Tuesday, 1 March 2011

Stony Brook Announces Plans To Add Programs, Some Residency At Southampton Campus

Publication: The East Hampton Press
By Will James Mar 1, 2011 6:13 PM

Seven months after budget cuts devastated Stony Brook Southampton, stripping the campus of most of its academic programs and undergraduate students, Stony Brook University officials on Monday announced plans to roll out expanded arts and marine science programs this fall.

The university will add theater, film and visual arts courses to the long-standing graduate creative writing program at the 82-acre satellite campus in Shinnecock Hills, under the banner of “Southampton Arts.” A new undergraduate residency program in the marine sciences, “Semester by the Shore,” will grant students from across the country access to the campus’s research vessels and waterfront marine lab and allow them to live on campus, according to a press release from the university.

The announcement carries the first solid plans the university has made public since last April, when it abruptly unveiled budget cuts that closed the campus’s dormitories and forced most of its undergraduate students to relocate to the university’s main campus that August. Stony Brook University President Samuel L. Stanley Jr., M.D., has said the campus had been atrophying financially since the university took it over in 2006 and began running it as a small residential college centered on undergraduate environmental sustainability studies.

In Monday’s press release, the university stressed that Southampton Arts will “leverage the successful business model” of the graduate creative writing program under director Robert Reeves. An associated undergraduate arts residency program for students from other institutions, which the university said it is looking to unveil in the fall of 2012, “will avoid the administrative costs associated with four-year undergraduate resident and academic life,” Provost Eric Kaler is quoted as saying.

“These short-term residencies are the most cost-effective way to restore an undergraduate presence and to 
build enrollment quickly,” he continued.

The announcement came days after State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle and Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. announced that the parties involved in a legal dispute over the budget cuts had put their litigation on hold for 30 days as negotiations over the future of the campus progressed.

Students who were forced to relocate and supporters of the campus filed suit last May, claiming that the cuts were illegal. As the litigation went on, university officials and local lawmakers, including Mr. LaValle, Mr. Thiele and U.S. Representative Tim Bishop, were in talks over the future of the campus. Discussions were known to have long focused on many of the ideas Stony Brook announced on Monday, including the expansion of graduate arts programs and a marine sciences residency program for outside students.

That announcement, made in the form of a press release from Mr. LaValle’s office last Friday, marked a shift in tone for the 
legislators, who lambasted the university for months after the cuts first became public last April.

“I am pleased that the administration understands the importance of the Southampton campus to the community and [the State University of New York] itself,” Mr. LaValle said in the release. “We have made important strides in the past three months.”

Although a State Supreme Court Justice ruled in favor of the students last August, stating that the university shirked a legal requirement when it failed to consult with a state-appointed advisory committee before announcing the cuts, there were still motions pending on either side of the litigation.

“With today’s agreement to adjourn all litigation for 30 days, I believe we have taken a major step forward,” Mr. Thiele said. “There are still intricate discussions remaining about the future of the Southampton campus. Any resolution must fulfill the potential of the Southampton campus. I am optimistic that we can find such a resolution.”

When reached on Monday, shortly before Stony Brook University’s announcement, Katie Osiecki, a 19-year-old Sag Harbor native who is one of the six plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said it appears unlikely that she and her fellow sustainability students would be returned to 
Stony Brook Southampton as part of the negotiations. The university, she said, is considering giving the sustainability program a permanent home at the chemistry building in Stony Brook. Still, she said, she will see victory in the revival of her former campus, whatever form it takes.

“I think the most important thing is to have a college on the East End,” said Ms. Osiecki, who is enrolled at the main campus in a major called Environmental Design, Policy and Planning.

In Stony Brook’s press release, Dr. Stanley was quoted as giving credit to an advisory committee that convened last July to brainstorm fiscally sustainable uses for the campus. The emphasis on arts and marine sciences, according to the university, are meant to take advantage of the historical resources of the East End.

“Through the excellent work of the Southampton Advisory Committee led by Provost Eric Kaler and Diana Weir, and innovative concepts put forth by Robert Reeves, Director of the MFA in Writing and Literature Program, and Minghua Zhang, Dean of the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, we will be able to offer these excellent revenue neutral programs in which we can take advantage of the unique resources of the Southampton location,” Dr. Stanley said. “We have made excellent progress and plan to roll out some new programs in September.”

Old School vs New School

With the past serving as an essential mold for the future there is no doubt that there is always constant improvement in a variety of fields such as athletics, personal interest, and education. With this being said I can safely conclude that my generation’s educational opportunities exceed those of my parents. The many technological advances made from the time my parents were in school to now, attribute to the improvement in my education. When my parents attended school the presence of gender stereotypes were heavily present and no doubt played a major role in the teaching methods in their respective educational facilities. They most likely were taught in a manner that unconsciously swayed the women to fulfill their stereotypical roles as nurses, secretaries, and other female dominated occupations while on the other hand the sky was the limit for male students. In addition there were other factors that had no place in education such as racism, and sexism. These outside factors created burdens and served as mental blocks to students looking to excel to new heights.

Naturally there were those individuals who would not be denied and they pursued their dreams in a radical manner. As a result they accomplished great things such as discovering new technology in its premature phases that my generation now benefits from now in its mature phase. No doubt every break through made at the time my parents attended school was considered amazing. Those efforts eased the load on my generation because the pressures under which we must work are so much lighter than that of our guardians. A direct result of technical advances has been the many career choices available to people that weren’t available when my parents attended school. These choices allow girls and boys alike to pursue career opportunities that were previously considered uncharted. The simple presence of options is what makes education for my generation better than that of my parents.

In essence the educations of my parents are not be underestimated in any manner and can always be viewed as the building block to my own education. However, the variety and freedom of self expression made available to my generation gives via our schools gives us the essential edge.

Misplaced blame

“We'll buy a lot of clothes when we don't really need them Things we buy to cover up what's inside because they make us hate our self and love they wealth” Those were the words Kanye West used to depict the current black condition, and while it may hold some factual weight in reference to blacks and their financial endeavors it is imperative that we all take an in-depth and alternative look into what is the catalysts for this live beyond your financial means attitude.

As a black youth, all too often I hear the repetitive rants from older individuals who seek to bash how the misguided “hip-hop generation” chooses to spend money. They claim we prefer to buy expensive jewelry and sneakers in opposed to materials that can aid in our life’s progression. My personal response to these accusations is a two part one. The first being, “yes we do spend money on expensive jewelry and footwear”. My second response is that we as black people are an oppressed people forced to develop at an accelerated pace in order to keep up with the country’s rapid growth. Caucasians, the majority race, possess much of the country’s wealth, but it’s important that we realize that it isn’t due to some money savvy gene that they possess. It is simply due to their opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them over many years. Over the course of those hundreds of years they too could most certainly fit the mold of that earlier Kanye West quote.

A little less than 100 years ago, this country underwent an economic boom and crisis in the 1920’s that led to the great depression. What was the cause of the depression you may ask? Simply put it was caused by middle class citizens seizing the opportunity to buy beyond their means due to the introduction of credit. It was a working class individuals chance to purchase and be seen with the same luxurious materials of upper class citizens. If this idea of essentially creating a larger than life facade sounds familiar it’s because it has the basis for those same repetitive rants black youth receive today, but please don’t be mistaken, the people making those overextended purchases did not look like myself, they were actually middle aged white men and women looking to achieve the “American dream”.

Blogging

Now that I have been blogging (over and over again) I feel like I am complaining about a lot of things.

Why does blogging make everyone look at the negative? Truthfully, I do not see it as a necessary tool. Why am I doing it? Is it because it is what everyone else is doing it or is it because I may get asked in a job interview if I bog? Perhaps I am just a zombie and I need to do it to get a good grade in this class?

I personally do not feel the need to put my feelings on a blog site for everyone to see and I never read anyone's blog. I don't really care what people think.

But as I go through the process (like a Zombie) I am going to make an effort to have an optimistic look on things. So, all you bloggers out there, stay tuned.

Charlie Sheen Says He's 'Not Bipolar but 'Bi-Winning' (02.28.11)




Charlie Sheen - WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?????

Here is a guy who had everything. Married to Denise Richards, a good career, fame, money and he let drugs and alcohol take over him and control him.

In a way I feel bad. I could never put myself in his shoes or know exactly what caused him to take such drastic measures but he is off on a tangent that is making him seem insane. In two months we will most likely hear a different story.

The media is feeding his addiction. One day he will overdose and everyone will morn him (like they did with Michael Jackson) He does not set a good example to anyone in today's society and I only hope he gets clean before it kills him or that someone else sees what an ass he looks like and decides to stop themselves.

kids!

It seems like every time that I sit down to do any thing like talk on the phone, homework or relax my kids always have a question to ask. I'm beginning to think that they just don't want to see me relaxing or something. When they finally do get my attention, they don't want anything. Don't get me wrong I love my kids, but I also love peace and quiet!
I can remember the days when they were fiest born you can't wait ror them to say their first words. That quickly fades away after they begin to talk too much! My kids have a hard time getting along but when one is gone they can't wait for them to get back home. I'm not sure if it's because they miss each other or if they can't wait to argue again. It seems like the only toime that theyu get along is when they go to sleep. I wonder why?
Don't read this blog and say "gee I'm glad that I don't have any kids" because kids are a joy to have., They can just work your nerves at times. I have three teenage boys so this house is never without a dull moment. Calgon please just take me away!

Ban on Teen Tanning

NYS is looking to ban anyone under the age of 18 to use an indoor tanning bed saying that it increases the risk of melanoma cancer.

I have a few issues with this.
1. As the previous owner of a tanning salon and a smart tan certified certificate holder the truth about tanning has been overshadowed by the mass media. If you take the time to look at the negative studies on tanning they are funded by people who stand to make a profit by banning any type of sun tanning (mainly the makers of SPF products)
2. Tanning is our bodies natural defense to the sun. Our bodies were designed to tan. It is not the tan that injures the skin, it is the sun burn. By using an indoor tanning facility many people can help protect their skin and avoid serious beds by gradually building up their skin to produce a tan.
3.Government needs to stop telling Americans what they can and can not do. We need much less government in our lives and government needs to stop allowing lobbiest to make policy.
4.Everyone vacations someplace sunny and warm. Teenagers are not banned from the beach or their backyards. There is no ban on buying baby oil which many have used to get a quick burn.
4. People who tan, tend to feel better about themselves. Doctors recommend tanning to people who are depressed, have acne or psoriasis, and who are lacking Vitamin D (which on a side note - the lack of Vitamin D has been linked to increased illnesses.

These are the basics. Everyone has the right to make their own decision and decide for themselves if visiting a tanning salon or laying out in the sun is right for them but government has no place for it.

The truth I feel is that anything that gets abused causes harm but as long as there are no pre-existing conditions, such as skin cancer in family, tanning in moderation is not a health risk.