6 Opinion
The Oracle | TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013
Staff Editorial
SPEAKOUT
Where are you going for spring break?
The president’s new plan
A
nother year and another conversation with President Linda Hanson, 2013 edition. This time around, the financial antics of the Anderson Center took a backseat to instead focus on the “edupreneurial,” President Hanson’s word-branding of the Board of Trustees’ three year plan. The plan for Hamline written by the board, made on November 15, 2012, goes like this: “To align our most distinctive academic programs, teaching and learning delivery methods with market trends, and build financial models that ensure conservative budget planning while inspiring innovation and growth where we have competitive strength.” Her speech went as expected: a well-crafted Hamline puff piece. She announced a new $1.1 million science grant and budget changes equalling almost $4 million, but it all seemed bitterly ironic when one considers the $36 million capital investment of the Anderson Center finished only one year ago, still not technically paid in full. In sports, she highlighted the emerging women’s basketball team but somehow failed to mention the national media criticism of the men’s team. Not that it’s wrong to present the good news. Hamline is doing some awesome things that really deserve coverage. But nobody’s fooled by a handful of smiles. These speeches need to mention the bad news as well. “Keep the faith and face the brutal facts,” Hanson cited from Jim Collins’ “Good to Great.” We at The Oracle agree with that sentiment, but if the President truly believes it, then why did she bemoan the mentioning of St. Thomas’s $500 million fundraising campaign? Let’s face this fact: St. Thomas is doing something right that we aren’t, so maybe we should steal some of their ideas, rather than cover our ears to ignore them. (But hey, maybe we are stealing their ideas after all. Maybe that’s why we both have big Anderson Centers built in the last few years. Seriously, they have an “Anderson Center” too.) After her speech, a few excellent critiques popped out of the Q&A session. For example, one attendee asked how Hamline plans to spend $650,000 of “unrestricted undesignated assets” in the next three-year plan, as noted in the president’s slideshow. What is an unrestricted undesignated asset, asked the attendee, and how are we pulling this out of thin air? VP of Finance Doug Anderson chimed in to say that a lot of these “assets” come from the value of Hamline’s property, all while he held a lot of big complicated papers in his hands. That’s hard for us simple students to make sense of. How are we producing money just by owning property? Somehow, the money’s there, though this whole situation is uncomfortably reminiscent of make-believe debt ceilings. It’s impossible for any of us to really know the financial health of the university; we just hope that the administration understands it much better than us, unlike the banking masterminds who led us down the dangerous path of default credit swaps in 2008. And that’s why critique is necessary. “People always want what’s best for Hamline,” as the president put it. True. We at The Oracle don’t deconstruct administrative actions just for the hell of it. We do it because it is our duty as the largest independent source of information at this university. We do it because we want what’s best for Hamline too. To conclude, President Hanson should not have been left waiting for questions in awkward silence. The faculty need to play a larger role in steering this university. Students cycle through this place year after year, never settling down long enough to establish a permanent voice in the institution. But faculty have that opportunity. One of the reasons tenure exists is so that they can speak out without fears to their job security. If they aren’t trying to improve their workplace, then nobody will. Maybe the worst is coming to fruition: maybe the Board of Trustees is taking us down a haphazard road in the face of a looming economic crash in the higher education market, and we’re all going to burn and die in a towering inferno. Yet, we’re never going to know that, unless the permanent voices at this institution learn to offer up some alternatives. To those who did stand up and ask tough questions at these conversation: The Oracle applauds you.
We want to hear from you. Letters must be 450 words
or less, include submitter’s full name and graduation year (when applicable), be submitted electronically at least three days before publication and must also include contact information. The Oracle reserves the right to edit or withhold publication of letters. The content of the Opinion section does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff. E-mail submissions to: hamlineoracle@gmail.com With questions, contact: Drew Science 106 or x2268
Emily SeymourAnderson Senior
Dan Molitor Sophomore
Jake Elliot Blair First-Year
Lydia Yahnke First-Year
“I’m going to San Francisco for the Queer in the Community Catalyst Trip.”
“I’m not sure, but I might be going to Colorado.”
“I’m going to Red River Gorge in Kentucky to rock climb. It’s going to be gnarly.”
“I’m getting my wisdom teeth out.”
PHOTOS | ANDREW MAAS, ORACLE
Fun and games and stereotypes He walks quickly, carefully avoiding eye contact with those he passes. His face is splotchy, his hair is greasy and it lies limp on his pale forehead. He makes a beeline for his dorm room and once there he barely acknowledges his roommate before plopping himself down at his desk. There’s a half full can of Mountain Dew within arm’s reach and he takes a sip while putting on his headset and turning on his monitor. For the next seven hours, he’ll be basked in the harsh glow of his screen and he’ll dexterously tap away at his keyboard. The stereotype above is of a gamer. You probably know one, you probably know several, and they probably don’t fit that description very well. As video games have exploded in popularity in recent years, the old stereotypes have become tired and outdated. The interactive genre of media has had to battle censorship and obscurity but has nonetheless emerged as a powerful force, both artistically and economically. Of course, there are still gamer specimens that fit the typical mold. Tempted as you may be to ridicule or pity such a creature, try to enlighten yourself and realize that they are engaging in the media sensation of our lifetimes. There have been plenty of bumps along that road to prominence though. Video games have been blamed for all sorts of things. Some, like contributing to a sedentary and socially isolated lifestyle, are fairly well deserved. Others, like shooting rampages, are unfounded and reactionary. Violence has played a prominent role in video games since their inception, the most well known example being the Grand Theft Auto series. The franchise is remarkably graphic. In any given session,
the player might beat up (or hire) hookers, drive on the sidewalk spewing pedestrians astray in a shockingly realistic fashion, or engage in a Rambo-style police massacre. Like any good piece of media, GTA has multiple layers. Violence plays a prominent role, but it sits alongside poignant political and social commentary. The commercials that play on the radio stations are hilariously dark satirical jabs that could give Colbert a run for his money. Unfortunately for GTA, and violent games in general, too few people bother to see past the blood. Video games make a convenient scapegoat for people who aren’t willing or able to consider the real problems with a society obsessed with arming itself to the teeth. An excellent example of this phenomena is the NRA’s recent condemnation of violent media, especially video games. It’s ironic that those dedicated to the preservation and widespread distribution of deadly weapons are opposed to their depiction in video games. It’s also sad that anyone would be so eager to censor what is becoming an increasingly expressive and accessible form of media. A big part of the success of video games has to do with their popularity among continually expanding demographics. According to the ESRB, the organization responsible for rating games for their age-appropriateness, 41 percent of all video gamers are female. Think about that the next time you see that sweaty weirdo rushing to his computer; there’s probably a girl out there for him, or at least like him. The average age of a gamer is also older than one might expect at 30 years old. The Nintendo Wii had been a surprisingly big hit at
JAKE BARNARD nursing homes as a low risk physical activity. So why the popularity of video games across genders and generations? For starters, many modern video games are complicated narratives with engrossing plots and characters that a gamer can become easily emotionally invested in. Some of these, like The Witcher series, are epic tales that the player can influence with their own decisions. Gamers are first presented with a believable world, and then must act in a way that suits their desires for that world. Strategy games, on the other hand, can be extremely intricate exercises that demand a surprising amount of patience and cognitive ability. Anyone who’s played through a Total War or Civilization campaign on the hardest difficulty can tell you that it’s no cakewalk. Without careful planning and attention to detail, twenty odd hours of playtime will result in catastrophic failure. At the other end of the spectrum are simple pick-up and play games like the sports series for the Wii. These are games that are easy to learn but difficult to master, and they’re excellent group activities. They’ve done wonders to draw in new gamers because of their intrinsically social nature and physicality. Stereotypes exist for a reason. There are still plenty of antisocial geeks sitting in the dark playing World of Warcraft, but they hardly represent the average gamer. Furthermore, the games they play don’t do justice to the diversity of experience video games make possible.
‘Video games make a convenient scapegoat for people who aren’t willing or able to consider the real problems with a society obsessed with arming itself to the teeth.’