18-year-old Darius Minor was pronounced dead on July 24 after collapsing during a preseason workout at the University of Maine campus.

According to an email from the UMaine Orono and UMaine Machias President, Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Minor was an incoming first-year student from Locust Grove, Virginia.

In a message to all University students, Ferrini-Mundy wrote, “Darius was one of 17 first-year student-athletes taking part in the three-week Freshman Workout. He collapsed on the field at approximately 1:15 p.m. Campus athletics training staff and local first responders were unable to resuscitate him.

Minor was enrolled in Summer Session at UMaine and intended to pursue a major in political science.

On August 15, the Chief Medical Examiner’s office in Augusta announced that Minor had suffered an acute heart condition.

UMaine head coach Joe Harasymiak mentioned during a press conference on July 25 that Minor told strength coach Jon Lynch that “he felt like he was going to pass out” seconds before collapsing on the field.

Harasymiak said that emergency responders were called immediately to the scene but were not able to resuscitate Minor.

Minor is believed to be the first student-athlete to die during an on-campus workout since the team’s first season in 1892.

Of the athlete’s character, Harasymiak said that Minor was, “a very hard worker” and dreamed of playing football at the college level.

“This was a dream for him, this is where he wanted to be”, Harasymiak stated.

The coach said on the night Minor died, the older players spent the night accompanying the freshmen students in their dorms. Harasymiak said he was unaware the team had organized the evening in advance.

Following his death, friends and community members began a memorial honoring Minor outside of the New Balance Field House and Memorial Gym on campus.

For one week after the incident, the Black Bears were released from their remaining training sessions, and were encouraged to spend time with their families, according to Harasymiak.

The head coach said that all the players needed time to mourn the passing of their friend and teammate.

On July 26, Minor’s aunt, Dana Wines, created a GoFundMe page to cover the family’s funeral costs. Wines originally listed a $15,000 goal which increased to $30,000 after the first goal was surpassed.

Members of the UMaine community have rallied around the family to extend their condolences and alums from previous years have shown their support as well.

Phillip H. Morse, a 1964 UMaine graduate pledged $10,000 to cause. Morse, a vice chairman to the Boston Red Sox, is a longtime benefactor to the university.

In 21 days, the page has raised over of $31,000 just exceeding their second goal.

Eight days following Minor’s death, the team opened up their training camp to prepare for their season opener on Aug., 30 against the University of New Hampshire.

18-year-old Darius Minor was pronounced dead on Tuesday afternoon after collapsing during a preseason workout at the University of Maine campus.

According to an email from the UMaine Orono and UMaine Machias President, Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Minor was an incoming first-year student from Locust Grove, Virginia.

In a message to all University students, Ferrini-Mundy wrote, “Darius was one of 17 first-year student-athletes taking part in the three-week Freshman Workout. He collapsed on the field at approximately 1:15 p.m. Campus athletics training staff and local first responders were unable to resuscitate him.”

Minor was enrolled in Summer Session at UMaine and intended to pursue a major in political science.

More information will be shared as it is released.

March 29

11:30 p.m. – At the intersection of Park Street and Washburn Drive, Orono Police Department (OPD)  officers stopped a car belonging to a 20-year-old male for operating without headlights on during nighttime. The man stated he was picking up friends from the Bear Brew earlier. Sergeant LaJoie and Officer Morse saw alcohol in the backseat of the car, and asked to conduct a vehicle search. Officers seized the alcohol from the male’s possession, and issued him a summons for illegal transportation of alcohol by a minor. He is scheduled to appear in court on May 10.

March 30

11:15 p.m. – OPD received a call about a noise complaint from Orchard Trails. A twenty-year-old female of Gray, Maine said she was the only tenant present at the time. Officers warned the female about the noise, and she asked everyone to leave.

11:35 p.m. – While patrolling Crosby Street, OPD officers found a male subject partially unconscious in a parked car on the side of the road. The Fire Dept. transported the man to Eastern Maine Medical Center. Officers determined the 18-year-old man from Bangor had come from the female’s party at OT.

12:10 a.m. – Officers returned to the female’s residence. She admitted to knowingly throwing a party with underage people in her apartment. She was issued a summons for furnishing a place for minors to consume alcohol and will appear in court on May 10.

March 31

12:28 a.m. – A 19-year-old male of Lambda Chi Alpha was charged with illegal possession of alcohol by a minor on Saturday morning. University of Maine Police Department(UMPD) officers issued the male a summons and a referral to student conduct. The fraternity also received a referral for providing alcohol to a minor. The male is scheduled to appear in court on May 17.

March 31

1:15 a.m. – Courtesy officers at The Avenue in Orono were ordering guest cars to be towed for parking in residential areas when they called OPD and asked for back-up at 12:30 a.m., but abruptly hung up the phone without an explanation. OPD arrived at the scene to find a 23-year-old male, who was reportedly under the influence and harassing people. OPD gave the male three warnings before placing him under arrest for disorderly conduct. He was taken to Penobscot County Jail and is scheduled to appear in court on May 10.

April 1

4:08 p.m. – UMPD reported that someone entered the women’s locker room of the NBSRC on Sunday afternoon and stole a bra and a pair of underwear. It was not confirmed whether the suspect was a member or a guest at the recreation center. The suspect has not yet been revealed.

April 4

6:00 a.m. – UMPD reported that staff at the New Balance Student Recreation Center found a glass entrance door that was broken in, presumably during the night. The incident has reportedly caused $300 worth of damage. There are no suspects yet.

L.L. Bean, one of Maine’s largest companies established in 1912, has suffered extreme backlash in the last two weeks following the announcement of a decision to rescind their lifetime satisfaction guarantee.

In a Feb. 9 Facebook post entitled, “A Letter to our Customers,” L.L. Bean executive chairman Shawn O. Gorman wrote, “…Our commitment to customer service has earned us your trust and respect, as has our guarantee, which ensures that we stand behind everything we sell. Increasingly, a small, but growing number of customers has been interpreting our guarantee well beyond its original intent… Based on these experiences, we have updated our policy. Customers will have one year after purchasing an item to return it, accompanied by proof of purchase. After one year, we will work with our customers to reach a fair solution if a product is defective in any way.”

This decision appears to be a long time coming for the company, who says their sales have suffered due to abuse of the lifetime warranty. In a Feb. 9 article from the Associated Press, spokeswoman Carolyn Beem said the company has lost $250 million on returned items in the last five years. An email from Beem notes about 15 percent of all returns abuse the guarantee policy.

Since the establishment of L.L. Bean’s first store in Freeport in 1917, the company has stood behind a “100% customer satisfaction guarantee” as well as free everyday shipping for customers in North America. The satisfaction guarantee was instituted in 1912, after 90 of the first 100 pairs of Bean boots were found to be defective. The founder, Leon Leonwood Bean, promised customers a satisfaction guarantee, a policy that lasted over 100 years. Accompanied with the updated policy, the company has also changed the shipping fees — only orders over $50 ship for free.

“I think that the decision by L.L. Bean is unfortunate for consumers in Maine and around the nation. While I understand the reasoning behind it, I feel like other measures could have been taken before making a decision to terminate the… [lifetime] plan altogether. It will change how consumers see the company, and likely will make people think twice before deciding to pay for their goods over, say, Patagonia or The North Face’s products,” Adam Fortier-Brown, a third-year economics and political science student, said.

“It was never a lifetime warranty. It is a satisfaction guarantee. The vast majority of our customers understand and respect the spirit and intent of the guarantee, and know it is not reasonable to allow it to be interpreted as a lifetime product replacement program. The cost of this misuse of policy was becoming unsustainable; if we did not address it, we would have had to pass on the cost to our customers, which is not fair,” Beem said.

The multi-national company is widely lauded for their “customer first” business practices, fair treatment of employees and charitable giving. A 2014 company sales report notes they average between 5,000 and 9,000 employees during the busy season.

On Jan. 11, the Bangor Daily News (BDN) reported L.L. Bean’s latest addition to their Charitable Giving program. The company will donate a total of $2 million to various charity organizations, many of which focus on conservation, outdoor recreation and education. In an email, Beem noted, “L.L. Bean’s support for the community of Maine has never been stronger. We donate millions of dollars each year … We are, for example, the state’s top contributor to United Way, we support thousands of students for outdoor oriented school programs each year, and we maintain the largest section of the Appalachian Trail and … we employ approximately 5,000 Mainers.” She continued, “We are vested in this state, it’s where the company began and where we continue to thrive. Most Mainers as pragmatic, hardworking, good people can appreciate the need to protect the integrity of the guarantee.”

Bean’s controversial decision has left some shoppers unsure about the company. As a result, Victor Bondi of Illinois has filed a lawsuit against L.L. Bean in an attempt to recoup “losses” he claims the company is responsible for. A 16-page lawsuit was filed with the Illinois Northern District Court on Monday, Feb. 12, the BDN reported. The suit details a “Class-Action Complaint” on behalf of Bondi, along with 100 other shoppers, that cites harm and claims L.L. Bean refuses to honor their previous lifetime guarantee for purchases made prior to Feb. 9, 2018.

The revocation of the lifetime warranty has impacted UMaine students, many of whom wear Bean products.

“It’s kind of upsetting, L.L. Bean gave us a chance and people have abused it… They have a right to take it back,” second-year physics student Anna Przybylowicz said.

“I understand the business component, but it [the lifetime warranty] was a really big selling point [and] I do wish they wouldn’t have restricted it… I think it takes away from the ‘family feel’ that L.L. Bean strives for,” Alyce Lew, a student pursuing a master’s in education, said.

Beem concluded, “This was a carefully considered decision that we are confident will enable L.L.Bean to continue to offer customers high-quality, long-lasting products, at a great value… Our returns agreement remains one of the best in the industry.”

It has been over six years since the beginning of the revolution in Syria. The civil war that commenced in March 2011 has evolved to a full-blown humanitarian crisis. In 2015, it was estimated that 6.6 million civilians were internally displaced, not including those who fled the nation or fell victim to the war. The humanitarian impacts, including civilian torture, displacement and governmental war crimes, are appalling. Even more, no person on either side of the war appears to be waving a white flag anytime soon.

In situations as crucial as these, we are urged to act fast. The U.S. has a long history of military and political intervention in global matters, but it has not always been highly supported. In this way, we are urged to consider whether the conflicts taking place on the international map are in need of foreign aid — and at what point we are given the “OK” to intervene. Is there a certain time or condition in which American intervention is appropriate? Oftentimes, American intervention coupled with Western ideals is not warmly welcomed, especially in the Middle East. However, in such dire times of life or death, any outside action is good action.

With the increasing desire of national isolation within the government today, we should start to consider the possible global impacts in relation to foreign affairs.

It is often debated that President Donald Trump supports globalization over globalism, but his recent decisions challenge those previous conceptions. Our president is his own worst enemy, a contradiction of his own creation. He has consistently encouraged an “America first” policy and promoted American manufactured goods and services. The man who advocates an American upper hand in global politics is the same man who will neglect global humanitarianism in order to fulfill his sacred “America first” agenda. It is very possible that an extreme withdrawal of American allies on foreign lands during wartime may occur. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time we have witnessed Trump default on his former promises.

What our current president fails to understand, however, is that American intervention in global conflict is not self-sacrificial. It is neither a poor use of our military budget nor an ineffective use of time. American presence on international territory is completely necessary to achieve eventual peace. It is a key aspect in the fight over terrorist rule and freedom for global citizens. If Trump decides to remove troops in these areas, we are relinquishing our power to help others.

I have not always condoned American intervention in the past. It is clearly a sensitive issue in the matter of foreign politics and a decision to be made with discretion. There are certain points during global conflicts in which intervention is necessary. The crisis in Syria has now reached that point. We can even say it is a point of no return — a plateau wherein the war exhibits no sign of an end. In this state, it is no longer a debate. The continued foreign intervention in Syria is a global obligation. If Trump cannot recognize that necessity, he will not do well to preserve the agenda of foreign affairs from his seat in the Oval Office.

Civil rights committees and social justice advocates have been given yet another reason to protest this past week, following a political directive by President Donald Trump regarding U.S. anti-discrimination laws. On Feb. 22, Trump decided to rescind the protections on transgender students in all public schools: a motion previously instituted during the Obama administration. The Title IX mandate issued under former President Barack Obama permitted transgender students in public schools to use the bathroom and locker rooms that they felt most comfortable using. It was decided that barring students from entering certain gendered restrooms was a clear infringement on anti-discrimination in schools.

In a statement released by the Trump administration, however, it was evident that our elected officials do not feel the Title IX directive for trans students’ protections was well established. For multiple reasons, President Trump decided to revoke these protections for trans students in public schools. The major argument for the law’s revocation was legal reasons, as the Trump administration stated. Trump himself has publicly stated that he believes bathroom gender admittance is an issue that should be handled at the state level. However, his recent actions do not correspond to the promises he made during his campaign considering trans students’ safety for the future.

If Trump believes this a matter of the State — and therefore should be left to state variation — we must ask ourselves why he has exercised federal power to rescind public restroom access in schools. If he firmly believes that transgender students’ rights are an issue to be disputed within individual states, it is fairly clear that he has abandoned that belief now. The revocation of Obama’s anti-discrimination guideline in schools only proves to us that Trump is not in favor of American students’ protections, regardless of sexual identity. Ironically, it appears he rescinded the code on the basis of general student safety. The revocation of the Title IX mandate not only instills fear within the trans people’s community, but also their straight allies. The main argument here is that we may be shirking young people’s protections in private spaces. Conservative politicians argue that the only way to ensure safety in the restrooms of public schools is to control who is permitted and who is not. But that also means they consider bathrooms to be a place of danger and transgender students to be dangerous.

Are we really meant to believe that a school bathroom or locker room are the only places a student faces danger?

Are we expected to believe that there are no other people who are capable of sexual predation other than transgender individuals?

Are we being trained to think that asking students to relinquish their individuality and personal comfort is acceptable?

In consideration of these new changes, we must keep in mind several significant factors. A student, regardless of gender identity, is susceptible to bullying and harassment at any time, situation and location.

Torment is not confined to a public restroom. Sexual predation knows no limitations or bounds.

Assuming that transgender people are more of a danger than others, or assuming that they have capabilities to harm more so than others, is ignorance at its finest. Any person is capable of evil — and any person is capable of harm. Anyone can be considered a threat to public safety, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

By allowing people of all identities to share a restroom, we are not shirking one person’s comfort for another’s. We are not giving special privilege to transgender people. We are respecting their basic human rights.

Trump’s presidency is indeed changing our world. We are beginning to see cultural and transnational transformations that have not yet been introduced in our modern society. Trump’s presidency has provoked social and cultural changes, as well as brought to light many issues that were previously overlooked. While we are in the middle of making progressive change, why not take that a step further to improve the societal well-being of students here in the U.S.?

One way we could do this is to decrease the legal drinking age. By legalizing those at age 18 or 19 to purchase and consume alcohol, we could change the stigma around “underage” drinking. Lowering the drinking age in the U.S. could prove to be beneficial.

It is estimated that 65 percent of students over the age of 18 regularly consume alcohol. Consider the percentage of students in college who drink underage. Even in places where alcohol is not permitted, it is clearly present. UMaine, for example, is both a tobacco-free and semi “dry” college campus. But if we suppose that the majority of students drink underage both on and off campus, we can assume that we don’t live in a substance-free community.

Alcohol is mistreated because oftentimes students haven’t been taught how to properly use it. We teach students early on that alcohol is dangerous in any scenario and can only be trusted with people over 21. Instead of teaching students how to drink responsibly, we encourage them not to drink at all. By the time they begin their first semester of college, some students consume enormous amounts of alcohol and can face many consequences. If caught underage, students may experience serious legal and personal repercussions.

We should reward students who use alcohol responsibly, regardless of their age.

Even if someone is of legal age, that does not guarantee they have the maturity to be responsible with alcohol. We need to teach our kids that alcohol use is a responsibility rather than a reward.

In the U.S., we raise kids to believe that alcohol is dangerous and a privilege allotted only to those of a certain age. However, the concept of maturity in terms of alcohol consumption is completely individualistic and varies culturally. In many other nations of the world, alcohol is not as regulated as it is here. In France, for example, the legal drinking age is 18, but many families allow their kids to drink before they reach legality. Canada also has a similar regulation for alcohol use.

If we want to prepare our students for the “real” world, we need to prepare them to use substances appropriately and safely. While we are considering the possibility of lowering the drinking age, we could also make cultural improvements to our own communities. If we lowered the drinking age to 18, we could begin to transform our own cultural suppression of alcohol consumption.

While I don’t agree with every policy recently enacted by our newly elected president, I do believe President Donald Trump has earned some credit. He has signed several executive orders to follow through with the promises he made to the American public during his campaign season. But these orders are not necessarily what we had bargained for in the beginning.

Trump’s executive order banning Muslims from the U.S. has had serious and long-reaching consequences for people all over the world. Not only that, but it sets a bad precedent for both the Trump administration as well as the entire U.S. We are now beginning to recognize that he really is changing America and evolving the nation to be something we are not.

Trump’s presidency thus far has caused severe global contention and concern. The Muslim ban itself is creating a portrayal of the U.S. that is disconnected from who we actually are. Trump’s changes are proving to the world that we are not interested in maintaining our role as a global superpower. Instead, we are demonstrating that we prioritize self-prosperity over the collective good. We are impressing upon other nations that we can shirk global responsibilities to advance our own position.

However, these are not the beliefs that we were created with. Our forefathers did not fight for these negative ideals. We need not dissociate from the global sphere in order to advance our nation. The U.S. is a great nation because we respect and defend the rights of all, rather than the rights of some. We honor the prosperity of all peoples, regardless of their homeland. We must remember that we are better because of our diversity — not in spite of it.

One of the greatest effects of the Muslim ban was the reaction of every other global nation. After hearing about Trump’s plan to create a more isolated United States, several countries around the world rejected this mentality and actually became more globalized as communities. Many nations are now hosting more refugees and accepting other immigrants. In a way, the Muslim ban has had a reverse effect on the world. While the U.S. proceeds with an isolationist agenda, the rest of the global community focuses on humanitarian needs.

This is the way that we succeed as a nation. We must not reject humanitarianism on the basis of self-sufficiency. We have the capacity as a population to host those in need. Lastly, we have a responsibility to remain a place of refuge and opportunity to all global citizens regardless of what any executive order commands.

Ever since the announcement of his presidential campaign, President Donald Trump has been at the forefront of international political discourse. What many global citizens feared was a cruel joke has become a reality: Trump was inaugurated as the president of the United States. He is undeniably an interesting character and thus quickly became a fascinating subject for political analysts’ observation. As we near his second week in office, the world is waiting with bated breath to discover what his next move will be.

Trump’s first week in office brought about an unsurprising global frenzy. In only a few short days, he signed an executive order effectively banning entrance to the U.S. for people from seven Muslim majority countries. The day following his official inauguration, an estimated 470,000 people gathered to partake in the Women’s March on Washington to protest his presidency. What global repercussions can we expect from the end of this week?

It is important to recognize that while his presidential decisions have extreme consequences for both American and foreign citizens, Trump has held up his end of the bargain thus far. During his campaign, he promised to strengthen the vetting process of immigrants and ban peoples from Muslim descent or nationality. This was one of the main pillars of his campaign, in fact. Last week, we were able to watch him fulfill that promise he made to us many months ago.

While we may praise his ability to uphold his word to the public, we should continue to be cautious and consider an ulterior motive. The executive order Trump signed last week banned entrance to people from seven countries alone. But why these seven countries? Why not people from Muslim nationality altogether? While he has come through with the promises he made last year, it appears his approach is both misguided and ill-informed.

Trump’s order also instituted the ban for 90 days, specifically. We may assume that the 90-day order is possibly a waiting period, but we may also question why it was not ordered indefinitely. Sure, the 90-day ban may be some sort of political red tape; as in, we will observe the implications of this decision before a true law is set. However, we can also assume the opposite wherein the ban is a scheme created by Trump to fulfill his own desires that defies the political agenda of the U.S. We must remain questionable during this time of uncertainty. We must not allow ourselves to be further manipulated and misrepresented by those in a position of power. Specifically, those who may have their own plans for America that oppose the morals and sentiments of our national community.