The Golden Grizzlies are looking ahead with their eyes set on the horizon — the Horizon League that is.

Oakland University’s athletics department has recently expressed a strong interest in joining the Horizon League if an invitation is offered.

“We are interested in the possibility of going to the Horizon League, but have not been contacted,” said OU Assistant Athletic Director Scott MacDonald. “So for now, everything is speculation.”

MacDonald’s comments were reiterated by Athletic Director Tracy Huth, who spoke with The Detroit News.

“Absolutely, we would definitely be interested,” Huth told The Detroit News. “ We have enjoyed our affiliation with the Summit League over the years, (but) it makes sense.”

Huth continued to explain the monetary and geographic benefits to joining Horizon as opposed to remaining with the Summit League.

The Horizon League is a Great Lakes regional conference in NCAA Division 1. Member schools of the conference are located in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and also includes the University of Detroit-Mercy in Michigan.

The league is looking to replace Butler, who will be leaving the conference in the 2013-14 seasons for the Atlantic-10 conference. The league, which will be down to nine members after Butler leaves, is looking for up to three universities to bring into the conference. Oakland has been rumored to be amongst those in talks.

The change in conference would greatly benefit Oakland in this respect, as the Summit teams are spread between Michigan and the Dakota’s after this year.

The travel for the athletics teams has been costly on the university due to this geographical issue. A switch to the Horizon would create a less costly travel schedule for Golden Grizzly teams. If Oakland does leave the Summit League, it would be common sense for all sports to move to the new conference, instead of just one, basketball for example.

Looking past the seemingly obvious benefits, a conference move could create a strong local basketball rivalry with the University of Detroit-Mercy. Another possible rivalry Oakland brings to the table is with Valparaiso, who once belonged to the Summit League.

The Horizon has a rich history in the sport of basketball. Multiple teams have made appearances in the later rounds of the NCAA men’s tournament, with Butler advancing to the championship game in both 2010 and 2011 but in a losing effort.

“Competitively, the premier sport is basketball and that suits us,” Huth told The Detroit News.

Huth said that the switch to the Horizon League with be a positive for the Oakland fan base as well, leading to a better turnout at games both home and away. The possibility of the men’s basketball team playing a team a couple hours away may lead to better fan turnout at away games.

One issue facing Oakland if an invitation is offered is in the bylaws of the Horizon League charter. A member school that is located within 25-miles of a possible new member can veto the offer, making it void. This is a problem with Detroit Mercy located roughly twenty miles from the OU campus.

While there has yet to be any official talks, OU athletics are optimistic about the possibility of playing in a more name-brand conference with regional value.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are 313,376,955 people currently living in the U.S.

These people are free to buy services as they choose. The U.S. only requires people to pay taxes, they do not currently force people to buy a service simply for breathing.

That could all change if the health care bill does not get repealed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Under the new health care bill (other wise known as ‘Obamacare’ or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) people in the U.S. would be required to buy health Insurance from a private health Insurance company if they did not qualify for the expanded federal-state Medicaid program that is currently in place.

This means that simply for having a heart beat you are being forced into an act of commerce so that the federal government can then regulate that commerce, something that on the surface seems anything but constitutional.

The notation of affordable health coverage for all is great for selling bumper stickers and gaining popularity but it is not realistic.

Health insurance companies are not in the business of losing money, they are not in the business of seeing their bottom line slip. They are in the business of increasing their bottom line and seeing profits grow.

If the cost of health care begins to slip, causing health care companies to make less money, they will simply increase their price. The same can be said of doctors offices, which are all part of living in a free market economy.

In order to truly change the cost of health care, people will have to change how they “shop” for health care.

When people need medical attention, they do not shop around for the best price, they do not go looking for special deals, they go to the best doctor in the area and ask for his services.

While this is a completely understandable decision, it is one that people should realize will cost them.

When you go shopping for a car, you look for something in your price range. If you earn $25,000 a year, you are not going to go to your nearest Bugatti dealership to pick out your new car. You will go to a car dealership that offers cars in your price range.

The same should be done when it comes to the purchasing of health coverage or when you visit your local doctors office. If you want the best you will have to pay of it.

Most doctors services are never going to be free of charge, someone will always have to pay for it.

There is nothing wrong with a system where you have the option to buy a service and the option not to buy a service.

——–

Contact Senior Reporter Christopher Lauritsen via email at cklaurit@oakland.edu or follow him on Twitter @ChrisLaurtsen

This is where the Wolf/Williford administration is hoping to start off.

Ever since the beginning of our campaign, OUSC President Samantha Wolf and I have been doing what we can to remain realistic while still giving the students the very best options. We’ve already begun taking a step in the right direction by bringing in some of the brightest and best student leaders at OU to be a part of our executive board.

The Wolf/Williford administration has big hopes for the next year. With initiatives that include a Scantron machine in the library, more student organization collaboration and communication, lobbying for the increased use of Moodle and so many more things, the next year is sure to be filled with much needed changes.

We are so excited and determined to begin giving the students what they deserve. Every voice and every concern should be met with every intention of focusing on solutions, in both the short and long-term time frames. We’re keeping the students and their voices our number one priority.

With this being said, we want to make sure each student has every opportunity to get involved. We want to interact with everyone in a variety of ways. Whether it is via electronic blast, newsletter, or fireside chat, we want to assist you in your hopes of getting your concerns addressed.

This begins with action.

From the very first day in office, the Wolf/Williford administration hopes to hit the ground running. We’re going to be working from our first day in office to the last day in office, writing our own story and leaving our legacy on the students of OU.

I personally want to let everyone who is reading this column know we encourage each and every one of you to get involved and make this university what you want it to be. After all, it’s not every day you get to take action for what you’re passionate about and voice your opinions about it.

It is, and will be forever, one of my greatest pleasures to be able to serve the students in any way that I can, and I assure you that the new administration is going to do what they can to make sure that your voice is constantly heard.
Robbie Williford is the Vice President for the Oakland University Student Congress. Email him at rfwillif@oakland.edu

Creating a bucket list is almost as common as owning a smartphone. Jotting down the activities and experiences one would like to accomplish before their demise.

I crossed one of those experiences off my list two weeks ago. I rode my motorcycle through the Florida Keys without wearing a helmet. As a motorcycle rider, it is was one of the most joyous and freeing experiences of my life.

It just so happens an article in The Oakland Post published on April 3 dealt with the very same issue.

Guest columnist Josh Solar argued against repealing Michigan’s motorcycle helmet law. He was very much for keeping the helmet law in the Mitten. It was my trip to the Keys and riding over 300 miles “helmetless” that compelled me to write a rebuttal.

“I don’t understand why people would want to ride without a helmet,” Solar said in the sixth graph of his article.

The simplest answer I can give is, it’s kind of like not wearing a condom during sex. It’s more risky but it just feels better without one.

I want to make it a point that Solar is 100 percent right when he talks about the statistical data regarding wearing a helmet. It does attribute to higher survival rates and does help prevent brain injury. But when have we as a society ever listened or cared about statistics?

Smoking is statistically linked to lung cancer, yet people still do it. UV sun exposure is statistically linked to skin cancer, but all the women I saw in Key West were getting a nice, golden tan.

It seems to make a difference when something catastrophic happens in the person’s life or someone close to them.

I’m not going to bore anybody with statistics or numbers or try to refute the data given by Solar.  The law has been lifted and seeing helmet-less riders is now a reality.

I’ve been a firefighter and EMT approaching five years. I’ve seen death and dismemberment after motorcycle crashes. I, too, have been in a motorcycle accident that sent me to the ER. I’ve seen and lived through what could happen in an accident and I still support the repealed law.

A motorcyclist is untethered to an engine with wheels. A sudden stop, like that caused from an accident, will most definitely affect the entire body.

Injuries could include severe bone fractures — those fractures could lacerate arteries near the pelvis and arms, resulting in severing bleeding both internally and externally. A laceration of both femoral arteries could lead to cardiac arrest in minutes and the brain and head could be just fine.

Recently, a firefighter was telling me a story of a conversation he had with his grandfather years back. This very same helmet controversy was brought up and the grandfather had his own theory on the matter and it was, “the only difference a helmet makes is whether or not it’s going to be an open or closed casket.”

Point is, the risk of severe injury or death is present regardless of the helmet. Every time you shift down into first, you’re automatically increasing your chance of death.

You can guarantee that you’ll see me “riding free” through Oakland County atop my 1700cc candy red, Yamaha Warrior. And if I do meet my fate, I would have gone out with peace running through my veins.

To the motorcyclist, it’s freeing. The wind in your hair on a hot summer day, listening to the engine roar down the road is as calming as yoga.

——–
Chris Hagan graduated from Oakland University with a degree in journalism in 2011. He has worked as a firefighter and EMT for the last five years. Email him at chagan88@att.net

Places like Oakland Community College have signs that tell students not to come to school if they’re sick. Syllabi on both campuses usually tell us that our absences will not be excused without a note from a doctor. Unless you visit the emergency room, no student is going to have regular, unscheduled access to their family physician.

Even if we do produce a doctor’s note, we are still given a limited amount of “sick days”. If we exceed the given number of days, our grades are penalized. Some professors even require students to be in school for tests, regardless of excuse, because no make-up test will be offered.

My opinion is that the practice of penalizing students for being sick is wrong. I realize there are those out there who skip school or feign illness to get out of class work. I offer that these people should not remove the benefit of the doubt from the rest of us. I have been sick two separate times this semester — one was a cold, the other the flu. During these periods I was treated admirably by my professors and my peers — therefore, this is not an attack or a defense, it is a perspective.

Students and faculty members have been missing classes due to sudden, unexpected illnesses, most of which are attributed to either the common cold or the flu.

It is to be expected that with spring arriving, common illnesses will follow, but few people truly expected this season to carry with it so much sickness. With more cases appearing than an average spring, it is prudent to examine how we, as members of our university community, are affected. An apt question might be — “how do these illnesses affect our ability to think and learn?”

According to Graham Health Center, the common cold differs from the flu mainly in the severity of the symptoms.

I think it’s a safe assumption that we’ve all had one form of headache or another. When headaches strike, it’s painful to even expose your eyes to light, let alone contemplate complex math equations.

If you can accomplish academic tasks with a headache, kudos to you, you’re a trooper — most of us cannot because of how headaches impair normal brain functions.

According to the American College Health Association, fatigue can cause you to have trouble with the following: concentration, reaction times, processing information, mood and behavior and … wait for it, fighting off illnesses. That means that if you have a cold or the flu, coming into school instead of staying at home and resting is actually perpetuating the duration of your illness.

Furthermore, an impaired ability to concentrate means you are at an unfair disadvantage when compared to your healthy classmates.

So why are we still subscribing to the notion that coming to school is a good idea when we are sick? By coming in, we spread our sicknesses, prolong our misery and produce inferior work all in order to avoid absence penalties. My opinion is that this is an antiquated notion that reads “guilty until proven innocent”.

In my experience, most professors at OU are very understanding when you explain your situation, and many will forgo their rules in order to accommodate your recovery, but if this is the practice, why have the stipulations? Just to avoid potential absence abusers? The people who skip class are going to do it regardless of the penalties. All the penalties do is scare sick kids into going to school and making the situation worse.

Contact Staff Intern Mark McMillan via email at mamcmil2@oakland.edu

To you, I am a normal young adult living a generic college life. That’s not entirely true. People who know me well, know my dream job is to work for Autism Speaks, an organization dedicated to increasing autism awareness.

There’s a reason for this. If you have not guessed, it’s simple: I have Asperger’s Syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism.

With the CDC’s newest report, which indicates one in 88 children will be diagnosed with autism, it is imperative that people understand what autism is, as there is more to it than people think. What I am about to say should not be taken as something objective, but rather, subjective, having worked with children with autism and have grown up on the spectrum.

People go out on a limb and say “autism” is a word that can be associated with “low intelligence.” The irony is thick, because they are simply wrong on word association and show their lack of intelligence.

Autism involves every part of the body. From the occipital lobe to the skin of one’s body, autism affects the person in many ways and it varies in each person.

While I have not had any issues with my eyes or skin, I worked with children with autism who  have had these problems. I’ve worked with children who could not stay in a lit room because it was too bright. I’ve worked with children who will not touch something because it doesn’t feel good on their hands. These are called sensory issues.

There is more to it, though. Autism is as much of a behavior (not attitude) issue as it is a physical issue. We all go through our days with some things planned. Some of us will wake up, take a shower, have breakfast and brush our teeth before leaving. If we wake up late and don’t have enough time to take a shower or have breakfast, so be it.

Now, let’s say someone with autism might have to watch television before having breakfast.

If the person successfully watches television, their day carries on with no problem. Let’s say though, the person wakes up late and his or her caregiver is in a rush to get him or her ready for school. Because they are running late, the caregiver tells the person he or she cannot watch television. The caregiver, in turn, is causing a disruption in what the person with autism considers a normal cycle. As a result, the person will get fussy and possibly throw a tantrum because the caregiver is making him or her do something out of order, which confuses them.

It’s important to know that the person with autism is not upset that the caregiver is making him or her skip television time. The person with autism is upset because he or she is confused, and unfamiliar with this new routine that makes him or her feel uncomfortable, and in turn, frustrates him or her.

You’ve probably seen a child, or even a teenager act out in some way because their parent, guardian, or caregiver did something that made the child or teen uncomfortable, and as a result, look different. That person is not anymore different than us.

It’s time for people to stop pointing out what’s different about a person and instead, embrace the diversity. If we lived in a world where everyone acted, talked and dressed the same way, it would be one pretty boring world.

As a member of the autism community, I believe that we are trying to add another aspect of diversity in this world.

My relationship with Dr. Burke could be called many things: friend, mentor, professor, adviser. Whatever term is used, our relationship demonstrated the potential of breaking down the traditional barriers of professor and student.  Dr. Burke was open to the potential possibilities of connecting with others in a way that was not focused on assignments and grades, but rather on wisdom and friendship.

I met Dr. Burke while working for the student newspaper. Although I was a philosophy major, I had not met him, as he had retired a year prior to my involvement in the philosophy department. I was covering the most upcoming visitation of Peter Singer for the Burke Lecture Series. The interview extended far beyond a discussion of the upcoming event. We talked about many subjects, and, in a moment of synchronicity, we both realized there we had a connection and that the conversation was not over. We agreed to meet again. And again.

The interview was the start of a conversation that lasted the next five years.  We met a few more times (always for a minimum of three hours) until Dr. Burke gave me his book titled “Philosophial Bagatelles,” a collection of short, philosophical observations, to help guide ongoing discussions. For each meeting, I would select a “bagatelle” that we would talk about.

Dr. Burke said we could make it an independent study, however, he preferred to meet informally in order to not increase my tuition. For Dr. Burke, it was always about the ideas, conversation and connecting with people.

We met every week for my last two semesters at Oakland University. After I moved out of state, our conversations continued. Upon each return, one of the four mandatory activities in my schedule was to catch up with Dr. Burke. It may have been one month since our last talk, or six months, regardless, it was as if time had not passed.

Our conversations were diverse and exciting: from complaining about Republican candidates, to solving the divide between religion and Atheism, to discussing the next Burke Lecture Series, we always had something to talk about. We even chatted about travel experiences, my comedy act, the curious adventures of my love life and the most recent visit of a deer to Dr. Burke’s window.

Dr. Burke supported the first protest I organized on campus. He even came to see me perform stand-up comedy. Dr. Burke told me he would write a recommendation letter to law school, which he did. The first time I saw him after I had been admitted, he said, with a tear in his eye: “You’re going to be a lawyer … but not just a lawyer, a lawyer who wants to make the world a better place.”

One of my favorite memories of Dr. Burke takes place in the philosophy department office, with fellow professor Dr. Paul Graves. I had been researching the philosophy of laughter for another class and had shared some ideas with the two professors.

When I asked Dr. Burke what he thought in regards to the philosophy of humor, he said: “I think laughter is good, but I know that there are times when laughing too much is going too far.”

In response, I said a joke and Dr. Burke laughed heartily. Real heartily.

With a deadpan expression, and a glimmer in his eye, Dr. Graves looked at Dr. Burke and said: “you’ve gone too far Dick, you’ve gone too far.”

We will all remember Dr. Burke for his humor, his reason, his dignity and his compassion. I will remember Dr. Burke as a friend, mentor and one of people in my life who helped me make the intellectual and emotional transition to manhood.

Dr. Burke’s last bagatelle was written in the fall of 2011. It was entitled “10 Commandments for Our Time.” The final commandment, I think, is an embodiment of Dr. Burke’s spirit of life and philosophy and are words we should all follow: “Thou shalt work, and play and try to combine the two.”

Richard Burke was the first professor hired at Oakland University. He passed away on Feb. 14. His annual lecture will take place at 7 p.m. on April 4 in Banquet Room A of the Oakland Center.

It was confirmed by soon-to-be former Student Congress President Ben Evelsage that Sklar and Chen had 13 grievances filed against them and were found guilty of six of them, losing an overall 27 percent of their votes.

Some of the grievances filed against Sklar and Chen included serving food on campus, playing music and using areas of the sidewalk that weren’t rented ahead of time.

I have no problem that Wolf and Williford won. Congratulations. You’ll do well.

However, I do have a problem that the Sklar and Chen campaign received 13 grievances when the Wolf/Williford campaign received none.

Even further, the grievances filed against the Skalr/Chen campaign came complete with photographs of the offenses.

Considering some of the things that I saw, read and heard prior to and at the election results, I’m rather shocked that grievances weren’t filed to other candidates.

Next week’s issue of The Oakland Post will feature a story about the Pokéchalkers, a couple that traveled across the campus and drew Pokémon art.

I noticed something different a week ago before walking in the Oakland Center and admiring their drawings. They were desecrated.

On the ground, with the Pokéchalker’s drawing, the words “vote Williford/Wolf” were written in a bubble, connecting to the artwork.

Pokéchalker Michael Danielson said there was more than one location these words were written, and they weren’t written by him.

Though the Williford and Wolf campaign has denied writing the messages, I find it hard to believe.

It’s unlikely a random student would take time out of their day to write that. This can only mean that the people who wrote it were the ones who denied writing it, or people from their campaign.

This is a display of unethical conduct. Respect the artist’s drawings. You don’t see the Romney or Obama campaigners writing “vote for Romney/Obama” on the Mona Lisa.

Looking at Wolf and Williford’s campaigners, it seems they have committed a lowbrow tactic.

Sklar and Chen respected the art and left it alone, something that the Wolf/Williford campaigners should have done.

But of course, their campaign had no grievances filed against them.

Ask yourself, which is more suitable for punishment, a person giving out free ice cream, or a person that is using someone else’s art to gain political advantage?

The distance in which they were handing out the ice cream is a null and void argument, because there was a written message on someone else’s art, promoting candidates Wolf and Williford.

If you are going to file a grievance for giving free food to students and playing music, you better file a grievance for taking someone’s art and writing a political message on it without permission.

Things got even more suspicious during the election results.

There was a high amount of legislators wearing Wolf/Williford shirts. It’s rather perplexing the legislators would wear those shirts when they have their own campaigns to run.

Not to forget, these classy legislators were also wearing these shirts in front of opposing candidate Tommy Chen, so he could see they do not support him.

What do actual legislators do? They show impartiality.

The Student Congress elections were not an election — they were a popularity contest from the start. Next time, keep the shirts at home and try to maintain some professionalism. High school was about two or three years ago for some of you.

It’s no wonder Sklar didn’t show up at the results.

After current Vice President Elisa Malile tweeted the grievances out the day before the results, it was obvious everyone already knew who won.

The worst thing though?

Over 20 percent of the students that voted for Chen and Sklar did not have their votes counted for, which leads me to my proposition of a new motto: change the motto from, “Your voice. Heard.” to “Your voice. Muzzled unless you support who we support.”

CORRECTION: Oakland University Student Congress Vice President Elisa Malile tweeted the grievances before the election results, not before the elections.

Justin Colman is a Copy Editor at The Oakland Post. He can be reached via email at jbcolman@oakland.edu and followed on Twitter @JustinColman

It read “State Senate set to vote on Michigan motorcycle helmet law.”

The State Senate was voting to repeal the law that currently requires people to ride motorcycles with proper headgear. If it gets repealed, those 21 and older will no longer be required to wear helmets while operating the bikes.

All the time this appeal has wasted is kind of saddening.

It seems as though Gov. Snyder has been delaying this law because he wants to bring around a larger discussion of finding savings to Michigan’s no-fault insurance system, which will inevitably make the average motorcycle insurance prices go up if this appeal gets passed.

I don’t understand why people would want to ride without a helmet or even without some kind protective equipment for that matter. If this law gets appealed, it’ll make me nervous to be around any helmetless riders on the road.

This is due to knowing that, if for some unlucky and unfortunate reason that I or someone around me got into an accident with the rider, there will be a drastically increased chance that you critically injure or even kill the rider.

There are currently only three states that do not have a helmet law — Iowa, Illinois and New Hampshire. Of those, New Hampshire is the only one that requires kids 15 years and younger to legally wear a helmet.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has done numerous tests on helmets, and what their impact is on accidents.

Helmets alone “reduce the risk of death by 29 percent and are 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries to motorcycle riders.” To me, this is more than enough to even think twice about the matter.

I do realize that if it becomes legal to not wear a helmet, not everyone will be riding without one. But, it will increase the number of people you come across that don’t use them. And this is an appallingly scary thought to me.

A large portion of the group trying to get the appeal passed is only doing it so they have a choice of whether or not to wear their helmet. I feel they think it’s necessary to appeal the law because they don’t like being told what to do.

The supporters think it will boost motorcycle tourism in this state, but I don’t see how something like requiring a helmet or not would make someone want to travel farther, especially in the current economy with gas prices as high as they are.

I think this would be a poor choice should the governor decide to sign this and make the law disappear. We would end up seeing a lot more critical accidents appear in the news.

If you ever do see me on a motorcycle you’ll be safe to know that I will be doing the smart thing by wearing the proper protective equipment and I will benefit from it.

Josh Solar is a guest columnist for The Oakland Post. He can be reached via email at saxsolar@gmail.com

Oh wait, Twitter is free and so is petition signing.

No doubt anyone who casually browses the news, has a Facebook, receives Justin Bieber tweets, watches sports, watches movies or listens to music, has heard about the popular investigation from Sanford, Fla. Since that list includes people who browse online (including preteen girls), it seems safe to say a lot of people have heard about Martin, even it if is via their celebrity heroes.

After an in-depth parallel investigation of every news story about the case I could find, I have compiled a list of facts that all seem to agree on:

- On Feb. 26, Trayvon Martin was fatally shot by George Zimmerman

- Zimmerman, as of last Friday, was released by police who said he acted in self-defense

- Martin carried Skittles and iced tea

- Zimmerman carried a gun. He was described as a “neighborhood watchdog”

- Martin is a human being

- Zimmerman is a human being

- Martin was black

How about this lesser known fact: Zimmerman is a Spanish-speaking Hispanic.

That’s right. Zimmerman isn’t “white.”

According to friends, he is half white, half Peruvian. His family says he has black relatives. Following the norm for determining race — he is a minority.

Despite these facts, many news organizations originally reported Zimmerman as a “white shooter” who shot a “black teenager.” Recent articles eventually replaced “white” with “white Hispanic” or “Hispanic,” but by that time, the damage was done.

By adding the two words “black” and “white,” this story was hijacked, flipped 180 degrees, distorted and fed to the starving zombies who are desperate to grasp on a piece of its flesh.

Sorry, “The Walking Dead” season 2 finale is still fresh in my mind.

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of this story, after the unnecessary death of an unarmed 17-year-old, is the fact this case has been painted by the media, celebrities and the public as a race issue.

We need to be clear about this: The Trayvon Martin tragedy is not a race issue. Just because he was killed by someone who wasn’t black does not automatically brand him a victim of a race crime.

The real issue here is the fact that there is a possible abuse of a unique law, the “stand your ground” law as it is often described.

This law, in which there are similar laws in 21 states, allows citizens to use deadly force against an attacker if they feel their life is threatened. These laws also do not require citizens to have to retreat.

The Martin incident is possibly the first flicker of the fire that is to come. It is possible the law could continue to be abused, as anyone can declare they were righteous in the name of self-defense.

In journalism, we are taught to keep race out of a story unless it is relevant.

In this case, it is absolutely 100 percent irrelevant.

It is also irrelevant that Martin was wearing a hoodie, as if that suddenly makes him a stereotypical black male victimized by Hispanic racist.

As someone who is Hispanic, who was raised in Houston, Texas and has a grandpa who was born and raised in Mexico — I can tell you that hoodies are as much a part of a Hispanic culture as they are African American, if we are going to play the stereotype game.

I urge everyone, let’s not play that game. Focus on the real issues — the fact that an unarmed teenager was shot and the controversial self-defence  law, and blend it with what facts we know. The media, celebrities and zombies — I mean, public, should investigate the details of why Zimmerman shot Martin, and wait for more police reports and the autopsy.

To all those who are wearing their hoodies in memory of Martin, don’t disrespect him that way. He deserves to be remembered not because of supposed racial stereotypes, but for being the possible victim of a delicate and possibly dangerous law.

Maybe we will find out Martin was shot in cold blood. Maybe we will learn Martin tried to kill Zimmerman.

Maybe we will learn the gun went off accidentally.

Whatever the case, everyone should do their duty to find the facts, be honest, paper-shred their stereotypes and do more than sign a petition because Justin Bieber, Al Sharpton and Michael Moore did so.

——
Contact Assistant Campus Editor Jordan Gonzalez via email at jrgonzal@oakland.edu and follow him on Twitter @el_doctor23