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.

But one recent study, that texting on your cell phone may negatively impact your walking speed, probably won’t etch “Stony Brook University” on the wall of earth-shattering scientific findings.

First, let us share a moment of silence for Alexa Longueira, a Staten Island teen who fell into a manhole while texting on her cell phone a few years back. She only suffered minor physical injures, but if this study came sooner, I’m sure she could have been spared some seriously embarrassing, New York tabloid-type mental scars.

Other than our dearest Alexa, I’m sure this finding came as a surprise to next to no one, while the idea of conducting these studies will dumbfound everyone. We were all taught in our preschool days never to run with scissors—for safety’s sake. Now we know not to walk to class while texting—for punctuality’s sake. Go Seawolves.

According to the press release, thirty-three twenty-somethings were put to tests while texting and talking on the phone. I wonder what they texted.

Yo bb, I’m in the middle of this study rn. HMU in about an hour for dinner. We’ll get some dim sum. Yo lol if Donald Sutherland owned a dim sum restaurant it would definitely be called Dimmald Summerland.

Dawgg, can u believe Derek said he actually liked I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry while he strung out on whippits last night! lol Im never drinkin again lol

Honey, put the duck in the oven, won’t you? I’m bringing home bundt cake and your favorite Woody Allen flick. I’ll light some of those Kiss From A Tulip In An Early Spring’s Mist-scented candles in the den. Tonight will be—oh dag, SOS. I just fell into an uncovered manhole! Call 311! Good God, it smells as bad as Adam Sandler’s career down here! Derek is a glue-sniffing moronnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Next week, we will have studies prove other commonly held beliefs, like the fact that Asians are genetically inclined to order the most horrific burritos at Picantes (shrimp, mangos and nacho cheese, please!), or that everyone that lives in Kelly Quad likes Incubus, or that longboarders will most likely die alone.

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.

Monday, Nov. 14, was the first event held by the Stony Brook Stand Up charter. I had the great pleasure of being a part of that event and making it happen.

The event focused on standing up against bullying towards the LGBT community. We had several demonstrations and skits discussing the different stories that some students have experienced. Some of the skits were very emotional, and I noticed that some members of the audience could really empathize with what was going on.

LGBT bullying has become a more prevalent issue in the media. Compared to their peers, LGBT youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to be bullied. About 30 percent of all completed suicides have been related to sexual identity crisis.

My favorite, and biggest, contribution I made to the cause was the inspirational video my good friend Maddy Ransom and I made. We worked very hard to bring awareness to the toll that bullying takes on young students. The video left the audience with the simple question, “Will you make a difference?”

I feel that the Stand Up Against Bullying event was very successful. Each of the activities we had planned really seemed to hit an emotional spot with the audience. I really feel that as people left, they wanted to make a difference and be the change needed to prevent the emotional trauma that so many people have felt.

Bullying is a major issue that needs to be stopped. In fact, about 9 out of 10 LGBT teens have reported being bullied at school within the past year because of their sexual orientation.

Being a part of the Stand Up charter has really been an eye-opening experience for me. The people involved are so passionate about the cause, and I am so proud of all the hard work everyone put in to make the event happen. I am so proud of what we accomplished that day.

I look forward to continue working with the Stand Up charter here at Stony Brook. It’s all about raising awareness of the effects of bullying, and what each and every one of us can do to put an end to it. Too many precious lives have been lost. It’s time that we stand up against bullying.

At first when I tried to start writing this, I worried that there was no point. What purpose is there is writing about a problem without having any kind of conclusive solution to end with? As an English major, I am used to making everything add up into a moral and end my papers with a rallying, exclamatory paragraph that I treat like a key to all problems in the world. I pretend that my insights have clarified more than just the novel I was writing about.

I recently wrote an article on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome because a professor at Stony Brook University has received a grant for the research he is doing on a home-based treatment program. I brushed up on who he is and got a general idea of what his program is about. I learned what I could in a space of about two days and formed a vague idea that I agreed with his outlook: if people are too ill to leave their homes in order to get treatment then a program designed to be performed by oneself in one’s home is a good solution.

After the article was published online I began receiving emails telling me that people were commenting on my story. I was startled to see a less than subtle common thread running through the responses. A majority of the comments were from people suffering from CFS, and every one of them demanded to know why the National Institute of Health was funding another of this “type” of project, as opposed to aiding those who are researching a biomedical treatment option. In other words, they stated that yet another program to make their symptoms more manageable was not the cure they called for.

Clearly, my thorough research had left me without an important bit of context. The comments made reference to other treatment programs that had similar goals to Professor Friedberg’s, including a trial in the UK that, the commenter proclaimed, was unsuccessful. Another response speculated that perhaps more funding would be given to finding a cure if CFS were seen as a cause of death.

I don’t suggest that I am an authoritative voice on this issue. However, I was blown away by the vehemence of the reactions my article provoked. I had the humbling experience of realizing that my ability to peek into another person’s reality, write 500 words on it and be done with it, was my luxury. I modestly stand by one of my initial reactions that perhaps both treatment types should be funded, and that Professor Friedberg does not intend his program to be a permanent substitute for a biomedical cure. I recognize that there must be an unfathomable level of frustration felt by people whose lives are altered by CFS and believe their voices to be unheard, or even ignored.

I was reminded, perhaps simple-mindedly, of another research project I had done on autism. In my studies I found a book called “Emergence: Labeled Autistic” written by a woman with autism who presented an outlook radically different than anything I had seen before. She suggested that children with autism should be looked at as having a different perspective, rather than an illness. She was a major activist for a school of thought that dismissed studies for cures of autism as being narrow-minded, even cruel. I was 14 at the time and perhaps the idea of a societal outcast being defended resonated with me. I interviewed one of my teachers who I knew had an autistic son. When I asked what he thought on the matter he looked at me strangely and said that he would do literally anything to find a cure for his son. I will never forget the words he wrote over his picture in my middle school yearbook: “find a cure someday.”

At first when I started this piece, I felt unsatisfied with the fact that I would not be able to come up with a neat resolution to the problems I would present. I felt that if an issue has no clear arrows pointing to a reasonable fix, then why discuss it in the first place. Won’t I just be spewing words? The importance, I now realize, lies in whether or not those words are heard.

Sincerely,

Marcela Maxfield

The Community is a blog run by the Office of the Dean of Students and the student leaders of the Stony Brook Community Pledge. It is supposedly inspired by “1000 Awesome Things,” which is a daily-updated blog of, you guessed it, “awesome” things.

Now, only a few weeks since its October 19 debut, it already has 75 entries saying how great Stony Brook is. And with its pleasantly clean design, simple fonts, a sense of modernity and using students to run it, it’s the perfect PR for this internet-savvy generation.

But there’s a sense of bitterness that comes with its release. It comes off as a slight to students who use a similar website to voice genuine problems they have with the university.

The most popular – and similar – outlet for the campus is SBUThings. Just like the Community of Awesome, SBUThings gets a lot of their content from student submissions, but unlike the Community, not everything they post is awesome.

SBUThings reflects a genuine conversation between Stony Brook students, with posts complaining about sitting in the line for Wendy’s for 30 minutes or being overjoyed that Starbucks is now open until midnight.

The student behind SBUThings is not exactly happy with the Community of Awesome. They see the Community as a bit of a copy, except with a positive spin.

“SBUThings, compared to The Community of Awesome, is somewhere people can come and express themselves on all different levels of emotion, not just putting on a happy face and dealing with it,” the student, whose identity is not made publically available, posted.

What makes SBUThings a good outlet is that it doesn’t have the Dean’s Office meddling in its posts.

The Community may be run by students, but that doesn’t mean it’s not run by PR experts. Denise DeGennaro is a graduate student who is an assistant in the Office of the Dean of Students, and Robert Drago was part of a team that aided President Stanley over the summer in trying to convince the media that the tuition increases were a good idea. This duo is not exactly independent of the university influence.

It is also hard to call such a website a “community” when one side is essentially overlooked. A funny blunder on the university’s part could be considered “awesome.” The same could be said for something like a protest against a university policy.

“Putting on a happy face and dealing with it” perfectly captures the essence of the Community of Awesome. You’re not going to see things like the mirror in the Union men’s restroom that was shattered for weeks before it was finally repaired or the garbage sitting at the bottom of Roth Pond. Nor will you see the fact that Stony Brook is considered a food desert, yet the meal plans have increased in price.

I’d feel more pride in a university that got to work and fixed problems rather than one that tried to convince me that nothing was ever wrong, and that I should go back to looking at awesome things numbers 58 and 74, which are awesome photos of sunsets and clouds.

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.

I was born in the Soviet Union, one of the least democratic powers at the time.  A few years into my childhood, the wave of attempted democratization led to the collapse of the USSR.  I remember watching a live report on the 1991 coup d’etat (“August putsch”) by hard-line Communist Party members and trying to form an opinion on the situation.  My parents explained it in a way a five-year-old would understand – if the coup succeeds, we would continue to have Russian television.  If it fails then our programming will be in Ukrainian.  Thanks in large part thanks to mass demonstrations; I was soon a citizen of Ukraine (not the USSR) and watching my favorite cartoons in Ukrainian.  Fast-forward 20 years and I am in a Brooklyn jail cell, with four strangers and a dozen cockroaches, reflecting on another massive demonstration.  The difference this time is that I could appreciate the motivation behind and potential impact of civil resistance, which is why I had to participate.  So what can a Ukrainian, moreover an ex-Soviet, possibly know about democracy?

I became a U.S. citizen just before the start of this semester, elated by the opportunity to participate in the most prosperous democracy in the world.  At the swearing-in ceremony, we were all encouraged to vote and get involved in our government, as we were now granted the same rights and privileges as natural-born Americans.  I was excited to register to vote, but it is a bit misleading to say that voting would make me more “American.”  In fact, voter turnout in the U.S. 2010 elections was 41 percent nationwide of the eligible voting population and 35 percent in New York State, respectively. In other words, the majority of eligible Americans did not vote in 2010.   I was dismayed by the apathy of my friends and fellow citizens, but just looking at the make-up of the U.S. Senate is enough to understand their frustration.  Out of 100 current senators, 96 are white, 83 are men, and most are millionaires.  Large groups of people are being systematically disenfranchised, and while the low voter turnout may be understandable, it is not acceptable to maintain a healthy democracy.

My interest in OWS was immediate, but it was not until I attended the October 1st march that I was able to commit to the movement.  This was the Brooklyn Bridge march that resulted in over 700 arrests.  I was walking to Liberty Square to check out the encampment, when I was swept up by sea of people.  The group was diverse in all respects (age, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, etc.), but what united them was the outrage at the status quo and the desire to speak up and make a difference.  The atmosphere was electrifying and empowering—we weren’t mourning the corruption of our democracy but celebrating its rebirth, through this march and the many more that we knew would come.  A protester in front of me described the feeling quite aptly with the sign that said “HOW COOL IS THIS?!”  Invigorated by chants like “This is what democracy looks like!” we marched towards Brooklyn, when suddenly the march stopped.

The feeling of exhilaration turned to anxiety and fear as we began to speculate about what might be happening.   Some people panicked and started climbing up the bridge structure toward the pedestrian walkway as police vehicles approached.  My cellmate, an 18-year-old student from Long Island, attempted to climb his way to freedom, but had a change of heart when he saw the East River rushing beneath him.

In the midst of the hubbub, people on the walkway above us tried to use the “human mic” (a clever way to amplify sound wherein one person speaks in short sound bites and everyone within earshot repeats it) to communicate that the police started taking people away from the crowd and arresting them.  Someone with a smart phone told us that JP Morgan Chase had just donated $4.6 million to the NYPD—unsettling news for a group of people protesting Wall Street’s role in our government. It was even more terrifying when another person informed us that we had no media coverage (“media blackout”)—this was around 5PM.

Imagine you’re barricaded on a bridge in a crowd of hundreds of people, with police on both sides, and you learn that they just received a hefty donation from a group you’re protesting to hold accountable. We refused to be demoralized, and in the spirit of democracy and perseverance we sang the Star-Spangled Banner as people were being hauled away.  I had never been so proud to be an American.

To be clear, it is scary to be arrested for the first time, and the officers don’t make it any easier by treating you like a criminal.  The filthy, cockroach-ridden cell, and lack of access to food or water, makes things even more stressful.

I was lucky, however, to share a cell with intelligent, caring, thoughtful and interesting people.  They all had different reasons for being there; one lost his business following the financial crisis, another was a doorman who was frustrated that his benefits were cut despite increasing revenue for the building, and others were students like myself who wanted to see their government represent all of the people.  For many of us, it was not only our first arrest, but also our first time at a protest.  The success of Occupy Wall Street movement should not be counted in legislations passed, but in people inspired— It serves to remind us that when people participate in their democracy, amazing things can happen.  Indeed OWS sentiment has spread all over the world, including to Stony Brook University.  If you are interested in participating in your government (student, state or federal), find the SBU branch of the General Assembly—regardless of your political orientation.

The OWS is just the democratic jolt this country needed (and the perfect gift for a new citizen like myself).  Unlike the U.S. Congress, the General Assembly is open, participatory, diverse and tends to come to a consensus – which may explain why American approval for OWS is far higher than that of Congress.  Personally, it is the sense of camaraderie and unity that is most moving—the protesters made an implicit pact to be there for each other on the bridge, in jail and even afterwards as people resumed their regular lives.

Still, after 7 hours in captivity, our morale ran low.  It was 3 a.m., and we were tired, hungry, thirsty and not entirely confident that we had made the right decision 12 hours prior.  That all changed as soon as we walked out of our precinct in Crown Heights to find a group of supporters with banners, food, water, coffee and moral support.  “Are we heroes?,” a fellow jail-mate asked me with a smile.  It certainly felt like it.

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.