On Nov. 5, St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison overturned Missouri’s ban on gay marriage, citing a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster immediately appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court of Missouri, so the constitutional challenge could be “presented to and resolved” at that level. However, unlike several other states, he did not rule a stay on marriage licenses being given to same-sex couples.

So, for the time being, Missouri is finally allowing marriage licenses to be given to same-sex couples, becoming part of the national trend toward marriage equality for all. At this time, 32 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage.

For some, this national trend towards marriage equality is unwelcome, but to most, the continued rulings towards marriage equality have been extremely well received.

Regardless of which side you choose, there is something to be said about the change that the idea and institution of marriage has undergone over the past generation.

Recognizing these changes, we decided we would talk about how the same-sex marriage rulings, as well as other trends regarding marriage, have changed the ways we perceive marriage.

The first topic we discussed is the changing societal pressures to marriage. Many of us recounted stories of grandmothers of ours that were pressured into marrying around the age of 20 because all of their friends were doing it and there was a man that liked them. Some of these marriages have lasted, while others have ended in divorce. We noticed that such pressures existing today would look absurd. At least on an urban campus, married 20-year-olds are seen as exceptional rather than normative. However, we noticed too that the older one becomes, the more likely they are to be asked by relatives and parents about a special someone, or even grandkids. Around the age of 30, marriage with someone is seen as expected from peers and elders. While the same pressures of the bygone age no longer exist, there are still vestiges of that legacy.

The second aspect of marriage we discussed is the will to marry. While most of our Editorial Board has at the least a vague expectation of getting married in their future, there are a few that have decided against it. One cited the incompatibility between marriage and their ideal lifestyle. One other stated that they would not marry until all people in the U.S. would be allowed to marry, even those in the holdout states situated primarily in the South.

In wanting everyone to be allowed to marry first, the Editor discussed the connection between privilege and marriage. Currently there are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status (debunking the claim that same-sex couples are only looking for a piece of paper to validate their love). These benefits extend to tax benefits and health insurance protection and are provided by the federal government. The Editorial Board generally agreed that these federal benefits are fine to have, as they promote national stability, but agreed that such benefits, rights and protections should be inclusive of all people.

With the pressures to marry loosening and more people deciding marriage is not for them, our conceptions of marriage continues to change, adapting to present circumstances. Regardless of what marriage means to each of us, we’re excited that same-sex couples are now afforded the same opportunities as heterosexual couples.

We hope that everyone had a chance to read staff writer Max Hammond’s front-page article last week detailing the new student housing projects that SLU has in store for the near future (early 2015). The piece detailed the administration’s master plans to construct new buildings and renovate existing ones, and the Editorial Board is pleased with the University’s housing initiative.  Housing practices at SLU are in serious need of examination, and in putting forth this master housing plan, the University has taken the first crucial step towards such examination and remediation.

We acknowledge that collegiate housing is a competitive business; SLU has to vie with a myriad of student-housing developers in the area (like those building The Standard and West Pine Lofts), and this fact no doubt points to why SLU’s housing policies often seem unreasonable; the University has to stay afloat in the housing market. But we still question some of the University’s housing practices—namely the requirement that students live on campus for two years, the housing selection process, and on-campus housing rates—and we hope that the current housing master plan fixes these problems.

In Hammond’s article last week, Melinda Carlson, the Director for Housing and Residence Life for Student Development, was quoted as saying, “Students would rather have us be their landlords than the off-campus apartments.” We recognize that many off-campus experiences can be frustrating.

Trapped in the “SLU Bubble,” students often have to deal with unreasonable landlords who know that they will always have business because of their proximity to the University—every year new students can be trapped by their ridiculous leases, so to them customer satisfaction is optional. But the claim that students would rather have SLU be their landlord is, in our opinion, not qualified—at least when considering where SLU’s housing situation currently stands.

There are a number of problems that we see with SLU’s housing practices. If sophomores are required to live on campus, for instance, then why do seniors get priority over them in a confusing lottery selection process? In addition, SLU’s housing rates are unreasonable, especially considering how much more space and amenities one can get from an off-campus lease for a lot less money. Obviously, freshmen should be required to live on campus; part of the undergraduate experience is the development of academic solidarity and social interaction with one’s peers—things best attained by living together on campus. This argument could be applicable to the second-year experience, but the way that SLU goes about assigning second year students’ housing—and the prices it makes them pay—causes us to call for an end to the two-year requirement of living on-campus.

Of course, on campus housing does have its benefits, and we recognize this fact. Many students, for instance, enjoy the convenience and comfort of living on campus. Students returning mid-year from study abroad experiences also appreciate the ability to automatically have a place to live when they return. However, there are still numerous ways in which SLU can improve its housing policies and facilities, and we are thus excited to see the University unveil its housing plan—even if none of us will be able to enjoy the completed projects.

Last week, a hacker made the news for uploading hacked photos of Academy Award winner Jennifer Lawrence, as well as a multitude of other stars, to online sources such as 4chan and Reddit. Since that time, the females in question have been reeling, either denying photos attributed to them are real, or by pursuing legal action against the hacker and people that have disseminated the photos to other websites, calling the acts “an outrageous violation of [their] privacy.”

The hack was able to occur due to a loophole within Apple’s iCloud (a metadata device that stores pictures and videos from anyone’s iPhone). An Apple spokesperson stated they are actively investigating the breach. Under normal circumstances, data from someone’s phone cannot be accessed by others, but is stored in the cloud whether the photo is deleted or not. Even more concerning, is the fact storing data on the cloud is a default setting on all iPhones, which many users do not realize.

If you think all of this sounds eerily similar to collections the National Security Agency (NSA) was/is doing, you’re not alone. Nonetheless, Apple and other digital companies have been good about securing that information from both the government and individuals that seek to use the stored information for malicious intent, as was the case here. Many companies hire ‘hackers’ to try to break through their systems, and it can be assured that Apple will improve its security after this break. Nonetheless, such breaks can give many people pause, as one editor stated that some people are incredibly unaware with the implications of recent technological advances in the digital world, and the fine print that inevitably accompanies the new technology.

To be clear, despite media assertions that this was a leak, it was only a hack, as a leak entails someone came forward with photos that came to them from the victim. To be clear, both are illegal.

As another public service announcement, it is illegal and unwarranted to view photos of anyone that did not consent to giving you them. Lena Dunham, creator of the hit show, “Girls”, tweeted: “Remember, when you look at these pictures, you are violating these women again and again. It’s not ok.” Emma Watson also condemned the dissemination of the photos on social media and the accompanying comments, stating, “Even worse than seeing women’s privacy violated on social media is reading the accompanying comments that show such a lack of empathy.” Therefore, those anxiously clicking away trying to get a sight of Jennifer Lawrence’s body are just as culpable in violating her personal privacy as the hacker himself.

Grievous violations of women’s privacy is not a new occurrence, many celebrities, such as Vanessa Hudgens, have seen photos of theirs leaked through social media or porn sites. Another epidemic regarding women’s privacy is the proliferation of ‘revenge porn,’ when a partner disperses photos or videos without the other’s consent, as an act of revenge.

With new technology and ever more ‘dedicated’ hackers seeking to abuse information, it is important to remain vigilant of what one is signing up for, as well as to remain empathetic to the privacy of others. Would you want people you don’t know, and probably don’t like, to look at nudes of you? We didn’t think so.

After a long selection process over Saint Louis University’s food service provider, and a lackluster tenure with previous vendor Chartwells, SLU eventually signed Aramark to a five-year contract.

Aramark’s pitch to SLU included a greater offering of local, organic, and sustainable food options; new, popular dining franchises; extended operational hours; and improved meal plans, with more options for students.

For the University, Aramark’s pitch was enough; for students, the reception has been mostly positive.

As well as detailing the ways Aramark has shown its merit to the University community, the Editorial Board would also like to expound the difficulties Aramark has had since its contract began this summer.

The first thing that the editorial board, as well as the larger student body, has enjoyed is the multitude of options that Aramark offers. Extended dining hours shows a flexibility and sensitivity to the schedules of college students. New meal plans allow for double swipes (unlike Chartwells’ policy), and don’t have a weekly quota but an allotted amount for the entire semester. While such a plan will ultimately require students to use basic budgeting and math skills (we believe in you), we’re nonetheless pleased.

Lastly, Aramark has provided a premium plan for athletes and anyone else wanting to pay a large fee to have almost unfettered access to SLU’s dining halls. Last year, this editorial board spoke about college athletes simply not getting enough food to sustain their diets, and it’s good to see Aramark providing this service to athletes at SLU.

In other ways, however, there are fewer options with Aramark than with Chartwells. The most noticeable, is the dearth of fully operational dining locations due to construction. Starbucks opened this week, and St. Louis Bread Co. is set to follow shortly, but the ‘Billiken Lair’ at Fusz doesn’t seem close to being finished, with deadlines moving back later and later into the fall semester. What makes the situation worse, based on what Aramark stated last spring, is that all of these places were to be ready on time. Throughout the summer, however, the ‘Billiken Lair’ sat, waiting for construction to move in, an event that did not begin until August. It’s a bit odd that the company would say everything was to be ready, only to move so slowly to accomplish such a task.

Another way Aramark has shown less versatility than its predecessor is by removing the only solely vegetarian and vegan eatery on campus and replacing it with a Starbucks. (There is one literally a block away!)

Not only did Terre Vé serve a niche within the SLU community, but the eatery also served as an introduction for many SLU students who had not intentionally eaten a vegetarian meal before. Such an environment is now lost. We’re additionally skeptical that, despite their assurances, Aramark will fully replace meatless options to adequately serve SLU’s vegetarians.

Our last concern is one regarding customer service. Aramark took an excessive period of time to launch their SLU-specificwebsite. Chartwells had one that served multiple purposes: customer relations, opportunities to meet the Chartwells team at SLU, and provide notices regarding specials or other events. We feel Chartwells’ website was an effective PR strategy that Aramark would do well to replicate.

So far, Aramark has effectively served SLU as its food provider. Einstein Bros, Panda Express, and Starbucks have proven to be incredibly popular, showing that big names do sell. Nonetheless, we are disappointed in a number of aspects that we hope Aramark, and fellow Billikens, will take heed.

The Islamic State (IS), formerly known as ISIS, has become the Western world’s biggest problem in 2014, culminating in the brutal execution of American journalist James Foley. In February, the group formally split from Al-Qaeda in February and has grown exponentially as it has increased its influence in Iraq and Syria.

The organization’s military has also taken huge swaths of land in Iraq and Syria as it attempts to carve a caliphate out of the civil war in Syria, and the political tumult and disorganization in Iraq. In June, it was reported that IS only had several thousand troops at its disposal in Iraq. By the end of August, its numbers have increased to 30,000 troops in Syria and 20,000 in Iraq.

The group’s military rise is only equaled by its brutality. Civilians under IS control have been the victims of targeted killings because of their ethnicity or the religion they practice. IS fighters also stand accused of many instances of sexual violence against women, which has not been widely known in the west. However, as previously stated, the watershed moment for many Americans was the televised execution of journalist James Foley.

The execution of James Foley was meant to terrorize Americans. The manner of the execution itself and the fact that the executioner was a man from Britain speaking English, shocked American viewers and readers.

Whether it was the execution, the accused war crimes or the minority groups’ targeting (or a combination of all three) the US has begun to increase its involvement since pulling out of Iraq only three years prior.

Involvement began with delivering humanitarian supplies to minority groups, including members of the Yazidi faith who were stuck on a desolate mountainside in Iraq. Then, earlier this August, President Obama authorized airstrikes against IS in order to protect American lives, protect minority groups in Iraq and to stop the IS advance on the city of Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish Autonomous region in Iraq. Later still, the president also stated that there were special forces units operating in Iraq.

For some, this involvement has shown to be extremely important in helping stem the tide of this brutal organization’s unheeded rise. For others, however, American involvement is disconcerting, perhaps signaling an American return to a region where its history is still heavily criticized.

Most of the editors agreed that some American involvement is necessary; the Yazidis stuck on the mountainside needed humanitarian aid. America has a vested interest in a stable and safe Kurdish Autonomous region in northern Iraq.

What’s important though is that when proceeding, the United States should detail what involvement the country plans to use. Hearing that there is, as of yet, no concerted strategy against IS from the president is not exactly reassuring. We’d like to see a covert ground presence in the form of special forces, continued air strikes and continued humanitarian aid. It’s widely agreed amongst the editorial board that some American presence is needed, but it’s very important that we do not get too involved, lest we be dragged into another war and repeat the cycle again.

Welcome back to Saint Louis University folks. We at The University News are very pleased to have everyone back. We especially welcome the new first years, bringing with them new experiences and perspectives, interests and talents.

Our university also welcomed a new president this year in Dr. Fred Pestello. Dr. Pestello is the first lay president of SLU; however, he does bring a distinctly Catholic experience, having both been raised Catholic and serving at Catholic institutions over almost 30 years.

After the turbulent events surrounding former president Rev. Lawrence Biondi S.J. and his 26-year tenure as university president , the university is now moving forward to a time of change, and hopefully, calm. .

SLU’s potential for growth can be seen in multiple areas. Our national rankings have steadily slipped over the last several years to outside the top 100. While the business and medical schools have increased their prestige over the past, other programs at the University are not receiving the attention they feel they deserve. There are many parcels of land, including the site of the old Pevely plant, which remain underdeveloped or completely undeveloped. Lastly, the SLU community is becoming increasingly disparate from the surrounding community; SLU is feeling more and more like a bubble within the city.

The university also needs calm. Near the end of Fr. Biondi’s tenure, a perceivable ‘culture of fear’ existed amongst graduate students and the faculty, after the president seemed intent on changing the Professors’ tenure procedure. A Professor of Political Science called Biondi’s tenure “a raj.”  Interim President Bill Kaufmann helped return the University back to a sense of calm and mutual respect between administration, faculty and students, and it is up to Dr. Pestello to solidify that calm.

Dr. Pestello’s reception on this campus has been nothing but positive since he was named as the next SLU president last spring. Unlike the last president, which sometimes felt like an awful game of hide-and-seek, Dr. Pestello has had an actual presence on this campus, appearing and speaking at many of the university-wide events held thus far. Many of the members of the editorial board who were present during Biondi’s tenure believe they have seen more of Dr. Pestello the past few months than they saw Fr. Biondi in one or two years. Dr. Pestello has already shown his relatable nature with his well publicized and masterful ALS Ice Bucket Challenge with dozens of other members of the SLU community?

Despite his measured presence on campus, which is undoubtedly appreciated, some worry still exists that SLU students will not be noticing any change in their daily lives. It would be unwise to think this campus is going to undergo massive change for students. There usually won’t be a massive change from president to president, and for some students, this is not problematic in the slightest..

Behind the scenes, however, there is a hope and an expectation that Dr. Pestello will be able to do the things as a president that a SLU president should be capable of. This means launching a fundraising job of massive proportions from SLU alums that will raise both the endowment and profile of the university. That means filling the positions left by faculty that accepted the Voluntary Enhanced Retirement Program (VERP) with full time faculty, NOT solely with adjuncts. Lastly, that means helping to fulfill the goal made by the previous university president: to make SLU the best Jesuit University in the country.

So welcome, Dr. Pestello. Your presence is extremely welcome to both those who lived through the tumult and to the younger folk who didn’t. As a University, we’re happy to have you. It’s time now, though, to do the job we  all need of you. Good luck, sir.

This year, I can safely say I’ve been asked 418 times what I’m planning on doing after graduation. It’s an innocent enough question that is, no doubt, intended merely so my friends and professors know where to send care packages next year; but with two weeks left until graduation, I’m more concerned with this question instead:

After us, who will remember Laclede’s?

Sure, the juniors had their “Cheaterz” then “Pierre Laclede’s,” but that was Laclede’s with a face-lift. Laclede’s with upholstered ottomans and waitresses wearing uniforms, not the gritty Laclede’s of our freshman year.

And there are more questions, too. What will August feel like without the luxury of fresh flex points? Will people still remember Doug the hot statue even though he’s moved from guarding the clock tower to Chaifetz? How can I be expected to look business casual every day, and do dyed jeans count as business casual?

These questions are scary, and so, in many ways, is graduation. For the last four years we’ve journeyed together towards reaching this goal, and now that we’ve reached it there’s the realization that in the next chapter of our lives we won’t have a cohort of classmates to laugh off some homework with then head to Fusz for ice cream.

But, what the heck, it’s the reason we’re here in the first place, right? We came here to graduate, and that’s what we’re doing.

Even if the next step means leaving Neverland forever, bidding adieu to adolescence and making brave strides towards unknown adulthood, it is sweet to know that we are leaving better than we came. We don’t depart with just a diploma to tack to our walls. We leave with things less tangible but more important: friendship, memories, wisdom and gratitude. Mistakes were made, lessons were learned, fountains were occasionally run through and we came out the better.

To SLU’s down-to-earth students who are down to explore the world, to the men and women who make Gries brunch (which is the most important meal of ANY day), to those led lectures and to everyone who planted a tulip – I’m not sure how to stop saying thank you.

When we graduate on May 17 we’ll chassé across that floor proudly, knowing where we came from even if we don’t yet know where we’re going. Taking a final, full look into the stands of Chaifetz Arena, reminding you—We were here. We are grateful. We remember Laclede’s.

“A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity.”  -The Dalai Lama. When I first toured Saint Louis University’s campus almost three years ago, my parents and I were both concerned for my safety as a student on an “urban” campus.  We were quickly comforted when student tour guides and faculty members alike repeatedly praised SLU’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), the largest regional licensed security officers in the city of St. Louis.

Since Wednesday, April 23, 2014, at approximately 2:00 a.m., I have begun to wonder how much of a façade contributes to SLU’s perceived sense of safety.  While I was not a victim of a personal or property crime on campus, I witnessed a bias incident, a hate crime, and I watched, horrified, as DPS officers wrote it off as a “prank” by “some kids.” According to the email sent to all SLU students, faculty and staff, “imagery depicting [an] offensive symbol regarding national origin/religion [was] discovered outside of [a] residence hall.”  According to me, a witness, a swastika constructed of candles was burning outside of Marguerite Hall.

According to Saint Louis University Division of Student Development’s Hate Crime and Bias-Related Incident Protocol found on SLU’s website, “the goal of this protocol is to: (i) address acts of hate, bias or other acts of intolerance that impact members of our University community, (ii) appropriately inform that community about such incidents and (iii) take appropriate actions to demonstrate that Saint Louis University will not tolerate incidents of hate, bias or other acts of intolerance.”

On Wednesday morning, I was present as DPS officers failed to address the act of hate, bias and intolerance adequately, failed to appropriately inform the SLU community about it and failed to take the necessary actions to demonstrate that SLU will not tolerate such incidents.  Instead of immediately recognizing that the swastika was a serious situation with enormous implications for many members of the SLU community, the DPS officers handled the situation imprudently and insinuated that the three students who reported the crime were oversensitive and idealistic.  Furthermore, the only attempt to inform the SLU community was a brief and extremely vague sentence that was added to the ongoing Student Incident Log.  To view this report, one must open the “Update to Incident Report Log” email from the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity, click on the link provided, enter one’s SLU Banner ID and password, and scroll to the latest report.  Because of this excessive process, many students, faculty and staff never access the available information about the reported bias incident.  By expressing their belief that the incident was “just kids being kids” or “a prank,” the DPS officers condoned the students’ behavior and ultimately allowed for the continuation of bias incidents on SLU’s campus.

Because the University has a vested interest in maintaining the image of a safe campus and because DPS is employed by the University, bias incidents that get reported to DPS are often concealed from the majority of members of the University community.

As students, it is time that we stand up against the acceptance of bias and injustice as the status quo on campus.  It is time that we urge University administrators and staff to adhere to the protocols that have been established.

It is time that we call for more transparency during the process of reporting and investigating bias incidents.  It is time to reclaim our beloved Saint Louis University so that every member of our community feels safe and celebrated, regardless of their race, religion, class, gender identity, sexual orientation or political affiliation.

For some, sexual assault is not a topic that typically comes up in normal conversation.

For others, sexual assault is all too real, and has had an adverse affect on themselves or their close friends.

Regardless, sexual assault, especially those on college campuses, is not frequently discussed, which is a grave injustice to the countless men and women who are sexually assaulted each year on college campuses (approximately one in five students is sexually assaulted by the time they graduate).

Talks on sexual assaults received a jolt last week when members of the Greek community attended a mandatory Title IX presentation regarding issues such as sexual assault, drinking and consent.

For many, the answers for all of these issues remained inconclusive, which was certainly not the intention of the presenters that were brought to SLU.

The presentation was handled as a skit; essentially two relatively new friends, male and female, were at a party. Both drank, but the woman was visibly more intoxicated than the man (the girl threw up twice, passed out twice and blacked out after throwing up the first time. The man could remember the entire night and had no ill effects from drinking at the time or later). After waking up at the side of the man, the woman said solely, “I’m ready,” which the man construed to mean ready to have sex and they did.

A dialogue with the Greek community followed the skit in which students could ask questions and attempted to determine who was at fault for the event.

Judging from reactions, nearly everyone was unsatisfied with the presentation, and the reasons for their displeasure were divided into two camps.

Some were angry that the Greek community was being singled out for this, as well as other issues, over the past few months. They also felt that the skit was a childish way to explain a scenario for which they could have just received facts. In addition, there were no definitions placed on important concepts such as consent and sexual assault; as an example of the skit’s ineffectiveness, the presenters had to frequently backtrack to explain these terms when consensus would diverge from these definitions.

Others were angered by the responses of their peers in the Greek community, which they explained as victim-blaming (that she drank too much; therefore it’s partly her fault).

They also didn’t think that the skit effectively presented facts and concepts for the large audience to fully understand. In addition, some were angry that women and men were put together for these presentations, and they noted a developing bias, as more men would cheer for those putting some of the blame on the girl than for those who put blame on both. There is also the concern with so many men and women together that sexual assault offenders and victims were quite possibly placed in the same room to discuss sexual assaults.

Under the legal definitions of sexual assault, the man in the skit would be guilty of sexual assault, as the woman was too impaired to legally give consent for intercourse.

This particular event could and should be discussed in greater length than this editorial board can describe in 600 or so words, so those who wish to learn more should reach out to a member of the Greek community for further explanation..

If any benefits of this presentation can be ascertained, it is that the issue of sexual assaults has reached a fever pitch in the past week. This presentation reached 1000 students, and many argue that a more effective presentation should be presented to the entire SLU community.

Paraphrasing writer Ursula K. Le Guin, the power of the harasser and the rapist depends wholly on the silence of the community. The topic of sexual assault does not belong in the shadows.

From the State of the Union to the widely publicized study on income inequality produced by Oxfam, there has been a large focus on income inequality, not only in the United States, but on a global level as well.

In January, the World Economic Forum, where economic elites from around the world meet to discuss global issues, discussed the issue of rising income inequality. According to the Oxfam study, which was published on nearly every large media outlet, the 85 richest people in the world take in as much income as the 3.5 billion poorest on Earth.

Like most issues or debates in Washington D.C., the democrats and republicans are taking different stances on how to change the inequality that currently exists in the United States.    Outside the Washington D.C. realm, some are even denying large income inequality while others claim that income inequality isn’t something new to either the world or the United States.

Thomas Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, recently said in a speech that “If there is inequality” the current administration is not addressing it correctly, which implies his doubt that such an inequality actually exists. While not fully believing that income inequality is a problem in the United States, Donohue also disagrees with President Obama’s large focus on wage inequality and increasing the minimum wage.

Much like what Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers said in the republican rebuttal to the President’s State of the Union, Donohue advocates that there is an inequality in opportunity rather than income. Opposite of Donohue, the President and congressional democrats believe that income inequality is the problem and that increasing the minimum wage will be the basic start to end it.

Not only did Obama publicly support an increase in the minimum wage during his address to the nation, he himself announced that he will be using his executive order privilege to increase federal worker’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and encouraged governors to take matters into their own hands on wages.

Whether one wishes to call it “income inequality” or “opportunity inequality”, there definitely seems to be some sort of inequality issue growing in the United States. Possibly, government leaders could stop arguing over what to title the issue but rather work together to fix it.

While Obama and Donohue may disagree on increasing the minimum wage as a solution, they both remarked in their recent speeches the importance of reforming education.

President Obama focused on training and educating the American workforce for a new, highly technological economy, while Donohue mentioned fixing the American public education system.

Making higher-level education more accessible to low-income Americans may also be a reasonable, agreeable solution to parts of the inequality debate.

Unfortunately, Donohue is not a member of Congress where his common ground with President Obama may do some good towards this issue and others on which they agree.

Just last week, congressional republicans announced movement towards a possible beginning of some form of immigration reform, something that both Donohue and President Obama think would help the current inequality issue.

This discussion on inequality is not something that is new to the political or social scene.

In more recent years, movements such as Occupy Wall Street introduced the idea to Americans that a small percentage of top earners in this country have been earning the majority of the country’s income, while other working Americans struggle on the brim of poverty.

Hopefully, 2014 will provide more bipartisanship and actual solutions to the income inequality issue in our country and world, and possibly on other pressing issues in the US and the world as well.