Harvard @ MindSay

So, since Bad Religion is one of the all-time best bands ever, I thought I'd share this with you guys.

 

Bad Religion's Greg Graffin to Be Honored for Lifetime Achievement in Atheism, Punk Rock, and Science

"Cultural Humanism" Awardee is Seminal Punk Singer, Earned Ivy-League PhD in Evolution

CAMBRIDGE, MA - Harvard University's prominent community of atheists and agnostics is poised to honor a rock star and scientist whom they argue is an ideal role model for the nation's millions of non-religious youth.

The Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard has gained considerable national attention in the past year for its unique approach to building a culture and community for the non-religious, and this April 26 it will give its highest honor, the "Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism," to a unique figure: Dr. Greg Graffin, frontman of the influential punk rock band Bad Religion. Graffin, whose "day job" since 1980 has been recording and extensive worldwide touring with a band boasting such hits as "How Could Hell be Any Worse" and "American Jesus," earned his PhD in Zoology at Cornell and is a member of the UCLA's Faculty in Biology, teaching Life Sciences courses covering Darwin and natural selection. Graffin will give an acoustic performance after accepting the award.

"I always put education high on my list of priorities because I thought, Wouldn't it be neat if you can have a singer of your favorite band who also has something more to offer than looking cool - which I don't - or dressing cool - which I don't;" Graffin said. "Those are the things that I try to inspire young people to do, whether it is in the lecture hall or on stage on the Warped Tour."

But Bad Religion, considered among the most influential modern punk bands, has been known for inspiring young people towards a particular set of ideas: those of atheism and Humanism. Graffin's lyrics make plain his passionate disbelief in God. Yet the Harvard Humanists cite his faith in the ability of music and science to improve the world as making the singer unique.

"Graffin is proof positive that atheists can be great ethical role models: young people idolize rock stars, and what more could you want from one than his lifelong dedication to science, education, and Humanism?" said Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain of Harvard University.

The award, intended to honor a Humanist or atheist having made a lasting impact on US culture, was presented last year to renowned novelist Sir Salman Rushdie before a sold-out audience of 1100 that Rushdie likened to a celebration of "Atheistmas," and will once again be conferred at Harvard's Memorial Church, the official University Chapel. Graffin was selected for this year's award by the Harvard Secular Society, an undergraduate student group affiliated with the Humanist Chaplaincy. The event is co-sponsored by Newbury Comics, Harvard Book Store, & the Cambridge Forum.

Date: Saturday, April 26, 2008
Time: 8:00pm - 10:00pm
Location: The Memorial Church, Harvard
Get tickets at the Harvard Box Office! $5 students, $10 public.

For information about the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard, visit:
http://harvardhumanist. org.

I haven't really been paying attention to Michigan's basketball team much this season, but I did see that they lost to Harvard yesterday.  Harvard?  Yikes!  Of all the things Harvard is known for, I don't think its basketball team is among them.  To add insult to injury, Harvard is now coached by former Michigan coach Tommy Amaker.  It sounds like it's not going to be a very great season.

This has been an interesting year for college bound seniors. Next year will be even more interesting for them. Harvard along with Princeton have both decided to eliminate their early action programs due to "the unfair advantage it gives to the upper class," and we can be relatively sure that a cascade of others will follow in their example within the next few years. It's pity though that no one seems to understand what a bullshit publicity stunt this is by our nation's oldest university. Early action is a non-binding way of demonstrating interest in a school, and to receive a decision before April from that school. If finances are a problem for an applicant, there is no reason why the student can't apply early action somewhere, be accepted and then shop around at other schools to see where they will find the best financial aid. Early action is a gambit that students have to get them into colleges they might not be able to get into otherwise, and a tool that colleges have to ensure that a student is truly interested in going to that school.
Harvard is lucky, the vast vast majority of students that get accepted there go. Interest, for them, is not important since everyone has interest in Harvard. In fact they even say on their website that applying Early Action does not provide any kind of edge. Therefore, logically, Harvard can get rid of its early action program and still expect to receive the freshmen class it wants. Princeton is in a similar situation. By eliminating the early action programs, these two schools lose nothing.
Now let us examine what they gain: undeserved support for being class blind, the ability to compare every applicant side by side, less work for the admission staff, and perhaps most importantly, it puts pressure on other schools to follow suit by getting rid of their early programs. The more students there are in the regular applicant pool, the stronger the class that Harvard and Princeton can put together, but a the expense of smaller, less prestigious schools who are losing applicants to them.
Of course, I have only been speaking about early action. Early decision is binding, and does exactly what Harvard says that early action does to less wealthy families. Therefore, my belief is that instead of getting rid of early programs altogether, they should all be changed to early action.

A recent study by Harvard claims that poverty is not the cause of terrorism in the world. According to Associate Professor Alberto Abadei, terrorism is a direct result of the loss of political rights in a country. "A country's level of political freedom better explains the presence of terrorism." Lower levels of political rights are linked to higher levels of terrorism, countries with the highest levels of political rights are also the countries that suffer the lowest levels of terrorism. Does this include countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran?

So how does one combat the spread of terrorism? Perhaps by helping those countries gain freedom and assisting them in becoming democratic nations? If that is true, then isn't that what America is doing? Helping countries like Iraq and Afghanistan gain their freedom from oppressive regimes, America is helping combat terrorism. So what is all the fuss about?

[The picture below speaks a thousand words.]

 

 

Iraqi Christians Brave Violence to Celebrate Easter

 

Iraqi Christians brave violence to celebrate Easter