As his college days come to a close, Mike Wacker '10 considers what it takes to make an impact on the Hill.

The Student Assembly's attempt to eradicate discriminatory practices in student groups' leadership through Resolution 44 represents a clear repudiation of the First Amendment, according to columnist Mike Wacker '10.

In the wake of the horrendous sex abuse scandal which has afflicted the Catholic Church, criticism of Catholicism in its current form has exploded. Certainly much of the criticism comes with good reason, but simultaneously, one can sense that some critics seem to have a few other motivating factors behind their critiques of the Catholic Church, factors unrelated to the scandal itself.

Sun columnist Peter Finocchiaro ‘10 and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd have both written on this scandal. Given the topic of these columns, you would expect that if you removed any content not directly related to the sex abuse scandal from them, the columns would contain almost nothing. But instead of nothing, you would find a laundry list of complaints about Catholic doctrines or beliefs, complaints often made outside the context of a sex abuse scandal.

I have noticed a buzzword culture at Cornell. If you want to grab attention on this campus, the easiest way involves attaching a word like sustainability, diversity or transparency to your cause. Even if your idea is half-baked or has little to do in practice with said buzzword, simple patronage goes a long way.

Cornell University should provide members of independent student organizations the same First Amendment rights they would be entitled to in the real world.

In an old game show named Friend or Foe? during the pivotal moment of the round, two contestants, after working together to accumulate money, decided if they wanted to be a friend or a foe. Two friends would split the money, a foe would steal all the money from a friend and two foes would both go home with nothing.

Real life of course is different than a game show, and luckily, in regards to budget cuts, heads of each department are not labeling each other foes. Likewise, Skorton said last semester that the best strategy for budget cuts is not to split the loss equally among everyone. Despite these differences, though, one principle remains true in both: if everyone gets their ideal outcome, no one wins.

After four or more years of hard work, convocation marks a joyous occasion for seniors to put aside their differences, come together as one, and jointly celebrate an important milestone of their lives. I can think of few worse choices to symbolize this unity than Nancy Pelosi.

An anti-discrimination clause … who would ever oppose that? At face value, certainly no one would support discrimination. The answer is so trivial that The Sun’s editorial board chose to adopt Bush’s “with us or against us” mentality on the Campus Code of Conduct, claiming a code without an anti-discrimination clause “inherently accepts” discrimination.

While many have hailed the passage of health care reform in the House (H.R. 3692), much anger remains after the passage of a last-minute amendment, the Stupak Amendment. Pushed for heavily by Catholic bishops, this amendment greatly restricts the use of federal funding for abortion.

While one obviously does not have to be Catholic or even religious to oppose abortion, Catholics, other Christians (including this Lutheran) and many other religious people were concerned that they may end up funding abortions with their taxes in flagrant contradiction of their religious beliefs.

When I made my debut in the Opinion section, I advocated a different type of diversity: diversity of thoughts and ideas. Since then, I have avoided that topic, as I consider it too much of a cliché, but a few years later, the time is now ripe to revive this concept with a new twist.

No matter who they side with, those who fail to consider the diverse array of perspectives in composing their arguments are destined to produce poor sketches of their own arguments.