Sexual violence has taken center stage at mainstream news outlets, with new allegations and testimonies surfacing what feels like every day. The accused parties are from all walks of life, but mostly those in positions of power are being featured. This means that guilty politicians, once-beloved actors, television hosts and journalists are witnessing the consequences of their actions. And it’s about time. The culture of silencing and burying the stories of sexual violence victims is waning, though it still faces resistance the more that we’re made to realize the situation our country is in.

Time magazine named some key participants of the #MeToo campaign as “Person of the Year.” The movement was founded by Tarana Burke, and has been attributed as a huge player in opening the floodgates of sexual harassment allegations. Burke has been working to help victims of sexual violence for years — long before #MeToo was a hashtag and a viral movement rippling through social media feeds. Actress Alyssa Milano first used Burke’s mission statement “Me too” in a tweet, which birthed the official hashtag. In an interview with The New York Times, Burke mentioned feeling dread at this turn of events, feeling that “…something that was part of [her] life’s work was going to be co-opted and taken from [her].” Milano soon after attributed the campaign to Burke’s work.

The movement’s history is important, since it reflects areas for improvement as our country moves forward in eradicating sexual violence. The #MeToo campaign is a beautiful example of breaking silence. It’s accessible for many, though not the safest or most open platform for victims of sexual harassment to come forward with their stories. There are valid concerns that #MeToo is inaccessible to men, people of color, people in dangerous situations or trans people.  

But the movement did its job in rocketing sexual harassment onto American news stations. #MeToo was tweeted close to 1 million times in 48 hours, according to Twitter. The campaign spread to other platforms, such as Facebook, Tumblr and independent blogs.

Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken are only part of the issue. Sexual harassment isn’t relegated to only big-time cases in Hollywood and Congress. Sexual violence is nationwide, and worldwide. It doesn’t discriminate by race, class, sex, gender or religion. Women are commonly targeted, and positions of power are used to normalize and decriminalize sexual harassment, especially in the workplace. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) conducted a study in August 2016 around sexual harassment. They found that only about one in five women who have experienced sexual harassment report it, and furthermore, 80 percent of those few reported cases resulted in no change whatsoever.

When victims of sexual harassment come forward, validity is always a forefront question for journalists and law enforcers. There’s a point, however, when routine checks become a form of violence in themselves. Victim-blaming has a long, rich history in our country. Some studies have found that blaming the victim soothes the person doing the blaming, and allows them to cope with the reality that we live in a sexually violent society.

Sherry Hamby discussed this phenomenon with The Atlantic, citing the “just world hypothesis” which states that people deserve what happens to them. It’s a natural way of explaining our world and our actions, and may be an especially strong mentality for Americans. The Atlantic writes, “Holding victims responsible for their misfortune is partially a way to avoid admitting that something just as unthinkable could happen to you—even if you do everything ‘right.’”

Sexual violence is reality for our country — on the larger level of Hollywood stars, down to the local level of campus culture. The push to acknowledge and listen to survivors is a step in the right direction, but we can’t just idly listen to the stories. Sexual violence has been built into our lives. It’s rarely shocking to hear about, and this is a bad sign for where we’re headed as a country. We should be working to dismantle the structures that allow these situations to keep happening. This means speaking up if you witness something uncomfortable, demanding better legislation and training from our government, and saying no to the normalization of violence.

Listen to survivors, believe them and demand persecution of those who are tearing down the women, men and children who haven’t been allowed a voice before.

As a research university and a place dedicated to bettering our relationship with the environment, UMaine is a place where science should always be welcome. But recently, the pursuit of science has been attacked from all sides.

There is no one enemy here—instead, there are many faces that threaten the free flow of information. President Donald J. Trump has proposed unsettling budget cuts toward entities such as the EPA’s research sector and the entirety of the Sea Grant program. Even the National Institutes of Health faces budget cuts in the coming years—an institution which pursues research of cancer and other infectious diseases. Trump’s budget policy has been called “anti-science.”  

The media plays a role, often challenging the very existence of the battles we are trying to face and ignoring evidence. The critical thinking skills that make great advancements to life and society face devaluation as the nation argues with itself. Rather than skepticism toward research and awareness, we should be celebrating the achievements of the science community and striving toward a better, safer world.

This was the integral war song of U.S. citizens and scholars this past weekend. On April 22, hundreds of marches took place in support of the larger March for Science in Washington, D.C., aptly placed on this year’s Earth Day. March for Science hosts a website to inform people of their goals and outreach. Their vision aims to empower, connect and engage everyone in the nation. “In short, our goal is to champion science for the common good.” This is a strong declaration that aligns with UMaine’s green, science-backed mindset.

On our own campus, a satellite march took place concurrently with the D.C. march. UMaine’s page promoting the march claims, “It is a day to celebrate the achievements of science and to bring together scientists and science supporters across the state to affirm the value of science.” Support for the march was very positive.

Considering the background of the university, this is hardly surprising. The campus promotes itself as a safe place for science and environmentalism. There is evidence of this even in the smallest details—like the trash bins, with designated spots for recycling versus regular waste and the composting efforts by dining halls. The fact that we are a tobacco-free campus concerns more than smoking itself—it also addresses the wastes that cigarette use can lay on the land. UMaine has a long-standing tradition of a naked bike race on Earth Day to raise awareness about the environment alongside having a little fun.

On April 24, UMaine will host its 2nd annual Student Symposium to celebrate the accomplishments of student research. The Center for Undergraduate Research was formed in 2008 and furthers crucial interaction with students and scholarly work. UMaine is home to several other programs—all centered around science. Whether marine-based or sustainability-centered, there is a strong desire in the UMaine community to engage with our world through the lens of scientific progress.

Where would the students presenting for the Student Symposium, everyone working at CUGR and every STEM-field student be without free engagement with science? This is not the time or place to be tightening the belt on science and especially not the education of future leaders in STEM communities and programs—not while the planet is hurting in ways we have never seen before.

Though public opinion heavily differs on the threat of climate change, it is difficult to deny statements from heavy-hitting organizations like NASA, the United Nations and dedicated teams such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, the U.S. is still at odds about the reality of climate change and the fight is multi-faceted. Even UMaine, ripe with generally forward-thinking action, has work to do. Simultaneously with the marches, the UMaine system announced a change in investment policy backed by ESG criteria. These are standards that consider environmental, social and governance factors in tandem with previous qualifiers. This will help in deciding the impact UMaine has on the environment in their investments.

March for Science now aims to transition to a non-profit organization, concerned with pushing action and connection in the aftermath of the public awakening. This is perhaps some of the most critical work happening nationwide, worthy of continued support.

Science denial does not only affect the scholars and academics at work in the field. It affects the U.S. public as a whole. Everything about modern life is threatened by the suffocation of STEM fields and facts—public health, disease prevention, climate awareness, land conservation, engineering and countless other fields. Rather than stifling our nation’s bright minds, we should be amplifying and making an example for the global community.

On April 7, the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat Airbase in Syria. The launch was ordered by President Donald Trump as a response to the most recent chemical attack on April 4, which killed a contested 70 to 100 people, with hundreds more injured by an unidentified chemical. This information has spread across the nation and been cast in every sort of light imaginable, from extremely positive to abysmal. Through the panic and unease, it’s critical for media and individuals to process what has happened before locking in a position.

It is impossible to claim that any missile strike is a purely positive thing. But these admittedly terrifying, large-scale acts of violence are inherent to war and have some benefits. It may be easy for many Americans to distance themselves from what is happening across the seas. In Syria, families are continually devastated and innocent lives are lost, both from crossfire and deliberate attacks. The refugee crisis has been in the public eye for years now and remains a desolate situation for many.

For some Syrians, becoming a refugee is not an option. Rather, having their country’s turmoil resolved is of the utmost importance and the only foreseeable future for them. These people simply want their home back. Assistance from the U.S. and potentially other countries moving forward is a blessing for those in Syria who want the conflict resolved soon.

In the aftermath of this missile strike, it has been contested by various media outlets and public figures whether this acts as a message or not. This event has been reported as the first incident of intentional military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Some see this as a clear display that the U.S. will not allow heinous chemical attacks and other violence against innocent civilians, no matter which country they call home. Others argue that labeling these strikes as a “message” diminishes their power. Still, others are condemning this move by Trump and questioning his motives in making this order.

Whether we claim this incident as a symbolic message, war strategy or unwarranted assault, the action and its aftermath remain. The ripple effect is a viable concern of many media outlets and U.S. people. There have been 18 reported deaths as a result of the missile strikes. The Syrian news outlet Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that nine civilians, including four children, were killed. SANA also reported that at least seven casualties were Syrian military personnel.

The reaction of the global community is another just reason for concern. While some countries are backing the U.S. intervention, others are unmoved by the decision and view it as unnecessary or as barbaric as other actions by the Syrian government. International relations have been markedly tense surrounding conflict in the Middle East and this situation has only worked to deepen the pressure on already shaky relationships.

It’s difficult to see the silver lining on a cloud with implications this large. Leaping to Doomsday conclusions is all too easy with the way we consume media. We should realize that we have the privilege of distance from this situation. Unlike those directly affected overseas, we have time and freedom to consider this action from all angles. We can critique and support Trump’s decision simultaneously. Alternatively, we can condemn it while acknowledging some good that it brought to the war at large. These situations don’t have to be black and white.

The UMaine community, as large and growing as it is, has the potential to do incredible feats of charity. We are thousands strong, yet participation in charitable campus events hasn’t been at peak attendance. Recently, the annual Relay for Life, sponsored by the American Cancer Society (ACS), fell short of its $20,000 goal. The donations collected are destined for large and small scale cancer research and care needs — a more than worthy cause.

The Relay for Life is an intense event, meant to run anywhere from six to 24 hours with non-stop lap walking taken in turns by event-goers. Laps around the track have themes — some fun, like a karaoke lap and others much heavier, memorializing loved ones lost in a cancer battle. The Relay for Life is meant to be exhausting as a symbol for the battle cancer patients must fight, day and night. The ACS writes on their event page, “Cancer patients don’t stop because they’re tired, and for one night, neither do we.”

The emotional burden of ongoing charity efforts can’t be swept under the rug. It can be tiresome to focus efforts year after year, but the hard truth about cancer is its strong, pervasive influence throughout the country. Cancer research is constantly improving current treatment and therapy methods, detection and genetic testing. Beyond the larger movements in the medical community, there is always someone out there struggling in a nearby community who needs donations to receive critical patient care services. Though it’s disheartening to hear the same pleas each year, we are moving toward an ultimate end goal of eradicating these life-threatening diseases.

Declining participation isn’t necessarily a symptom of laziness or disinterest. Often, students hear about events only after the fact. Advertising for charity events on campus, as well as smaller club or intramural meetings, is split onto several platforms. UMaine students have FirstClass announcements, Facebook class groups and organization pages, in-person fliers and word of mouth to rely on.

Even when events are cycled through most of these sources, there’s still a good chance of missing them. Word of mouth requires connections and concrete details. FirstClass announcements are often disorganized — not to mention this server will soon retire. UMaine students don’t unanimously use Facebook pages.

If we want to use our campus size to its full potential, there needs to be a single, established platform or better coverage over multiple systems — with plenty of time for people to adjust schedules. Then participation boils down to each individual. The Relay for Life is only one example and a harder one for many students. A 12-hour event is more difficult to fit into many, varied schedules than a one or two-hour event. And there should be no harm in widening an online donation pool or mail-in options, for those who really cannot make it in person.

Even when students do hear about an event in time, it is often given lower priority than other things in their schedules. This is largely a fair move. School, work and other essential activities should take precedence, but charity is still a significant cause worthy of squeezing in. Smaller events may span only a couple hours. A small donation is even simpler to fit in — a couple minutes to send a bank transfer, or put some cash in an envelope.

Taking the time and effort to help some causes, especially in these tumultuous times, will do good on so many levels. It will make the individual feel great, help the charity of their choosing and support those affected, whether it be cancer, the war crisis or any other movement. Spending time on our community is vital as we move forward as a campus and nation.

Graduation is a time to celebrate your accomplishments, look back on the years, look to the future and stress about graduation commencement tickets. All graduating seniors should have already submitted their intent to graduate and attend commencement, if desired. With a chair claimed in the ceremony, that leaves only the technical details — among which, tickets become an issue of serious concern for many graduating students.

Announcements on FirstClass, Facebook and elsewhere often appear in droves near the later weeks of spring semester as students try to grab more than their five standard-issued tickets. This number is dependent on how many students are attending graduation and the seats available in the Harold Alfond Arena. Colleges are split into two ceremonies in the morning and afternoon to keep the ceremony sizes somewhat reasonable. For anyone who has attended a commencement, it is still a sort of controlled chaos.

With the recurring question of larger incoming first-year classes — and the current struggle for students to ensure spots for their family members — the dispersal of graduation tickets and the commencement venue may need adjustment.

The current procedure affords a blanket number of tickets to graduating students. This year, these must be claimed at the University Bookstore by April 21, or they will be forfeited. Any leftover tickets are offered on a first-come, first-serve basis on Monday, April 17 to any graduating students. Only three tickets may be requested, though there is no guarantee that even one ticket will be offered.

This system mostly leaves students on their own to secure a spot for their families. The standard five tickets should cover most traditional nuclear families, but not all fall under this category. Any student with an extended family must request tickets from others in their class if they want everyone to attend the event. Five tickets do not guarantee grandparents, aunts and uncles or close family friends a way into the event. Though commencement is filmed, there is a marked distinction to invested family members between being there while it’s happening and watching through a television screen.

Monetary exchange for commencement tickets is not allowed, though a price is often set when someone caves to the pressure and names a figure. This year, claims of $50 tickets are making rounds. Requests for additional tickets are never guaranteed, so students largely resort to searching their class. This system is unsustainable, especially with more students coming into the university in record figures.

One simple way to change this system is to move commencement to a more suitable venue. The Harold Alfond Arena is a nice space, but there are larger options which could better suit UMaine graduations. Splitting commencement into more than two events needs to consider any guest speakers and their time commitment, as well as other costs associated with commencement utilities and hosting. If UMaine keeps the two-commencement schedule but moves the location, students will have more options for inviting family while keeping the event fairly streamlined in a single day.

Moving to a larger venue would secure at least a minimum of five tickets for each student and with any luck will secure more tickets for students who want to bring larger families to share in this special day. Having more reserved seats overall to promise students may speed up the process of ticket dispersal, which poses another problem for UMaine seniors who need sufficient time to alert family members who plan on traveling long distances to the campus. A larger venue may secure more handicapped spaces as well, further opening the event to all sorts of family members.

Graduation from college is a serious achievement worthy of sharing with parents, siblings, grandparents and friends — in person, if they wish. Knowing that they have all the tickets they need will release some unnecessary pressure for seniors in their degree’s final semester.

One complaint ever present on the lips of University of Maine students is the lack of parking. Even with the recent parking lot addition and a system that delegates parking access to various populations of campus-goers, there is still an issue of endless, filled spots and no room for commuters to park. Since commuting students often drive to campus, they deserve a promised spot for their vehicle. This is especially important given that they pay a permit fee for each semester they ask for parking rights. With spring-time accepted students days growing larger, the question of our finite parking space steals to the surface.

Last year’s incoming first-year class hit a historic high. The up-and-coming class of 2021 is looking to be much larger, based on President Hunter’s estimate of 3,200 prospective students visiting just on March 25. With these rising incoming classes, requests for parking passes will inevitably increase. With more student drivers on campus, there is more contest for limited parking spots. It may be time for UMaine to consider a tighter guideline for who is allowed parking rights on campus.

Ultimately, parking is a question of accessibility to campus. Commuter students need reasonable space to park and get onto campus. Excluding rare cases, first-year students live on campus and have indefinite access. Moving forward with bigger classes, UMaine should consider instating specific restrictions on how many parking passes are given, as well as who is permitted a parking pass. Conditions should be based on residence — whether off, on or residing very near to campus — and reason for needing campus access. Someone who attends classes, alongside employment on campus, has increased need for parking access.

Off-campus students should have priority over on-campus students. There is a difference between needing transportation to classes and work, versus wanting a car for recreation and transportation off-campus. The Black Bear Orono Express is a free option for all riders to move around the Orono community and carpooling is another option for first-years who want to explore the community outside campus.

Many colleges have stricter guidelines for parking rights than UMaine. Others don’t allow first-years to bring their vehicles whatsoever, regardless of situation. There are only so many parking lots that UMaine can reasonably pave and maintain. A limited first-year parking pass pool would lessen the stress on parking lots outside dormitory lots. Current parking lots could be shuffled around to allow more commuter spaces overall and less residential lots. With the student population increasing with each year, it is time to adapt for a new campus landscape.

News is changing at an alarming rate. The way we consume information is always shifting with time and technology. But since President Donald J. Trump’s inauguration, “news” has become a topic of contention and speculation. The true motive of media is constantly being dissected. Google Trends shows that “fake news” has been searched at a disproportionately high rate since Sept. 2016, with terms “Trump fake news” and “Trump news” leading the inquiries. No matter our personal political stance, Americans must face the fact that the old practices and guidelines of news are rapidly shifting around us.

Recently, Trump has declined the historic invitation to the White House correspondents’ dinner. CNN called this, “a move that comes amid increasingly hostile relations between the media and the White House.” Even the briefest tune-in to news in the past two months will show Trump’s heated relationship with the media at large. Claims of “fake news” and unfair journalism are quick to the president’s tongue. He often posts about the declared issue on Twitter and mentions it during speeches at various events.

In case you missed it, Trump tweeted on Feb. 25, “I will not be attending the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!” This motion has already been widely reported though the event is still two months away. The traditional dinner event, established in 1921, benefits college students in journalism programs. Trump’s refusal to attend, paired with the dinner’s charitable intention and popularity, reads like a calculated move against the media establishment Trump is so displeased with.

The last president to miss the dinner was former President Ronald Reagan, who was in recovery from an attempted assassination that left him with a gunshot wound. Reagan, as many other news sources are pointing out, still phoned into the event with prepared remarks.

Though Trump still has the chance to make his voice heard over telephone, there is doubt over whether he will bother. This is exactly the sort of move that Trump prides himself in — working outside the establishment, breaking norms and changing the status quo of politicians in office.

The publicity of the event has been contested in recent years for its overhyped entertainment quality. Opposition to the event claims that popular guests and entertainment displays take too much of the spotlight from the cause. The dinner has always been open to entertainment — historically, in the mode of singers and film. A comedy performance has become the recently popular choice. Despite this lighthearted display of humor, the correspondents’ dinner remains a highlight for the future of journalism in the U.S. and beyond. The 2016 dinner awarded 18 scholarships to journalism students across the country and the dinner is meant as a moment of appreciation for news sources.

That appreciation seems like an elephant in the room when considered alongside Trump’s remarks that news in the U.S. is failing to do its job. The White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, has been sometimes combative with the media as well. On Feb. 24, Spicer held an off-camera, but on-record conference with some reporters. Oddly enough, he barred several outlets from attending the meeting — including reporters from The New York Times, The Associated Press, Politico and The Hill. It has been noted that supportive, right-wing news outlets were allowed to attend. Though audio recording of this conference was circulated to those who could not attend, some news outlets have refused the information because their reporters were shut out.

This incident perfectly represents the criticism of the media today. Trump calls the news anything from fake to disgusting on a near daily basis. He dislikes the use of anonymous tips and sources, which has long been a source of content for journalists. Spicer has been shaking up the traditional protocol of who he takes questions from during press conferences, allowing some smaller outlets to ask before larger, well-known sources.

This is not inherently bad, as Spicer is free to choose as he wishes from the room full of reporters. Further, Trump is free to criticize. But this fierce insistence that “fake news” is a rampant problem in our country should not be countered by shutting out and defaming news outlets simply because they disagree with Trump’s actions or attitudes. “Fake news” is not the same thing as “news that opposes Trump.” Likewise, forgoing traditional events such as the White House correspondents’ dinner may not be as effective a strategy as it may seem. Rather, it is just another unfriendly cold shoulder to the news establishment and a missed opportunity for Trump to extend some kindness to an unsteady nation.

Together, Trump and Spicer are working to dismantle any public trust in the media that may remain after a tumultuous election cycle in 2016. Despite backlash from the president and incidents interpreted as an attack on free speech, many journalists and news organizations are publicly announcing their intent to continue reporting in our increasingly chaotic realm of news.

On Jan. 30, the use of recreational marijuana was legalized for people ages 21 and older in Maine. This was a follow-up from 2016 Election Day, where the Question 1 vote passed by a slim margin and faced a recount before Gov. Paul LePage finally signed the law into effect on Dec. 31.

This legalization appears to be at odds with UMaine’s campus-wide smoking ban. While it is now legal for many college students to smoke marijuana in the state, that does not bend the rule for UMaine campuses, where smoking is still strictly outlawed. Though the ban may seem too strict for smokers, it is not just the image of the campus that this policy protects.

The smoking ban is one measure, of many, that keeps campus safe and clean for everyone. Each person may choose for themselves to smoke, but they should completely refrain from exercising that freedom in a place deemed “smoke-free.” Secondhand smoke is a serious, legitimate concern for many people. The 2014 Surgeon General’s report “The Health Consequences of Smoking — 50 Years of Progress” states that the U.S. sees 41,000 deaths as a result of secondhand smoke exposure alone. This figure is much higher when including all smoking-related deaths, at nearly half a million — 480,000 deaths on average per year.

To a healthy person, occasional exposure shouldn’t be a terrible concern. But frequent exposure increases the risk of developing a smoking-related illness. There is increased concern, however, for anyone with breathing problems. Asthma is a common disease that impacts how well a person can breathe in varying conditions. Any environment where the air is especially dusty, cold or smoky may trigger an asthma attack. Even the clothes and belongings of someone who has smoked recently are a risk to those with severe asthma.

Though some factors, like cold weather, cannot be monitored, others can. Limiting risk of exposure is one of the ways UMaine has decided to promote wellness and safety for students and other campus goers. The tobacco policy on UMaine’s website reads, “This initiative represents an extension of UMaine’s student and employee wellness initiatives, all aimed at fostering a healthier, more productive living/learning environment while working toward reduced healthcare costs.”

Furthermore, UMaine is continually devoted to having a green campus. They make efforts with recycling, composting and other environmentally friendly efforts. Closing the campus to smoking helps to reduce the waste of cigarette butt and carton litter. This helps protect the safety of wildlife on campus, as well as the people who pass through.

The smoking ban as a whole is not a ban on smokers. It is not meant as punishment for personal decisions. Rather, it is a necessary measure that the university has taken in order to keep everyone on campus comfortable and well. Considering the heavy risk that smoke exposure poses on certain people, it is a small sacrifice to ensure the campus is accessible at all times. This is something we should work to maintain, despite shifting national views on smoking and marijuana usage.