University invites candidates to campus

first_imgIf Notre Dame has its way, the road to the White House may take a pass through South Bend. Notre Dame announced Monday that University president Fr. John Jenkins and student body president Brett Rocheleau have extended invitations to President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to speak on campus during the fall election campaign, according to a University press release. Continuing a 60-year University tradition, Jenkins and Rocheleau addressed letters to each candidate offering the University as a “forum for serious political discussion,” the press release stated. The invitations are also open to both of the candidates’ running mates, Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), according to the press release. The invitations are intended “to provide the campus community a firsthand impression of the contenders and their messages,” the release stated. University spokesman Dennis Brown said any appearances on campus would help continue the tradition of political discourse on campus. “Universities provide for the free exchange of ideas, and that’s especially important when it comes to electing our president,” he said. “We have a 60-year tradition of inviting candidates to Notre Dame every four years, and we’re hopeful that one or both campaigns will send either their presidential or vice presidential candidates to our campus.” Rocheleau, who also reached out to both campaigns earlier in the year via email, said he does not anticipate any timeline for a response. However, should any of the candidates accept, he said they will find a politically-balanced student body and an exceptional venue for political dialogue. “I think it would be interesting to have the candidates speak at Notre Dame because we are a place of intellectual curiosity,” he said. “We’re pretty evenly mixed [between political parties]. I think it would be an interesting opportunity to spark intellectual conversation and I’d love for them to come visit and speak.” Rocheleau said colleges and universities, especially a school like Notre Dame, offer a unique and important political avenue for the candidates to explore. “I think they can hear what students and younger voters are interested in, and the issues that we truly care about,” he said. “I think it would be beneficial for them to visit colleges, especially Notre Dame, where we can talk about some of the issues we really care about.” Notre Dame would benefit from a visit from any of the four candidates as well, Rocheleau said, as such an event would offer a means to spark important conversation. “I think it would, overall, go to fostering intellectual curiosity and intellectual conversation on campus,” he said. “I think having one or both of the candidates speak at Notre Dame would be a great opportunity for students, undergrads as well as graduates, to hear and to think about things that are social and political.” Notre Dame in particular has always been an academic institution heavily involved in the American political sphere, Rocheleau said. “[Look] back to [University President Emeritus] Fr. [Theodore] Hesburgh working for civil rights with Martin Luther King Jr., involvement with all the different presidents we have had in the past,” he said. “I think we have always had a tie to politics and the President of the United States.” Hesburgh started the tradition of inviting presidential and vice-presidential candidates to speak at Notre Dame during election years, according to the press release. He invited Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson in his first year as University president, and both accepted. According to the press release, other candidates who have accepted the invitation to speak at Notre Dame include Richard Nixon, Henry Cabot Lodge, Warren Miller (a graduate of the University), Edmund Muskie, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman. Notre Dame already has one significant election season event on the calendar. On Oct. 17, the DeBartolo Performing Arts Center will host one of the three Indiana gubernatorial debates. Libertarian Rupert Boneham, Democrat John Gregg and Republican Mark Pence are expected to participate in the event.last_img read more

Norm Lewis on Starring Opposite Former Onstage Daughter Sierra Boggess in Phantom: ‘Just Go with It’

first_img Related Shows View Comments Sierra Boggess Star Files from $29.00 The Phantom of the Opera When we found out that Broadway heartthrob Norm Lewis had finally landed his dream role, the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera opposite his former Little Mermaid daughter Sierra Boggess, we just had to congratulate him ourselves. So we called him up!Is this the Phantom of the Opera?It depends on who’s calling!Congrats! What exciting news.I’m so glad it’s out now. I’ve been sworn to secrecy for a month!How did this happen? Did you get on your knees and beg at the 25th Anniversary Gala?Yes, exactly. Got right down on my knees! [Laughs.] Actually, I did a symposium called American Voices at the Kennedy Center in November. I was on a panel with [music director] David Caddick and [conductor] David Lai and a question about diversity on Broadway was asked to me. I talked about how blessed I was, but mentioned that I wanted to do Phantom. David and David are both high up in the Phantom world so when Hugh Panaro decided he didn’t want to renew, they said, “How about Norm Lewis?” And I auditioned for Hal Prince and then Cameron Mackintosh, and it just kind of happened!You told me on Show People last year that this was your dream role. Did you have a secret board at home to make this happen?I just kept putting it out there. After 26 years, I just wanted someone of color to play that role on Broadway. It didn’t have to me. I just wanted to see somebody do it.Why the Phantom? What about this part draws you?It’s a lot of things. It’s iconic. It’s one of those characters, like Sweeney Todd, who I was also able to play, that is so misunderstood. You want to bring some truth to it. I’ve seen it done so many times by Hugh Panaro, who’s one of the quintessential Phantoms out there. And also Howard McGillin, or my first Phantom up in Toronto, Colm Wilkinson. I already knew the music, but when I finally saw the show, I thought, “This is intriguing.”Hugh Panaro was your co-star on Side Show. Have you ever gone backstage and tried on his mask?I’ve never put the mask on! Hugh is more than a friend—he’s like my brother. It’s almost like a rite of passage for me that he’s handing the baton to me. He’s ready to move on and is passing the role onto me. Hopefully, he’ll give me some great clues and tips. I’m just looking forward to hanging out with him in the last few weeks of his run. And getting on that stage!What scenes are you dying to actually get up there and perform?That’s a good question! The ones with Sierra Boggess. I’m anxious to do the lair scene with “Music of the Night.” There are so many things. And running up and down those stairs singing “The Phantom of the Opera.”Spoiler! I don’t think all of those “Phantoms” are you in that scene!Oh, really? I was so sure! [Laughs.]Is it weird that Triton and Ariel are playing The Phantom and Christine together or do we just go with it?I think we should just go with it. Sierra and I talked about it. We actually call each other “Daddy” and “Daughter.” In a way, the Phantom is kind of a father figure and there’s a mystique to their relationship that hopefully adds some contextual flavor to the role.Yeah, yeah, but I saw the sequel, Norm. He is not just a father figure![Laughs.] OK, but we’re not blood related, so…Final question. Since saying you wanted to be The Phantom on Broadway.com helped make it come true, what else do you want? Dream big and let’s get it out there.I want as much money as Oprah Winfrey has in the bank right now. Or Tyler Perry. I want that empire!last_img read more

Are you hungry for success?

first_imgRichard Branson is a big inspiration to many Here are some tips and more  to get you going on your journey to become the next successful African entrepreneur. They may sound basic but they are very crucial to your success. 1. Love what you do.Most of us live with this impression that we don’t really have control over what we do, over what happens to us, over our happiness and our unhappiness, and that we are victims, and of course, as victims, all we know how to do, is defend ourselves. Because we spend so much time in the defending mode, we forget who we really are, we forget that we do have a choice, and that we do have the ability to shift our lives in the right direction.2. Build a team immersed in your vision.Teamwork is the single most important reason why organizations succeed or fail. One of the biggest barriers to building a successful team is the lack of investment by an organization in team development, whether that investment comes in the form of time or money. Building a thriving team is hard work and time consuming, which can pose a challenge for business leaders today as they want a return on their investment too quickly. It takes the commitment of the organization, team leadership, and team members to build winning teams.3. Come up with innovative ways to solve problems.To qualify as creative problem-solving, the solution must solve the stated problem in a novel way, and the solution must be reached independently. Creative problem-solving usually begins with defining the problem. This may lead to a simple non-creative solution, or to finding a “textbook solution”. The creative problem-solving process may also lead to the discovery of prior art and of creative solutions by others. The process, in these cases, may then be abandoned, if the discovered solution is “good enough”.4. Create a delightful customer experience.5. Quickly learn from your mistakes.6. Rely on people smarter than you.7. Never sacrifice quality.last_img read more

NFL not suspending Tyreek Hill is a surprise — yet, also not a surprise

first_imgThe reason is simple: The NFL is not capable of being a consistent, trustworthy arbiter in cases that are too complicated even for the American justice system to handle properly. The league’s backpedaling in the Ray Rice case several years ago led to this kind of interposition, seemingly as a result of the pressure the league felt to take these matters of misconduct into its own hands no matter what the courts decided.And, as the NFL continues to prove, we’re asking too much of it.MORE: NFL world stunned by Hill decisionCBS’ Jason La Canfora reported that many in the NFL were “shocked by the Tyreek Hill decision.” There was an expectation that Hill would be disciplined under the NFL’s personal conduct policy as a result of the threatening words spoken to Crystal Espinal in a secretly recorded conversation that, per Yahoo! Sports, “included Hill and Espinal arguing about who broke their child’s arm, as Espinal accused Hill of injuring the child and also punching the boy in the chest (which Hill denied).”The NFL’s statement on Hill, released Friday, notes that “local law enforcement authorities have publicly advised that the available evidence does not permit them to determine who caused the child’s injuries.”pic.twitter.com/ec9E4aGFma— Sporting News NFL (@sn_nfl) July 19, 2019The surprise regarding the lack of discipline for Hill stems not from the alleged violence — even though the NFL’s disciplinary process does not carry the same burden of proof as the legal system does — but from this threatening language: “You need to be terrified of me, too, dumb b—.” This is what Hill said to Espinal after she claimed, referring to their 3-year-old son who had suffered the broken arm, “He’s terrified of you.”According to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy (via Pro Football Talk), “when viewed in the context of the full 11-minute, 27-second audio recording and all other information gathered, the statement did not rise to a level of warranting discipline under the personal conduct policy.”Below are some relevant lines from the NFL’s personal conduct policy. They help explain why so many are perplexed as to why Hill’s behavior was not a violation.It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. We are all held to a higher standard and must conduct ourselves in a way that is responsible, promotes the values of the NFL, and is lawful.Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this policy) are subject to discipline. But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline:— Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence.If you were confused by how the NFL’s personal conduct policy was applied before, you’ll be even more confused by how it was not applied today. #TyreekHill #ConsistencyMatters— Jim Trotter (@JimTrotter_NFL) July 19, 2019In many ways, the NFL’s decision not to discipline Hill is more of the same — inconsistency in the enforcement of a policy that has proven to be nothing more than a public relations tool. But it also signals a continued shift in the league’s reaction to these matters.A couple of years ago, Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott was suspended six games after “the commissioner determined that credible evidence established that Elliot engaged in conduct that violated the NFL policy.” The league decided there was “substantial and persuasive” evidence that Elliott had “engaged in physical violence” against a woman named Tiffany Thompson in 2016.This year, Elliott again was the subject of an NFL investigation after a video surfaced of him getting into an altercation with a security guard. Goodell decided no punishment was necessary.So what’s the difference as it pertains to the policy?Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio has a theory: The NFL simply does not want its best players to miss games. The NFL’s decision not to discipline Chiefs wide receiver Tyreek Hill for allegations of child abuse and/or a recording of threatening behavior toward his former fiancee was announced Friday, and it was met with predictable dissatisfaction.Predictable is a key word. This kind of public malaise has become the chorus that echoes from most of the league’s disciplinary decisions based on its personal conduct policy. This is why the NFL can’t be trusted with such a responsibility. As flawed as the American criminal justice system can be, it is not acting with one eye on the case and the other on television ratings. And the lack of a burden of proof in the NFL’s adjudication process leaves even more room for the inconsistency that has plagued the possibility of actual justice.The result in the Hill case was yet another surprising disciplinary decision by the NFL.At some point, we should stop being surprised.center_img Writes Florio: “Elliot, despite video showing him confronting and possibly shoving a 19-year-old security guard and notwithstanding Elliott’s status as a prior offender (which supposedly is a big deal under the personal conduct policy), wasn’t punished. Now there’s Hill, who escaped any and all punishment with the league issuing a statement that doesn’t even address the menacing remark that prompted the Chiefs to send him away from the team’s offseason program.”Two years ago, Hill wouldn’t have been so fortunate. Now, as the league tries to build on momentum from 2018 TV numbers fueled by an offensive explosion about which the NFL privately bragged to reporters on a near-weekly basis, it’s better for the league to have Hill on the field than it is for the league to not have Hill on the field.”Sure, there will be complaints and objections, maybe even a loosely-organized protest. But the potential impact on the league’s business from letting Hill play is smaller than the potential impact on the league’s business from not letting him play, and that’s ultimately all the league cares about.”The Elliott and Hill cases are just a couple of the many examples of the arbitrary nature of the NFL’s personal conduct policy. (Yes, Patriots fans, the Brady suspension counts, too; it is worth noting in the context of the Hill (non)decision that the New England QB was suspended four games for some deflated footballs that may or may not have been his doing.) But the Hill decision might be the best proof yet of the flawed nature of this policy.Tom Brady got four games for passing a science test. https://t.co/E9Y2DZs7Pr— Jeff Howe (@jeffphowe) July 19, 2019It’s also worth noting that the handling of this kind of off-field misconduct is difficult for all major American sports leagues. MLB’s domestic violence policy also allows the league to discipline a player for a domestic violence incident regardless of whether there are charges or a trial, and while improvements have been made, many still think MLB does not treat some incidents as seriously as it should. The NBA has had its struggles, too.But the NFL has been at the forefront, attempting to be something of a leader, a moral authority, as a sports league attempting to play judge and jury. As Florio notes, Goodell literally was concerned about his job security in the wake of the Rice fiasco, and the commissioner “resolved at that point that he would never, ever be accused again of going too easy on a player who misbehaves.”last_img read more