student Senate addresses hate crimes

The Student Senate recenlty passed the Bias Response Protocol resolution. The Affirmative Action and Equity Office, the Office of Multi-Cultural Student Affairs and the Office of the Vice President have also approved the plan for an organized response to bias incidents and hate crimes on campus.

Student Body President Sean Kelly said the seed for this “user’s manual” was planted when a diversity organization on campus was planning to host an event at McConnell Hall last year, and the group’s posted advertisements were racially defaced. After that, the talks began.

Kelly said that over the past summer, he and Ashley Lemarier, student body vice president, contributed to the document.
“I think overall it’s great,” Kelly said. “It’s easy to understand what the university’s going to do.”

Donna Marie Sorrentino, director of AAEO, said that they had taken research from the University of Michigan and the University of Vermont.

“I hear of so many incidents,” Sorrentino said. “I think this is actually being not only sought out by students, but also we’ve had some staff submit reports. We’re trying to educate our own community.”

The pilot protocol document covers incidents on campus and can be initiated when an incident occurs off campus if it affects the university community.

The protocol’s structure is outlined into two areas: a Core Team and Responders. In April and November of every academic year, the Core Team and its constituents will convene to review reports of bias and hate acts that have been collected and maintained by the Affirmative Action and Equity Office.

The Core Team, made up of staff and students, will receive and examine reported incidents of hate or bias, devise a response following University policies and procedures and federal and state laws, and give a statement of the findings and responses. A group of “Responders” provides information and response strategies to Core Team members. Responders include certain administrative and staff support.

“We are part of the procedure,” said University Police Chief Nicholas Halias. “I think it’s going to work really well. It provides an organized response.” Halias said that police will be informed when a bias incident or a hate crime occurs and if there is a criminal nature to it.

The Clery Act requires UNH to report as “hate crimes” the offenses of criminal homicide, sex offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, arson and any other crime involving bodily injury.

—Matt Sanderson

the down side of being up

In the back corner of the Durham Market Place, a sticker on the cooler reads: “Nobody ever wishes they’d slept more during college.” As you walk into Store 24, above a big display of cans in 12 and 8.3 ounces is a poster that declares: “Minds, like pencils, work better when sharp.” The drink is unmistakably Red Bull, a product that dominates the energy drink industry in the United States and has become an alternative source of energy and caffeine to many students across the country.

The advertisements market to young adults, promising more energy, fewer calories, and an all around better time drinking them, sometimes called “legal highs.” In dorms, in homes and at bars, they are the more potent alternative to the traditional cup of coffee.

Heavily marketed since the late 1990s, energy drinks, or “supplements” as they are more commonly known, provide the extra boost that most people look for from a caffeinated drink. Today 31 percent of U.S. teenagers drink energy drinks, according to Simmons research. That statistic has doubled in the past three years as the energy drink industry itself grew 700 percent from 2000 to 2005. As of 2005 the “big three” in the energy drink industry were Red Bull, with 37.4 percent in market share; Hansen’s (Monster), with 22.3 percent; and Rockstar, with 16.8 percent. The energy drink industry launched over 500 new drinks worldwide last year alone.

Since they are not considered a food, energy drinks are not regulated by the FDA. But how healthy the ingredients actually are is widely disputed.

Some countries, concerned with potential health risks, have taken steps to ban them. Red Bull sales are banned in Denmark, France, Iceland, Norway and Uruguay. In Finland, people under age 18 are only allowed one can per purchase. In Canada the product is sold with a warning on the back to people who are caffeine sensitive. It also warns that the drinks are not to be mixed with alcohol.

In the United States, the drinks continue to be available in virtually every convenience store, and the promotional trucks of Red Bull and Monster can frequently be seen around the UNH campus. “The Red Bull truck used to hang out at campus rec and pass out samples to students until the nutrition committee told campus rec they could no longer hang out there,” said campus nutritionist Susan Sonneborn.

—Alex Cornetta

controversial film sparks discussion

“Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” drew an audience of about 90 students, professors, and community members to the MUB theater Monday night.

The controversial documentary revealed disturbing images of radical Islamic attacks on numerous occasions all over Europe, Israel and the United States.

Although the film repeatedly notes that not all Muslims are radical, a popular concern with the screening of the film is that audience members will walk away feeling anti-Muslim. “You can’t deny where most of the radical terrorism stems from today, but we were very careful to try and make the distinction that not all Muslims are in support of terrorism,” said Lauren Daigle, president of College Republicans, who assured attendees that, although the organization sponsored the event, there was no political agenda associated with the screening of the film. “Terrorism is not just in Iraq. This is an open, widespread issue.”

Karyn Leffel, campus coordinator for “Obsession,” has presented the film at over 50 screenings. She recommended that anyone interested in seeing the film should do so with an open mind.

After the screening, audience members were invited to an open discussion and were given information on how to become involved in their communities through campaigns, education projects and the media.

The open dialogue quickly evolved into a heated debate as one audience member argued against the similarities displayed within the film relating to World War II and the radical Islamic attacks today.

Discussion participant Nate Campbell said, “Some of the information that was brought out in the movie can be dangerous if not appropriately discussed and processed.”

—Tara Johnson