Jaclyn Marr

Two universities have been in the news for recent decisions about their women’s sports teams. The University of Delaware has announced that they are removing the term “Lady” when discussing their women’s athletics. However, the University of Tennessee is fighting to keep the term.

While Manhattan College does not call their women athletes the Lady Jaspers, it is still a questionable topic. Is it really discriminatory? What about honoring team history?

Delaware’s change comes after an alumnus wrote a letter to the editor of their student newspaper. James Wiles, a class of 2012 graduate, called the use of the term Lady Hens “inherently sexist.” He states in the letter that men teams are simply named Hens and not something like Mister Hens. He continued by saying, “The men’s teams are somehow solely entitled to the general term, without a gender specific qualifier.”

The student newspaper agreed and quickly responded. “Though this change is long overdue, we are proud to announce we are disposing of a discriminatory term,” the editors wrote.

On the other hand, the University of Tennessee had some opposing arguments. While the school made the change, it is not viewed well among the students and fans. It was seen as ruining the tradition of their women’s sports. A former female athlete was very upset by the school’s removal and started a petition, asking for the “Lady” to be reinstated.

More than 3,000 people signed the petition in the first two days. It reached about 5,000 so far. “Being a Lady Vol is something that I will cherish forever,” she said in a statement. “The Lady Vol T is more than a symbol. The T served as a fountain of inspiration during my tenure as a student-athlete. It is heartbreaking to realize that no future athlete will have the opportunity to be apart of the Lady Vol tradition.”

Tennessee fans argue that the “Lady” is a major part of their history and they don’t see it as discriminatory. Sally Jenkins, a sportswriter from the Washington Post, said that it was a term of civility and respect, a natural counterpart to gentleman. A lady is someone who commands courtesy and gives it in return. People have also gone as far as comparing it to the description of the First Lady.

“It is a self-selected term that represents a history of hard-won greatness, the seizure of athletic power and identity for women via Title IX,” Jenkins wrote, describing the all-female athletic department added to Tennessee in the 1970’s.

At Tennessee, the one team to keep the “Lady” is women’s basketball. It is a nod to retired head coach Pat Summitt. She had opposed this change in her time with the team. Summitt was one of the women in 1976 to push for a women’s athletic department. They named themselves as the “Lady Vols.”

The argument about the school’s history is understandable. However, isn’t there always room for change? Especially when it is something that can be viewed as discriminatory. Why is the extra term needed when naming women’s sports? Men’s teams are referred to simply as the school mascot, nothing more. If people are worried about branding or inferiority for the women’s teams, they could even go as far as changing to independent team names, such as the New York Knicks and Liberty.

Another statement from the University of Delaware newspaper after announcing the change said, “Referring to our women’s sports teams as the Lady Hens while we refer to our men’s teams as the Hens suggests that men’s teams claim to true Hen-ship and to the true embodiment of athleticism.” This is an important statement because it shows that women represent the “true embodiment of athleticism” as well.

In this era, it is time for everyone to move past gender inequality and make some needed changes. It can be seen clearly when it is a women’s team or a men’s and the women do not need a further explanation. There is no reason for the term “lady” when referring to women’s athletics.

Everyone remembers the process of applying to colleges. Mostly basic questions fill up the pages until you get to the one that asks, “Have you ever been arrested or convicted of a felony?”

The answer to this could make or break someone’s college future. Three New York colleges have removed it from their application. However, Manhattan College is not one of them. But should it be?

Out of the three, St. John’s University is significant due to its size. The school has 20,000 students on four different campuses in New York state. The other two schools are Five Towns College and Dowling College, both located on Long Island.

New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said in a statement: “An arrest or police stop that did not result in a conviction, or a criminal record that was sealed or expunged, should not – indeed must not – be a standard question on a college application. Such a question can serve only to discourage New Yorkers from seeking a higher education.”

The colleges have agreed to work with an advocacy group called the Center for Community Alternatives, led by Schneiderman, to address these points of punishment and discrimination. These schools are the only three out of the 70 that were reviewed by the state attorney’s office.

Should prospective college students be punished for something that happened in high school? If it is a case of something more serious, then that is a different story. However, most of the time it is minor and should not affect the future of someone who wants to achieve more in his or her life.

The Center for Community Alternatives and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers worked together on a 59 question survey to explore the history of criminal records on college applications. Two hundred and seventy-three college institutions responded. The majority, 66 percent, collected information from their applicants’ criminal records, but not all of them let it determine the application process.

The report states that private four-year schools are more likely to collect the information rather than two-year public schools. The other 38 percent do not collect any criminal record information and have not reported their campuses to be less safe than others.

MC is proud to be a Lasallian community. One of our major points, which are stated on our website, is to have respect for all people.

“We honor and respect the dignity of all individuals. Our mission of service, on and off campus, stems from the belief that all human beings deserve basic dignity. We eagerly explore new communities and different ways of thinking and being in order to cultivate a truly global perspective,” according to the MC website.

If MC is “diverse in backgrounds, interests, talents, beliefs and opinions,” then shouldn’t we accept students and give those who need one a second chance? One mistake should not mess up the rest of a student’s future, especially one who wants and works toward getting into a college.

Another point highlighted on the college’s website is our inclusive community. It repeats our welcoming of diversity and a lively community. “Manhattan College is passionately committed to policies of non-discrimination and we actively encourage an open-minded staff and student body. We’re committed to civil rights and freedom of expression for all people.”

With Lasallian values being an important factor at our school, it would be best for Manhattan College to also remove the criminal record question from our application. It will prove that we are in fact Lasallian and that we welcome diverse students to our school.

The East coast was changed forever when it was hit hard by Superstorm Sandy in the fall of 2012. Boardwalks were ripped apart, houses were destroyed and there were record-breaking flood levels. Miles of shoreline beaches were damaged up the coast. The storm resulted in 117 deaths, 53 in New York State. Two years later, New York City is one of the areas still recovering from the storm and looking forward to prepare for future storms.

On October 26 2012, Hurricane Sandy barreled up the East coast as a category one storm with 80 mph winds. New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Maryland declared states of emergency. Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts declared it a day later. On Oct. 28, New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) suspended all services. Mayor Michael Bloomberg ordered the closing of NYC public schools and evacuations in low-lying areas. Sandy hit land on Oct. 29 as a category two storm.

Eleven million commuters were left with no service. About 6,700 National Guard were in active duty in the affected states. By the time the storm made landfall in New Jersey, it had downgraded to a post-tropical cyclone. Still strong, it caused almost eight million businesses and households to lose power across 15 states and 9,000 people spent the night in Red Cross shelters in 13 states.

Two years later, plans and proposals have been made to improve the coastline of New York City in preparation of the next big storm. The Department of Housing and Urban Development started an international design competition to elicit innovative plans. The winning proposal is called Big U and it would contain an eight-mile construction around the Manhattan coastline. It would start at West 57^th Street south to Battery Park and up to East 42^nd Street.

The project will contain 10-foot-tall beams that will guard the edges of the island. They will be barriers to the water while also blending into and becoming a part of a newly imagined set of waterfront parks along the bottom coast of New York City. However, the plan is designed in so-called compartments and the first one is set to start in 2017 with construction on the East Side lasting three years and a $335 million price tag. It is like a trial to see if it helps enough to spread to the rest of the coastline. The project is still unfunded for the West Side and Lower Manhattan.

More projects have been chosen in the federal government’s Rebuild by Design campaign. These will add natural protections in the waters off of the Staten Island shore, the New York Harbor and the South Bronx shoreline. These projects, on the other hand, need additional funding and political support in order to be completed. The problem is that we need significant changes now. With the rate of climate change and dangerous storms, something needs to be done now to protect this area from future trouble.

As the two-year anniversary has approached, there are still many aspects and areas that need to be fixed. For one, New York City’s “Build It Back” program has stalled. It was launched after the storm to rebuild damaged or destroyed homes and cover out-of-pocket expenses for the homeowners and businesses. It was revealed by the city’s Department of Investigation that 90 percent of applicants have yet to receive any assistance – that is 14,000 homeowners.

In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency originally gave $1.4 billion for disaster relief in five different states. However, they are asking for some of its money back. The Associated Press learned in September that FEMA asked about 850 households to return $5.8 million. The agency mismanaged the amount of money they could give and now about $53 million is under review.

As the hurricane season of 2014 is coming to a close, we can only look forward to the city’s proposed protection of the coastlines and hope that the area is not hit hard by another storm before the construction can be finished in the coming years