Tiger's Apology

On Friday of this week Tiger Woods, the embattled golfer, made his first public appearance since news of his infidelity became public. In case you've been hiding out in a cave for the past couple months, here's the rundown: Just after Thanksgiving, Tiger Woods crashed his car near his house, raising many questions as to how the event happened. Tiger, typically a very private celebrity, was mum on the whole situation. Soon, however, news broke that Tiger had been having an affair, and Tiger decided to take an extended absence from golf to save his marriage with his wife Elin. It was rumored that Tiger had checked into a sex addiction clinic. Friday, however, was the first day that Tiger came out and talked to the public about his much talked about private life. A video and transcript can be seen here.
Coming into his press conference, I was really rooting for Tiger. I was really hoping that he would make a sincere apology, and that we could put a lot of this behind us. And after watching the speech, I was surprised. Just definitely not in a good way. Not only did he read a completely prepared speech, but he showed no emotion. Well, thats not completely true. When he was bashing the media for attacking his family, he was clearly very angry. So rather than give a sincere apology, he was blaming it all on the media? Seriously? There were plenty of things he could've done to make his apology seem more legit. He could've brought in a speech that wasn't completely prepared. Would it have killed you to bring in a few bullet points Tiger? That way, we could've heard your own personality more, and we wouldn't have to watch you look down at your paper ever two and a half seconds. And it sure wouldn't have hurt if you had let people ask you questions afterward, so that maybe we could've gotten some answers other than just the ones you wanted us to. Overall, Tiger's speech seemed fake and prepared, not the kind of apology that was needed to change the public opinion of you as a cheater. But am I right in bashing Tiger, or was his speech really one of true regret?

Well at least my college has Diversity!

         Recently I have started looking at different colleges, and I've noticed that colleges tend to be judged based on their biodiversity. Whether its NYU or Johns Hopkins, two very diverse schools, or Lehigh and Bucknell, two schools described as mostly rich white kids, there can be a large disparity in the diversity of colleges. This brought up a lot of questions: Why do schools become either diverse or not very diverse? Whose fault is it that colleges are diverse or not? And more importantly, why is it a big deal that a college is very diverse or not? To me, it shows a major flaw in our country when you are congratulated because you are diverse. If race wasn't a prevalent issue in our country, not only would diversity hopefully be much higher, but it wouldn't be such a big deal to be a heterogeneous campus.
        When looking at the diversity of a school composed of all upper class white kids, its a wonder why there aren't more people of color at the college. Is it the majorities fault? I find it hard to believe that the people at the school would actively try to keep out minorities, so its fair to say its not their fault their college isn't diverse? What about minorities? If I were them, I would prefer to go to a place where there was a lot of diversity, so I wouldn't be so out of the ordinary, so its clearly not their fault either. Which brings up the possibility that history plays a large role: the college has been homogeneous for so long, it would be really hard to change that because of the stereotypes and judgments that have been associated with it. And we can look at our society as a whole in the same context. Is it fair to say that it's no ones fault that our society isn't equal, because of the long history of inequality that have been present? Or is it someone's fault that our society is the way it is?

Its Everyone's New Trier

         Recently on my way to school I saw many signs expressing views on the proposed renovations at the New Trier. Whether its "Our New Trier" or "I love New Trier, but not a plan rich in unnecessary spending", it seems everyone has their own view. Even my next door neighbor, who won't have a kid at New Trier for over ten years, has at least three signs imploring people to support the renovations. Also, my mom went on a tour this past weekend, and came home with a few sheets of paper explaining why the renovation is a good thing. And, after reading over the packet of info, I have to say, I agree.
        I think everyone agrees the renovations will have to happen eventually. The music wing and Gates Gym are old and need to be rebuilt. the cafeteria doesn't fit everyone in the lunch periods. And as someone who runs in the fieldhouse everyday, I can tell you its a piece of junk. So the main argument against the referendum seems to be that this isn't the right time. However, I would argue that now is the perfect time. Not only are construction costs down fifteen to twenty percent compared to previous years, but a bond program that expires at the end of this year allows the school to save 35% on interest. All together, the proposed plan would cost almost $100 dollars more per $10,000 taxed next year than it would this year. In addition to these reasons, there are many other reasons, such as wheelchair accessibility. After talking to a few fellow American Studies students during class today, the main opposition seemed to be that we didn't want to have to be inconvenienced by the construction. And maybe its just me, but that seems pretty selfish. Its gonna have to happen sometime, and were only going to have it for half the time (one year) the sophomores and freshman are going to have it (two years), so its not too big of a deal. After looking at all the facts of the situation, I feel like the referendum should be passed. Do you feel the same way, or am I missing any possible negatives to the plan?