We’ve all been there. There’s nothing to do on a Saturday night. Why not take the car out for a quick spin? No harm in that.

For me, living in a suburban community near Madison, it wasn’t a problem. A quick drive never amounted to anything more than that: Me, alone or maybe with a friend, driving to nowhere in particular.

But in a city like Milwaukee, problems occur.

Cars back up traffic. Streets get crowded. People move slowly, if at all. City blocks are kept up at night. It’s not a pretty sight.

How do we alleviate the problem? First, we look at what these young persons are craving: Something to do! They’re bored, they’re restless, but most of all, they want to do something – and they have their license, so why not drive?

But when their driving becomes destructive (sometimes literally), there comes a time when we must start punishing these young adults in order to hold them accountable. Driving, after all, is a privilege, not a right.

So what should be done?

We have two recommendations. The first is a three-strikes system which would allow for first time offenders to be “let off the hook” so to speak. A first time offender may just be at the wrong place at the wrong time, or not fully understand the problems associated with cruising.

If the person receives a second strike, he or she may finally “get the idea,” and stop driving around at night.

If the cruiser receives a third strike, the actions of that person should be seen as unacceptable. They have already received two warnings, and have now done it again anyway. It is our recommendation that a third offense constitutes confiscation of the person’s car.

Many issues came up between us in coming up with this decision. What about young adults who were borrowing someone else’s car? Is confiscation a harsh penalty?

We determined, however, that the first issue would not be a problem; someone should always know what is happening with his or her car, and if they allow someone to use their car without fully knowing what they plan to do with it, it is their own fault. The second issue is addressed in the fact that they’ve already been warned twice of the consequences of their driving. Therefore, it’s their fault for not adhering to the warnings, and it’s acceptable to take their car.

Our second recommendation is that there should be a designated cruising point, on certain days, perhaps at Miller Park. This would remove those cruisers who wouldn’t adhere to the three-strikes law, making it easier for cops to arrest those who break the law as well as give otherwise law-abiding people a place to spend their nights driving in a legal setting.

We understand that people don’t operate the same; some wish to drive their vehicles at night while others might stay in. We don’t mean to say necessarily that people don’t have the right to cruise but instead recognize that it affects other people in the neighborhood as well. Because of this, it is important to diminish the number of cruisers in the city. We feel that our recommendations, when combined, would do that.

The editorial was written by student Christopher Walker based on the group opinion of a Journalism and Mass Communication Department editorial board. The students on the board were Walker, Nicholas Schurk, Keri Stein, Sarah Walls, and Rosalynn Wolfe.

College newspapers should not have published cartoons

When the Muhammad cartoons were published, many saw it as a practice of “freedom of speech” and of the press. However, the cartoons only stereotyped the Muslim people people and their link to terrorism. This is why it was not appropriate for college newspapers to publish such insulting cartoons.

Newspapers relay information to the public. In turn, the public decides how it will take in the information. It is important that newspapers communicate their ideas so that they are understood as intended. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, it seems the newspapers are claiming that the Muslim people are at fault for the misunderstanding.

While flipping through a newspaper, it would be hard to avoid this sort of cartoon and being disturbed by it. What seems to be the most upsetting thing is the timing of these cartoons. Islam and the practices of the Muslim people are not something new, so why is it that now is the time to start producing these cartoons?

The United States holds that all individuals are guaranteed their "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion". For this reason people enjoy coming to live in a democratic society such as the United States of America. It should also mean that one can be guaranteed to feel safe while practicing his or her religion.

Those same individuals should be able to practice their religion without having their beliefs ridiculed, especially at this time. Although the college newspapers were publishing the cartoons to explain the violence, it could’ve been easily done through descriptions of them. Responsible journalism was demonstrated by the larger newspapers that decided to not publish.

When the Dutch newspapers first published the cartoons, they backed up their decision to do so so by arguing that it was a practice of their freedom of speech. However, once the American college newspapers began to publish them, it did not further the cause. In either case, it was still inappropriate and uncalled for.

Instead of informing the public of the current reactions to the cartoons, the newspapers added more fuel to the fire. It makes no sense to have published the cartoon when the cartoon itself was the issue. All that was accomplished was an even bigger misunderstanding of the Muslim people.

Newspapers ought to understand that although there’s a constitutional right to “freedom of speech” and the press, there’s also such thing as being responsible when considering what will be published. The college newspapers simply decided to test the waters again by publishing the cartoons and awaiting a reaction.

It is always interesting that the violence and the reactions to the cartoons were blamed solely on the Muslim people. It would make a little sense if the newspapers themselves took some responsibility.

The publishing of the Muhammad cartoons in college newspapers should not have happened. Anyone who has ever faced being stereotyped and having his or her beliefs ridiculed would understand that there is something wrong with this picture.

Newspapers should use their “freedom of speech” and of the press to possibly educate and inform the public about what could happen as a result of irresponsible journalism.

-This editorial was written by student Karen Garcia, based on the group consensus of a Journalism and Mass Communication Department editorial board. The students on the board were Garcia, Wajiha Chaudhary, Sean Dineen, and Nathan Hebert.