The university’s previous logo, consisting of rays and stars inside a trio of red, green and blue circles, was designed by legendary graphic designer Milton Glaser of “I love NY” fame. It was original, distinctive and, in a field where prestige is closely associated with age and tradition, exceptionally daring. In the entire Stony Brook brand there was nary a shield, a seal or a coat of arms to be found, eschewing design tropes that are ubiquitous in the branding of American universities.

Glaser’s design suggested that the university did not feel the need to try to disguise the fact that, as a public institution that was less than 50 years old when the logo was designed, no one was going to mistake Stony Brook for Harvard. It suggested a university prepared to embrace its youth and diversity and be something different, something unbound by the often-archaic conventions of American higher education, where every institution that isn’t a 400-year-old private university founded by Puritans seems to hope everyone will somehow miraculously believe it is.

The new logo, a red shield that retains a mutilated version of Glaser’s rays and stars – now reduced to a single star and a group of rays that, with their point of origin cropped out of the picture, seem to be shining from nowhere onto nothing – is derivative where its predecessor was daring. This hackneyed mash-up of that most ubiquitous of all university logos, the shield, with a pointlessly altered version of Glaser’s logo manages the astonishing feat of being trite and faddish at the same time. Retaining some of Glaser’s elements means no one is going to mistake the shield for that of Harvard or Yale or any other ancient and venerable institution, yet it lacks the freshness and modernity of his design. It is neither here nor there, the worst of all worlds.

Glaser doesn’t like the new logo, and rightfully so. Designers tend not to like it when other designers, especially lesser ones, mess with their work. Stony Brook took a design by one of the greatest graphic designers of the modern era and had it “tweaked” into near-unrecognizability by an ad agency from, of all places, Alabama. It’s rather like taking a building by a great architect and having it renovated by a company that specializes in designing Hilton Garden Inns (one of which will, of course, soon grace this campus). One suspects the architect in question wouldn’t have nice things to say. And in this case, he would be right.

But Glaser seems to know exactly what the university apparently found wrong with his design. In an interview with the Press he commented, “I have a feeling that in the academic community, there’s a reluctance to be overly assertive.” The old logo stood out. It didn’t look the logos of the universities Stony Brook’s administration now not so secretly wishes to be just like. The new logo may be a terrible piece of design, but it blends in among the vast array of other collegiate shields. That is, no doubt, exactly what the university wants: a logo that is indistinguishable from those of the rarefied institutions it so desperately envies.

It is no coincidence that Glaser was commissioned to design the old logo by his good friend Shirley Strum Kenny during her tenure as president of the university. Whatever one thought of Kenny’s decisions and management style – and she was certainly not without her critics, including at this paper – she was not one to shy away from taking chances. The new logo is likewise a perfect metaphor for the leadership of Kenny’s successor, Samuel Stanley.  Whereas Kenny was a visionary if controversial leader who was unafraid of risk, Stanley is a technocrat with a deep fondness for management consultants. He is not the sort of person one can imagine calling up his good friend the world-renowned designer to create a new logo.

But this is about far more than the contrasting personalities of two university presidents. Since he took office, Stanley has been an enthusiastic cheerleader for the gradual privatization of Stony Brook and public institutions in general. The new logo signifies this vision. Whereas the old logo said, “I’m different and I’m not ashamed of it,” the new one says, “I’m trying to pretend to be an expensive, exclusive private university, even though I’m not one and never will be.”

The new logo will no doubt serve Stony Brook well as it continues down the path of privatization, chasing prestige by jettisoning that which makes it unique and instead emulating its supposed betters instead. But it is also a perfect symbol of the opportunity forfeited by following that path: an opportunity to prove that a great university need not be defined by exclusivity and tradition, but can instead attain greatness by fostering inclusivity and innovation.

President Stanley, who grew red in the face while barely able to maintain his composure, lambasted members of the senate for their refusal to go along with the shared service centers. From his point of view, it is understandable to see this as a huge hurdle in the success of Operational Excellence and a setback in the university’s constant struggle to cut its budget as fast as the State cuts it for them. “The status quo disappeared when we took $82 million essentially in budget cuts,” Stanley said to those who opposed him. But the faculty’s defense of their stance is one with students as the first priority.

“Our clients ultimately are the students. Whatever we do must facilitate the students access to services that meet their demands,” said a professor in the Humanities familiar with the discussions who wished to remain anonymous. This position runs parallel to the idea that many of the administrative processes targeted by these shared support centers are, in the eyes of the University Senate, are not in need of reform, nor should they be tinkered with for risk of doing more harm than good. “There are other things that you can jettison. Why jettison something that works well and helps students?” asked another professor in the Humanities who also wished to remain anonymous.

University faculty have now publically identified the shared support service center as not just a way of coping with budget cuts, but also a plan to alter the fundamental function of the university in areas where those very functioning parts do not feel as if they are inadequate or in need of restructuring. So as tuition rises and the state’s pressure on SUNY rises, the last thing we should be doing is increasing the stress on students and university employees, and finally members of our faculty have stood up to defend that position.

In the last few months, the condition of the Union building has improved considerably. At its low point over the summer, its list of problems included mold, flooding and falling pieces of ceiling. This, says Howard Gunston, a facilities director, was a result of the building being unstaffed from January to August. Though the cleanups have been greatly appreciated by tenants, it’s scary to think the Union building could fall back into disrepair if facilities staffs are cut even more than it already has been. A short walk across the academic mall should be no excuse for neglecting a building, and it should not be treated as such in the future.

No decisions have been made yet, and a number of nervous tenants are eagerly awaiting news about their future. Though there’s still plenty of time to determine temporary and permanent locations for all of the Union building’s tenants, the uncertainty has caused stress for most of the people we interviewed for our two features on the Union. If facilities continues to consult with tenants in meetings as they have, concerns are likely to be addressed in a timely fashion.
Stony Brook University’s history of delayed construction projects is enough to make us uneasy about the scheduled August 2014 start date. Just this semester two projects, the Campus Recreation Center and the improvements being made to the North Entrance, have dragged on long after they were scheduled to be finished.

That’s especially concerning because the Union building’s renovations are predicated on a new dining hall that has yet to find a place on campus, but will be absolutely necessary in alleviating food court traffic now that Benedict has closed its doors. That said, there is a very real possibility that Union tenants will spend even longer than expected in a state of limbo, meaning regular updates from facilities for tenants and the student body at large will only help to clear up any confusion about where on campus features of the Union will end up, or if they will stay at all.

This year has taught younger generations, and at the very least reminded older ones, that we are, as a nation and as individuals, all capable of celebrating the death of another human being. The reasons seem to range from the positive political and sociological effects of his or her death to thoughts of pure revenge. The death of Osama bin Laden lured this fact from hiding, and Gaddafi’s death clinched the kill.

Within minutes of the world reading the bare bones, three-paragraph Reuters’ story, the Internet kicked into high gear. Photo memes detailing Gaddafi’s likeness to Carlos Santana flooded Facebook news feeds, while hundreds upon hundreds of links detailing the mainstream news media’s scramble to keep up overflowed across our other social media extensions.

The events of 2011 splashing front pages and crammed into news alerts are now, for what feels like the first time for the upcoming generation, seemingly more violent, complex and extreme than any cliché Hollywood action movie or video game war-movie replication. The cell phone video detailing Gaddafi’s final breathing moments is still floating around easily-accessible websites, and it exemplifies this moral dichotomy—we have the ability to watch a person die in real time, even someone millions of people hate, forcing us to evaluate both our personal feelings concerning murder and generalized ideals about guilt, crime, punishment and moral responsibility.

The largest looming question being forced upon us now is whether or not it is morally right to celebrate someone’s death, no matter how hated they are or how disgusting their atrocities have been. The obvious argument for the death of Gaddafi, and any other person deemed “evil” by history, is that he deserved his end. One could say that a man like Gaddafi committed actions that warranted the most violent punishment possible, one now epitomized by the video footage of Libyan rebels slamming the butts of their rifles into their ousted leader’s bullet-wound ridden head.

The counterargument is that the world we live in now should promote a system of laws that ascribe to moral codes, that no matter what a human being does, he or she should be subject to an ordered trial and subsequent punishment. That argument was enflamed by the deaths of Bin Laden and Gaddafi, but also by the assassination of American citizen and Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. He outspokenly advocated violence against the United States, posing a threat to our national security, but by putting him to death without a trial, President Obama assumed the role of judge. Legality aside, it’s hard to draw the line between the murder of a human being and the elimination of a threat.

This dilemma is at the core of how the world’s tumultuous tides are interwoven into how we, as onlookers and participants in history, view common threads of right and wrong and draw definitive lines through subjects like crime and punishment.

For Americans, the Libyan civil war is intrinsically tied to how we view our own involvement in one of the most violent chapters of the Arab Spring. United States military action began March 19 after the United Nations Security Council issued a resolution calling for an international effort to protect Libyan citizens. President Barack Obama wrote to Congress on March 21 stating the U.S. military goals in Libya, though not explicitly asking for authorization. He defended the U.S. military strikes as necessary measures in protecting the Libyan people, though they would be limited, he said, and would not work to remove Gaddafi from power. Still, he failed to outline an ultimate goal, and even after the U.S. transferred the responsibility to NATO, U.S. military operations bolstered the rebel fighters, enabling them to prevail. It’s undeniable that without NATO forces, the Libyan struggle would have either crumbled or moved further from resolution.

It is our obligation as global citizens, many say, to prevent atrocities, to protect those that can’t protect themselves. That concept circulates the United Nations under the name Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, and it’s difficult to counter. An international law mandating nation states to act in cases like the Libyan struggle would work to prevent the atrocities of our world’s past from occurring again. But when nations insert themselves into domestic struggles, no matter what the intention, the moral line is blurred. The United States may have accelerated the fight, abating the violence that could otherwise have ensued much longer, but that leaves us, in part, responsible for the brutal murder of a man in the streets who, now infamously, begged for his life.

On Sunday night, the story detailing how Gaddafi now sits rotting on display in Misrata is but a few clicks away, with any physical connection to the events nonexistent thanks to thousands of miles of ocean water and a somewhat-understandable apathy of a country nowhere near the friction of real revolution. However, to think that these events only tangentially effect us is to do a disservice to yourself, and ignoring their importance and the importance of the questions they pose only further downplays how integral and difficult these aspects are to our moral responsibility.

But to say that there is no right or wrong when evaluating these questions, questions of murder without trial and government-bankrolled revolutions, is to ignore the inherent moral responsibility within every individual. While there may be no universal answer, there is certainly one that must be found to help define how we go forward, and it’s our responsibility, as a nation, as individuals and as human beings, to think hard about these questions before celebrating a death, or letting cold rationality trump heartfelt emotion, and moving on to the next necessary evil.

For 32 years, The Stony Brook Press has been a recognized leader in campus media at Stony Brook, fulfilling its mission of “informing the campus community, promoting progress, and inciting debate” while producing alumni that have won awards including the Pulitzer Prize. And in only three years, Think Magazine has built the campus’s most-visited media web site, updated every day with the latest news, culture and opinion, as well as producing an award-winning print magazine. Think has fostered a close relationship with The Huffington Post and media organizations including The New York Times and the BBC have used its reporting. The excellence of both publications together with the Press’s particular strength in print and Think’s on the web are highly complementary. By combining these strengths and building on them, together we will be able to create something even better than either of us could have alone.

During the course of this semester, the editors of both publications will be working together to gradually integrate them into a unified whole that not only preserves the best attributes of each, but also gives us the opportunity to take full advantage of our new, larger size to pursue goals that only larger publications can. Both the Press and Think have always embraced continuous improvement, and we intend for the new Press to continue that tradition to become the best print and web publication Stony Brook has ever seen.

For now, the Stony Brook Press and Think Magazine will remain officially separate organizations with our own editorial boards. The Press will continue to focus on its print magazine, while Think will focus on the web site. In the near future, new content will stop being added to the Think web site, thinksb.com, which will be archived; instead, all new content will go to sbpress.com, the Press’s web site. Shortly thereafter, Think’s content will be transferred to the Press’s web site and the thinksb.com domain will forward to sbpress.com. Select content by Think’s editors and staff will begin appearing in print issues of the Press, while the Press’s editors and staff will begin creating content for the web site as well as for the magazine. Behind the scenes, the administrative aspects of both organizations will be integrated. By the beginning of the Spring 2012 semester, we intend for Think Magazine to be fully integrated into a new and improved Stony Brook Press, with a single editorial board leading a unified print and web publication that we hope will quickly become Stony Brook’s preeminent media organization.

To everyone who has supported The Stony Brook Press and Think Magazine over the years, thank you. We hope you are as excited about this new opportunity as we are, and we look forward to introducing all of you to a new Stony Brook Press, incorporating Think Magazine, that will be better than ever before.

But the newly revised USG financial bylaws the senate passed at the beginning of the summer, which were presented to all clubs at the USG Leadership Conference on Saturday, September 10, make it clear that USG is set not only on decreasing the budgets of many clubs, but also on minimizing their influence in a way that ultimately injures our diverse campus environment. This highly unjustified approach to student leadership is setting a disastrous precedent for future students, all while the success of concerts and other events helps mask this rechanneling of power and student money as a newfound source of “fun on campus.”

In the words of USG Treasurer Thomas Kirnbauer, SAB’s success is the very reason its budget was increased by more than 30 percent, while clubs and organizations saw massive reductions across the entire board. That admission alone is enough to evoke suspicion and anger from every club for a number of reasons, such as the fact that SAB went over budget last year and still received such an increase, or the fact that SAB is currently operating without a Special Events Coordinator, the second half of SAB leadership alongside the VP of Student Life. USG determining that its own organization is successful enough for a budget increase is akin to a corporate executive increasing his or her salary because they felt they deserved it. But USG has gone even further than budget cuts in its efforts to minimize the influence of clubs and maximize the reach of SAB.

For one, “Fall Revisions” was the oft-­‐repeated answer Kirnbauer gave out when questioned about the large club budget decreases. The revision process takes rollover money from last year and appropriates it to clubs who felt they were shortchanged by USG’s original 2011-­‐2012 budget.

But it was revealed at the leadership conference that this process is reserved only for clubs whose budgets were decreased by 40 percent or more, a new restriction under the rewritten bylaws. This applies to only 15 clubs out of 76 who saw their USG line budget decrease, if one compares last year’s final budget with this year’s original and excludes clubs whose budgets that were cut completely because a budget was never submitted or the club disbanded.

For the remaining clubs, they’re out of luck and must make due with what they have, which is especially painful for clubs with larger budgets because a decrease less than 40 can still equate to a substantial decrease in funds. For instance, the African Students Union saw their budget decreased by $7,080, or 26 percent, with no hope for a revision under the new bylaws, where as last year, they would have been able to apply for at least a small increase. The LGBTA had their budget cut from $13,500 to $8,490, or 37 percent, and will undoubtedly suffer greatly because of that. If its budget were cut down to $8,000 instead, they would then be eligible to make some of that money back. USG members will like to say that it is only appropriate to compare original budgets, which illustrate a far smaller decrease, but because USG placed no restrictions on last year’s fall revisions—any club could apply for more funding—last year’s final budgets should only be compared to this year’s original budgets, which without fall revisions, are final.

Kirnbauer’s official response to this is a more efficient grant process where clubs will be able to apply specifically for extra money for events or long-­‐term items, but even the

grant amounts were arbitrarily constructed and their distribution highly restrictive. A club with a budget less than $10,000 can receive a maximum of only $1,000 to put on a campus event, with the maximum event grant amount set at $3,000 for clubs with budgets larger than $20,000. These amounts basically stomp out any possibility of a club with a small budget planning a larger event, or a new club getting on its feet by planning something successful.

The revised bylaws go further to cripple club event planning by restricting the maximum amount of money a club can spend on a guest speaker to $2,000, and prohibiting clubs from using an event grant to co-­‐sponsor an event. By placing an arbitrary limit on the amount a club can pay a speaker and by prohibiting clubs from splitting the costs of events, USG is effectively making itself the only student-­‐run organization with the ability to bring a well-­‐known person to campus. Had these restrictions been in place in the past, countless successful events, including The Press’ last spring with Daniel Ellsberg, would not have been possible. It’s a vast overstepping of USG’s boundaries that further centralizes power in the hands of a few students, rather than many student-­‐led clubs that are open to the entire student body.

There is a way to bolster the consistency and success of large-­‐scale events on campus while at the same time helping foster a diverse club environment, but our current leadership is not searching for such a solution. Instead, they have strengthened an arm of their own organization and taken a stance against the influence and effectiveness of nearly all clubs. In doing so, USG is failing to do one of its fundamental jobs – maintaining and protecting clubs and fostering positive campus life.

President Maloof has solidified his position against the university’s clubs, whether he knows it or not, by not vetoing these changes to the bylaws when they were brought to the Senate, meaning only new legislation can reverse any of this damage.

The Student Activities Board (SAB) has received a 32 percent budget increase over last year’s final budget, giving them just over half a million dollars. It is obvious that this money is targeted at one specific purpose: allowing SAB to plan another concert not unlike last spring’s Bruno Mars show. The percent increase equates to $130,887, easily allowing for one more concert. Bruno Mars cost $140,000 plus additional fees, although we have argued in the past that this was inefficient spending for such an event. But of course, the Bruno Mars show was admittedly popular, attracting around 3,700 people.

But is that enough? One event planned by one organization cannot possibly appeal to every student on campus, and though 3,700 guests would translate to the equivalent of 22 percent of the undergraduate student body, not all of the attendees were Stony Brook students. But even if Bruno Mars was a total success, which is a difficult question we’ve explored before, it raises just as many issues as it tries to solve concerning event planning on our campus, which is still unarguably plagued by the stigma that nothing worthwhile ever happens here.  For one night, soon to be two nights, there was something to do, but that’s not enough when each semester is sixteen weeks long. One could argue that this additional money will help SAB plan more small-scale events, like Christian Finnegan or Best Coast, but it’s quite clear that USG has its sights set on one-upping itself with bigger and better events any chance it can get. So we find it unlikely that our campus will see a noticeable increase of such events.

As for the nature of the increase, why tackle the problem by concentrating so much money into one place? If these funds had been spread out among the other clubs, Stony Brook would be able to get a variety of small guests and events that, while never attracting 3,700 students, would always interest some people. Case in point: last year, a new club called the Fine Arts Organization (FAO) planned two successful art shows, the MAMAs, which attracted a fairly large number of students from around campus with a budget of only $650. This year, the club has already faced a 26 percent budget cut to $475, severely hindering its potential to expand, or even perform at the same level as last year. USG will argue that FAO can simply apply for a revision, but again, that is a significant stress applied to the organization and its leadership. On another hand, why couldn’t USG keep the money aside to allow for more new clubs to develop and fill some obvious voids in our campus life environment?

It could be a bleak year for clubs and organizations, and it needs asking if a handful of “fun days” is worth this step backwards. Quite simply, throwing money at one organization is no way to run any college campus, let alone one like Stony Brook that thrives on its complex microcosms born from our immense diversity.

There’s a basic problem with slashing student organization budgets across the board to boost the already tremendous funding available to one central concert-planning group, a group that was already the scene of a controversial power grab.  It’s a fundamentally undemocratic way to approach event planning and organizing. Of course student life is enriched by the large events with high-profile headliners that most colleges boast, and we at the Press have editorialized in the past, complaining about the lack of such events. But funneling so much money out of clubs and into the SAB not only stifles countless smaller events, but in a very material way it takes the power to participate in event programming away from other students.

SAB’s budget from two years ago, about $200,000, might not draw a headliner willing to catch a grenade for Stony Brook, but it ought to be enough to put on a number of excellent events, because frankly it’s an awful lot of money. USG Treasurer Thomas Kirnbauer, who described cutting the budgets of most clubs as keeping “the status quo,” said of raising SAB funding, “If you give them $1,000, that doesn’t help them.”  For most small clubs and organizations, however, losing $1,000 can make a huge difference on their ability to program events.  And for a new club looking to get started, $1,000 can be the difference between existing or not, as FAO exhibits perfectly. And it’s the wealth of small clubs on campus that provide the diversity of campus events ensuring that Stony Brook’s many and varied students find campus life rewarding.

]]> http://sbpress.com/2011/07/the-future-of-fun/feed/ 2 http://sbpress.com/2011/05/round-two/ http://sbpress.com/2011/05/round-two/#comments Wed, 18 May 2011 13:39:13 +0000 The Stony Brook Press http://www.sbpress.com/?p=5921 The Editorial Board

Courtesy of Three Village Patch

Here at the Stony Brook Press, we are not critical of events, public figures or campus administration simply because we see it as our role to undercut everything around us. That is a sorry definition of “alternative,” and as the campus’ alternative paper, we would like to be trusted to go beyond the surface of sensational negativity just to be different, despite the fact that our campus’ primary publication seems content on never rising above licking the boots of the establishment.

That said, let it be known that our last issue featuring a comparison and accompanying editorial between the recent Bruno Mars concert and SUNY Purchase’s Culture Shock festival was not in any- way a feeble attempt to dig up a source of criticism just for the sake of being critical. It was meant to highlight not only differing view- points when it comes to future campus event planning, but also to make it very clear just how much money is being used for this cam- pus’ entertainment, to what end it is being used and how it could be improved. We stand by our decision to denounce the Bruno Mars concert on the grounds that he was a safe choice, one that does not represent a true college act and one whose success at Stony Brook on May 6 was, from the very start, to be measured by ticket sales and the demonstration of the organizers’ hard work, but not by how much the performance would represent a true and calculated desire of the campus body.

Now, we recognize that it is necessary to point out just how much of a success the concert was, and it’s also necessary to attribute that success to the determination and seemingly endless vision of Student Programming Agency Director Moiz Khan, the face pasted on the primary alien of the Mars Attacks! front cover of our last issue.

Yes, Khan made more enemies than he ever imagined by refusing to compromise, as he says in the graciously allotted opinion space of the Statesman in a piece title, “Tearing Red Tape and Breaking Down Silos.” When he took his position in USG last year, it was amid the controversial restructuring of SAB, but in only one year in the post, he brought numerous acts that performed to increasing crowds, with Bruno Mars marking the culmination of all his effort.

Khan wanted to change the university, and he most certainly did. However, the changes are not always completely positive, and not always cleanly and efficiently looking towards a better future for our school or its hugely expensive events, as we wanted to point out in the comparison. But this comparison, as it stands in our last issue, is noticeably lacking context. We would like to hold ourselves accountable for misleading any readers into thinking not only that we were advising that USG should attempt a Culture Shock, but also that it was even possible for USG to do so.

So first, let us give you said context. SUNY Purchase is a drastically different school encased in an equally different administration, and both factors con- tribute greatly to its ability to orchestrate something like Culture Shock. Not only does the school’s undergraduate government own the space on which the con- cert is held, but the school is also centered around the arts, including majors in sound production and other areas of event planning that allow them to pull straight from their student body to organize and run the event. Purchase also has a long history of performing arts and a number of bands have deep rooted connections to the school, including this year’s organizer, lo-fi legend R. Stevie Moore.

These differences make the likelihood of something like Culture Shock at Stony Brook near-impossible due to the extreme limitations put on campus events from organizations like University Police, the private security firm forced onto anyone who books the Sport Complex and the dozens of other barriers and restrictions that exist here at Stony Brook but not Purchase, as Khan himself would happily point out to anyone who asks.

But this likelihood would only be near-impossible if we decided to stupidly dive in head first. That was not what we were implying USG should do, nor did we think that dozens of cheap bands that no one has heard of mixed in with only a handful of recognizable names is the right direction for an end-of-the-year concert. We simply wanted to highlight how a concert of that magnitude manages to cater to multiple music tastes, and for far lower price tag. The key factor was that Culture Shock was a massively participatory for-the- students, by-the-students effort that was 100 percent college-geared, which is not at all what you can say about Bruno Mars.

We were not arguing that for the same amount money, Stony Brook should try and get 42 artists, many of which are obscure. However, Stony Brook could have gotten 10 artists, say three or four in the price range of Immortal Technique and six or seven in the price range of Best Coast. But that’s not what Khan wanted.

And here arises the ideological difference between what Khan sees as good for the school, which is what we at The Press wanted to highlight, and what we think would be a step in the right direction. Khan did not want multiple bands because multiple bands means less notoriety for each act, which ultimately reduces the potential for a lightning-quick sellout of tickets like Bruno Mars. Khan sees the success of the Bruno Mars’ May 6 concert as “…the foundation for the beginning of a diverse and vibrant campus life,” according to his Statesman opinion.

However, it would have made much more sense to have not gunned for the obviously unrealistic 42-band extravaganza of Culture Shock, which again was not what we were implying, but to try and get a more college-geared artist like Lupe Fiasco. Not only is the 18-24 age range a primary market for the young hip-hop artist’s music, but he also dropped a new album this past March, making him far more timely than Bruno Mars. We only suggest Lupe Fiasco because we know that Khan tried to secure him and failed, ending up with Bruno Mars only after Lupe Fiasco pulled out at the last minute to perform in New Orleans.

But instead of trying to find someone equitable to Lupe Fiasco, we ended up with a Billboard Hot 100 artist who is constantly played on the radio. That shows that Khan had the right mindset to begin with, but didn’t care in the end when he discovered that he could still sell out the Sports Complex with an act like Bruno Mars.

So Khan may dream of a concert on the Staller steps, of huge acts just as big as Bruno Mars or Lupe Fiasco performing alongside each other, even possibly at a multi-day festival. But because that is not realistic, Khan sidesteps to achieve what he sees as his goal of creating a better Stony Brook experience. That means settling on Bruno Mars when nothing else pulls through and making the best out of it even if it means putting on a concert that is not traditionally geared towards college students.

But the more you sidestep to maneuver constraints, the higher the chance that you will like where you’re standing over where you were originally aiming. That’s the fear. We at The Press want to make sure those original aims are at least apparent if they are no longer in the sights and to scrutinize the decisions of those in power not just because it’s our money being spent, but most importantly because it’s our college experience on the line.

I’m not one for saying goodbyes; especially when faced with the reality that my involvement with The Press is coming to an end. I’m still puzzled. How do you say goodbye to a paper that has served you well, taught you so much and provided solace for four years?

You can’t.

Everything I’ve learned and experienced within the walls of Suite 060 of the Stony Brook Student Union has become a part of who I am today, for better and for worse.

For four years I’ve had the extreme pleasure of working with and getting to know some of the brightest, most humorous and most genuine people that I have ever encountered in my 21 years of life. These same people were what made my time at The Press memorable, and in the past year alone, possible.

During the beginning of the fall semester, The Press had undergone an identity crisis, which had been developing since the previous year. Was The Press going to continue to be the outlandish paper to grace Stony Brook’s campus with its rich satire and sharp and witty commentary?

Or would The Press revert back to its origin and highlight the work of investigatory and feature style writing for the purposes of informing the campus, promoting progress and inciting debate?

I can only hope that it has been clear that we’ve at least attempted to be the latter, a process, which resulted in a departing staff who were reluctant to such change. These were difficult but very necessary times, even if it risked being impeached.

Since then, The Press has managed to be at the forefront of campus coverage, such as the closure of Stony Brook Southampton, consistently provides rich narratives on the lives and stories of faculties and students and still preserving the ever-so-important attitude of challenging authority.

The pinnacle of our year probably came when we hosted Dr. Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers to talk on campus at a time when freedom of the press and government transparency was put into question.

Where The Press has come and how it got there is something I will forever cherish, but nowhere near the endless hours, late nights and early mornings I got to spend with the best staff any Editor could ask for and the best friends any person could ever dream of.

I’m comforted by the fact that the future of paper couldn’t be in better hands, but I am now at a crossroads—that sudden transition into the “real world.” Looking back at it all, I’m extremely happy that it happened, but saddened that it is all coming to an end.

Until next time, I guess this is goodbye, but not forever.