Editorial Page

POINT-COUNTERPOINT:
Ten years after Marquette changed its nickname from Warriors to Golden Eagles was it "the right thing to do"? In October of 1993, Marquette University announced the Warrior nickname would be replaced effective spring of 1994. The athletic program had used the nickname Warriors since 1954. The decision to change the nickname created anger and controversy at the time and still generates debate today. Mark Kapocius and Tony Cotton address the issue from both sides.

POINT:Go Golden Eagles by Tony Cotton
COUNTERPOINT:Why Not Warriors? by Mark Kapocius

Golden Leagle Policy for Editorials
The Verdict by Sara Elizabeth Dill
Brewing Up A Legal Food Fight by Greg R. Rabidoux
Readers Respond by Sheila Heitzig

Why Not Warriors?
By Mark Kapocius

Was Marquette University's decision in 1993 to replace the Warrior mascot with the Golden Eagles the right thing to do? Absolutely not. In fact, it may have been the worst decision ever made in the history of the school. Not only was the process fatally flawed, but also the supposed rationale for the decision lacked substance.

When Marquette, under the direction of Rev. Al DiUlio, arbitrarily and capriciously decided to change the nickname, it was a complete surprise. In classic liberal paternalism, Rev. DiUlio said that "it was simply the right thing to do, and the decision will not be reversed." Translation: "I know what is best for you. Don't question me." Afterward, in an attempt to appease the disgruntled students, an election took place to choose a new mascot from two options: Golden Eagles or Lightning. Votes of "no change" and "Warriors" were ignored. Apparently, this passed as student involvement.

But at no point in the process were students or alumni involved in the decision to drop Warriors. The student government of Marquette, ASMU, was completely left out of the process. Despite the best efforts of students at the time to open the issue up for debate, dissenters were summarily silenced. College Republicans selling t-shirts that merely stated, "We will always be Warriors," were swiftly reprimanded and shut down by university officials despite being given prior approval by the Office of Student Life. Alumni groups were also shot down even after DiUlio's departure. According to Mary Schmitt Boyer, Marquette alumna and sportswriter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, organized efforts through the national alumni clubs to examine the possibility of reviewing the decision were shut down when the alumni office told the volunteer club leaders they'd lose their positions if they persisted.

What fueled the fire of dissent was that the reason for the change was never articulated. It appears that the reason for the change was because officials presumed the Warrior mascot to be offensive and racist. The problem is that their presumption is wrong. The offensiveness of Indian mascots has not been proven and Indian mascots actually serve the opposite effect: recognition and respect.

Marquette University originally chose the nickname Warriors out of respect for Native Americans. Mascots, in general, are chosen because of the traits they embody, like valor, courage, bravery and leadership. You would not elect a nickname that you would consider inferior and it would hardly be racist to call someone brave or courageous. Much like the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the Boston Celtics, or the Mequon Homestead High School Highlanders, nicknames referring to an ethnic group are chosen out of respect for the peoples they represent.

Ironically, the decision to change the nickname is a complete reversal of the University's position less than a decade earlier. An official 1983 Marquette basketball program describing the history and tradition of the mascot, First Warrior, states that, "the symbol for Marquette University's intercollegiate athletic teams represents the spirit, dignity and strength of the name Warrior. The primary function of the symbol is to serve as a rallying or focal point at intercollegiate athletic events, while promoting cultural awareness of the American Indian."

The Warrior of Marquette gave recognition and respect to Native Americans and the First Warrior was a source of pride to Native Americans. In fact, the First Warrior symbol was "conceived by Native American students at Marquette. The suit is representative of the six Wisconsin woodland tribes ... and after a year of work and 1,067 hours of Lila Blackdeer's time, the suit was completed ... Mark Denning, a junior from West Allis, Wis., is the First Warrior," the 1983 Marquette program said. Additionally, only a Native American student could play the part of First Warrior.

Marquette, among others, assumes that Native Americans are offended by the use of Native American mascots. According to a Peter Harris Research Group, Inc. poll, found in the March 4, 2002, Sports Illustrated, 83 percent of the Native Americans polled said that professional teams should not stop using Indian nicknames. Even the most apparently offensive nickname, the Washington Redskins, had an approval rating of 69 percent from Native Americans. There is also ample evidence that the various Native American nations that are represented by colleges and universities support the use of their names and identity. The University of Utah (Utes), Florida State University (Seminoles) and Central Michigan University (Chippewas) are all examples of schools that have consulted with their respective Indian Nations and have been endorsed and encouraged to continue the use of the names. Why? Because they cast a favorable light on their heritage, similar to the Irish, Celtics, and Highlanders.

Marquette's Warrior was not meant to be offensive and is not decried as offensive by the vast majority of the group it purports to offend. Marquette completely overreacted to a controversy that never existed.

My noble adversary will undoubtedly present arguments from various committees and organizations calling my position racist and insensitive. However, these groups need only look at the case of the University of North Carolina-Pembroke. The NCAA's Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee recently told the university to change its insensitive nickname, the Braves. The problem is that Pembroke's administration and students don't want it changed. Pembroke was originally founded as a college for members of the Native American Lumbee Tribe and the current administration and student body is still significantly Native American. Pembroke chose its nickname to honor their heritage and they don't need NCAA committees, or other sanctimonious organizations, to tell them what is, or is not, offensive. As the Lumbee Tribal Chairman Milton R. Hunt proclaimed, "the Lumbees don't want the NCAA to meddle with this." To us [the Brave] is a part of the University's name, and the Lumbees would consider it an insult if it were changed. We don't have to have you (the NCAA) tell us what's offensive." UNC-Pembroke Chancellor Dr. Allen Meadors vows to defend the school's ties to the Lumbees. "We're going to fight this because it is not appropriate for the NCAA to order us to remove it because the American Indians cherish having the brave emblem" and it symbolizes their "integrity, courage and the ability to overcome all odds."

So, why does it matter to me? After all, it's just a name, right? Except being a Warrior means something. I am still a Warrior and always will be. Similarly, many students, alumni, faculty and staff of Marquette have an emotional connection to Warriors that was bred in us over years of loyal support and allegiance. Cutting off that connection, without any rationale or compelling reason given, is why there is still anger. Tradition has value and words define us.

After ten years, it's time to make the change back to the Marquette Warriors. From the whimsical decision, to the sham election, to the faulty logic behind the change, the whole nickname issue is an embarrassment. The current mascot, which looks like a chicken, is a painful reminder of the University's knee-jerk response to political correctness. Yet, a sign of maturity is admitting mistakes and taking action to remedy one's mistake. With all due respect to Rev. Al DiUlio, he was wrong. It was not the right thing to do, and the decision needs to be reversed.

Go Golden Eagles
By Tony Cotton

Was Marquette's decision in 1993 to drop the "Warriors" nickname and replace it with the less offensive name of "Golden Eagles" the right decision? Absolutely. This decision, although controversial to this day, represented a bold and progressive move by a university that was cognizant of the inherent offensiveness of labeling a sports team after a racial or ethnic group.

After deciding to change its nickname in 1993, remarks such as "If the Indians don't like it, tell them to open another casino," or, "Keep the Warriors, get rid of the Indians," were commonplace. Statements such as these were recounted in a Marquette Tribune op-ed piece in 1993 by Jeffrey Peterson, the American Indian Counselor at Marquette. Such statements, he pointed out, were just a sample of the insults that could be heard after Marquette announced its decision to drop the "Warriors" nickname. Make no mistake about it, Marquette's decision to eliminate the "Warriors" nickname was vehemently opposed by many students on campus.

Indeed, after the decision was announced a number of students undertook a fervent sidewalk-writing campaign in order to express their outrage. Slogans such as "Save the Warrior" and "Warriors forever!" could be seen around campus. Over a month later, the Marquette University College Republicans initiated a fundraiser by selling t-shirts that read "We Will Always Be Warriors." The controversy surrounding this fundraiser stemmed from the fact that these t-shirts replaced the letter "i" in "Warriors" with an upside-down eagle feather—a sacred symbol to Indians.

Many people protested the decision arguing that the administration was discarding "tradition" and failing to embrace the wishes of a majority of students. Others insisted that "Warriors" was not meant to characterize Indians and therefore should not be seen as offensive or insensitive. Still other people claimed that the silence by Indian groups on this issue served as proof that Indians are not offended by this nickname.

These flawed arguments however, were not unique to Marquette's 1993 decision. In fact, parallel arguments were made in 1971 when Marquette decided to drop the Warriors former mascot, Willie Wampum. While my noble opponent would like to gloss over the true history behind the "Warriors" nickname and mascot, I find it necessary for purposes of this article to show how insidious it always was.

Marquette's former mascot, Willie Wampum, was a giant, goofy looking Indian with an oversized papier-mâché head. During the halftime intermission at basketball games, Willie would run out onto center court with his tomahawk, and do his familiar "war dance." Essentially, his modus operandi was to excite the crowd and build support for the Warriors. Willie's "humorous" antics were a part of Marquette's history for close to a decade.

After the University announced Willie's retirement in 1971, the Marquette Tribune was flooded with angry letters denouncing Marquette's contempt for "tradition" and failure to embrace the wishes of a majority of students. These concerns were also expressed at the Associated Students of Marquette University (ASMU) meeting where over 200 students showed up to express their views. Many of the students at this meeting pointed out that they did not see Willie as a characterization of Indians but rather as a figure designed to enhance student pride.

In retrospect, it is hard for me to understand why exactly Marquette would have found it appropriate to have a mascot such as Willie. It is even harder to understand why there was so much opposition to retiring a mascot that showed such vile contempt for Indian culture and heritage. Yes, at the time it may have been part of Marquette's history, but tradition is no excuse against change. Tradition can be a dangerous thing at times, especially if it causes us to cling blindly to suppositions that we have made about particular ethnic groups. Marquette's decision to disregard "tradition," and replace Willie reflected a growing awareness of the problems with racial stereotyping and the existence of cultural insensitivity that has pervaded our society.

After deciding to retire Willie Wampum, Marquette eventually adopted a new mascot in 1980, the "First Warrior." In an effort to respect the Indians that this mascot would represent, Marquette created the costume for the "First Warrior" by combining symbols and articles of clothing from six different Wisconsin woodland tribes. Marquette also stated that only Indians could perform as the mascot. The original First Warrior, Mark Denning, performed traditional Indian dances that, although they were supposed to be spiritual, soon became only a show. The First Warrior lasted for about five years before being discontinued because no Indians were willing to try out for the position.

After these failed attempts at creating an appropriate mascot, the University decided in 1993 that the nickname should change. The movement behind the change was led by Marquette's former President, Rev. Albert DiUlio, S.J. Despite assertions by Mr. Kapocius to the contrary, this process was not as authoritarian as he has made it out to be. In fact, in 1992 Father DiUlio established an ad-hoc committee of students and faculty that explored the issue of whether the nickname "Warriors" was offensive. After more than a year of work, the committee met with Father DiUlio and the decision was made to change the nickname. It was only at this point that the athletic department staff was instructed that the University would find a new nickname. A vote was then held where students, faculty, and alumni voted for the "Golden Eagles" as our nickname and logo.

Mr. Kapocius argues that the decision by Father DiUlio smacks of classic liberal paternalism. He claims that this is the equivalent of saying, "I know what's best for you, don't question me." Yet, he fails to mention that this same argument tends to cut both ways. In fact, despite Indian tribes and organizations across the United States calling for an end to the use of Indian mascots, many schools and professional teams have yet to change their practices. The failure to adhere to the wishes of Indian groups that do not want their likeness used as a mascot is the true example of the paternalism decried by my opponent. Sports teams with Indians for their mascots are really saying, "We know how to best honor you, don't question us." In short, the use of Indians for mascots does not "honor" their bravery or bring awareness to their culture. If a school or sports team truly wants to accomplish these ends, it should institute events that bring awareness to the social ills plaguing Indian communities.

I am proud to attend a school that is as culturally sensitive as Marquette. Like the decision to retire Willie Wampum, the decision to eliminate the "Warriors" nickname was not easy and was certainly opposed by a vocal segment of the student body. To this day, those who argue a return to the "Warriors" nickname are, unfortunately, still recycling the faint arguments that can be heard emanating from 1971. They will tell you that Marquette's "tradition" is as the "Warriors." Don't believe it. While our sports teams are an important part of how we identify our University, there is a much larger picture out there. The real tradition of Marquette is its tradition of introducing students to the search for truth, its promotion of a life of faith, and the development of a cadre of young professionals dedicated to making a difference in the world.

The Verdict

By Sara Elizabeth Dill

Picture a country where every year 50,000 people cross the borders to be sold into involuntary servitude of one kind or another. Imagine the terrible working conditions and even more horrendous living conditions. The people are forced to work long hours in a job they never anticipated and are subject to physical and emotional abuse, often at the hands of their very own employers. Freedom is unthinkable, as they are guarded constantly and have little or no contact with the outside world. Buying their freedom is out of the question, as the low wages could never repay the debt of passage to America, along with the ever-increasing daily debt of food and housing. Unable to speak the language, these people long for their homeland and their families. Disease is rampant, and little medical treatment is provided.

This scenario may sound like the United States in the early 1800s, when slavery was common during an inhumane time period we swore would never happen again. Unfortunately, this scene is from present day America, as well as many other countries around the world. Women and children are being trafficked internationally to become slaves in the constantly growing sex trade. In fact, the number of women and children who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation during the last ten years is already on par with the number of Africans enslaved for sale in the United States during the 1800s. Fortunately, nation-states and international organizations, such as the United Nations and other independent non-governmental organizations, have recognized that this is a global scale problem and are beginning to take measures to combat it. However, the problem is escalating, spreading to new countries, and creating legal, medical, and moral dilemmas. A recent article in the New York Times discussed a family who had sold one of their sons in order to buy a television, and was planning to sell the mother's unborn child.

International crime syndicates have found trafficking of humans to be a form of transnational crime with higher profits and lower risk. In fact, prostitution and trafficking produce the third highest illegal income, behind only drugs and guns. Although countries such as Thailand and the Philippines are legislatively prohibiting the prostitution and trafficking of women and children, they are also supporting it, both directly and indirectly, in order to increase their country's economic well being. Even the United States has done little to combat this newly expanding area of transnational crime and serious human rights violations.

Worldwide, more than two million women and children enter the sex industry. These people are then visited by an estimated ten to twelve million men and women per week. This trafficking brings in $7 to $12 billion annually through the sale of women and children, bribes and payoffs with government officials, and the revenue created from the sex industry itself.

The most heinous form of prostitution and trafficking is that involving children. An estimated one million children in Asia are victims of the sex trade, netting approximately $5 billion annually for the industry. There are street children selling sex for survival, and boys and girls selling sex in tourist resorts. Furthermore, one-third of the child prostitutes in Asia are HIV positive. In Thailand alone, 50% of the child prostitutes are HIV positive. Due to little or no child labor protection in much of Southeast Asia, children are exploited, both in licit and illicit industries. The economic situation is so poor that many families feel they have no choice but to give up their children, sometimes knowingly, into prostitution. Some parents have even acted as pimps for their own children, setting up appointments with customers and using the income to support the family.

The methods of trafficking differ, often depending on geographic region and the age of those being trafficked. The use of deceit or coercion, where victims are led to believe that they are going to work in a legitimate business, is the most common. Often, women and the parents of children are told that the work is in restaurants, theatre, light industry, or simply, the entertainment industry. Some are drugged, and then kidnapped, only to wake up in a foreign land, in abhorrent conditions where they are forced to work as prostitutes and sexual slaves. Perhaps the most repulsive method is when parents sell their children into the trade for as little as $100.00.

This widespread growth of prostitution and trafficking victimizes women and children in a senseless violation of human rights. Governments are either turning a blind-eye to the industry, or accepting bribes to facilitate the export of people to other nations.

The expansion of human rights in this area has created many disagreements in opinion on how laws and policies regarding human rights should be enacted and enforced. One group actually believes that there should be a distinction between free and coerced, or voluntary and involuntary prostitution. This is unfounded and absurd, as any form of prostitution is a human rights violation. There is no context in which prostitution could be considered dignified labor, as most sex work situations are akin to slavery, as they involve physical, economic, social, cultural, and psychological coercion. Therefore, all forms of prostitution and trafficking, regardless of the slight willingness these women and children may seem to have to enter the profession, are gross human rights violations.

The United States, aside from being one of the world's leading sources of contraband luxury goods, firearms, tobacco, and alcohol, is also one of the largest recipients of trafficked persons. Chinese women are being trafficked into the Untied States for brothels in New York and North Carolina, and traffickers in Miami are receiving Asian children brought through Europe by Japanese crime syndicates. These women and children are kidnapped, bought, or lured by false employment offers and then smuggled into the United States with fake visas or hidden in packing cases.

Once traffickers are caught, however, domestic laws traditionally have light punishments, treating these criminals that deal in human life better than those apprehended for drugs. For example, in Los Angeles, traffickers kidnapped a Chinese woman, raped her, forced her into prostitution, posted guards to control her movement, and frequently burned her with cigarettes. The lead defendant received only four years in prison and the other defendants received two or three years. Ironically, the maximum sentence for dealing in small quantities of the drug LSD is life in prison. It appears that the trafficking and prostitution industry is not being taken seriously by most countries, nor do they have any desire to combat or punish it.

What proves to be interesting about this trade is the double standard it creates. While prostitution is illegal by the law, local governments license establishments, such as massage parlors, that are known to be fronts for prostitution. In the Philippines, the government provides colored cards for women going abroad to work as entertainers as proof that they have no sexually transmitted diseases, regardless of whether or not they actually do. Furthermore, the prostitutes are criminalized and punished, yet the traffickers, clients, and establishment owners are absolved of their guilt and enabled to continue with their illicit trade. Fortunately, this is beginning to change.

The United Nations has passed measures, yet some of the most affected countries have still not ratified them. In fact, most Asian governments' policies concerning the sex sector are often characterized by ambiguity and have little or no prohibitive effects. They often legislatively forbid prostitution, yet acknowledge and legitimize its existence. If greater efforts are not made, the abuse of prostitutes will go unpunished, thus eliminating any hope for enforcement of the small amount of legislation that does exist.

The victims of this trade are in need of assistance. Regardless of whether or not they return to their home country, the only life and employment they have known is the sex trade. Reintegration services are needed to bring women back to their home communities, while providing support, vocational training, and options for making a sustainable income in the licit sector. The Untied States has begun such programs within its own borders, but this is an international problem that must be attacked on a global scale. It is vital that the countries who supply the large numbers of women and children being trafficked implement reintegration and rehabilitation services. Health care is essential in order to combat the further spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Once women realize that they have government assistance through comprehensive socio-economic and health programs, they will be more willing to leave the profession, and hopefully, less women and children will be coerced into the profession.

For the past thirty to forty years, the prostitution and trafficking of women and children has grown to epic proportions. No longer is it a problem for developing countries, it has invaded Europe and the United States, to supply "product" for the high demand that exists in these areas. Countries must be encouraged, either by sanctions or by other methods, to end this human rights violation. Domestic and international measures and remedies must be created, both in the countries receiving the trafficked persons and in those countries that export them. Only through cooperation and dedication of the developing countries to protect their own people can this terrible industry be stopped. After all, "[t]he only solution to putting an end to this problem is to involve society as a whole, since it is not an issue that makes headlines in the newspapers or on television. This is a very real problem, and we all must assume responsibility for stopping it."

Brewing Up A Legal Food Fight
The Law of the (Fast Food) Jungle

By Greg R. Rabidoux

I had a buddy back in the day who swore that McDonald's had him under its hypnotic power. He would actually dream of Big Macs instead of the far less-fattening sheep and would awake with such a yearning for a Happy Meal that we'd all wonder why Mickey D's didn't deliver in the wee, small hours of the morning. You know, when a guy's best friend is having a whopper of a dream, only a luscious, super-sized version will do. Before I get accused of making any of this up, I did actually see this real-life Hamburglar scarf down seven, that's right seven—the same number of points for a Brett Favre touch down—Big Macs in one sitting. And apparently, like many of his fellow Americans, he blamed the nefarious power of McDonald's and not his own inability to "just say no" to another one of those "hot and juices" (oops, sorry, that one would be Wendy's fault).

So what? Why am I discussing my old friend's dining foibles and serving them up to you on a tray? It's simple, really. If law school professors like John Banzhaf at George Washington University and a growing number of tort attorneys have their way, the hypnotic power of fast food franchises like McDonald's may actually go on trial and could end up paying millions of dollars for being, well, so darned "addictive."

You see, perhaps as a byproduct of the movement in our country for exacting public disclosure on consumer goods, including the usual suspects of evil, like tobacco and alcohol ("Warning: The Surgeon General says stop smoking and drinking, but please do keep paying sales tax"), and warning labels and fat content disclosures on grocery goods ("Warning: This gallon of Triple Chocolate-Fudge deep fried in buttermilk may cause arteries to wince just before closing up forever!") may now force a legal obligation on burger and other fast food joints like McDonald's to disclose just how much fat content really is in each Big Mac, and just what those naughty fat globulins may do to the temple you call your body.

In other words, current and future lawyers across America may start drooling at the prospect of holding major food retailers' nuggets to the deep-fry fire until they yell "McUncle" and provide consumers with what these legal-eagle spoil sports say is your constitutional right to know just how addictive the foods you eat truly are, and the damage that grabbing a second cheese-infused "superburpito" will do to the flaky taco shell you now call your body.

If the (pardon the expression) carrot of goodwill is not enough to ensure corporate food conglomerates to cough up the fat content disclosure demanded by anti-fat activists, then the legal sour grapes will be super-sized lawsuits which could cost burger moguls up to $1.5 billion. And that friends, is not just chicken scratch but a full-fledged feast fit for a colonel.

Should fast food franchises be held legally accountable for the special spices they cook up in their evil laboratories they call kitchens? Should we as future lawyers accept the theory that, much like the sirens in Homer's Ulysses, the addictive nature of fast food draws unknowing customers to the drive-thru window against their own free will? For salsa-sake, you can now ring the Taco Bell at virtually all hours when you and your pet Chihuahua need to run across the south of the border for a late-night quesadilla. Or, should the legal accountability and love-handles stay right where they hang now, with each of us, we, sedentary consumers who just can't get enough fast-food lovin'? Should we tell Mayor McCheese to stick that ordinance obligating fat content disclosure in his chicken breast pocket? Or, should we slap Ronald's wrists with a soggy freedom fry for being so hypnotic, so allegedly, criminally addictive?

Either way, this legal battle is stirring up a heap of acid indigestion for fast food retailers as activists like The Center for Science in the Public Interest and legal advocates yell "Food fight!" across our nation's fruited plains. Beware, fellow consumers of pre-fabricated goodness, you may soon get caught in the cross-hairs of controversy the next time you hear someone say, "You want fries with that shake?" Well, whatever you do, stay away from my Double-stuff Oreo cookies! Oh wait, too late, I hear they are fending off legal law suits for not disclosing the evils of trans fat lying in wait for taste buds in each of those scrumptious cookies. Maybe the court of public opinion should just find "elfin magic" guilty and the rest of us can go back to warding off the munchies again without guilt or court costs. Just some legal food for thought.

Reader's Respond

Dear Editor,

I have a few observations to share in response to the editorial in the last Golden Leagle about the lack of community service among our students and student organizations. First, I'm thankful for Sara [Dill]'s reminder of the importance of community service. Second, I believe our students and student organizations already provide significant community service. Finally, there are reasons our service is not as visible as that done by Marquette undergrads.

The Jesuit commitment to service is one reason I considered Marquette when looking at law schools. I remember being told that community service matters at Marquette at a law school fair in 2001. I was encouraged by the web site statement that community service is considered in admission decisions along with GPA and LSAT scores. Visiting here [Marquette University Law School] one week after Dean Eisenberg died, I heard stories honoring his dedication to getting the law school involved in the community. For these reasons, I wasn't surprised to meet fellow students who had done fantastic things in their communities before law school.

I met students who had volunteered full-time through AmeriCorps or private programs. Others worked in public and nonprofit organizations and plan to continue to serve the community. To many of our colleagues, community service isn't participating in a coordinated student activity, but is an important part of their lives. The person sitting next to you in class may be a mentor, a weekly volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club, or spends Saturdays working with a neighborhood group. I know students who volunteer at an AIDS legal clinic without a clinic or workshop assignment. Students in the clinics often go well beyond their duties. We have students who are a child's guardian ad litem, not just for legal experience, but because their hearts compel them to. I know one student who chose law school because of her experience as a volunteer guardian ad litem.

Our student organizations are based on mutual legal interests, but several actively engage in community service as well. The Blood Drive, "Canned Immunity," Al's Run, and Halloween parties jump to mind as community service activities sponsored by student organizations. Last spring, twenty members of the Marquette AWL painted and redecorated the meeting room at Meta House to provide a comfortable and inviting space to women living there. We participated in service events throughout the year with Milwaukee AWL. The Public Interest Law Society provided fellowships to students to spend the summer working in the community. I've only been active in those two organizations, but it seems to me our student organizations are very definitely engaged in community service.

Marquette undergraduates are provided organized community service activities to benefit society and their own personal development. The university mission says it "strives to develop men and women who will dedicate their lives to the service of others." The law school is not here to develop men and women dedicated to service. Marquette University Law School has brought together a learning community of men and women, many of whom already share that dedication. We are adults who can find, participate in or create our own service opportunities, reflecting our values as individuals and professionals. That dedication is part of why we are here. The law school encourages us to serve; it sends us into the community, teaches us to be ethical practitioners, and challenges us to include public service in our career aspirations. Some will serve through the opportunities the law school provides. Others engage in community service separate from, but complementary to, our education. We volunteer to balance the stress of law school. Service is part of who we are. We don't need someone else to facilitate it for us.

Sara is right that we have much to be thankful for, and much to give. Her editorial made me realize that students new to Milwaukee and younger students might appreciate help finding community service opportunities. Here are some ideas:

1. Get involved in a student organization. If it doesn't currently have service activities planned, offer to coordinate one.

2. Watch flyers, bulletin boards and the web site for activities sponsored by student organizations. Again, I only speak for organizations I am personally involved in, but I know AWL is planning a toy drive and PILS is planning its annual auction to raise money for fellowships. Both organizations certainly welcome participation.

3. If you want to find an opportunity separate from law school, the Volunteer Center of Milwaukee can help. Visit www.volunteermilwaukee.org for information.

3. Call the undergraduate service learning office. Even though we're not undergrads, I bet they would have ideas for you.

4. The Milwaukee Bar Association provides information on pro bono opportunities. See www.milwbar.org for more information.

5. Contribute by doing what you already do. Start your next online shopping excursion at www.igive.com, www.shopforchange.com, or another "charity mall." They provide portals to major retailers and give a portion of what you spend to the charity of your choice, at no cost to you. Alternatively, purchase holiday cards and gifts directly from non-profits such as savethechildren.org, heifer.org, globalmarketplace.org, or tenthousandvillages.com.

Sheila Heitzig
2L