford, both of which are located in two of the highest cost of living areas in the nation. Does Selingo account for regional variations in cost of living in his analysis?

Also, Stanford and Harvard admit far fewer students from  those who performed the best in high school and college entrance exams. But what if those same students had attended a state university,  as many bright students do for any number of reasons?  Does Selingo control for student’s ability when entering?

The next major criticism of state universities Selingo offered is that graduates of two-year technical colleges make more in their first year than graduates with four-year degrees, while admitting that earnings potential throughout a lifetime for those with bachelor’s degrees is higher. Such emphasis on short-term earning potential is poor financial planning.

Curriculum at the undergraduate level is quite similar across many schools: The difference lies in the other opportunities offered outside the classroom and what a student makes of their time in college.       While higher education could see some systematic improvements, framing the discussion in terms of pop-stats selected for rhetorical value adds little to the discussion.

By: Trent M Kays

My grandfather is fond of relating his experiences to me. One of his favorite stories is that he was one of the first employees at his company to request a computer. His argument was that everything was moving in the direction of computers, so his company needed to jump on board. My grandfather worked in telemetry and satellite tracking; it made sense, yet his company was still hesitant: Computers were expensive.

I now understand the type of remembrance my grandfather often experiences. Recently, I waxed nostalgic with my students about the “good ’ole days,” when people had to wait for the dial tone to complete. We would click to sign in and wander off to do housework while the Internet dialed up. I received mostly blank stares from my students. Many of them had never experienced such a thing.

We live in a connected world. We have networked, linked and complicated our lives, but, perhaps, what’s most notable is the lack of patience. Even I — a person born in between the little linked and hyper-linked worlds — have become impatient. I want access to the Internet, and I want it now. I abhor waiting. I served my time in the waiting room, and it wasn’t pleasant.

Now, we may not need to wait at all. Google began offering its Fiber service in select cities. Google Fiber is a fast Internet service that promises downloads and uploads in gigabytes and to be 100 times faster than current Internet connectivity. So, it’s fast. You would be able to instantly download, play online games at the appropriate speeds and do everything you do now online — except at faster connection speeds.

I daresay it might be amazing. I find it amazing because I use the Internet most of the day. I’m an Internet researcher, so Google Fiber excites me. Unfortunately, I live in Minneapolis, and it isn’t one of the selected cities. However, the mere thought of Google Fiber and its free basic data connection plan seems to have spurred other Internet providers into action.

My current Internet provider is OK. I mean, it’s all I can get where I live, but it’s expensive. Some providers have started rethinking their fiber networks and are increasing connectivity. It is the great plight of capitalism: Improvement seems to come only when faced with competition. I suppose that’s OK; it’s the American way.

As I read about the news circulating Google Fiber, the promise of great connectivity and the allure of uploads and downloads in gigabytes, I wonder if I am not turning into my grandfather. Meaning, I’m the one who now tells younger generations about the past when we had to wait for things. I certainly don’t mean to fetishize, but I can’t help realize my students are mostly of a generation that has never been without omnipresent digital connection.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that Google is continuing its march to rule the world. Perhaps that’s a touch of hyperbole, but consider all the Google services that are used now. Take all of those services, and then access them through Google’s own Internet provider. Is there nothing that Google will not control in the future? I haven’t a clue. I envision a future where our hyper-connected lives are projections of our aggregate selves — everything we’ve ever done mashed into digestible view.

I’m not worried. While services like Google Fiber will provide Internet connectivity, humans still have to use it. Otherwise, what’s the point? The service would just exist without definition, which is only made through human use. The great hope of Google Fiber is that it might lead to greater connectivity throughout the world. Other services might be spurred to work on connectivity in places that have none.

The connectivity in the U.S. would increase, and with any luck, maybe we can get more of the world online. While some may lament the rise of Google and their Internet, I welcome it with open arms. It’ll be nice to have reliable and connected Internet. As it stands now, my Internet sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t — and I pay for this. I only pay for this because it’s all I can get. That’s how consumers are treated. It’s like throwing a bone to a dog just to keep him happy. We take the bone and move along.

We could have demanded greater connectivity long ago. But instead, we have tolerated our slow Internet and paid far too much for something far too important to our day-to-day lives. Our economy, culture and politics are dependent on the Internet, so why wouldn’t we demand the absolute best from it?

Dial-up is long gone. Thanks to Google Fiber, I can download and upload quickly. Also, I’ll be able to watch “South Park” online without hiccups, and isn’t that the entire point of the Internet?

By: Bronwyn Miller

Last week, the Sports Illustrated cover story featured NBA player Jason Collins, who revealed he is gay. His words on the front cover sum up the significance of his disclosure: “I didn’t set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I’m happy to start the conversation.”

The immense outpouring of support has been heartwarming and inspirational. Kobe Bryant and Minnesota Vikings player Chris Kluwe publicly shared their support, as did former President Bill Clinton, Spike Lee, President Barack Obama and countless other politicians, athletes and celebrities.

Collins’ choice to come out is being hailed as very significant for the sports world, which some have called the “last closet in America.” Many charge that the world of athletics is homophobic because of its pervasive emphasis on, and persistent requirement of, hyper-masculinity. As Lauren Rankin wrote in a Policy Mic article regarding the firing of Rutgers University coach Mike Rice, “The language employed by coaches, athletes and spectators alike demands that our male athletes remain the manliest of men at all times.”

Look no further than the student section at a sports game to find proof for her assertion. In the first five minutes of a basketball game, we’re yelling for our team to “Kill, rape, pillage, burn, eat babies.” The sports world, like many other arenas, is an environment in which charges of femininity are the ultimate, most effective way to denigrate someone else’s character. Glorifying and seemingly requiring a rigid, resolute display of stereotypical masculinity, the sports world is indeed historically plagued with homophobia, as well as sexism and violence.

The gay rights movement within men’s sports has already found strong allies in Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo of the Baltimore Ravens, straight men who have shattered the myth that engaging in a “hyper-masculine” sport is mutually exclusive with supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Now, with Collins, the movement to crush homophobia in sports has what Richard Rosendall, president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C., calls, “a walking refutation of anti-gay stereotypes.” As Rosendall says, “Collins could not be better suited to his new role if you auditioned a thousand people for it. … He is poised, confident, strong, masculine, at ease with himself and he’s known for being a tough player.”

The Sports Illustrated cover was undeniably a watershed moment for the world of sports. Standing up for his sexuality in a notoriously closeted arena makes Collins a role model for many, including LGBT people of color and athletes. Still, I can’t help but feel that the real victory will come when people will not have to calculatedly, ceremoniously and nervously step forward about who they are. In 2013, we still have to describe this action as bold and courageous. I hope someday soon the sexual orientation of an athlete — and any public figure, for that matter — will not be an issue.

One could argue that the general apathy with which the public regarded No. 1 WNBA draft pick Brittney Griner’s mention that she is a lesbian a few weeks ago is a sign of a more open, accepting society. While Collins’ admission was posed as a “great reveal,” Griner mentioned her sexuality with general nonchalance. The public response to her statement was subdued, despite her prominence as not only the No. 1 draft pick but also the second all-time scorer and top shot-blocker in women’s NCAA history. The reaction was nothing close to the experience of Collins, about whom headlines are continuing to erupt. But to account for the vastly different experiences for Collins and Griner, whose public announcements of their sexuality came just a few weeks apart, more seems to be at play.

This difference highlights a troubling, stubborn trend, in which the sports world is plagued by the stereotype that “every female athlete is a lesbian,” said Patrick Burke, a founder of You Can Play, an advocacy group for LGBT athletes. He said that while there has been great success in getting straight male players to stand up for gay rights, finding straight female athletes to do the same has been much more difficult “because they’ve spent their entire careers fighting the perception that they’re a lesbian.”

This stereotype, just like that which asserts there are no gay athletes in the hyper-masculine world of men’s athletics, is very damaging. Not only does it harm female athletes, but it diminishes the significance of unequivocal advancements for gay rights effected by athletes like Griner. The fact that Griner feels comfortable enough with her sexuality that she was able to mention it in an off-the-cuff, matter-of-fact way to a world audience is substantial, as well as praiseworthy. But she didn’t get a phone call from the president.

As we recognize Collins for his notable move for gay rights, we must also remember the vast, impressive contributions others made before him, like the long list of professional female athletes in both team and individual sports who played or have been playing as openly gay. That female athletes’ public disclosures of their sexuality do not “matter” to the same degree as men’s speaks to patriarchal structures and the problematic qualities it breeds within the professional sports world, like the necessity of hyper-masculinity and the assumption that women operating in this traditionally male sphere must be lesbians. In recognizing Collins’ pivotal moment for sports, we should also consider how the sweeping reaction of the public — and erroneous labeling of him as the “first openly gay professional athlete” — marginalizes others’ experiences.

By: Matthew Hoy

I spend a lot of time thinking about movies. Usually it’s in sort of a passive way, like speaking in references, comparing the events of my life with the plot point tropes of my favorite films, figuring out who my friends would be if they were characters in “Blazing Saddles,” stuff like that. To make the process active, I watch between three and five movies a week, reviewing one every weekend.

As anybody who pays even a shred of attention to the film industry will tell you, the current trend in filmmaking is not a positive one. Stories are becoming less imaginative, characters are more one dimensional and any iteration of ambiguity is a death knell.

As a result, each year is heralded as the “year of the sequel,” where familiar characters and plotlines are chosen instead of new or fresh ideas. This year we’ll see almost 30 sequels released by Hollywood.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this; after all, these films wouldn’t get made if people didn’t go see them. But the film industry model that results in such repetition is killing innovation.

Danny Boyle recently spoke about this phenomenon, blaming the “Pixarification” of movies — the move from making “adult movies” with complex themes and characters to making kids movies where there are simple and well-defined good guys and bad guys, and nothing about any of them is called into question — for the decline in quality of filmmaking.

As Boyle is quick to point out, this is not meant as a shot at the digital animation studio. Pixar has consistently made the best films of any studio for the past two decades. It is meant to criticize the studios whose audiences are not children.

Boyle is right in pointing out that it is a part of the problem, but it is certainly not the root of it. On April 27, at the San Francisco International Film Festival, Steven Soderbergh spoke on the “State of Cinema” and came much closer to identifying what is responsible for the decline.

The first, most important point Soderbergh makes is that there is a difference between movies and cinema: “A movie is something you see, and cinema is something that’s made.” He highlights the economic motivations behind creating imitative films, pointing out that though Hollywood is making fewer films, they are taking up a larger part of the market share. He describes the effect that this is having “pushing cinema out of mainstream movies.”

What Soderbergh is hinting at is the “Blockbuster Effect:” the need for the film industry to strike it big every time they release a film. In an attempt to ensure that their products are successful, they create movies that are in many ways the same as previously successful ones. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was widely reviled, regardless of the fact that if you replace the words “Soviets” with “Nazis” and “aliens” with “God,” it was effectively the same movie as the beloved “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

It grossed $786 million worldwide.

This is the biggest problem facing the film industry. Movies now make more money in foreign markets than domestically. And the films that travel best are ones with long action sequences, simple characters and little to no dialogue. Why make the next “Office Space” when you can just make another “Transformers” movie and gross a billion dollars?

The responsibility, then, falls on the audience. Imploring people to forgo seeing the big-budget recycling experiment of the day and instead support the brilliant little indie that was made on the director’s friend Larry’s camcorder isn’t going to do anything, because as much as “Iron Man 3” might be contrived, shallow garbage, it’s contrived, shallow garbage with robots fighting orange people! And who doesn’t want to see that?

Soderbergh speaks at some length about the fact that the people who run movie studios these days don’t know or watch movies. He presents this as a major issue, one that is causing the film industry to fail.

The problem with this argument is that the barometer for success has nothing to do with how good a movie is, it’s only concerned with the ability of the film to make money. Seven of the ten top-grossing films of all time are sequels. It’s no wonder we’re seeing more and more of them.

The future of cinema seems bleak, as if we are destined to be increasingly assaulted by progressively less-inspired films. I suppose I’ll still keep going to the movies, trying my best to shift some of the viewership from the blockbusters to the indies. Please do the same.

By: Megan Ryan

The Gophers men’s and women’s track and field teams scrambled to finalize their Big Ten outdoor championship rosters this weekend.

Both teams were scheduled to compete at a local meet Wednesday, but it was canceled due to weather. While two meets ran as planned this weekend, Wednesday’s cancellation delayed the roster announcements by several days.

Women’s volunteer assistant coach Sarah Hesser said the team hoped to make conference team announcements Thursday, but it didn’t actually make decisions until late this weekend.

“We wanted to obviously have that figured out by Wednesday night because then we’d have a whole week left before the actual departure to the [Big Ten] meet,” Hesser said. “That would make everybody’s lives a little easier … in terms of their preparation for the conference meet.”

Some athletes competed for Big Ten spots at the Hamline Meet of the UnSaintly on Friday and Saturday. Others had to prove themselves during time trials in practice late last week.

The Gophers have had to juggle indoor and outdoor training and competition this spring. Hesser called it one of the most challenging and frustrating springs for the team, but she said the athletes have not been fazed.

“For the most part, I’ve been super impressed with the girls just with how flexible they’ve been,” Hesser said. “They could definitely have let it throw them for a loop when things keep changing.”

The Gophers picked up six titles at the Hamline meet, four from the throwing team. Sophomore Tina DeLakis won the shot put with a throw of 13.92 meters. Redshirt freshman Lyndsey Thorpe took home the hammer throw title in 53.92 meters. Sophomore Devin Stanford placed first in the discus throw at 45.25 meters. Senior Emily Betz topped the javelin field at 42.38 meters.

Sophomore Katie Murgic won the pole vault at 3.83 meters.

Redshirt freshman Kate Bucknam won the 3,000-meter steeplechase in 11:00.74.

While the men’s team also competed at the Hamline meet, most of its best results came at the NDSU Tune-Up meet in Fargo, N.D. The Gophers originally planned to compete at Northern Iowa, but they switched for better weather conditions.

Minnesota picked up five titles in North Dakota, with all but one coming from the throws group.

Sophomore Logan Connors led a top-three sweep in the javelin at 61.47 meters. Sophomore Mark Jennings placed first in the shot put with a toss of 17.73 meters.

Sophomore Justin Barber topped the discus throw at 57.36 meters. Senior Micah Hegerle won the hammer throw with a distance of 65.51 meters.

Hegerle said this outdoor season has added the challenge of trying to work around the weather.

“You just really have to be flexible,” Hegerle said, “to be able to train when it’s nice and not have to stick to a schedule.”

Redshirt freshman Christian Skaret also led a podium sweep of the 800-meter run in 1:52.92.

Men’s head coach Steve Plasencia said he has several concerns about the upcoming Big Ten outdoor championships.

“We have to make [Big Ten roster] decisions on less-than-perfect information,” Plasencia said. “One of my concerns is, if we’re coming out of 40-, 50-degree weather and all of a sudden we get to Ohio State — I saw a prediction in the 80s — that’s a worry for me.”

By: Hailey Colwell

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar led a panel discussion Tuesday about increasing research for curing brain diseases like Alzheimer’s, autism, epilepsy and Parkinson’s.

The panel spoke to a full conference room about the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative, a national push to prevent and cure brain disorders by mapping the human brain.

President Barack Obama announced the 10-year, $100 million BRAIN Initiative earlier this month, following his call for investment in job-creating scientific research in his February State of the Union Address.

In Minnesota, more than 189,000 people are living with Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, autism or epilepsy, Klobuchar said. Autism costs the nation about $137 billion per year, and Alzheimer’s disease is expected to cost more than a trillion dollars by 2050.

Funding research initiatives like this will not only impact people with neurological disorders and their families, Klobuchar said, but will also create jobs and lower the costs of these disorders.

“We have to see this as a long-term investment,” she said.

As part of the BRAIN Initiative Working Group, researchers at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Magnetic Resonance Research are developing technologies to map circuits connecting different parts of the brain. This can help scientists understand neurological disorders, said radiology professor Kamil Ugurbil.

In a time when federal funding is difficult to come by, the BRAIN Initiative is important to the University, he said. Looming sequestration cuts could deprive the University of millions of dollars in federal research grants.

Despite advancements the University’s made in brain research, Ugurbil said there’s much work to be done.

“The road that we have to travel is really immense compared to where we are,” he said.

The impact of research

The initiative has the potential to change the way diseases are diagnosed and treated, according to representatives from advocacy organizations on the panel.

Because Parkinson’s disease has a 20 percent misdiagnosis rate, developing technology to better map the brain would make it easier to detect, said Paul Blom, president of the National Parkinson Foundation’s Minnesota chapter. Mapping would also help scientists identify the cells they need to focus on to develop surgical treatments, he said.

“If we could see which parts of the brain are active in real time as a neurologist observes symptoms,” he said, “we could better understand where to target therapy.”

Brain mapping research would also help Alzheimer’s patients receive accurate and timely diagnoses, as only about half of people with the disease are diagnosed in primary care, said Michelle Barclay, vice president of program services for the Alzheimer’s Association.

“If we can understand how the pathology progresses,” she said, “then we can identify people before symptoms appear.”

Epilepsy is the nation’s fourth most common neurological disorder, said Vicki Kopplin, executive director of the Epilepsy Foundation of Minnesota. Because its cause is unknown in about 70 percent of cases, it’s “tremendously impacted” by research, she said.

About 21,000 children in Minnesota public schools are diagnosed with some form of autism, said Jonah Weinberg, executive director of the Autism Society of Minnesota, and a deeper understanding of the brain could help people with the disorder live normal lives.

“For the millions of individuals and all of their family members who are impacted by autism,” he said, “it would just be an incredible thing that would improve lives for all of us.”