First of all I have to tell you how impressed I am with the amazing transformation the college has taken physically and emotionally since I graduated in 1999. Walking around campus I am pleased to see the attention paid to the athletic facilities and the additional infrastructure throughout campus..the bricks and mortar improvements are truly delightful. On the other hand, and I would argue more importantly, are the changes that have taken place with the “attitude” of the college.
During my four years of college, the institution was stagnant and growth seemed impossible. Only after I graduated did I begin to notice that the faculty and staff at the college seemed to handle their daily duties at the college with a forward-thinking approach, a desire for improvement and best of all-smiles.
Everyone seems happy to be there and that resonates with me. I’ve been back to campus many times since I graduated (I live and work just 30 minutes north of campus) and more so this fall to watch football and soccer games in the new stadium. My one and only suggestion for improvement is to expand the college store hours to include those hours when visitors are likely to be on campus and in a spending mood…maybe during athletic events? I suspect the store was closed this fall to remove an element of competition for the sports teams trying to sell their goods, but from my perspective (and that of my fellow alumni at the game with me) it would do some good. All in all, good job CSC!
I feel compelled to respond to the writer of the editorial entitled “The freedom of choice” from the Nov 18th Spartan who takes issue with the fact that the House version of the Health Care reform bill does not contain abortion funding. In his or her scenario, the writer is asking us as a community, as taxpayers, to pay for abortions because someone feels it’s inconvenient to be pregnant. In the scenario, a young woman is overworked and stressed out and then becomes irresponsible in a one-night stand. Put yourself in these shoes: You’re a taxpayer who is being asked to fund a medical procedure because a young woman (and her partner) was promiscuous, careless, unequipped, and stupid! The writer’s sense of entitlement is appalling and deeply disturbing. The analogy set forth in the article equates an appendix removal with abortion. Are you kidding!? Who can think of a single instance where someone needed to get their appendix removed because they got drunk and made some bad decisions. If the writer went out and got wasted, then got in a car wreck and broke her ankle while not carrying automobile insurance, would he/she then ask the taxpayers to bail him/her out of that too? How far does this sense of entitlement go? What if the writer wanted to find work as a model? Maybe a health care reform bill should cover vanity issues too in its list of “increased health care options” such as LASIK, teeth whitening, and electrolysis, so s/he could better his/her chances of getting a job. If people are going to be promiscuous, careless, unequipped, and stupid when it comes to making babies it stands to reason that they need to take responsibility and drop the sense of entitlement.