Ski jumping is the only event left in the Olympic Games that is still single-sex. The controversial issue has been a feature on recent news broadcasts surrounding the Olympics, but most people do not know that women’s battle for the right to compete has been going on since 1998. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has consistently voted for the last three Olympic Games to keep women from being allowed to participate in the ski jumping event.

After many unsuccessful attempts to persuade the committee, the women sued the Vancouver Organizing Committee for gender discrimination in order to secure a spot in the 2010 games. Yet again, the IOC denied them the right. The IOC stated that the Olympics could not host any more athletes; a statement that was contradicted by the addition of the ski cross event. On top of its misfortunes in the Olympics, the US Ski and Snowboard team dropped the women ski jumpers from its sponsorship because it did not have the funds to invest in a team that would not be participating in the Olympics.

This controversial issue can be easily remedied. The IOC needs to allow women to participate in ski jumping in order to live up to its rule that all Olympic sports are to be open to both genders. Although it is too late for women to have a chance to compete in Vancouver, the sport still has a chance for the 2014 games. The IOC has stated, “Women’s ski jumping does not reach the necessary technical criteria and as such does not yet warrant a place alongside other Olympic events.” According to NPR writer Howard Berkes, these “technical criteria” are that there is not adequate representation from enough countries to fulfill the quota set by the IOC. However, if these criteria were inflicted on the men competing at the Olympic level, they would not qualify either. Until the IOC can specify what technical criteria they are referring, there should be no reason for women to be banned from a sport that they are capable of safely competing in.

Take into account all the other risky events that women have been competing in this year. Freestyle skiing, for example, allows women to launch themselves so that their backs are nearly parallel to the ground and perform a series of complicated flips in the air before slamming their skies into a 45 degree angled hill. Skeleton is a sport comparable to luge, except for the fact that the athlete slides down the icy tube headfirst instead of on their back. This event can reach speeds of close to 70 mph. I don’t think anyone can make the point that these events are safer than ski jumping is.

What is even more unfortunate is that the world is missing out on seeing some incredible talent. Lindsey Van holds the record for the longest distance that has been recorded for both males and females off of the jump at the Olympic track in Whistler. Her outstanding jump totaled in 171 meters, beating out all of her would-be competition. Unfortunately, she will not be rewarded for her hard work and years of training.

Not only is the exclusion of women from a sport at which they have had proven success discrimination, but it is also incredibly offensive to females everywhere. Women have made great strides politically, economically, and socially over the past few decades, but to have something this blatantly unfair still occurring is extremely disappointing.

Awkward people come in two basic types — those who are naturally awkward, and those who are awkward by choice.  The naturally awkward could also be said to be awkward by ignorance — they simply do not know how to interact with other people.  Most of these people do not know that they are awkward.   They are not able to look at themselves objectively and see that they don’t fit in.

This isn’t their fault.  When you look at them from the outside, social norms are really weird and screwed up.  It’s kind of amazing anyone is able to conform to them at all.  Some social norms are necessary and actually make society run more smoothly.  Others, however, are fairly arbitrary.  For example, some of you may have observed that I often sing when walking from place to place.  I don’t think my doing so harms anyone. But people give me weird looks because it is not something “normal” people do.

Probably the most dangerous of these arbitrary social norms is the concept of tact.  The intention of tact is to keep people from saying hurtful or offensive things, which is a laudable goal.  But the result is often just the opposite.  People don’t talk about things that are uncomfortable, and often that results in people getting hurt.  Awkward people don’t understand what they are and are not supposed to say, so they often say the things everyone else needs to hear.

This is why some people are awkward by choice.  They understand that while social norms are sometimes necessary, sometimes they can be pointless or even harmful.  These people revere Emerson and Thoreau.  Sometimes they come off as a bit pretentious, but they have the right idea.  They don’t do things just because society tells them to, they do what makes sense to them.

Both of these groups of people tend to be very good at thinking outside the box.  They can see the constraints in other people’s thinking and find ways around them. This makes them ideal Wooster students.  This school places an enormous emphasis on critical thinking and individualism.  Awkward students, whether their awkwardness is natural or self-imposed, are individualists.

All that being said, most people who are naturally awkward probably would like to be less awkward.  And avoiding them, as Austin suggests, is not going to help them achieve that goal.  So if you do find yourself interacting with some of the more awkward people at this school, don’t be afraid to point out, gently, some of the social norms they’re ignoring.  They may thank you for it.

After the magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck, the nation lost as many as 200,000 lives, leaving more than one million homeless and hundreds of thousands injured with a government in shambles — children dying, families lost and unaccountable suffering.  Luckily, others from around the world immediately stepped up and rose to the cause.

Practically speaking, people are doing everything they can to help in the relief efforts of Haiti.  Sure, there will always be more that people can do, but it is not always the most feasible.  America could ship the entire military over and start guarding the place, but the people of Haiti have done nothing wrong, they don’t deserve that.

The reason some military personnel are currently on the island is because they are an easily and quickly mobilized force — some of the first ships that arrived (after the blocked ports were cleared of hinderances) were military hospital ships, which can treat a large flow of patients.

Many victims are seeing doctors for the first time in their entire lives.  Along with the rapidly-arriving hospital ships came others that can treat contaminated water, a major necessity.

Many citizens are currently living in “tent cities” — dwellings of makeshift structures built from corrugated tin, cardboard and/or sheets.

Though these temporary shelters are increasingly becoming more permanent, there is still lack of food, medications and sanitary services.  There is  rising concern about the arrival of the rainy season.  More rain increases the occurrences of diseases such as measles and tetanus, which means vaccines will be in even higher demand in a country where supplies of vaccines have always been scarce.

While improvements are slowly surfacing, this overall situation simply can’t be cleaned up within a week or two — it will take time.  But along with this time, the strife can’t be forgotten.

All too often people become deeply moved by such a disaster and jump into a relief effort head-first, only to forget about it after some time.  If the support dies down, the country will eventually be abandoned once again.

As a country, we cannot forget about Haiti.  Its people need help now as much as they did three weeks ago and will still need in a month.  Such a prodigious quantity of distress requires a substantial amount of time, effort and money.

Meanwhile, what can we, as citizens, do to help?  There are various websites, such as www.worldvision.org, where one can make financial donations or even take steps toward adopting a child.

There are organizations, such as “Catholic Relief Services,” which have been involved with Haiti for over 50 years, providing assistance for half a million people on the island during the most recent crisis.

There is always more that can be done, but given the circumstances, people are doing the best that they can, and improvements are already apparent.  We just can’t forget.

In 2010, it appears as if all the most interesting “celebrities” aren’t actually famous for their work. Britney Spears was definitely not as interesting until she shaved her head. The media would much rather cover Lindsay Lohan’s latest stint in rehab than talk about her former days as the “Parent Trap” star. And, Taylor Swift seems more legitimate now that she was dissed on stage on national television.

Most magazines even feature a section that emphasizes that stars are just like us. They eat breakfast, they have children and they sneeze!  So, the bottom line seems to be that they are human beings.

Our nation is far more interested in watching other people live their lives then having to face our own. We are no longer as intrigued with the extravagant lifestyles of the famous, but instead want to be able to see someone else who is having a harder time than we are. TV shows like MTV’s “Cribs,” which showcases the ridiculously expensive mansions of the rich and famous, have been replaced with programs like VH1’s “Tool Academy,” featuring large groups of couples with dysfunctional relationships.

To be able to judge other people’s poor decisions helps us to forget our own. Even if I fail my midterm tomorrow, or lose my job over spring break, I know that I will be able to eventually forget about it; unlike Paris Hilton, who will forever be known for her sex tape.

Even people who pursue the famous life are going about it differently. Many people are now skipping the usual root of becoming famous for their acting skills, great singing voice or fabulous free throw ability.

Instead, they are becoming famous for being human beings and doing things that anyone can do.  For example, getting drunk and getting in a fight with the next closest person or for enjoying a daily tanning session along with their rhinestone studded t-shirts.

Even pursuing the life of fame and fortune seems too much for us.  Most reality shows like Oxygen’s “Bad Girls Club” and VH1’s “Flavor of Love” consist of drinking as much as possible, dancing with little clothing and hooking up with as many people as possible.  MTV and VH1 no longer are truly music channels but instead reality show channels.

This, however, is because they are in high demand for both viewers and potential participants. They allow those watching to sit back, slide their tax forms underneath the couch and judge away. Those lucky few that get picked to be on the show get to (ironically) escape reality for not only the few weeks that they are filming, but seemingly for the rest of their lives. Anyone who has ever heard of “Jersey Shore” will never be able to forget Snooki. And, who would want to?

This, if nothing else, is why the media should have treated the death of Olympic luger Nodar Kumaritashvili with more respect. There is a very fine line between reporting information for the good of the public, and feeding our curiosity for all things gruesome and twisted.

For those of you who might have missed this, last Friday an athlete named Nodar Kumaritashvili from Georgia — the Eurasian country, not the state — was practicing luging on the Olympic track when his sled flew out of control, sending him off the track and slamming him directly into a steel pole. He died of complications on his way to the hospital. Being the fifth Winter Olympic death ever and only the second Olympic luger to die made his death very high profile.  So high profile, in fact, that soon after his death videos of the crash popped up all over the web and even the news. This part I agree with, since the video silences any questions from people who might not know what luging is or not understand how the crash happened. But the line was crossed with subsequent images and footage of people trying to resuscitate the bloody, paralyzed Nodar, who died soon afterward.

For a culture that so strongly believes in dignity in life and especially after death, we certainly aren’t treating it with very much reverence. This is only one example of the slew of widely publicized, gruesome deaths that have become trendy for some reason or other. Nikki Catsouras — or Porsche Girl — as she’s come to be known, died several years ago in a car crash. Pictures from that crash made it onto the Internet — including a gory picture of her nearly severed head hanging out the car window, which was later put into a chain email that her own father inadvertently opened and saw.

What this all comes down to is that the basic right to privacy has been violated again and again. I’m not naïve enough to hope that people will eventually realize what they’re doing is disrespectful. I’m not trying to single out the people who have contributed to the staggering amount of searches for these sorts of pictures and videos. I’m reproaching those who are the source of these pictures, especially the media who is supposed to specialize in knowing what is publishable and what should be withheld from the general public. Nodar’s final moments did not need to be exposed to the entire world.  The Games are about bringing people together –nd discovering other cultures. I watched the opening ceremonies in a friend’s room. During the parade, when Iran marched out, she let out a gasp. “This sounds so racist … but I never knew they were so light-skinned. They look really similar to us.” And they did. I could almost see the wheels turning in her head as she considered what she was seeing.

The participants themselves also cite the Olympics as a time to meet people, make friends, and network with people who share their same passion, no matter how far away they live form one another. And it’s true. You can see nervous athletes chatting with each other before events, or discussing results afterwards. They’re in a strange place, surrounded by cameras and unfamiliar people. They’re bound to make connections. That is what our media should focus on, not showing grisly images designed to draw attention to a single, traumatic event that isn’t even related to the true meaning of the Games.

In a specific episode, entitled “Strange Fruit,” the unsolved case is the brutal beating and hanging of a black man on his way to the March on Washington. In a country that has begun to question its own post-racial potential, I wonder if the majority of modern society has become desensitized to the horrific injustices African-Americans were subject to, since it could be argued that shows like this “Strange Fruit” episode re-enact them essentially for entertainment purposes.

Even the documentary “Home of the Brave,” a film based on an actual cold case that is naturally more informative and less about entertainment, seems to dig up unsettled disputes and unrighted wrongs that unsurprisingly bring about feelings of disconcertment in its viewers. It is the opinion of several educated folk that stories, fictional and non-fictional alike, should be abandoned if we truly aim to become a post-racial nation.  It’s a very solid argument and it reads as very patriotic and Utopian.

Call me a pessimist, but every dystopian novel I’ve ever read (“Anthem,” by Ayn Rand, and “The Giver,” by Lois Lowry) lead me to strongly believe, that if we aim to make America into Utopia, we’re planning to flush our souls down the drain.

I completely understand that rehashing matters that leave one party without reimbursement, and the other without retribution, is a dangerous business. But how much more dangerous would it be to let these negative truths get swept under the rug? How can we expect not to repeat history, if we do not remind ourselves where we’ve come from? Years go by, and those who have experienced the cruelty of Nazi Soldiers, Jim Crow laws or Apartheid laws, are slowly less and less present among us. It must be someone’s duty to keep their stories alive, or we will without a doubt rewrite them for our children.

This applies not only to national affairs, but to statewide affairs, countywide affairs — and to campus-wide affairs as well. In 1995, approximately 100 students held signs and wore purple armbands during the convocation of Wooster’s 70th year of excellence in education, in response to the rumored possibility that an excellent candidate for President of the College had been subject to discrimination based on sexual orientation. But how many students are even aware of the incident now?

Susanne Woods was, according to the Board of Trustees, “the best president for the College.” She was hired in April 1995, and John C. Dowd, a trustee and chairman of the search committee, said of the hiring, “our goal was to find the best president for The College of Wooster … and we have achieved that goal.” Apparently, the board didn’t understand the inconsequential meaning behind Ms. Woods’ claim to be “unmarried by choice.” Her long-term partner at the time, Anne Shaver, was a professor at Denison University. Shaver, who openly identified herself as a lesbian, listed Woods as her partner. After Woods’ appointment as president, the Denison phone directory supposedly began to mysteriously appear on our campus, among professors. Then, Ren Edwards, another lesbian professor at Kenyon College wrote a letter in Kenyon’s literary journal that referred to Woods as “Wooster’s newly appointed, lesbian Susanne Woods.”

According to “The Chronicle of Higher Education’s” unnamed sources, a few trustees also received an anonymous letter related to Woods sexual orientation. Those trustees met with her to discuss their newfound knowledge, and the details of that meeting are unclear. Both parties have signed legal agreements that bind them to silence. All that we know is that the day before she was to take office, Susanne Woods withdrew instead.

Dowd, when contacted for information, did not return phone calls. Stanly C. Gault, whose powerful monetary influence is evident on our beautiful campus, said, “I am convinced that this decision has been made in the best interests of both Dr. Woods and the College.” Both Woods and the College maintain that “significant differences concerning the role of the president had become apparent between her and Wooster’s Board of Trustees, and that these issues could not be mutually resolved.”

Carolyn A. Durham, a professor of French, said, “It’s difficult for me to understand how there could have been ‘disagreements about the role of president’ that would not have been discussed prior to her appointment by the board.” Still, a large amount of this story is based on speculations — albeit heavily supported ones. Perhaps Woods was discriminated against, and perhaps nothing can be done about it now. But we can be educated and we can remember. We, as students at Wooster, as populace of the United States of America, as inhabitants of the earth, have a responsibility to know what is going on in our world.

Fifteen years was not long ago, and even greater distances in time cannot be allowed to blur the sharpness with which we see transgression. If uneasiness is all that can be guaranteed to keep us from ethical digression then let us not take the easy route! I’ve no pressing desire to live in a topian nation- I’d rather keep my soul and furthermore, define it, by understanding and appreciating my history. Cold cases have a place and a purpose in our society — subsequently so does discomfort.

I’m happy to say that these situations are relatively infrequent, but they do always seem to happen on weekends when we have wide-appeal entertainers,  where we bring in a crowd that doesn’t come for the chem-free atmosphere. It makes me wonder whether the general population at Wooster knows what the chem-free programs are all about.

We don’t have designs on running anybody’s lives or eliminating alcohol or tobacco entirely. We respect that in a free country people can and should choose how they will live their lives with regards to addictive and mind-altering substances.

But we also recognize that on college campuses, where young people are experiencing their first taste of independence from their parents, the exercise of those freedoms can get out of hand.  In places where drinking occurs, it often becomes the main event — or the necessary social lubricant to really get enjoyment out of college parties.

So the reason for chem-free programs like Common Grounds, far from trying to stop people from having fun, is to try to make sure everyone has the chance to have fun.  We provide one place that’s always there on a Friday or Saturday night, or even on a Woo Wednesday, where students can come and know they won’t be asked or pressured to drink or smoke.  Our customers value that sense of safety and sanctuary, whether they have chosen not to drink or smoke at all, or they just don’t feel like that scene on a particular night.

That’s the reason I was offended to find those cigarette butts in our business, just as I am whenever drunk partiers think it would be funny to visit us during business hours or as I was when I saw one of our entertainers rolling a joint on the front step.  We don’t ask anyone to give up their habits and we’re not pushing an agenda. We are trying to create a safe space, and though it takes our whole program to create that space, it only takes one person to violate it.

Everyone is welcome at Common Grounds, just as everyone is welcome at the Gallows performances or at Wooster Activities Crew or Student Activities-sponsored activities that are designated dry or chem-free.  We try hard to sponsor activities and entertainers with a wide appeal and advertise them widely on campus.  But like each of those places, we ask that when you’re with us you respect the decisions others have made and leave your alcohol, illegal drugs and cigarettes at home.

Over winter break this year I was fortunate enough to meet with James Lewis, the resident historian at the Forest History Society located in Durham, N.C. He mentioned he was working on a piece about Obama’s policies being founded 100 years ago by Theodore Roosevelt and then Chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot. After looking further into this, I see it as necessary to inform my fellow Wooster students of this.

In February of 1909 Roosevelt was the main speaker at a North American Conservation conference. With Pinchot in attendance, the President told his audience of the “conservation doctrine” that the two had been developing in the eight years prior to the conference. He warned fellow leaders of things such as the overuse of timber, mineral and water resources and assured them that he was willing to head a plan to conserve these natural assets. The other leaders at the conference were looking forward to the expansion of his message to the rest of the world that was scheduled for November 1909 in the Netherlands. The President’s successor, William Howard Taft, however, canceled it.

Pinchot continued to emphasize his plan for conservation to every president after Taft, mentioning that it may be the only way to “permanent world peace.”  The younger Roosevelt began to listen when Pinchot mentioned atomic energy as part of his conservation program. After Pinchot’s death in 1946 there were few people to continue his plan. The conservation movement seemed to die with the birth of the Cold War.

Obama’s speech in Copenhagen paralleled Pinchot’s ideals some 60 years later. Obama stated “it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action — it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hands in the balance.” Hopefully we can see Obama continue to deliver on conservation plans to help the crisis that could have possibly been avoided had we all listened to Pinchot in the 1940s.

I don’t care if you are sitting back in your chair right now thinking about how not awkward you are because you’re “that guy” that talks to everyone, all the time, in every class. Newsflash: that makes you awkward. I am convinced that it is the goal of everyone here to avoid sober eye contact, speaking and the always-controversial physical contact at all costs. So, in that spirit, I have decided to help my fellow campus freaks out. After much observation and strategic dodging, I have compiled a list of the top five best ways to avoid contact with humans on campus.

1. Avoid the walking paths. I would like to know who laid out the plans for these walking paths because whoever did wanted the design to ensure that students run into everyone and ANYONE possible. What other school can claim that their pathways are designed to be awkward? Thanks, Wooster. I now know why I see kids trekking across the snow-ridden grass — they are most likely trying to avoid you.

2. Utilize your cell phone. Although I think this method is etiquette flawed, pretending to talk on your cell phone allows you to escape the possibility that someone will say hello to you. You can even take it a little further and start talking about something borderline inappropriate, so not only will people not want to talk to you, they also might give you more personal space. If you’re not big on the whole talking aspect (let’s face it, if you’re still reading this, you’re probably not) then whip out your mobile and start texting up a fury. Make it animated! Add in some sound effects. Everyone here is weird, why not you?

3. Pretend you didn’t hear someone if they try to talk to you. Some people may think this is rude. I think this is a survival technique. There’s always that one person who feels the need to scream across the quad so you see them. They always want your attention for something incredibly insignificant and obnoxious. If you don’t hear them, not only will you continue on your merry way with a guilt-free conscious, but they will also look like a moron. Better yet, when they yell your name, just starting running in the other direction and scream, “She doesn’t even go here!”

4. Walk with someone intimidating. Be specific about the people you choose to associate with. In my opinion, the more intimidating and bizarre people, the better chance you have of someone avoiding conversing with you. For example, don’t walk with your close friends if you want people to avoid you. Walk with someone that makes everyone uncomfortable — a sure bet to keep the strangers away.

5. Run places. Everyone walks at the speed of a sloth here. Not only will this be a great source of athletic exercise, but also what person would stop a kid who is in a dead sprint to somewhere? That’s just rude. On another positive note, you always will be the first kid to your class and probably have time to grab a drink of water to relieve your exhaustion. Think about it.

In most situations, I would advocate politeness and common courtesy, but I understand that this school is filled with socially awkward individuals who don’t understand the value of human communication. Those people now have a whole list of ideas of how to stay elusive and mysterious. Plus, seeing people sprinting around campus will make for one amazing Wooster promotional video.

They drive on our streets. They attend your PTA meetings. They may even deliver your mail. They have infiltrated society, plotting to bring their disease to the forefront of civilized humanity. The plague they bring may be incurable. They are — stupid people.

Citizen, this concept may seem familiar to you. De Tocqueville wrote about the “tyranny of the majority.” Madison understood the flaws of man in government. The American government has prevailed for 200 years against these mongrels, and we will surely defeat them again. Unfortunately, we have never seen them rise with this amount of unconquerable fervor. Time-honored antibiotics like logic and intelligence prove ineffective.

Do not worry — this does not include stupid decisions made by rational people. All citizens act stupidly from time to time: forgetting to set the alarm, buying a ticket to an M. Night Shyamalan movie or offering a beer to security. These acts are different from the horde of the stupid, who permeate modern decision making at an alarming rate.

To better serve you, one must understand the prominent features of the stupid. This includes, among other things, those who believe natural disasters are God’s wrath against sin or “selling their souls to the Devil” (Pat Robertson), Birthers; those who supported the fight against Sen. Al Franken’s anti-rape bill; young earth creationists who claim the earth is no more than a few thousand years old despite something called geology, and those who believe all Muslims are terrorists. They can be identified with their staunch positions on these issues with no logic to back their arguments and calling you “un-American”.

To clarify, this is not the liberal socialists telling you that conservative opinions are all wrong. This is not an attempt to counter any neo-conservative deceptive rants against Obama’s apparent “appeasement” and shame to our nation — I will leave that to the attention-seekers. Conservatism serves as an option against liberalism, and many arguments are strong counterpoints. The stupid disease shouldn’t be lumped with conservatives simply because many of them are adhered to by conservative individuals — they should just be considered stupid.

These issues stall the political process. They halt town hall meetings in order to say the Pledge of Allegiance to “take our country back” (we are scrambling to find out who took it and where its current location is). Of course they have a right to an opinion, but that does not mean we have to deal with straightforward lies and treat these people with any dignity. They expect respect in exchange for their irreverence and impudence. Do not attempt to fight them, for they possess a weapon with unlimited ammunition and frightening support.

Your government understands the ramifications this disease has upon our populace. Therefore we submit several proposals to combat the legions of the stupid:

-Use the stupid as Mars colonists (one-way ticket).

-Put Glenn Beck specials on air all day long during elections to prevent them from voting.

-Giving them incentives not to vote, like money or Playskool toys

-Jail protesters who can’t spell (this may be very expensive).

-Recruit predators as security for town hall meetings.

Any further suggestions or solutions will gladly be considered.