Sophomores, juniors and seniors are upset about the new housing policy change taking place in Fall 2022. Gough, a primarily upper class man building, has now become an entirely freshman building. Eastern students are upset that the administration decided to pass this policy after SGA explained it was not a good idea. Administration completely discarded what our student government had to say and made their own choice. 

I believe this is a bad choice on the administration’s part because they knew how their students felt and went ahead with it. It sets the standard that our voices do not matter. We have our own thoughts and opinions on what Eastern administration does, however, their decision shows that our voice is not as important as they say they are. 

They care more about the incoming students rather than the students who are already here. Upperclassmen normally get the nicer buildings, Gough being one of them, but now we have a limited selection of housing and many upperclassmen may end up in a worse building rather than a nicer one. I know seniority is a rule but sometimes that gets tossed out the window.  

SGA has been trying to reverse this, and for that I am thankful. Having Gough as a freshman building is going to create a sense of divide between our community rather than connection. Eastern wants to build community with their students, but by disregarding what students had to say, they have created a divide that will only get worse next semester. 

Many students, especially those who live in Gough, are lost on what to do. Housing has become more stressful and it seems as though the administration cares that the freshmen have a nicer building and not those who have been here longer. It would make more sense for the incoming freshman to have Kea-Guffin and Hainer or Doane, not Gough. 

Many students on campus have voiced their opinions, RAs included, about the policy and believe that it is going to cause freshmen to be isolated and upperclassmen to ignore them. I know I found it helpful living in a building with upperclassmen because they were able to help me figure things out like where buildings and classrooms were, how to access Eastern’s online system “my.eastern.edu” and how to set up my Brightspace page. 

There was a sense of acceptance from the upperclassmen because we were on the same floor or in the same building. Now, freshmen are thrown into one building with no one but RAs to rely on who have other duties outside of helping freshmen find classes. 

It affects every person on campus, not just the freshmen. The students living in Gough are scrambling to figure out what to do about their living situation while balancing schoolwork and activities. SGA has tried to reverse the change and Eastern administration will not hear them out. Eastern markets itself as building community and connections but how can they do that if they are isolating freshmen from upperclassmen? 

This decision has blind sided many people after the administration was told to not do it. I feel that there were good intentions when it came to this decision but it was executed poorly and there has been no explanation as to why they did not listen to SGA or why administration believes this will benefit us all. I wish Eastern administrators would listen to what their current students have to say. A sense of divide has been created and the incoming freshmen class have not even arrived yet. I believe that once they are on campus, the divide may become greater.

News Flash! Russia starts a cold war with the U.S., Gas prices skyrocket and America looks more and more divided. Who knows, by the time this is published we might be in the middle of World War III.

But do not be afraid my friends, it is at times like these that we can turn our eyes to our leaders, especially Congress, the historic body formed from the very best of our nation. Many have lost faith in this institution. The factions and divisions that have torn its soul to shreds of partisanship, are indeed disheartening.

Yet, today I can bring you good news. The Senate, the governing body that is now formed of individuals who would all kill each other in duels, if duels were still legal, have decided to put down their weapons and step across the aisle in a gesture of peace.

You may wonder, what momentous occasion is the cause for such unity? After all, neither a global pandemic, nor a fight against racism, nor protecting our borders, nor police reform, nor protecting freedom of speech, nor limiting freedom of speech, nor confirming supreme court justices, nor increasing their own power, nor watching sports, nor ending a prayer has been able to add the smallest speck of unity to the Senate. 

It would seem that the Senate might unify if we had a World War III. Actually, I just lied, they definitely would not. In fact, only a week ago I would have made the argument that unity was impossible, but I must humbly admit that I was quite wrong. On March 15, the Senate unanimously passed a bill. What was it that brought the Senate together? It was spring ahead…

Yes, we are passing a bill to eternally remain in spring ahead time. I can’t really complain about the bill. I will definitely miss fall backs, but spring aheads are thoroughly disgusting. I feel like anything that causes us to be unified must be a good thing, at least hopefully. Sadly, we can’t get our hopes up too soon. The bill still has a long way to go because it still must pass the House of Representatives and then be signed by President Biden.

I honestly wonder why this is at the forefront of our Senate’s agenda. Are things not as bad as they seem? Or perhaps this is a power move, to show the American people that the Senate is still in control?  Perhaps it is to show the American people that the Senate is still boss: look, they can even make laws about time!

If this is a piece of legislation along these lines, I have a proposal. Why not just eliminate spring ahead, but keep fall back? Nobody likes spring ahead and everyone loves fall back. This would be the most appealing bill of all time. I know you’re thinking, “Christian, you can’t just add an hour every year. Where would you get it?” I beg to differ. After all, we print money, and we don’t worry about its value. What if we treated time the same way? Just think about that for a second.

True crime is a topic that sparks an interest in a lot of people. Regardless of fields of study, true crime has become a form of entertainment for a large portion of our population. 

But should we be using these stories as entertainment? Should true crime podcasts, television shows and youtubers be using these cases to profit off of them? 

Don’t get me wrong, I grew up listening to these podcasts and watching these true crime shows, but as I get older, I am starting to realize that glorifying these killers and their crimes is extremely disrespectful.

I have heard people say “oh, this is my favorite muder!” or “so and so is my favorite serial killer” more times than I can count, and honestly it is just really weird to say these things about people who have done so much harm to others. And don’t even get me started on the people that talk about having a crush on Ted Bundy. He was a serial killer, get over yourself. 

The fascination and romantic obsession with killers is astonishing to me. A more recent example being the countless women who sent love letters to Chris Watts in prison after he murdered his family, being his pregnant wife and their two daughters under the age of five. I simply cannot fathom glorifying this man or claiming that he did nothing wrong despite his confession and even talking about his daughter’s last words before killing her. It’s sickening, and a prime example of how the documentary that came out of this case did more harm than good. To be fair to the documentary makers, the intention behind the documentary was not to glorify this man, and most podcasts and documentaries do not aim for this type of response, but they still run that risk of having this disgusting outcome. 

Again, I listen to these podcasts and watch these documentaries too. I myself do find true crime interesting, but I also know better than to glorify murderers and to speak ill of their victims.

Imagine being in the situation of the victim and their families, imagine hearing people refer to the trauma you’ve gone through as ‘their favorite case.” I just can’t get over the amount of disrespect these statements have towards victims and their families. 

This is not to say that all true crime podcasts/coverage is bad. It can be done and it can be done well and respectfully. It can be truly beneficial to a case to have the coverage of true crime, however, I feel like we are starting to lose touch with the respectful format and we have been slowly evolving into a more disrespectful form of telling people’s stories. 

I fear we have gone too far from realizing that these people are real; their stories are not just stories, they actually happened, it’s not just a podcast or youtube video and they’re likely either gone or traumatized from the events that happened to them. These instances aren’t something to be gossiped about or glorified. 

There are plenty of alternatives to these true crime money grabs as well. There are a plethora of TV shows and movies that depict similar crimes, or even events based on real instances that make an emphasis to not glorify the crime in itself and tend to show more respect towards crime victims. These shows can be found virtually anywhere. Most streaming services have at least one show or movie that can likely scratch the true crime itch without risking adding more harm to an existing victim. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that the term victim extends to victims’ families too. Just because the victim was lost to their crime does not mean their family is not also suffering from their loss and hearing people talk about their lost loved ones making uncalled for assumptions about the events. 

There are some podcasts and documentaries/docuseries that do an excellent job highlighting the victims of crime and show true compassion for said victims. 

One of my favorite documentaries, The Witness, was actually made by the brother of the crime victim (Kitty Genovese). He was able to take an alternative side that differs from most true crime media.  His alternative showed how his sister’s death left a lasting negative impact on his family, even decades after. In this documentary, he also talked about having to avoid the media for most of his life so they didn’t have to hear the harsh words from the general public. 

This is a reality for many victims’ families who feel the need to avoid the media so they don’t have to hear people talking about their loved ones. It can be cruel to put a family through trauma over and over again. It’s perfectly fine to have an interest in true crime and to listen to/watch these programs, but please be considerate to victims and their families.

If you frequent the coffee shop Zime here on Eastern’s campus, you’ll be aware that there’s at least one thing missing or unavailable nearly every day. Most recently, they were out of two drink sizes, multiple flavors and ingredients for drinks and some food items as well. There’s usually a list near the register indicating what’s unavailable. You’ll also know that Zime now serves Starbucks: a massive, ubiquitous coffee corporation. That is the key to why we’re experiencing shortages. 

The problem of shortages at Starbucks, and therefore Zime, is global — and geopolitical. The COVID-19 pandemic that we’re still attempting to squelch two years later has been the catalyst for enormous change in the United States and abroad. According to UNCTAD, there are two changes at play in our situation at Zime: the global supply chain crisis, and labor movements like unionization and resignation. And these affect each other as well; labor movements affect product turnaround, and then those supply shortages can make work environments so stressful that workers seriously consider walking out or unionizing. 

The Guardian explains how labor movements, like the widespread unionization and the Great Resignation (as it’s being called) are massive, and not to be underestimated. And there’s something important about Starbucks here. Bloomberg reported that Starbucks is a well-documented union-buster, which according to the National Labor Relations Act 1935, is illegal.  

Bloomberg further explained how union-busting is when workers on the ground try to unionize, their superiors — if they hear of the unionization attempts — are encouraged by corporate to make their workload as difficult as possible and inundate them with anti-union material and bullying tactics. That results in unionizers often being forced to quit or their location being closed down. It’s illegal to fire someone for unionizing, but it’s not technically illegal to drive unionizers to their breaking point.

The Associated Press reported that Starbucks is one of many, many American corporations experiencing widespread unionization efforts. More recent domestic strikes include Chevron and Amazon, and some recent international strikes have been in Germany, Turkey, Canada, and Haiti. These global labor movements, including in the United States, have been triggered by the overworking and under-recognition of workers — and widespread deaths of workers — during the COVID-19 pandemic, which is the ultimate exacerbator of the supply chain crisis. 

The New York Times explains how the issue functions like a massive Rube-Goldberg machine: if just one element is off, then it won’t work, and we at home are feeling the effects of that in the form of shortages. 

So what does that have to do with us at Zime? Well, all of this is happening far away from Eastern, and the workers we interact with at Zime are the last of many, many middlemen. If anything has gone wrong, it is very likely to be entirely out of the hands of Zime workers, and there’s absolutely nothing they can do about the shortages. I encourage us to treat them with grace and solidarity. Corporations like Starbucks end up hurting us all — consumer and worker — for the sake of profit at any cost.

Sources: UNCTAD, AP, New York Times, The Guardian, Bloomberg, National Labor Relations Board

I know that on the heels of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and the upcoming release of “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” all of the talk is focused on how [x] movie brought back [y] character from the [z] cinematic universe. But I’m here to tell you that only one film has done the multiverse right: “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” 

For some background, “EEAAO” — being abbreviated for the sake of space — is a film about a Chinese immigrant family that lives a mundane life of running a laundromat and has a loveless marriage on the verge of breaking between Evelyn (Michelle Yeoh) and Waymond (Ke Huy Quan). The IRS is somehow not even their biggest concern, as their daughter Joy is slowly drifting apart from them. During one fateful meeting with their auditor, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, Evelyn is dragged into a fight spanning the multiverse.

Mind you, this is not a review of the film, rather an attempt to do justice for the film’s usage of the multiverse concept. The multiverse isn’t used as an excuse to bring back old characters in “EEAAO,” which is a welcomed change of pace (not that this film has any previous entries to take from). But for as cool of a concept as the multiverse is — who wouldn’t want to see alternate timelines? — the multiverse has been reduced down to a gimmick to get easy cheers from audiences. It’s reached a point similar to the “science” in comic book movies. Again, I’m not expecting any verbiage spewed out by characters in the MCU to be approved by the world’s smartest scientists, but slapping “quantum” at the end of every sentence doesn’t excuse the laziness, and I don’t care that the movies tried to be self-aware of this. It’s similar to how Tony Stark made the quantum-sized leap from metal suits to nanotechnology. Forgive me if I’m forgetting the lore of the films, but I don’t know what possibly happened in between “Spider-Man: Homecoming” and “Infinity War” that would suggest that nanotech was available to him, but I digress. 

Back to the multiverse, rather than using the multiverse to stop past events, or recruit/fight past versions of themselves to save the world, “EEAAO” uses it to unlock more potential for Evelyn like power-ups in a video game. And if nothing else, the bodies of Evelyn are used as a vessel to channel other versions of Evelyn that are helpful in certain situations whether it be trained in martial arts or has hot dog hands. These abilities take over Evelyn in her battles and make for some hilarious, albeit unexpected moments. “EEAAO” is an absurd movie that truly throws spaghetti at the wall and sees what sticks; it’s almost sensory overload but it is somehow the right kind of chaos.

Look, Marvel can and will continue to use the multiverse for the foreseeable future and that’s fine. That well will inevitably run dry when all of the X-Men characters have been brought back and every Batman actor has graced the silver screen for one last curtain call. Watch “EEAAO” when it makes its wide release on April 8 for a multiverse adventure that is so unique that you can’t help but take it all in. It’s the multiverse done right, and I don’t care what Doctor Strange has to say about it.