by The Cowl Editor on April 19, 2018

---

Campus

---

At colleges everywhere, there is a commonly held understanding that dining hall food is simply never going to be that good, and cannot compare to a home cooked meal. Especially at Providence College, most students have come to terms with the fact that food quality is one of the College’s biggest weaknesses. As students make their way over to Raymond Dining Hall, they are not expecting a five star meal, and most are okay with that. But at the very least, all students should be able to expect a bug-free meal every time they eat in the dining hall.

In recent weeks, news of the bug problem has spread across campus via various social media accounts. A few photos of food with bugs have circulated around: one of a french fry with a bug encrusted in it, and another of a dead bug lying on a plate of fried ravioli. Shortly after these photos were posted, a video of a similar looking bug crawling along the side of a Ray countertop was shared.

The bug issue has sparked a conversation about some of the more general problems with the food at PC. Several other photos reveal different concerns: raw meat in hamburgers, moldy sandwich bread, and a weird looking green glob of some unidentifiable substance in a glass of water. And few PC students have forgotten about the photo of the infamous dead mouse behind the juice machine posted last year.

The photos, albeit funny on account of their captions, are actually quite concerning. The fact that so many students find the photos funny on account of their relatability is a big problem.

Obviously not every student has found a bug in their food, but nearly every student has had at least one really bad experience eating at PC. It is entirely understandable that there will be mistakes when it comes to food, especially when serving such a large number of people, but one bug is one too many, especially when it comes to the safety and health of students.

Clearly, PC needs to make a change. The students who attend school here—and pay anywhere between $2,070 for the lowest meal plan and $6,030 for the unlimited plan, required for all freshmen—deserve better.

Without a doubt, the PC students who have to pay for and eat the food here should come first. However, the concerns about the food at PC are creating a rather serious issue in terms of the College’s overall image, outside of its students. Various outlets offering reviews of the College, which are frequented by prospective students, have less than stellar reviews of the food.

Niche, a popular website that ranks colleges and offers an overall grade of each school, gave PC an A grade. For the most part, PC received an average of a B+ to an A on specific rankings, like quality of the professors, dorms, campus, and student life. However, Niche gives PC a C- when it comes to food—the lowest grade on PC’s report card, and the only one in the C range.

Rate My Professor, a website popular among college students, gives PC a three out of five  rating when it comes to food, once again earning the lowest spot out of any category. Even Princeton Review, a frequently accessed resource for students applying to college, pointed out that besides diversity, dining is the one area that students really want to see improvement.

If PC is not willing to strive to fix these problems with the food for the benefit of the students who attend the College, at the very least, they should make a change in order to improve the image of the school and appeal to prospective students who care about the quality of the food they will be eating.

Overall, a small change can go a long way. In general, both Raymond Dining Hall and the Alumni Food Court are well-kept and clean, and the entire staff is fantastic. If PC can simply manage to improve the quality of its food, PC Dining Services on the whole would be getting much better reviews. Even better, students could trust that the food they eat is safe to consume, and feel that they can depend on PC for a healthy meal.

by The Cowl Editor on March 15, 2018

---

Campus

---

by Andrea Traietti ’21

In the wake of the Parkland, Florida shooting that left 17 innocent people dead, one beacon of hope continues to shine through: the work of the student activists from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

As their passion spreads across the country, more young people are raising their voices and taking a stand. But now, concern over disciplinary action resulting from peaceful protests is building a road block for some students—and is leading some colleges like Providence College to lend support.

Since the shooting, students like Emma González, David Hogg, and Sarah Chadwick, among many others, have taken the lead in organizing rallies and marches, carrying on a social media movement, and confronting Congress members. The actions of these students display not only bravery and resilience, but the strength and power of young people everywhere.

Currently, there are two major events planned in the month of March: the national school walk out on March 14 and the “March for Our Lives” that will occur on March 24. The movement aims especially to get young people involved, asserting that gun control laws would directly improve the safety of students across the country.

Since the current movement to end gun violence not only draws inspiration from the strength of students, but is also aiming to involve young people across the country, concerns have been raised about how student involvement in protests may affect college admission. For example, if a high school student who chooses to participate in the national walk out receives disciplinary action, it will appear on his or her transcript. Colleges in turn use this transcript to make final admission decisions. Therefore, students may encounter college admission difficulties if their choice to peacefully protest earns them some form of disciplinary action.

Many colleges, including Providence College, have chosen to lend support to students who peacefully protest and stand up for what they believe in.

“When we learned that some high schools were threatening to punish students for their activism and using their college prospects as something to hold over their head, we wanted to make sure that students felt free to express themselves in a peaceful and constructive manner without the prospect of attending PC going away,” said Owen Bligh ’10, associate dean of admission at the College.

He added, “What sort of message would we be sending if we were to punish students who are standing up for the beliefs they have developed after much thinking?”

Therefore, in an effort which both protects applicants and supports student voices, the Office of Admission released a statement concerning the admission process at the College. “There will be no consequences in the admission process for any high school students who receive disciplinary action for participating in peaceful and constructive protests in support of the causes they hold dear to them,” wrote the Office of Admission in a post on their Facebook page on Feb. 24.

In the post, the Office of Admission acknowledged the College’s veritas, or truth, motto and the emphasis on standing up for one’s beliefs. “We applaud and support the actions of all our future students fighting for what they believe to be true and look forward to their voices joining our campus soon,” the Facebook post concluded.

“Current members of the PC community, but most importantly school counselors and prospective students, were pleased to see we were one of the first schools to make a statement,” said Bligh.

This positive feedback is certainly well-deserved. The decision by the Office of Admission represents a step in the right direction not only in terms of free speech on campus right now, but for the future of the College on the whole. In current times, it is critical that we acknowledge the necessity of free speech in the media, on college campuses, and in our lives in general.

The statement by the Office of Admission proves that free speech is not only permitted at PC, but is valued. As the College looks to its second centennial, it is critical that PC students—and the institution itself—continue to lend this support not only on campus, but in larger our community, in the pursuit of truth.

by The Cowl Editor on February 8, 2018

---

Campus

---

by Andrea Traietti ’21

Opinion Staff

The recent decision to charge 50 cents for each to-go box at the Take3 station in Alumni Hall represents a step in the right direction towards making Providence College a more sustainable campus.

Currently, PC boasts an array of different sustainable resources and environmental protection efforts. The Slavin Center Bioretention System and the several bioswales on campus aim not only to control flood water quantity, but also to improve the water quality of often-polluted rainwater. The Slavin Center is also home to a Building-Integrated Photovoltaic system, which converts sunlight directly into enough electricity to light much of the building. Along with these systems, the College takes care to monitor and track both its carbon footprint and its water conservation.

The charge for the to-go boxes, however, places more responsibility directly on students, thus broadening the scope of PC’s campus sustainability efforts. It is inevitable that sometimes we simply have to use a plastic box or drink from a plastic water bottle. However, the additional charge for the box makes students consider that there are cheaper—and more environmentally friendly—options available to them.

Environmentally speaking, plastic is a dangerous material due to its chemical properties. Plastic takes a while to break down, which makes recycled plastic unfit for manufacturing. However, this characteristic of plastic presents an even larger problem for non-recycled plastic thrown into the trash or onto the ground. Plastics are non-biodegradable, so they persist in both natural environments and in landfills.

Therefore, plastic is piling up both in the ocean and on land, killing marine and terrestrial animals alike. Considering the effects of plastic on wildlife and on the environment in general, plastic production, consumption, and recycling need to be reevaluated.

Perhaps in the future the College should make more of a concerted effort in eliminating plastic either by further raising the cost of containers or by ending the use of plastic bags and containers altogether.

But for now, the move to charge a fee for Take3 containers is enough to not only begin decreasing PC’s plastic consumption but also to start a conversation about how we can create an environmentally sustainable campus and community.

 

by Kevin Copp ’18

Opinion Staff

The Take3 option in Alumni has long been a favorite meal option for ambitious freshmen and internship-bound seniors alike. Sophomores and juniors often use it to balance a busy schedule or grab a quick bite without dipping into their precious FriarBucks.

However, the Take3 option, in addition to the many other items students may bring out of Alumni, is threatened by the new 50 cent charge on to-go boxes. Such a change, while seemingly minimal on the surface, could harm the overall business of Alumni and send even more students down to the Eaton Street Café.

Although a charge of 50 cents is far from excessive, the principle of adding on fees for containers might bring some students to question their decision to opt for Take3. Because Take3 has always been a “free” option in the past in the sense that it is already included in their meal plan, students feel as though they have been able to save themselves FriarBucks and cash.

Even though the charge is only implemented if the customer needs a plastic container in addition to the paper basket in which the meal comes, it takes away the feeling of “gaming” the system if they do prefer a plastic to-go container. Students may no longer flock to the haven of Take3 if they are required to pay a fee for a plastic to-go container when they have previously obtained it free of charge. The new charge also begs the question as to what is and what is not available to have a price placed on it. If to-go boxes are being charged today, will water cups be charged tomorrow?

Stuart Gerhardt, the general manager for Providence College Dining Services, noted that customers can easily store their paper basket of food in a paper bag that is available at no additional cost. Yet is a paper basket inside of a paper bag the best way to transport a messy chicken patty oozing with bleu cheese and hot sauce? Will students and athletes travelling long distances want to have their food rolling around inside a paper bag?

One athlete who has frequented Take3 for years believes that the charge for to-go boxes is unnecessary and inconvenient. Tom Planek ’18, a member of the Providence College Men’s Basketball Team, expressed his frustration with the new chargez; “I am on the go and often take a chicken patty with me before or after practice. The amount of tuition I pay should be able to cover to-go boxes.”

The convenience of plastic to-go boxes and Alumni overall, especially for those who are always on the move, is in serious jeopardy because of the new charge. The confines of the Eaton Street Café suddenly look much friendlier for students who want to take out their food for free.

by The Cowl Editor on February 2, 2018

---

Opinion

---

by Andrea Traietti ’21

Opinion Staff

Technological advances in the past decade alone have changed our lives in nearly every way imaginable. For the most part, these changes seem to be positive. We can easily take a picture at any moment, we can keep in touch with friends even if they are halfway around the world, and we have limitless information literally at our fingertips. But for students, the small device we store in our back pockets may be creating more hurdles than knocking them down.

Scientific research, according to Psychology Today, is now proving that cell phone and app usage is linked to higher rates of anxiety, and even clinical addiction problems. It is critical to evaluate the role of technology in our lives and control our intake of addictive apps, as well as overall usage in order to give our technology a more positive and useful role in our lives.

Many people, not just students, struggle to maintain boundaries when it comes to smartphone usage. However, countless studies have proven that the brains of young adults are more impressionable and prone to obsessive tendencies. Thus, high school and college aged students struggle all the more to control their phone and app access.

This desire to keep checking our phones presents a focus problem, especially when it comes to completing tasks and using effective time management skills. “I think it interferes with my focus because sometimes when I’m not doing interesting homework I check my phone to take a break but then I end up spending 15 or 20 minutes browsing Facebook,” said Kara Berlin-Gallo ’21.

However, this compulsive need to constantly check our phones is linked to far more than the commonly cited “FOMO” or “fear of missing out.”

In fact, research published in Psychology Today by professors and analyzed by Susan Weinschenk, a behavioral psychologist, shows that our smartphones elicit a chemical response in our brains. Receiving a text or a “like” on social media is a form of instant gratification. This instant gratification triggers a cycle of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that increases our desire for something and our willingness and motivation to seek it.

Thus, the problem with cell phones becomes evident: the more texts, “likes,” emails, and comments that we receive, the more we want. We cannot break this dopamine-induced loop because our gratification only makes us want more. And to make matters worse, as Weinschenk states, unpredictability also triggers this dopamine cycle. We never know when someone is going to text us, so we feel the need to seek out those texts and constantly check our phones.

Marketing agencies and social media companies easily take advantage of this dopamine cycle, thus adding to its overall effects. With features like ‘streaks’ on Snapchat, for example, companies try to hook users into a repetitive and constant loop of use.

In her article in Psychology Today, Weinschenk concludes that the only way to break our addiction is to break the dopamine cycle—by shutting off all cues. Essentially, we must ‘quit cold turkey.’

However, to suddenly try to limit or shut off social media and smartphone usage is an extremely difficult task. The best way to go about gaining control of usage is ironically with different apps. Apps like Moment and Onward can help anyone trying to redefine the role of technology in their life, whether they are looking for better focus skills or trying to shut off a developing addiction. Regardless of the intended goal, these apps are important for self-evaluation and students need to take advantage of them.

First and foremost, these apps track usage and can shut off access to apps at certain times of day. For example, Moment asks users to take screenshots of their battery use settings in order to understand the percentage of battery used on specific apps. This way, the program can help target apps that trigger obsessive tendencies. Onward has a similar function, and it can also completely cut off social media app usage by blocking WiFi access for those apps.

In addition to setting different limitations, the apps also aim to fix the more emotional aspects of phone use. Onward, for example, has built in exercises meant for relaxation and reflection. Since distance from our phones spells anxiety for most of us, Onward attempts to ease this nervousness not by allowing users to check their phones, but by forcing them to try to relax in another way.

Overall, we all have a responsibility to understand the role of technology within our own lives. Especially for students it is critical to regain control over the impulse to constantly check our phones. We need to want to change, and we need to be our own advocates in ameliorating our relationships with our phones.

by The Cowl Editor on January 25, 2018

---

Opinion

---

by Andrea Traietti ’21

Opinion Staff

The start of 2018 has come and gone, and maybe some of those New Year’s resolutions have seemed to slip away with it. But a lapse in achieving those “new year, new me” goals should not be a deterrent from other attempts at goal setting. Especially for college students, goal setting in both a short-term and long-term context has proven to be a critical skill in classroom and career settings.

One of the scariest questions for a college student to hear also seems to be one of the most common: “What are your plans for after college?” Conveniently, winter break seems to offer ample opportunities for family members, neighbors, and co-workers to remind lots of students that for the most part, they really have no plan.

This time off also affords students plenty of time to think (or, more accurately, stress) about meetings to set up once back on campus, internship opportunities for a rapidly approaching summer break, and establishing some sort of path for after graduation.

Finding a summer job is a daunting task, let alone trying to figure out what comes after graduation. The pressure to have a solid outline for a path post-graduation is so overwhelming that it seems like there is not even a good place to start. With stress like this, it should not come as a surprise that serious goal setting is unappealing and scary to college students.

However, it is time to amend the goal-setting process and change the perception of what makes a good goal. In her book Lean In, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg frames career paths as a jungle gym rather than a more traditional ladder, where people move only up or down.

Sandberg, a Harvard University graduate and widely considered one of the world’s most powerful women, admits that she herself never outlined a real goal for her future when she was in college, and she still cannot exactly trace how she ended up in her position at Facebook. Now, she advocates for a new approach to setting goals. Sandberg says in Lean In, “I recommend adopting two concurrent goals, a long-term dream and an 18-month plan.”

The reason that Sandberg’s goal-setting process could be so useful to college students is because of the way it fosters flexibility. “A long term dream does not have to be realistic or even specific,” says Sandberg. She adds, “even a vague goal can provide direction, a far-off guidepost to move toward.”

In turn, these long term dreams should inform the way we go about setting shorter, 18-month goals that focus on more immediate personal, academic, and professional improvements. These goals should serve as stepping stones toward one day achieving that bigger dream, whether it is to travel, to work in a certain field, or just to have a happy professional life.

Long-term dreams can be as specific or unspecific as desired, and 18-month goals offer a chance for more short-term and organized planning, and serve as check-ins or opportunities to reflect on progress.  Broadening the scope of goal setting makes it a much more accessible process, especially for college students following a winding and constantly evolving path.

And this goal setting has proven to be critical to success even before actually achieving the goals themselves. A Harvard publication on the importance of goal setting has cited the process as a way to improve motivation, creativity, sense of agency, responsibility, and overall confidence.

For students, feeling empowered in their own choices leads not only to higher success levels in the classroom, but also the ability to carry this confidence and consequent success into their careers and their lives in general.

by The Cowl Editor on December 7, 2017

---

Editorials

---

by Andrea Traietti ’21

Opinion Staff

On Saturday, November 25, the New York Times published a piece titled “A Voice of Hate in America’s Heartland.” If there is anything that should be called “fake news,” it should be this article—even though the article was, on all accounts, factually accurate.

What makes this piece worthy of the “fake news” categorization is the way that it normalizes Neo-Nazism in our society. In America, in 2017, even one of the most reliable and reputable media outlets has shown a frightening failure to condemn Nazism for what it truly is: discriminatory, racist, and entirely un-American.

The piece by the Times is a feature on the life of Tony Hovater, a white nationalist living in New Carlisle, Ohio. The author details aspects of Hovater’s life in an eerily normal way, describing his fairly standard American characteristics: his registory for his upcoming wedding, what kinds of tattoos he has, where he goes out to eat, the fact that he is a big Seinfeld fan.

The pictures in the piece show Hovater in front of his home and in his local grocery store. In every way, the piece makes Hovater look like the average, everyday American. Except this man is anything but normal. This man is a Nazi.

It is absolutely crucial that we recognize that there are Nazis living in our communities. And yes, they do look completely normal. If we are going to truly recognize the racism seeping into our society and the parts of our culture and political atmosphere that have given rise to it, we have to acknowledge how standardized this racist sentiment is becoming. On one level, this article brought this normalization to light. However, under no condition can we portray this normalization in a positive manner.

Under no condition should we fail to recognize this as a problem, something that simply must be condemned. While this article did succeed in showing us the ugly parts of our society—the things that desperately need to be fixed—it failed on all accounts to condemn Nazism, or even to portray it as a problem. That is why this article should be labeled “fake news.” Nazism is not okay. Let us stop pretending it is.

Free speech is one of the most, if not the most, important tool in protecting our democracy. Now more than ever, we need to uphold this right. However, we also must uphold its integrity. We should be exposing growing Nazism in America. But we have to expose it in a way that shows just how discriminatory and un-American it is. To do so would be quality, investigative journalism, which was missing from this article. Arguably, it goes so far as to promote the agenda of Hovater’s alt-right group, the “Traditionalist Worker Party.” According to the article, the group is looking for what they call “normies,” or simply ‘normal’ people within their group so that they can bolster their appearance as an accessible, everyday political association. If the article displays the normality of people like Hovater and groups like the “Traditionalist Worker Party,” does it not then simply promote the goals of Nazi groups?

Right now, we are at a time where we need to redefine what it means to be American. 16.1 million Americans served in World War II, fighting Nazism. We need to remember the sacrifice that so many people made to protect our freedom and our ideals, and to stand up against injustice. Approximately six million Jewish people were murdered in the Holocaust, by people who embraced Nazism, the evil ideology now growing in our country. In America, we pride ourselves on the ideal of equality—equality for those of all races and all religions.

If that is the case, if America truly does embody this ideal, it is time to reject Nazism and racism in all their ugly forms. The first step to the rejection of this ideology is exposing it and those who believe in it.

But we cannot in any way show this ideology to be  positive or acceptable. We have to show that it exists, but also that it has to stop. We have to condemn this entirely un-American racism growing in our country. Nazism has no place in America.

by The Cowl Editor on November 16, 2017

---

Opinion

---

by Andrea Traietti ’21

Opinion Staff

Tuesday, November 7, marked the first regularly scheduled election day since Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential race, and the results overwhelmingly showed that America is ready for change.

Democrats took key victories in many states and on many different levels, proving that Americans are looking for a response to a rather tumultuous first year of the Trump administration.

In New Jersey, Democrat Phil Murphy was elected governor, representing a huge change from the chaotic eight-year term of Republican Chris Christie, who is leaving office as one of the most unpopular governors in the country.

In Virginia, Democrat Ralph Northam routed Republican Ed Gillespie in what was shaping up to be a close gubernatorial race.

The crucial victories in these two states show a rather unexpected unity in the Democratic party, which was divided and quickly losing influence after Hillary Clinton’s dramatic loss in the 2016 election. These victories have even created disunity within the Republican Party, with President Trump himself criticizing Ed Gillespie on Twitter, stating that Gillespie failed to embrace Trump and what he stands for.

Democratic victories seemed to be a result of a movement largely driven by moderate voters who embraced Democrats as an alternative to Trump. The results of the elections offer hope for the midterm elections next year, a chance for Democrats to reorganize their presence in Congress and regain the influence they lost with Trump’s victory.

However, aside from what these victories mean for the Democratic Party or even for the political system in America, for that matter, smaller-scale victories across the U.S. might be even more important symbols of change in a positive direction.

Victories on various levels in many different states showed a movement towards creating a more diverse and inclusive legislative system in America. Hillary Clinton’s loss in the presidential race was a huge disappointment in terms of her mission to “break the glass ceiling,” but victories in Tuesday’s election have shown how many people have not given up on the goal of breaking through political barriers.

In Virginia, a transgender woman, Danica Roem, was elected as a Democratic state delegate, becoming the first openly transgender person to win a seat in a U.S. statehouse. Roem received a call from former United States Vice President Joe Biden congratulating her on her win, and a photo of Roem falling to her knees on election night quickly went viral on the Internet. Roem won her seat after beating incumbent Republican Bob Marshall, who helped to draft a transphobic “bathroom bill” in the state.

In Helena, Montana, Democrat Wilmot Collins won the race for mayor. Collins is a refugee from Liberia, and he defeated incumbent Jim Smith, who had held office since 2001. Collins will be Helena’s first black mayor. Similarly, in Charlotte, North Carolina, Vi Lyles won the mayoral elections, becoming the first African American woman mayor in Charlotte’s history.

In Manchester, New Hampshire, Democrat Joyce Craig defeated Republican mayor Ted Gastas, and will become the first female mayor in the history of New Hampshire’s largest city.

These victories, along with many others, have sent the message that the fight to break through barriers for historically marginalized groups has not disintegrated with Clinton’s loss or with the seemingly disorganized state of the Democratic Party. Instead, this effort is actually stronger than ever, especially in the face of adversity.

Democratic wins are a step in the right direction to condemn hate in the form of homophobia, racism, and misogyny that has seeped into American politics and social systems. The diversity of newly elected officials has reaffirmed that everyone has a place in the American political system, and that all types of people should be represented in social and political life.

Overall, the results of Tuesday’s elections give a brighter outlook for the future of the Democratic party and its presence and influence in Congress. But perhaps even more importantly, victories across the country have given hope to the idea that Americans are not willing to accept the presence of hate in our political system, and that they have not yet given up on fixing the problems within our government.

Even when victories come on a smaller scale, we have to continue the push towards inclusivity and equality within our legislatures if we hope to spread these ideals to American society on the whole.

by The Cowl Editor on November 2, 2017

---

Opinion

---

Save Water -Turn Off  Sprinklers

Throughout the past couple of months, Providence has experienced a few rainy days here and there. Although these stormy days often bring a sense of gloom and despair to campus, they allow for the various foliage around Providence College to be thoroughly watered, free of charge. From the trees outside of Suites Hall to the weeds growing around Calabria Plaza’s construction site, campus always seems rejuvenated after a nice rainstorm.

Yet, PC does not believe that a couple hours of steady rain provides enough water for the grass on Aquinas Quad.

In order to make sure that every inch of the AQ Quad gets thoroughly soaked by water, all sprinklers turn on regardless of the weather. It does not matter whether there have been light showers throughout the night or if it is been down pouring since the early morning; the AQ sprinklers always go off.

This is a big problem, especially if PC is making small steps towards becoming an environmentally conscious school.

In general, watering grass uses an extraordinary amount of water. In order to properly water a 10-foot by 10-foot section of lawn, you would need just over 62 gallons of water. To put this idea into perspective, it would take around 103 gallons of water to properly water a notoriously small McVinney dorm room. Just imagine how many McVinney rooms fit on the AQ Quad—a whole lot.

Although it is nice to see how much PC cares about its beautiful lawns, the AQ Quad does not need to be manually watered by sprinklers as it is being watered naturally by the rain. It is not only a huge waste of water, but it also just looks a little absurd.

-Katherine Torok ’20

 

Trump Needs a New Approach

On Thursday, President Trump declared the current opioid crisis in the United States a public health emergency, but many take issue with his approach.

One of the most significant criticisms of Trump’s decision  is that there will not be nearly enough funding made available to assist with research and medical care. Without this crucial funding, it is unclear what impact this decision will have on those suffering from opioid addiction.

It is troubling that it has taken the Trump administration this long to address the severity of the opioid crisis and to declare it an emergency. It is unclear how much this decision will really help those who are in desperate in need. At this point, extra funding from the government is the only way to make significant progress in helping those struggling with addiction. It is scary that getting this funding will now take more time or may not happen at all.

Much more needs to be done if Trump is going to end the opioid crisis during his presidency. Thousands of Americans die every year from opioid overdose and without the proper funding for treatment and prevention, the death toll will only increase.

Communities will continue to be affected without the proper financial and medical attention that, at this point, can only be implemented by Trump. The Trump administration needs to realize that while declaring a public health emergency is a good start, it will not be nearly enough in the long run.

-Bridget Blain ’19

 

 

PHOTO COURTESY of Nashvile NACE

Be Mindful of Food Waste

Last week, Raymond Dining Hall took on a “Clean Plate Challenge” for a day during lunch. Students were encouraged to only take food they would eat, and to finish all of their food, thus becoming a member of the “Clean Plate Club” and helping to limit Ray’s food waste for that meal. In front of the dish return area were buckets full of food that students had taken but never ate. The piles of food proved that Providence College has a problem when it comes to food waste.

The Clean Plate Initiative is a great way to combat this problem. With the help of the Sodexo Staff, PC is able to donate all of the food that is left over, but nothing can be done with the food that students take, but never eat. Ultimately, this leads to a lot of food waste, which is neither environmentally nor economically friendly. There is not a way to limit the food that students take for themselves or to institute different portion control options, but the Clean Plate Initiative can serve as a great reminder for students. Even though the actual program was only set up for a day, perhaps posters or reminders set up in Ray could help encourage students to limit waste on a daily basis.

We all have moments where our eyes are bigger than our stomachs, but if PC can embrace the Clean Plate Initiative and students can remember that the food they do not eat will go to waste, we can make our campus a more economical and environmentally friendly place.

-Andrea Traietti ’21

 

by The Cowl Editor on October 26, 2017

---

Opinion

---

by Andrea Traietti ’21

Opinion Staff

It has been just under one month since the deadliest shooting by an individual in United States history. The Las Vegas shooting on Oct. 1 left 58 innocent people dead and over 500 wounded. Across the nation, the massacre sparked a wide array of emotions ranging from sadness to outrage, but in the weeks following the attack, the issue seems to have sizzled out, and has been put on the back burner.

Why are we okay with the silence surrounding this shooting? Why are we not sending the message that this kind of violence is not to be tolerated in our country? And perhaps the most pressing question is, when are we going to do something to try to stop these deadly attacks of domestic terrorism?

No major changes were made after the murder of six adults and 20 young children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. There was no major response after 49 people were gunned down at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida. We cannot make the same mistakes in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting. Offering thoughts and prayers after an act of violence that could and should have been prevented will not suffice any longer. It is long overdue that we talk about gun control in the United States.

While Democrats tend to agree that stricter gun laws need to be enacted, Republicans tend to oppose the idea of stricter laws, citing the Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, recent polling has shown that while Democrats show more support for gun safety than Republicans in general, a combined majority of Americans from both sides of the political spectrum support the prevention of gun ownership for mentally ill persons and people on no-fly or watch lists.

The margin of support between Democrats and Republicans is larger for ideas such as background checks at gun sale shows or banning assault style weapons, but nonetheless a majority of Americans show support for these measures.

Especially following tragedies resulting from gun violence, like in Sandy Hook or Las Vegas, national support for common sense gun laws rises. So if most Americans want to see some kind of legislation concerning gun safety, what is the hold-up?

The problem is that Congress cannot agree on the kinds of legislation, or even if any legislation should be passed. Especially in a Republican-controlled Congress, using a broad term like “common sense gun safety laws” or “stricter gun legislation” turns people away from the idea. Terms like these can easily be misconstrued by members of Congress and citizens alike simply as attempts to place restrictions on the Second Amendment.

To combat this misunderstanding, more specific legislation needs to be introduced. It needs to be clear that this legislation is not an attempt to take away the Second Amendment or an individual’s right to own a gun. Instead, the legislation needs to contain very straightforward and specific ideas, so Congress can embrace it on a bipartisan level and ordinary citizens can understand. The support for gun safety is there, so legislation needs to reflect the things that Americans want to see.

The question remains then: what kind of legislation will work? Truthfully, there is not a way to know whether potential laws will work or if they will accomplish anything, especially in legislative territory as uncharted as gun control is. Perhaps the best way to approach the issue from a policy standpoint is to look at examples in other countries.

Take, for example, Australia. In 1996, after 35 people were killed by a gunman in Tasmania, Australia moved towards widespread reform. Australia now has a 28-day waiting period, background checks, and the requirement to present a “justifiable reason” to own a gun before anyone is able to obtain one.

Additionally, roughly one million semi-automatic weapons—the kind that shooter Stephen Paddock used in Las Vegas—were sold back to the government. The result of Australia’s movement toward gun regulation has been astounding: Australia has had no mass shootings since 1996, compared to the 11 they had in the decade before.

It is entirely possible that gun control laws of this type might not work in the United States. But we will never know until we try, observe how they work, and make the necessary changes and adaptations. In the meantime, it is not okay to do nothing. Out of a horrific tragedy, America has been given yet another chance to stand up against very un-American violence and terrorism. We can not let this chance pass by.

by The Cowl Editor on October 5, 2017

---

Opinion

---

Political Plays: NFL Protests Provoke Discussions of Liberty

When Colin Kaepernick sat during the national anthem at the first 2016 preseason game for the 49ers, no one noticed. It was not until the third preseason game, when Kaepernick began kneeling, that his actions began to garner attention.

What began as a quiet, individual protest 13 months ago has exploded into a national controversy. On Sunday, Sept. 24, over 200 NFL players kneeled, sat, or linked arms as a sign of solidarity following what some players and team owners have called “divisive” comments by President Trump.

Across the nation, the actions of the players have sparked heated debate; some view the protest as un-American and disrespectful to our country and the men and women who defend it, while others hail the movement as a crucial step towards addressing problems of injustice in America.

Right now, with the national anthem protest gaining more speed and attention, Americans must remember that a protest of this sort is completely constitutional, protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Now more than ever, we must recognize this right for those on both sides of the debate.

While those who view the kneeling as disrespectful are completely justified in and entitled to their opinions, the players and their supporters are just as justified in their reasons and rights to protest. The fact that this protest has become so intense is proof not of our differences, but that we can all find common ground in our commitment and willingness to fight for what we believe America should stand for.

This movement is a way to start a discussion about justice in America, but when we continue to allow single-minded bitter opinions to define us, we fail to take this opportunity to better our country.

-Andrea Traietti ’21

 

Make the Move: Utilize Personal Counseling Center

We have just persevered through our fifth week of the Fall 2017 semester at Providence College. With a total of 15 weeks in the semester, we are now just over a third of the way through. Right now, the first wave of tests and presentations has arrived.

Therefore, it is inevitable that the emotional meltdowns and episodes of exhaustion are taking hold.

Do not feel like you are alone in this; not only do you have the company of fellow students, but the counseling center on campus is a great resource. No harm or shame can come from scheduling an appointment or two.

As a psychology major, one topic we are currently discussing in my personality class is the effect of communicating with someone out loud. Let me tell you, therapy is not a big hoax for money. Talking works!

Located in Bedford Hall, the Personal Counseling Center at the College is a place you can go even if you just need a minute of silence or to catch your breath.

If you are not ready or comfortable making an appointment, just sit in the lobby and play with the zen garden. The staff will happily give you water or tea to help calm yourself while you sit and relax.

There is also a plethora of helpful books in a mini-library section that you can request to borrow and read on your own time.

Next time you are outside of Bedford Hall, just take it into consideration.

-McKenzie Tavella ’18