We want more Derrick

Nia Brevard |Contributing Writer


A sprained wrist, back issues, ACL tear and now blurry vision.

With too many injuries occurring, a former Most Valuable Player is stepping back from his team to make a life-changing decision.

Derrick Rose may have to say farewell to the NBA.

Chicago native, Derrick Rose is an eight-year veteran point guard for the Cleveland Cavaliers.

While a freshman at the University of Memphis, Rose was drafted by the Chicago Bulls as the 2008 first overall pick.

He then went on to become the youngest player to be awarded NBA MVP in 2011.

Rose was such a highly favored player because of his unique play, being able to execute the perfect layup or the perfect reverse. His game-winning shots always had the crowd going crazy.

Despite his injuries, some still say he will always be one of the greatest.

“Derrick Rose is still a good player because of the print he left on the NBA,” said Chima Osuagwu, a sophomore political science major from Washington, D.C.

“He had his era where he was a threat on the court along with being the youngest MVP in NBA history,”

Looking back, Rose had impressive stats, topping some of today’s best players. According to ESPN statistics, during one of his best seasons, Rose averaged 25 points per game, 7 assists, and 4 rebounds.

Still, no one knows what next to expect from Rose, as he figures out whether to return.

His overall stats this season are at 14 points per game, 1 assist and 2 rebounds, a noticeable differenc for a player of his past caliber.

“Derrick Rose’s career is practically over. His history with injury makes him less and less of a distracted player in the league. His body and his health should be his No. 1 priority, and it wouldn’t make sense to continue to put his body under the constant stress of the NBA lifestyle,” said Mildred Goode, a sophomore biology pre-med major from Bowie, Maryland.

ESPN columnist Adrian Wojnarowski tweeted information that he received from a Cavaliers source.

Several coaches and teammates said they are supporting him from afar, after his recent ankle injury this season, and few still believe he can make a comeback despite the injuries.

Fans of Rose don’t want this to happen. A great basketball player might not be able to play again because of what he loves to do.

Even I want to see Rose on the court again and make a remarkable comeback. But after suffering endless injuries throughout his career, it really shows how quickly life can change.

When Rose decides on what he wants to do, I’m sure all his fans will still support him, no matter the decision.

This is something that will take time, and nothing can speed up his recovery, until he’s ready.

Traditional vs. nontraditional: Whose college is better?

Tianna Bradford | Staff Writer

Courtesy of Chelsea Harrison

As we go home for break and we see our family, other cousins and siblings who are also in college, there’s always the debate of whose school is better and has the more leading potential.

I’ve always asked myself what it’d be like if I went to a non-traditional school. If my campus were in the heart of New York or Chicago, would I still have the same school spirit?

I interviewed Kayla Bradford, a junior psychology major at Pace University in Manhattan, New York.

I asked her what it’s like to go to a college where you have no football stadium, no huge cafeteria or your own school building, for that matter.

“It seems as though we have no school spirit, if that makes sense,” she said. “We’re so independent amongst ourselves, we merely act as individuals rather than a unit.”

Their Pleasantville campus in upstate New York holds all of their football and basketball games. A large traditional campus like Hampton is better at holding more students and more social activities.

“You know when I think about it, I barely know anyone on campus,” Bradford said. “We only have three to four buildings that we consider our campus. Sometimes I wish I went to a traditional college.”

As we view Hampton, the Real HU has a lot to offer just like any traditional campus: a large view of Greek life, athletics and even internship opportunities.

I asked a Hampton woman, Pride Harper, a pre-pharmacy major from Newport News, her stance on a traditional campus versus a more urban life campus.

“I feel like life at a traditional campus definitely gives more of the college experience compared to being in more of an urban setting,” Harper said.

Pride thinks she’s more social at a traditional campus compared to a campus in New York, L.A. or Chicago.

But internship opportunities are more prominent at urban campuses than at a traditional campus. Traditional campuses are more far out of from big cities than urban colleges that are wrapped around a district full of opportunity.

“When I think about internship opportunities around me, it seems more difficult to find something in the Hampton area or even sometimes the 757,” Pride said.

No matter how you view it, both schools benefit the two different college students: one who is a social butterfly who enjoys meeting new people and wants the “real” campus feel, while the other enjoys the city scenery and is more to herself and lives for the small campus lifestyle.

Either way, both contribute to the growth of attending students.

Which one would you choose?

Now IS the time to talk about gun control

Jordan Benefiel | Staff Writer


Jennifer Palacios, center, biological mother of 14-year-old Annabelle Pomeroy, who died in a mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, is comforted by her son, Timothy Rodriguez, left, and her mother, Diana Palacios, at a memorial service in Sutherland Springs on Nov. 6. | Photographer: Jay Janner | The Associated Press 


The gun control debate is heating up again after the latest horrific mass shooting.

A couple weeks ago, the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil took place in Las Vegas, and nothing involving gun control was initiated.

Now here we are again, faced with another tragic shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. On Nov. 5, Devin Kelley walked into Sutherland Springs’ First Baptist Church and opened fire.

He killed a total of 27 people, ages ranging 18 months to 77, with half of his victims being children, making this shooting the largest in Texas’ history.

The police have confirmed that the attack was not racially or religiously motivated. People close to Kelley described him as unwell and disturbed.

He was dishonorably discharged from the military for domestic abuse, an offense that should have barred him from buying guns.

Despite his being able to acquire an AR-566 as well as some smaller firearms with his discharge record, he initially went to the church to kill his mother-in-law, according to police reports that threatening text messages had been sent to her by him prior to the attack.

The pro-gun control activists and politicians are calling for more stringent background checks for firearm consumers, preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing and owning guns.

Common sense laws around gun control are, well, common sense, and the pro-gun right people know that. That’s why their usual responses are short on facts and full of emotion. However, in this case, there’s a factor that they feel somewhat vindicates their rhetoric, specifically that the only thing that can stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

Shortly after the church shooting, Kelley was stopped after a bystander shot him in the leg and torso as he was fleeing the crime scene, leading pro-gun proponents such as the NRA to prop him up as their hero.

When asked about gun suppporters’ views on gun control in cases like the church shooting, Kennedy Peace, a first year strategic communications major, said, “Even though Malcolm X once said, ‘Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down,’ I disagree. I believe violence only brings temporary results. So, instead of stopping a bad person with a gun by having a good person with a gun, I think that there needs to be action taken at the source of the problem, which, believe it or not, is not solely about the gun, but the person behind the trigger.”

Megyn Kelly calls out Bill O’Reilly on her NBC morning show

Lexie Carmon | Opinion Editor

Last week NBC News anchor and talk show host Megyn Kelly called out Bill O’Reilly on her NBC morning program. Kelly claims that while she was on Fox news she made several complaints about O’Reilly sexually harassing her, however was constantly ignored.

“O’Reilly’s suggestion that no one ever complained about his behavior is false. I know because I complained,” stated Kelly during “Megyn Kelly Today.”

Normally Kelly’s program discusses light topics, but the recent discovery on Saturday that claims O’Reilly paid $32 million to a Fox contributor, Lis Wiehl, in January to combat the harassment allegations sparked Kelly to revisit the sore topic.

The report published in the New York Times stated that O’Reilly made the settlement to Wiehl, who alleged that O’Reilly forced her into “a nonconsensual sexual relationship and sent her sexually explicit material.”

In addition, a representative at 21st Century Fox stepped forward and stated that he or she was aware the settlement took place, but said the company was not clued into the financial terms at the time it happened.

Despite the number of allegations, O’Reilly chose to deny the allegations to the New York Times. “I have never mistreated anyone,” said O’Reilly.

However, in April, Wendy Walsh, a psychologist, filed a complaint with 21st Century Fox that accused O’Reilly of going back on his promise to get her a paid contributor position at Fox News after she rejected his advances at a 2013 dinner meeting at Hotel Bel-Air.

O’Reilly took several attempts to sweep his offensive actions under the rug in hopes to keep the company’s reputation protected.

According to The Los Angeles Times, O’Reilly and Fox News made a total of $13 million in payouts to five women who claimed they were sexually harassed or verbally abused by the host over the last 16 years.

“I think that’s crazy because it seems like they don’t care about their [victims] feelings and they just want to make sure their company is straight,” says Amani Madyun, a Hampton University sophomore from Newport News.

Megyn Kelly, however, attempted to refute O’Reilly’s comments by emailing Fox’s co-presidents, Bill Shine and Jack Abernethy, just two months before leaving Fox for NBC News.

According to Kelly, O’Reilly said that he wasn’t “interested” in discussing the topic [sexual harassment] and that it makes his network look bad.

“I think if the company didn’t stand up for an employee then the company’s values have now been tarnished,” said BreAnna Wyche, a p2 pharmacy major from Augusta, Georgia, when asked how she feels about a company silencing assault victims.

“Perhaps he didn’t realize his exact attitude of shaming women into shutting the hell up about harassment on grounds that it will disgrace the company is in part how Fox News got into the decade-long [Roger] Ailes mess to begin with,” Kelly said. “Perhaps it’s his own history of harassment of women which has, as you both know, resulted in payouts to more than one woman, including recently, that blinded him to the folly of saying anything other than, ‘I am just so sorry for the women of this company, who never should have had to go through that.’”

It’s a shame how a company will try to cover up the scandals and abuse that goes on behind its doors just to keep a good reputation. This kind of behavior is absolutely disgusting and sexually harassed women in the workplace should not be silenced by money. They should be allowed to verbally express how they feel.

Jemele Hill: A Closer Look at Free Speech

Jordan Benefiel | Staff Writer

Jemele Hill_ESPN statement

The contentious contrast between censorship and brand preservation is not a new problem. Deciding what power companies have over their employee’s abilities to express their opinions is a thorny topic. On the one hand, the first amendment guarantees us free speech, but on the other, people knowingly sign contracts that detail what they can and cannot say if they are to keep their jobs. The question then must be, if the topic is important enough, should one speak out anyway?

Recently, ESPN host Jemele Hill was suspended for two weeks due to breaching her contracts “social media guidelines.” The story starts a couple weeks ago when Hill took to twitter to call Donald Trump a white supremacist. ESPN did not take action against her that time, but issued her a warning and sent out a memo detailing how ESPN “is about sports” and “is not a political organization.” In the most recent controversy, she ostensibly advocated for boycotting the NFL in response to Jerry Jones stating that players kneeling during the anthem will not play during the game.

In the tweet she said, “If you strongly reject what Jerry Jones said, the key is advertisers. Don’t place the burden squarely on the players.” She followed that with, “Just so we’re clear: I’m not advocating a NFL boycott.” These comments, in addition to her previous comments about Trump, led ESPN to give her a two-week suspension. Shortly afterword, Trump took to twitter to trash Jemele, “With Jemele Hill at the mike, it is no wonder ESPN ratings have tanked, in fact, tanked so badly it is the talk of the industry!”

In response to the question, do you think companies should be able to fire or suspend employees for sharing their opinions even if it may make their brand look bad, Kennedy Peace, a first year journalism major at Hampton University said, “Unless the remark is racist, sexist, anti-semetic, heretical or anything that can be deemed as hate speech or offensive I believe that they should be able to keep their job.” Another first year journalism major, Nylah Powell, said, “I think that suspension is acceptable, because when you step into a professional position your main priority is representing your brand. Completely losing your job for stating an opinion, however, is unfair.”

It seems that one thing that unites Americans is our belief in freedom of speech. Jemele Hill spoke up for what she believed in, but didn’t go far enough. When I look at her twitter comments advocating a boycott, then her saying right after that she did not, I see someone who is afraid of a system that routinely punishes individuals in the workforce for exercising their first amendment rights. In the sage words of Peter Kropkin, “the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions.” Jemele Hill, and workers all over America, are forced to accept restrictions to our first amendment rights because, as Kropkin says, they “must accept, or die of hunger.”

The North Korea problem

Jordan Benefiel | Staff Writer

North Korea needs to be stopped, and there’s no one to stop it. Tensions have been rising in the region and around the world as North Korea tests its ballistic missiles over Japan, threatens South Korea, Guam, and the U.S. Meanwhile, China does nothing.

Early in September, the Seoul military reported that North Korea was readying another ballistic missile test that could potentially be an ICBM. This news came right on the heels of North Korea’s claim that it also was testing a hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bomb or not, Seoul’s defense ministry measured the nuclear test at 50 kilotons, making this test the DPRK’s biggest one ever.

In response to the news, the United States sent mixed messages. On the one hand, defense secretary Jim Mattis said that we are “not looking to the total annihilation” of North Korea, “but we have many options to do so.” On the other hand, United States Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, told the security council that Kim Jong Un is “begging for war,” yet she called for more diplomacy.

Both stances were made obsolete by President Trump’s ambiguous response to a Fox News reporter. When asked if the U.S. will attack North Korea, the president responded, “We’ll see.”

With the U.S. paralyzed as to how to approach North Korea and China too indifferent to take the necessary steps to disarm the North Koreans, Americans are left vulnerable. Even if the politics of this are complicated, that should not keep the powers that be from taking the necessary steps to protecting the world from nuclear war. Thinking about how the average person is practically powerless to combat this threat, we start to realize how terrifying the world can be.

When asked if North Korean aggression scared him, Eric Harrell, a second-year psychology major at Hampton University answered, “No, the North Korean aggression doesn’t scare me.” When pressed for further elaboration, all he said is he doesn’t view the North Koreans as a threat. Another student, Harrington Gardiner, a second-year journalism major, said, “The weapons that they’re testing right now won’t be able to reach parts of our country, but they are targeting our allies as a threat [toward] us to see if we will retaliate because they want war.”

The North Korea problem continues to be prescient because the threat of nuclear war keeps escalating. Officials are afraid that if North Korea were ever capable of fitting a nuclear warhead on an ICBM, the rogue nation could cause catastrophe across the globe. Now more than ever, we need a strong unified message around how we will combat this problem.