Oleville

Monday, February 8, 2010 | Student Alumni Association

Thank your interest in the Etiquette Dinner. If you are not automatically redirected, please click here.

Thursday, January 21, 2010 | Student Senate

In early December, SGA’s Senate passed a resolution calling for professors to submit book orders earlier and for administration to push faculty to do so. By submitting book orders on time to the book store, students can pay less for used books, but also make more money when they sell back their used books.

The entire resolution is below, as well as the letter to faculty. For a word document, click here.

Student Senate Resolution

Date: 12.8.09

By: Eric Sheforgen, Branch Communications Director

Akshar Ramabachan, PAC Coordinator

Daniel Plunkett, SAC Coordinator

Resolution

ATTN: St. Olaf Faculty

CC: James May, Provost and Dean of the College

Victoria Beussman, Director of the Bookstore

Whereas, the cost of tuition and textbooks continues to rise;

Whereas, the economy is at a low point;

Whereas, the total cost of college puts a larger burden on a family now than it has in the past;

Whereas, the submission of textbook orders after the date specified by the St. Olaf Bookstore cost students significantly more because used books are not available for purchase after the deadline;

Whereas, students receive much less money back per used book they sell back because the St. Olaf Bookstore is not able to reuse books directly from St. Olaf students;

Therefore, be it resolved, the student body of St. Olaf College, represented by Student Senate urges Faculty to submit book orders before the date specified by the St. Olaf Bookstore;

Be it further resolved, the student body of St. Olaf College, represented by Student Senate urges the St. Olaf Administration to review a policy calling for Professors to submit book orders on time for each semester and interim.

Be if further resolved, the student body of St. Olaf College, represented by the Student Senate asks the St. Olaf Bookstore to publish a report each semester showing how many orders were received late with the estimated cost incurred.

Letter to Faculty:

January 18, 2010

To the Faculty of St. Olaf College,

As representatives of the student body of St. Olaf College, we, the Student Senate have deep concerns about the increasing cost of attending college. Students have the opportunity to save money on books if Professors submit book orders to the St. Olaf Bookstore by a specified deadline. If book orders are submitted by the deadline used books are much easier to acquire, thus giving students better access to this cost saving resource.

We urge Faculty to submit book orders to the St. Olaf Bookstore by the specified deadline. Our intention is to make college as affordable as possible. We need your help.

Thank you,

Kim Spitzfaden, Chair of Senate and Vice President of SGA

Student Senate

Student Government Association

Taylor Brorby, President of SGA

Student Government Association

Sunday, December 13, 2009 | SGA Executive Committee

You have a few options to get around town and beyond. All the options that we know of are listed below. However, if you know of other options or just have questions, send us an email. You can also leave comments below to help us improve our transportation options.

Use the Find-A-Way, located on the side of the page to help figure out which option would be best for you!

You may also call x3999, or if off-campus, (507) 786-3999

The Local Bus

Operates Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday
Sunday Afternoons from 1PM to 3:30 PM
Tuesdays and Thursdays from 5 PM to 7:30 PM
Fridays and Saturdays from 6:30 PM to 10:45 PM
Stops at both colleges, Bridge Square (downtown Northfield, Heritage Square, Target, Cub and Applebee’s)
Click here for the schedule

Northfield Transit

Operates Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM
Call (507) 654-7250 to schedule a ride.
Northfield Transit will pick you up from any location in Northfield but you must call first.
You can get free tokens at the Buntrock front desk otherwise it costs $1 per ride.

Break Airport Shuttles

Operates only immediately before and after breaks
You must buy tickets 48 hours in advance from www.stolaftickets.com
It costs $15 one-way
Limit of one bag or suit case plus one carry-on per rider

Movie Bus

Operates on Saturday Evenings only
Goes to the Lakeville 21 Theater
Only costs $5 for a movie ticket and a ride
For a guranteed seat, go to the Student Activities Office (BC107) prior to 4 p.m. on Friday, or you
can buy a ticket the night of
Show up at 8:15 p.m. on Saturday in front of Buntrock

Ride Board

Post a ride or look for a ride with others near to where you want to go
Click here to access the RideBoard

Northfield Metro Express

Shuttle Service 3 times daily, 7 days a week
Stops at Carleton, St. Olaf, Northfield Park & Ride, and MSP Airport
Click here for more info

Van-Go

Operates Monday-Friday from 7 AM to 10 AM & 3 PM to 7 PM
Can be used for service work, working in a school, going to the doctor’s. Not to be used for shop-
ping or dining.
Call or text 507-291-6168 to get a ride from the front of Buntrock
Click here for more info and track the van

Taxi Services

Taxi First Choice (507) 645-4447

Friday, November 27, 2009 | Student Alumni Association

Thursday, November 19, 2009 | Political Awareness Committee

With over 120 Oles in attendance, Monday’s debate took place between Pro-Choice advocates Johanna Fay and Jon Riley and Carrie Zimmerman and Lisa Drewry, promoters of the Pro-Life argument. The argument centered on the definition of life, and whether or not the rights of a mother super-cede the rights of an unborn fetus.

The Pro-Lifers opened with arguments concerning scientific studies, and issues of legality and morality. Drewry and Zimmerman argued that life begins at conception, and that a fetus has the same unalienable right to life as any other human being. Do you think that there is a decisive point after which a fetus unmistakably “human”? Furthermore, they contended that the social benefits of abortion were dubious, and that they could be obtained by other means (adoption) while still upholding moral standards.

The proponents of the Pro-Choice argument held firm that the decision to abort a pregnancy ought to be made by the mother-to-be and not the government. Do you agree? They argued that abortions must be legal in order to preserve a woman’s rights to privacy, safety, and the pursuit of a bright future. Fay and Riley contested that many pregnancies are unwanted, and that there are often negative social ramifications associated with the birth of these children. Additionally, they maintained that women will obtain abortions even if they are made illegal, and that the black market form of this procedure will be far more dangerous.

The debate ended with thoughtful questions from the audience, some of which called to attention the social, emotional, and physical distress an unwanted pregnancy would cause a mother, and others that wondered what an aborted child might have done or achieved. All in all, the debate was respectful and thought provoking, and a special thanks goes out to the debaters for tackling such a contentious and potentially incendiary issue.

Now the stage is yours, the debate is far from finished…give us your thoughts by posting a comment below!

Thursday, November 12, 2009 | Political Awareness Committee

The most recent PAC dinner debate occurred Monday, November 9, 2009 between Liberals Kate Tecku and Kate Bjorkland and Conservatives Carrie Zimmerman,  and John Riley. The debate focused on “cap and trade” legislation; both its’ merits and disadvantages. All debaters showcased a wealth of knowledge regarding climate change, and conveyed this information to the audience with vivacity and passion.

The liberal argument focused on actively addressing climate change by capping carbon emissions and infusing money from carbon permits into sustainable technology. The liberals emphasized that the cost of inaction far outweighed the cost of addressing the issue head on. What is your opinion regarding the economic impact of the “cap and trade” legislation? Furthermore, they stressed that the proposed legislation was economically viable, that the growing of the “green” industry would result in a net increase of 1.7 million jobs. Ultimately, the liberals stated that delay was no longer an option.

On the conservative side, Zimmerman and Riley argued that the “cap and trade” legislation did not solve global warming, would hurt they economy, and could incite a trade war. They stated the limited affect that the lower emissions from the proposed legislation would have on overall global warming, and argued that the economic risks outweighed the potential benefits of this type of political action. Furthermore, they discussed the possibility of a trade war with nations such as China and India if the proposed legislation was enacted. Do you think this type of conflict is a realistic possibility? Ultimately, the conservatives argued that “cap and trade” legislation was not the answer to the climate change woes, and would in fact lead to greater economic distress and potential political problems.

At the conclusion of debating, both sides answered audience questions with poise and intellect. Questions covered an array of topics including: the market response to green technology, the possibility of trade wars, and the effect of the previous administration on Republican climate change ideology.

Now the stage is yours, the debate is far from finished…give us your thoughts by posting a comment below!

Sunday, November 1, 2009 | General Information

Have an awesome sustainable idea for campus? Apply for a CERF loan to put your idea to action.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 | Political Awareness Committee

Monday night’s “PAC Dinner Debate on Gun Control” occurred between College Republicans Grant Knoploh and Scott Hanson, and College Democrats Andrew Williams and Jason Teiken. Both sides offered thoughtful arguments while maintaining civil, and at times, humorous dialogue. The debate centered on whether or not gun control should be left to individual discretion or left to federal regulation. At what level do you think these decisions ought to be made?

On the Republican side, Hanson and Knoploh appealed to the 2^nd amendment in their argument, and quoted various historical figures; founding fathers who supported a citizen’s right to bear arms.  Do you think that this argument is relevant today? Further comments were made regarding the ineffectiveness of mandatory waiting periods and government buy-back programs.

Democrats Teiken and Williams most prominent argument centered on the belief that less guns would lead to a subsequent decrease in crime rates, citing a variety of statistics relating guns to violence and injuries. Do you think that gun reduction is the way to cut crime, is there another, better way? Additionally, the pair deemed the founding father’s arguments antiquated and unhelpful in modern times, arguing that the these men could not have conceived of a standing army in peace time.

The debate ended with a lively question and answer segment addressing President Obama’s stance on gun control, the effectiveness of buy-back programs, and the impact of “gun culture” on safety in homes and schools.

Now the stage is yours, the debate is far from finished…give us your thoughts by posting a comment below!

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 | Student Senate

This week is Open Access week. The goal is to make research more open and available to students both while in college and after so that learning can continue no matter where a student is.

With unanimous support, the Student Senate passed this resolution on Tuesday, October 20:

Resolution in Support of the Student Statement on the Right to Research

WHEREAS, writing research papers is a requirement of many St. Olaf College courses; and

WHEREAS, such assignments require access to articles published in academic journals; and

WHEREAS, student access to scholarly literature is primarily provided by subscriptions through the St. Olaf College libraries; and

WHEREAS, the high cost of academic journals – in some fields, more than $20,000 per year for a single journal subscription – restricts access to knowledge; and

WHEREAS, the cost of these subscriptions has been accelerating at a rate greater than inflation for the past decades; and

WHEREAS, authors of scholarly articles are not paid for their work, with journal profits accruing solely to the publishers; and

WHEREAS, the majority of research funding comes from public sources, supported by taxpayers; and

WHEREAS, all students deserve access to the full body of published scholarly literature; and

WHEREAS, “open access” is an alternative to the traditional closed, subscription-access system of scholarly communication; and

WHEREAS, open access provides free online access to the results of scholarly research while maintaining quality controls, such as peer review; and

WHEREAS, several national and international student organizations and student governments have developed the Student Statement on the Right to Research to explain student interests in the scholarly communications system and to rally students in support of open access; then

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the students of St. Olaf College endorse the Student Statement on the Right to Research and open access to academic research; and

THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the students of the St. Olaf College’s Student Government Association’s Senate call on St. Olaf’s administration, governments and research funders, researchers, and fellow students to support open access to academic research.

For the Word Document of the exact resolution passed, click here.

Sunday, October 18, 2009 | Music Entertainment Committee

Is your favorite genre not on the list? Post further suggestions, comments, and questions below!!