Chick-fil-A was chosen this year as one of the three new dining options for The Union expansion, and a small group on campus is upset by this decision.

Chick-fil-A’s owners, the Cathy family, have given money in support of several Christian organizations: Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Focus on the Family, The Family Resource Council and Exodus International. This led the upset group to believe the company is anti-gay, as a few of those organizations promote traditional marriage.

The Cathy family has been open about their spiritual beliefs, and it’s because of these beliefs they give funding to the chosen organizations. Just because someone or a group gives money to a Christian organization does not automatically make them “anti-gay.” To say that is an oversimplification.

The opposing group has formed a Facebook page in support of stopping Chick-fil-A from coming to campus. As of April 24, it’s main page states the following:

“[The] purpose of this group is to raise awareness that members will be looking for your support in our community and to be aware that a petition will be going around. Our mission is not to decredit the value of (Chick-fil-A), or any organization, simply to raise awareness about problems with organizations that support anti-gay rights.”

While we respect people with varying opinions about homosexuality, we have to think about the situation from a reasonable standpoint. The Cathy family is not the Westboro Baptist Church. It’s true the Cathy family has specific beliefs, but they have not shoved these down people’s throats.

If the situation was flipped and a business coming to SDSU was actively for gay rights, SDSU could not ban it out of fear of offending the Christian community. So, it should not expel Chick-fil-A for this reason.

When Boston’s Northeastern University decided to pull its contract with Chick-fil-A, the company came back with a statement:

“…We are not anti-anybody and Chick-fil-A (has) no agenda, policy or position against anyone as some reports continue to represent … Our agenda is simple: to graciously serve great food and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

There you have it. Unless Chick-fil-A was outright disrespecting the gay community, there is no case not to bring it to SDSU.

Stance: Chick-fil-A should remain a dining option in the new Union expansion.

This isn’t a new ordinance, mostly it’s an upgrade from the previous version that gets rid of the warning process and slaps offenders with a flat $60 fine. We are glad this was passed.
Snowy sidewalks are a nuisance—plain and simple.
For one, it looks bad. Just like people need to mow their lawns during warmer months, they should shovel their sidewalks when snow is on the ground. We have all seen the packed-down paths and cursed the owner or renter for making us trudge through their sidewalk. Two days is plenty of time to clear sidewalks after a snowfall and if the city council felt they needed to forego the warning process in order to get homeowners and renters to clear their sidewalks faster, then we can’t blame them for that.
Also, it is a safety issue. Dave Miller, the chair of the Brookings Disability Committee, brought up the concerns of physically impaired people, and these concerns needed an ear. If snow is not shoveled right away and it has a chance to melt and then refreeze overnight, it makes for a slippery walk to work or school. Let’s not pretend we haven’t seen people slip because of a slippery sidewalk and laughed under our breath (or openly), but nonetheless, it should not happen—especially because 48 hours is allocated to clear it.
Shoveling is a pain, but it beats the pain you’ll feel when you or someone else slips and falls. For everyone’s safety, just bear the cold for about 10 to 20 minutes.
Also, keep in mind that the cost of a new shovel, or even the hourly wage of a snow removal company are probably cheaper than the new fine. With a winter like we have had, hardware stores are probably begging people to purchase the plastic plows.

Stance: Shoveling takes 20 minutes, not 48 hours. Shovel your sidewalks faster.

The problem with both grading systems is inconsistency.

Whether we keep the current system or switch to a plus-minus system, this must change.

Currently, instructors are given freedom in how to grade. Some round up; some don’t. Some consider 92 percent to be an A; some keep it at 90.

It sounds as though the new system would not change this subjectivity. At the Students’ Association’s Oct. 24 meeting, Faculty Adviser Chris Schmit said it will depend on “who’s grading and how they’re grading.”

This makes no sense. The whole point of grading students is to have an accurate measure of their retention and classroom performance. An instructor’s grading preference should not be a factor in this measurement.

At the same meeting, Faculty Adviser Dan Hansen said he would like to see more research “on what an A student looks like, what a B student looks like [and] what a C student looks like.”

We agree; this is an absolutely necessary step before any final decision can be made. A-students in the pharmacy department are not the same as A-students in the journalism department. A pharmacy student likely studies at least 30 hours a week. Journalism students maybe put in two a week.

We are not saying that every major should have an equal difficulty level, but it’s an issue that deserves considerable research. The Faculty Senate should not rush into decisions about the grading systems without understanding all the factors.

As far as which system is best, that is not our main concern at this point. The merits of each system are irrelevant when instructors are given freedom to do whatever they want.

Stance: Whatever grading system is selected should be consistent and objective.

Yes, it is a big deal.

Running back Dominique Clare said quarterbacks are “like second coaches.” O’Brien was more than just a typical player – he was a leader of the team.

What is forgotten in the hysteria – online, in the media and in the stands – is that O’Brien is a student who happens to wear football pads.
SDSU made drastic changes to its athletics department in the last decade, ushering in a new era: a Division I program competing against the likes of Nebraska, Minnesota, Kentucky, Iowa State and Arkansas through a variety of sports. It is understood that SDSU wants to compete, and succeed, at this level.

Perhaps no one faces the weight of that desire for success more than the starting quarterback on the football team. O’Brien faced it from every angle – from fans, coaches, teammate and peers. He maybe felt eyes peering at him whenever he walked in The Union.

When the Monday night news broke out, teammates responded.

“I think there’s a lot of unnecessary blame and pressure put on him … and a lot of times it’s not necessarily his fault,” Clare said to The Collegian Monday.

Other players spoke about the situation via Twitter, all resoundingly supportive.

It is unknown what the consensus is amongst fans. But there is a lesson at play here from this storyline of a young quarterback from Winona, Minn., who helped lead SDSU to a playoff berth for the first time in 30 years, who threw 69 touchdown passes in his high school career, who was named to the Missouri Valley Football Conference honor roll for his efforts as a student.

We can clamor for a winning team and a successful program, but we must understand the pressure placed on all players on the sidelines, on the bench or in the dugout. We can boo or we can cheer. We can be mad when they lose, joyful when they win – we are all watching a game being played.

O’Brien played a game and, by all accounts, was committed to winning. When he thought the situation turned too ugly, he made a life decision.

Maybe it is a cliché, but football is not everything. Wide receiver Dale Moss said it best in a tweet Monday:

“…at the end of the day we have a life outside of sports.”

Stance: Fans should consider that Jackrabbits are not professionals. They are student athletes.

Editorial Board:
Emma DeJong, Editor-in-Chief
Drue Aman, Managing Editor
Laura Cox, Opinion Editor

There is no need for debate. Pub Crawl is disgusting.

Its title encourages binge drinking on a massive scale (think “crawl”). The point is for people to sustain drunkenness throughout an entire day. Businesses don’t encourage it, but this mentality prevails amongst the student body. This is not a respectable way for any business to make money.

On a typical night, we are proud of our city’s downtown atmosphere. It is respectable and clean, alive and vibrant. It maintains a small-town charm.

But there is nothing classy about Pub Crawl.

Hundreds of drunken students clog Main Street for an entire Saturday. When the sun comes up the next day, it gives light to a street full of garbage. Puke on the curbs and half-eaten pizza scattered on the sidewalk entices no one to a walk downtown – let alone to shop.

And more than the trashy atmosphere, it’s not safe.

Individuals have the right to decide how much they want to drink. They are 100-percent responsible for their own safety. Businesses do not condone drunk driving or any of the potential dangers of binge drinking. But regardless of their intentions, dangerous behavior is the end result.

The City Council does not have a legal right to ban Pub Crawl. But they shouldn’t need it. The bar owners should not want to make money from something that needs increased police presence to monitor fights and drunk driving.

Making money is good. Businesses should strive to accomplish this. Serving alcohol is legal. Responsible drinking is social and healthy.

But an event organizing mass drinking is not.

Stance: The Pub Crawl tradition should come to an end.

Editorial Board:
Emma DeJong, Editor-in-Chief
Drue Aman, Managing Editor
Laura Cox, Opinion Editor

The editorial board meets and agrees on the issue of the editorial. The editorial represents the opinion of The Collegian.

Issue: SDSU Students’ Association and the South Dakota Board of Regents have publicly spoken out against a bill that would have required universities to establish a veterans resource center without funding.

We have nothing but the respect and reverence for the brave men and women that nobly sacrifice so much for their country, and we cannot thank them enough. They deserve much more than they receive.

However, we do not support the South Dakota Legislature requiring costly actions while not providing any funds, even if it does go toward a good cause. The bill in the Legislature required BOR universities to have a veterans resource center but did not provide any funding. The funding then would have most likely been passed on to the students.

After passing in the house, the bill was amended to say universities “may” create a veterans resource center rather than requiring universities to create one. The bill failed in the senate on March 1.

But before the wording was changed and before the bill failed, SA and the BOR opposed the bill, and we are glad they were brave enough to make this fiscally responsible decision. It’s hard to oppose funding that would benefit a deserving group of people, especially people as deserving as our veterans. However, being brave enough to take a shrewd yet potentially unpopular stance should be commended. SA and the BOR made the right choice in opposing this unfunded mandate, and we’re glad the bill has been put to rest.

That’s not to say we oppose a verterans resource center, even if it is funded by student dollars. Like any project on campus, student opinions should be taken into account. SA recently surveyed students on how much more they’d be willing to pay for certain buildings and services. If the Veteran’s Club and others believe students are willing to pay for this, we suggest they conduct a similar survey.

Stance: It’s hard to say no to people as important as veterans, but not supporting unfunded mandates is not the same as not supporting the troops. We’re glad those in power realized this as well.

Editorial Board:

Tony Gorder, Editor-in-Chief

Emma DeJong, Managing Editor

Elizabeth Reiss, Opinion Editor

The editorial board meets and agrees on the issue of the editorial. The editorial represents the opinion of The Collegian.

Issue: SDSU continues to go paperless with plans to make the course catalog completely digital.

Though no date has been set, SDSU’s undergraduate catalog will eventually cease physical publication and move completely digital. This will save the university nearly $25,000, according to the Office of Academic Affairs.

We support this move to digital distribution, and we believe more things could move online.

The Office of Academic Affairs said they are considering simply putting a PDF catalog online. We think this is the best choice. Students could print what they want to print (if anything) and could simply download the catalog for offline viewing.

Yes, having a physical copy in your hands is nice, but between this and other cost-saving techniques, the university is saving a huge amount of money, which could mean the difference between someone’s job or the price of tuition.

However, as the Internet is used more and more, the delivery of materials needs to be adequate.

SDSU’s website received a makeover about a year-and-a-half ago. While pleasing to the eye, the website is difficult to navigate. It is especially hard to find one’s way around the current online course catalog, found at catalog.sdstate.edu. It is sloppy and poorly laid out.

There is no excuse for a difficult-to-navigate website. Even with a PDF option for documents, the website needs a decent overhaul focusing on ease-of-use and navigation.

Stance: Online is the way to go, but as more and more publications and services go digital, SDSU needs to accommodate students with a website that’s easy to use rather than the headache we have now.