-Winter 2007-
-Vol. 4 Issue 3-
By Justin SB hamZider
Editor-in-Chief
The indecency that started at
one small Halloween party in State
eyes of a national audience during
the first week of December.
Students, Nathan Jones, a
senior and biochemistry/molecular
biology major , and Jessica
Maroclo, a senior and psychology
major, at Penn State, both dressed
in attire depicting victims of the
April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech
tragedy. The pictures of the
students and their Halloween
costumes that were taken months
ago recently -surfaced on
Facebook.com, and ever since have
sparked local and national outrage.
Within hours of an initial report
at a Virginia Television station,
facebook groups began sprouting
by the dozens. Administrators of
the popular college website
responded to the groups by
censoring the involved student’s
faces.
Penn State officials quickly
responded to the incident,
releasing this statement, “We are
appalled that these individuals
would display this level on
insensitivity, indifference, and lack
of common decency and sense by
dressing up in this manner.”
The statement went on to say,
“The fact that one of these
individuals is actually from
Virginia, makes it even more
difficult to understand. Just
because something is within the
bounds of the Constitution and
free speech, does not mean it
should be unde e certa nly
condemn these ugly and senseless
actions. Most Penn Staters are as
offended by this as anyone from
Virginia Tech would be—and
rightfully so. These two people do
not represent 90,000 Penn State
students. They represent
see Penn State page 2
A recent article by local
Franklin County newspaper, The
Public Opinion, entitled Town vs.
Gown has brought forth an
alarming amount of negative
attention to light about the
students of this campus.
The alarming article cited
several community claims of Mont
Alto students disrespecting
property lines and general
discourtesy to the citizens
themselves.
The catalyst for the outcry
began with the controversy
surrounding a ‘small riot’ that
occurred on October 21%, 2007.
Although many students decline
that this was any sort of riot in the
sense that there was little to no
property damage, the trouble
begins there and the list of issues
with students, such as urinating in
yards, trespassing on private
property, and underage drinking,
goes on in the article.
Public
more
is the
article
However ,
Opinion’s
controversial
than factual? Would a media
source utilize grandstanding and
drawing battle lines and sides for
the sole purpose of sales?
Of course, these claims are
offset by another problem: Could
any change have occurred without
public spotlight like this?
The unfortunate answer is too
often than naught, that
controversy is necessary to spark
debate and solutions.
Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be
required to draw clear cut sides.
These types of statements, such
as the threatening quote from Irwin
Jones, stating, “If something
doesn’t change, and change soon,
someone’s going to get hurt,” do
not benefit, or even call for a
cooperative chance for rectifying
the situation.
But is the damage of public
image to the university worth the
abusive power of the pen? The
article uses quotes from citizens
who decry Penn State, and create
a negative view by making the
University seem uncaring, even
see Mont Alto page 2