Bryan Saenz, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Do you remember being 13 or 14 years old? For most of us, that time meant video games, friends, and carefree days. But for millions of children around the world, that age marks the beginning of labor, not leisure. Instead of classrooms and playgrounds, they face early mornings, late nights, and long, grueling hours of work, often at the cost of their education, health, and childhood itself. This is an issue that demands attention from a community committed to justice and ethical responsibility.

Child Labor is often treated as something from the past, something associated with early industrial factories or distant third-world countries. Sadly, that is simply not the case. Recent reporting shows it is increasingly present within the United States, and even here in Colorado. According to Abeyta and Moton (2025), child labor violations occur across all regions of the country. They are especially common in industries facing high competition, such as agriculture, food processing, and construction. Their analysis of nationwide data demonstrates that these violations persist not because laws are absent, but because employers choose to ignore them when economic pressure incentivizes cutting labor costs.

Employer behavior plays a central role in sustaining these violations. Abeyta and Moton argue that organizations themselves function as “occupational deviants”, prioritizing profit over legal and ethical responsibility. By relying on subcontractors or fragmented labor systems, employers often distance themselves from direct accountability while still benefiting from illegal labor practices. When penalties are small or enforcement is inconsistent, exploiting minors becomes a calculated risk rather than a deterrent. This shifts responsibility from individual workers and places it right on the systems and organizations that enable this abuse.

Policy decisions further complicate the issue. Fletcher and Stevenson (2025) examine how changes in education and labor policies directly affect the types of work minors are allowed to perform and the number of hours they can legally work. While some policies strengthen protections, others unintentionally open the door to exploitation by expanding permissible work hours or reducing oversight. Their research highlights how organizations often adapt quickly to policy changes in ways that maximize productivity, even when doing so places young workers at risk. In this sense, child labor is not merely the result of illegal activity, but of legal “grey areas” that prioritize economic output over child welfare.

These labor practices are deeply tied to the demand for affordable goods. As Nelson (2025) describes, free market systems reward companies that minimize production costs, and child labor provides a source of cheap, compliant labor that increases profit margins. Consumers rarely see this hidden cost when purchasing inexpensive food or everyday products. Yet,  affordability is often achieved through the exploitation of vulnerable workers who lack the power to advocate for themselves. This shows that low prices are not accidental, they are frequently built on labor practices that remain invisible to the public.

Industries tied to food production and agriculture are usually the main culprits. Scott (2025) documents how farmworkers in the United States, including minors, endure unsafe conditions and long hours while playing a critical role in sustaining the nation’s food system. These violations reflect broader industry failures rather than isolated incidents, showing how labor abuses are normalized when productivity is prioritized over human dignity. Luna (2025) further connects these issues to immigrant communities, showing how legal frameworks and systemic inequality push children and families into exploitative labor rules, especially in agricultural sectors.

For Regis University students, these findings should definitely provoke reflection and action. As members of a community grounded in social justice and ethical leadership, ignoring child labor contradicts the values we are encouraged to uphold. Addressing this issue does not require radical sacrifice, but it does require awareness. Students can educate themselves about supply chains, support companies with transparent labor practices, advocate for stronger labor laws, and engage in campus discussions about ethical consumption. Even small actions can help challenge systems that rely on exploitation remaining unseen.

Childhood should not be defined by exhaustion and sacrifice. While many of us look back on our early teenage years with nostalgia, millions of children, some in our own communities, are denied that experience. The hidden cost of affordable goods forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about the systems we benefit from. The question is no longer whether child labor exists, but whether we are willing to act once we understand our role in sustaining it.

Alex Suniga, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Have you seen social media glorify the thrifting experience? Maybe you’ve seen the “Bad Day at the Thrift” videos where a creator’s shopping cart is aesthetically piled up with the most desirable pieces of clothing. This trendy emergence creates a want for new clothes and a strong new flow of people seeking their own sense of style by filling their closet with the largest amounts possible. Whilst the consumer believes the heaps of clothes they are collecting are helping, equal amounts of heaps are stacking the landfills. Thrifting can be deemed as sustainable, which is true in certain cases. But the vast majority of thrifters often cause more harm than good. While the act of thrifting may seem sustainable, the overconsumption and problems it seeks to solve often remain the same. 

During the pandemic, a massive uprising manifested on social media platforms: going to thrift stores in hopes of finding cheap clothes, a sense of style, and stewardship for our planet. TikTok’s influence persuaded viewers globally, even in economies that run on textile production. Indonesia is one of the world’s largest producers of new clothes. A 2021 article by the Academic Journal shows how Indonesia’s youth rapidly turned against the cultural norm of clothing production and towards second-hand shopping. The affected population sees firsthand how fast-fashion contributes to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions and 20% of global wastewater. How ironic is it that the very people living amongst this wretched norm turn their backs on the industry for the taboo way of shopping? Indonesia’s case is evident that younger generations are seeking change in style and sustainability. 

The big idea that influences human beings to shop second-hand is rooted in stylistic self-interest and stewardship for our environment. Take Regis, for example, where our goal of sustainability has been made concrete through programs such as the Community Closet. The Closet aims to attain these goals through a constant circle of free clothes: donors' items come in, people who are in need take them out. This constant circle represents the big goal in thrifting by minimizing our waste by essentially recycling our clothing. A 2024 Business and Environment article states this model is called a Regenerative Economy, which aims to minimize the generation of waste through retaining the value of materials and products in an economy. Through this approach, we can seek the better interest of our planet by lowering carbon footprint, wastewater, and textile use; that is, what most people believe they are contributing to through second-hand lifestyles. 

Several years ago, the trendy emergence of thrifting made consumers believe they were making a massive impact on corrupt industries and our planet. This belief still holds today; the reasoning is not incorrect in certain cases. However, it begs the question: just how much impact are we making when we buy second-hand? A 2025 blog by Project Cece calls to mind the amounts of donated clothes put to waste: 70% of donations end up in foreign countries, deemed as “unwearable” or “waste” clothes. A useful statistic such as this one helps us, as second-hand consumers, gain perspective into our impact. A lot of these consequences can even seem out of control. This problem highlights a structural issue vs. an individual’s control. The very real issue gives second-hand consumers a false perception of their actions. Often, in an attempt to combat the evils of fast fashion, one may buy into the second-hand gimmick of true grassroots change/impact. Just as often, this leads someone with good morals into the very problem they are trying to solve: overconsumption. 

In terms of textile production, waste, and pollution, the blame is often directed at the fast fashion industry. Although this industry is the root cause of many climate injustices across the globe, the same blame could be pointed at the consumers, especially those who shop second-hand. Equal dynamics of overconsumption and greed apply to both fast fashion and thrifting; the self-interest of finding the best style or piece often gets to the consumer’s head. Let’s paint the picture in terms of the Regis Community Closet: a student seeking their own needs steps in and leaves with 15% of the closet. Why does this student need this many pieces of clothing? Although the student may believe the amount they took home is a win-win for them and the environment, it is not. We can see the harm that overconsumption can cause in industries on both sides of the spectrum. Not only does a large increase in demand drive up prices and cause gentrification in thrift stores, but overconsumption also constitutes the same problems for our environment. The habits of a large thrift haul are the same as buying from a massive overseas producer: large amounts of clothes that end up not being used or put back through the system, thus contributing to the percentage of waste clothes shipped off to other countries. 

Although thrifting can be effective in certain scenarios, the same overconsumption frowned upon in the fast fashion industry is present in second-hand stores. As a consumer, it is important not to bite off more than you can chew anywhere you shop. Love our environment by giving the same love back to your clothes, and keeping them for a lifetime. Buy what you need!

Emily Garcia-Munoz, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Imagine being sentenced to death for a crime you did not commit. For more than 170 people in the United States, this nightmare has been real, and many of them were Black or from low income communities. These are not just numbers; they are lives nearly taken by a system that claims to deliver justice. The case of Troy Davis, executed in 2011, is often cited as a powerful example. His case raised serious concerns about racial injustice, recanted testimony, and the lack of physical evidence (Whitaker, 1999). Situations like this raise an important question. If the system can execute the innocent, can it truly be called just, or reflect the American dream many call our country.

Supporters of the death penalty argue that it deters crime and brings justice to victims' families. They point to procedural safeguards and claim the legal system is fair. Some even warn that eliminating capital punishment could harm public safety. At first glance, these arguments may seem reasonable. However, research tells a different story. Studies show that states without the death penalty often have similar or even lower murder rates than those that use it (Steinback, 2007).

Beyond deterrence, racial and socioeconomic disparities appear at every stage of the process. Black Americans are disproportionately sentenced to death, and low income defendants face a higher risk of wrongful conviction because they often cannot afford strong legal representation (Innocence Project, 2022). Mistaken eyewitness identification, misconduct, and systemic bias continue to place innocent people on death row, showing the urgent need for reform.

Even when safeguards exist, they are often difficult to access. Several states restrict post conviction DNA testing, preventing some wrongfully convicted individuals from proving their innocence (Steinback, 2007). Even when people are exonerated, the harm does not simply disappear. Many continue to experience stigma, trauma, and social isolation for years. In short, the damage lasts long after someone leaves prison. This pattern of injustice is not new.

Yes, the legal system includes safeguards and appeals, but these measures fail too often and are applied unevenly. A safeguard only works if it is consistently enforced, and evidence shows that is not always the case. Reform is urgently needed, and students have a role to play. Congress and state legislatures should expand access to post conviction DNA testing, reform jury selection processes, and seriously reconsider the use of the death penalty. Alternatives such as restorative justice programs and life imprisonment without parole can protect public safety without risking innocent lives (Sriwidodo, Fitriana, and Budisetyowati, 2024).

At the same time, staying informed, supporting organizations like The Innocence Project, and participating in campus discussions about criminal justice can help shape public opinion. The issue is not whether the system is perfect. It may never be. The real question is whether we are willing to continue supporting an irreversible punishment within a system that shows clear bias towards marginalized groups. When the state executes an innocent person or comes dangerously close, justice is not served. As Sriwidodo and colleagues argue, the death penalty often prioritizes revenge over fairness (Sriwidodo, Fitriana, and Budisetyowati, 2024).

For Regis students, this is more than an abstract policy debate. It is a call to reflect on how our society values life, justice, and equity in light of Jesuit values we uphold. If we truly believe in justice, it must be more than a promise. It must become reality.

Tiff Huang, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

In the 19th century, women such as Dorothea Dix and Nellie Bly exposed the abuse of female mental health patients powered by the healthcare system. Treatment policies and regulations occurred, but “hysteria” has now turned into “dramatic” or “emotional”. In the new generation, there is a gender stigmatized systematic problem that persists, and creates the social aspect of misusing “trauma speech”. Recently, youth are becoming mental health literate, but the misuse of terms like "toxic" or "trauma" can lead to people, primarily women being accused of overreacting, or perpetuating a stereotype.

Afghan Red Crescent Society (ARCS), a mental health centre in Afghanistan, reportedly has female patients who either have been completely abandoned by their families or have no visitors due to the deeply-rooted traditions of women being labeled as “melodramatic”. Sadly, these customs lead to women living and dying there. In the 20th century; frontal lobotomies, insulin coma therapy (ICT), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), anxiolytic drugs, and other outdated methods, were prescribed to women as mental illness treatments much more than they were prescribed to men. Recent changes in diagnostic criteria (DSM-5) for some mood and anxiety disorders allowed providers to write prescriptions for medication, catered to “vulnerable” or “unhappy women”. In 2024, results from the National Center for PTSD found around 10% of women have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) sometime in their lives, compared to 4% of men. 

Some may argue women don’t need more awareness for mental health, or that the topic is being overused. As shown in police reports between females and males; men tend to be more rational than females due to the emotional agency of situations like cheating. The new generation welcomes cis-gender and non-binary people to co-exist, as important assets, but pinpointed as unfair as any 2 genders have showcased traits that may be seen as more “feminine”. So, there should be more awareness for men in that aspect. Historically, men are less likely to report traumatic experiences or speak about them to professionals in mental health due to the notion of not being “masculine” enough. Just because these ideas persist for men because they are less-likely to report these mental health disparities, it doesn’t mean they don’t happen. A recent survey of low to high secure mental institutions found that women who self-harm require a higher level of intensive observations, which means resources for women are generally prioritized over that for men. Unlike many previous generations, mental health is getting necessary recognition, but there are more important minority groups to focus on.

It is true that men and minority groups do not always get enough mental health awareness or resources. However, the language used against women continues to allow degradation in mental health institutions, especially as men are less likely to be treated in mental hospitals. Research from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center shows 91% of rape and sexual assault victims are women. Additionally, 20% of women will be raped at some point in their lives compared to 1.4% of men. Men’s cases are being reported, but occur less often socially and systematically. For centuries, men and women have faced mental health disparities, but women face more inequality, especially as professionals take advantage of the stereotypes assigned. Within this study, staff of female-only wards reported that female patients are more demanding to work with, which causes an increase in burnout and emotional exhaustion. This factor directly causes experiences for female participants to find that medicalisation; treating social issues as a medical issue, delegitimizes their social experience of distress. This is a persistent and upcoming issue, especially with the internet and social media using the term “therapy speech” terms. While these terms are ultimately important regarding topics such as red-flags in people, setting boundaries, and healthy ways to cope, it can also minimize stories of trauma, and sets the younger generation in an isolated mindset of victim-blaming. Therefore, employment of “therapy speech” is a double edged sword. More often than not, men are believed more than women, due to the mindset of vulnerability and between perpetrators and victims.

Many institutions like the Bay Area Clinical Associates (BACA) are starting to use evidence-based treatments like psychotherapy, women’s therapy groups, and women's peer support groups. Not only do medical practices have to change within healthcare treatments and diagnostics, but social change is needed. In the 21st century, education or sharing resources can improve the framework to help women overcome mental health issues. Education and awareness for men’s mental health on social media and within the healthcare system has greatly received sympathy; showing evidence-based research is a resolution. 

Educating ourselves to understand these social and judicial differences allows the world, including the internet, to rethink their language usage of mental health. Being literate in psychology vocabulary will uphold mental health awareness, but this solution must avoid using trendy words such as “toxic”, “emotional”, “dramatic”, "feminism", and “misogyny”.  Mainstreaming mental health can actually hinder progress of reducing stigmatization, especially when youth use social media as a form of validation, rather than understanding their personal responsibility to resilience. Overusing these topics and words can dismiss the substantial stories of mental health struggles and leads to invalidation from personal relationships. If vulnerable groups of minorities like men receive mental health support; why does a large majority of women continue being invalidated when they seek mental health help?

Alina Hussaini, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

The Taliban promote the belief that women are meant to stay at home and dedicate their time and effort to taking care of their children and completing domestic responsibilities. For many decades, Afghanistan has experienced a lack of development in its economic, social, political, and industrial sectors. Now that the Taliban have taken over the country since the summer of 2021, they seem to believe that their blueprint for the projects the country will undergo will result in impactful and massive developments. However, they seem to be missing half of the pieces needed to complete this blueprint: half of the population—women. A 2022 policy report from the George W. Bush Institute explained that the Taliban are excluding women and girls from accessing education and work because they believe that their freedom is a direct threat to their system of governance. The Taliban’s strict limitations on women must be discontinued because equitable access to school and work is necessary for Afghanistan to achieve appropriate social and economic growth, considering the current state it is in.

Women have been completely banned from accessing education past grade six, according to Research in Social Sciences and Technology (RESSAT), and they are denied the opportunity for employment. A 2023 article by RESSAT argues that the ban on women and girls has weakened and restricted the opportunities available to Afghan women and girls, which are considered to limit their access to education, an essential part of the empowerment and development of Afghan society. This is due to the Taliban’s rise in power and control over the country, as they abide by the view that girls and women are solely permitted to receive an education in accordance with their interpretation of Islamic law. Formal secondary or higher education for females is mainly banned.

Although it may be acceptable to approach lawmaking in a more religious manner, it is essential to understand that Islam encourages everyone to pursue education and knowledge. The Taliban claim that they comply with all of Islam’s teachings. However, according to the Journal of Midwifery & Reproductive Health (JMRH)’s narrative review of Islamic law on women's empowerment, the Qur'an encourages women to participate in economic life, education, and social and political engagement. This indicates that true Islamic principles support women's empowerment and education, and this isn't something that should be ignored by the Taliban. This also reveals the facade the Taliban have kept up throughout their rule, as they have presented an extreme religious and noble image while revealing their power-hungry nature and unwillingness to take an inclusive path.

Although it is reasonable that children rely on their mothers as their primary caregivers, it's also critical to take into account that limiting women to this position restricts their chances in society and their contributions. The Taliban shouldn't have the authority to decide how to set up the family dynamics of every household, or how to divide up the duties in a way that suits their home, but rather the family itself. Because of this, it’s very unclear whether the Taliban's rules are derived from the Islamic teachings and what they tend to believe, or from the traditional and cultural practices that have rooted from the concept of male power. A 2025 article in the Higher Education Journal claims that the Taliban's bans on women's education are established in their cultural traditions and ideological extremism, rather than just Islamic concepts. Without education, women would eventually be denied the opportunity to study to become teachers, nurses, physicians, and other professionals. According to a published report by Research in Social Sciences and Technology (RESSAT), this is significant because women who receive an education help society as a whole, as well as help themselves. Women with education can make political, social, and economic contributions. They can work in industries varying from government to medicine that improves labor and public services. Furthermore, education gives women the ability to speak out against systems of injustice and poverty because at this level, they can make knowledgeable decisions about their own lives, and the lives of their children. 

Expression of power-hunger in a country that is so underdeveloped can be harmful to its citizens. Leadership does not come with simply authority and control, but rather inclusivity, empathy, and care. Public solution proposals are essential for inclusive advancement. So, one potential solution to the education ban for women in Afghanistan is the implementation of internet education. A collaboration between the Australian team of volunteers and local Afghan female teachers in Jalalabad are currently working on designing a self-sustaining website for women and girls in Afghanistan seeking education. According to the team’s published paper from Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, they are working on making this website available to all girls and women in Afghanistan who choose to pursue postsecondary education, either in Afghanistan or on scholarships to international universities. The term “Talib” translates to “scholar” in Arabic, so I ask that the scholars of Afghanistan truly seek and commit to the teachings of Islam, and equality will present itself to you, paving the way for a prosperous and developed nation. What will become of a society that ignores half of its population?

Jacob Mestas Duey, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy

Human rights discussions often center on freedom of speech, religious liberty, or the right to vote. Yet one right quietly underpins them all: the right to a healthy environment. Without clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, and uncontaminated soil to grow food, every other right becomes fragile. For generations, communities have lived alongside pollution without fully realizing the long-term consequences—contaminated drinking water, toxic air, and exposure to carcinogens that slowly erode public health. These harms are often imagined as distant problems afflicting developing nations. In reality, they are unfolding just miles from campus.

Regis University sits in the 80221 zip code. Just four miles away is 80022, home to one of the most polluted areas in the United States. Air quality in that community is significantly worse than in surrounding neighborhoods. A major contributor is the oil refinery operated by Suncor Energy in Commerce City. Since 1931, an oil refinery has operated in that location, and in 2003, Suncor expanded the facility. For more than two decades, residents have reported pollution-related problems ranging from a yellow film coating cars and windows, to increased asthma and other respiratory conditions. Accounts of acid rain and broader environmental degradation compound these concerns.

Suncor presents a very different image of itself. On its website, the company declares, “Our vision is to be Canada’s leading energy provider respected for our people, performance, sustainability and relationships that together create value-added contributions to society, communities, customers and shareholders.” The language is polished and reassuring. Sustainability, community relationships, and value-added contributions are emphasized repeatedly. To a casual reader, Suncor appears committed not only to energy production, but also to social responsibility.

Supporters of the refinery often echo similar points. Energy production, they argue, is essential to Colorado’s economy. Refineries provide jobs, tax revenue, and fuel that powers transportation and industry. In a state experiencing rapid growth, affordable energy remains a practical necessity. Companies like Suncor claim to operate within regulatory frameworks, and to invest in technologies that reduce emissions. In difficult economic times, shutting down or severely restricting such facilities may appear unrealistic, or even harmful to working families who depend on these jobs.

These arguments deserve acknowledgment. Economic stability matters. Communities benefit from employment opportunities and infrastructure investment. Energy demands cannot be ignored. However, economic benefit does not negate environmental harm, nor does it excuse the disproportionate burden placed on neighboring residents. A right to a healthy environment means that no community—especially not working-class or historically marginalized neighborhoods—should shoulder excessive pollution so others can enjoy convenience.

The gap between corporate messaging and lived experience is difficult to ignore. If sustainability and community respect are core values, then persistent reports of toxic air and visible pollution demand serious accountability. A company’s vision statement cannot outweigh the daily reality of families managing asthma inhalers or wiping chemical residue from their homes. When pollution contributes to long-term health complications, the issue transcends environmental policy and enters the realm of human rights. Clean air and water are not luxuries; they are prerequisites for human dignity.

For the Regis University community, this issue is not abstract. The university’s mission states: “As a Jesuit Catholic university, Regis seeks to build a more just and humane world through transformative education at the frontiers of faith, reason and culture.” Building a more just and humane world begins locally. If justice is a core value, then environmental justice must be part of that commitment.

There are tangible steps Regis can take. The university can amplify community voices by hosting public forums that center residents of 80022. Environmental science students could collaborate on air quality monitoring projects to provide transparent, accessible data. Partnerships with local organizations such as Cultivando could strengthen community advocacy efforts. Faculty research can be directed toward examining pollution impacts and proposing policy reforms. These actions do not require hostility; they require engagement.

Critics may argue that a university should remain neutral or avoid entanglement in industrial controversies. Yet neutrality in the face of environmental harm risks complicity. Educational institutions exist not only to transmit knowledge, but also to cultivate moral discernment and civic responsibility. When pollution affects neighbors just miles away, silence sends a message.

The right to a healthy environment is not a radical demand. It is a reasonable expectation that communities should not have to choose between economic survival and physical well-being. Commerce City’s experience highlights a broader national tension between industry and environmental justice. The question facing Regis is whether it will remain a distant observer or become an engaged neighbor.

If the mission truly calls for building a more just and humane world, then that work must begin in 80221 and 80022. Clean air should not depend on a zip code. The right to a healthy environment is not optional, it is foundational.

Quinn Lambert, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

At the southern border and in immigration courts across the country, thousands of asylum seekers wait months, sometimes years, for protection that international law promises, but the United States increasingly restricts. Families fleeing gang violence in Central America, political repression in Venezuela, and armed conflict in parts of Africa arrive seeking refuge under a right recognized in the 1951 Refugee Convention and incorporated into U.S. law through the Refugee Act of 1980. Instead, many encounter expedited removals, detention facilities, and procedural barriers that make safety feel uncertain.

The American Immigration Council reports that the asylum backlog now exceeds two million pending cases. Human Rights First has documented thousands of reported kidnappings, assaults, and violent attacks against asylum seekers who were turned away or forced to wait in dangerous border regions. These are not abstract statistics. They represent people who sought lawful protection and were left exposed to further harm.

Supporters of stricter border enforcement argue that the current system is overwhelmed and vulnerable to abuse. Officials have claimed that tighter eligibility standards and faster removals are necessary to deter fraudulent claims and maintain national security. Others insist that border states lack the resources to process the volume of arrivals, and that federal enforcement measures are simply pragmatic responses to logistical strain. These concerns deserve acknowledgment. Immigration courts are underfunded. Processing systems are slow. Border communities do face real pressures. However, deterrence has not solved the problem. 

Research from the Migration Policy Institute indicates that restrictive policies do not eliminate migration flows when people are fleeing credible threats. Instead, they push vulnerable individuals into more dangerous conditions. International human rights law, including the principle of nonrefoulement, prohibits returning people to places where they face persecution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has repeatedly affirmed that access to fair asylum procedures is a legal obligation, not a discretionary favour. 

The moral question is just as urgent as the legal one. Catholic Social Teaching emphasizes the inherent dignity of every human person and the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable. Pope Francis has consistently called on nations to welcome, protect, promote, and integrate migrants. In a 2023 address, he reminded political leaders that indifference toward migrants contradicts the Gospel’s command to care for the stranger. When policies result in prolonged detention, family separation, or return to danger, they conflict not only with international commitments but also with core Catholic principles.

Some argue that universities should avoid taking positions on politically divisive issues. Higher education, they say, should remain neutral to preserve intellectual diversity. Yet neutrality in the face of systemic harm is not value free. Catholic universities in particular are mission driven institutions. Regis University affirms a commitment to justice, service, and solidarity with marginalized communities. If those commitments mean anything, they must extend beyond campus slogans and into public witness.

This does not require partisan endorsement. It requires moral clarity. Universities can advocate for increased funding for immigration courts to reduce backlogs and ensure due process. They can expand legal aid clinics that support asylum seekers navigating complex proceedings. They can host public forums grounded in data and Catholic social thought rather than rhetoric. They can partner with local refugee resettlement agencies in Denver to provide practical support. According to the American Bar Association, asylum seekers with legal representation are significantly more likely to succeed in their claims. Expanding access to counsel is both humane and effective.

Critics may respond that institutional advocacy risks alienating donors or dividing the campus community. That risk exists. Universities thrive on diverse viewpoints. Yet constructive disagreement should not paralyse action on clear human rights concerns. A campus capable of debating theology, philosophy, and public policy is also capable of engaging immigration reform thoughtfully.

The United States has long described itself as a refuge for the persecuted. The Statue of Liberty’s promise is woven into the national narrative. When asylum procedures become so restrictive that credible claims are dismissed or delayed indefinitely, that promise weakens. The question facing Catholic institutions is not whether immigration policy is complex. It is whether complexity excuses silence.

If a university founded on Jesuit values will not defend the right to seek refuge, who will? Silence may feel safe, but it is not neutral. It is a choice. The moment demands something stronger: informed advocacy, moral consistency, and the courage to stand publicly with those whose safety depends on it.

Colby Saiz, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

The issues that we continually see with gun violence need to stop. There are too many incidents that occur with young people in the United States when it comes to the accessibility of handling guns. Even worse than the accessibility to deadly weapons is the lack of safety that people know when using guns, which can lead to more accidents. Aside from the accessibility or lack of safety, the mental health status of people when purchasing these guns needs to be evaluated as well. That is why more background checks need to be added before people make a purchase, so that they will not be another number that is added in the statistics of gun violence.  

The gun violence patterns in the United States also raise concern unto what the main community-level factors are that predict casualties. An article by Social Science & Medicine explained that urbanization, income inequality, and racial segregation are the strongest factors that lead to higher gun violence. The demographics of a community play a large role in what communities are impacted the most by gun violence. A 2014-2017 study showed that counties with both high median incomes and high poverty experience high gun violence. These facts show that these communities are not receiving the type of attention that is needed to help prevent more casualties.

A 2025 BMJ Public Health article explains how people in southeastern U.S. communities view gun violence intervention efforts by focusing on trust, program accessibility, and the social conditions that shape violence. The efforts that are being done to help decrease gun violence are slowly developing more and more. However, these programs and interventions need more national attention.  

An article by Social Science & Medicine  explains that more frequent and more recent exposure to gun violence is strongly associated with higher depression scores, increased suicidal tendencies, greater suicide attempts, and higher mental‑health utilization.  This is why there should not only be background checks before a purchase, but a mental health evaluation so that the guns do not end up in the wrong hands.

An opposing viewpoint argues that most gun owners are responsible for their own purchases, and that gun violence starts from individual misconduct, rather than government regulation failures.  These viewpoints often claim that increasing background checks or including mental‑health evaluations before purchasing guns is not necessary and is the government “overstepping.”This perspective shows that enforcing current laws should be prioritized, rather than creating new laws.

While this position does raise a legitimate concern about protecting individual rights, it does overlook the broader public‑health statistics. It is true that most gun owners are responsible for their own purchases, and it is reasonable to protect their rights. However, this does not dismiss the fact that the current government system fails to prevent guns from reaching individuals who could cause risks to themselves or other people. The opposing view’s logic assumes that existing regulations are sufficient enough to not increase gun violence. However, the data continues to show otherwise.

These are issues that people cannot solve alone just based upon individual responsibility when handling or purchasing guns. Research published in Social Science & Medicine shows that community‑level factors such as urbanization, income inequality, and racial segregation strongly predict higher gun‑violence rates. These issues focus on a broader system that deals with gun accessibility that can be solved by gun companies and firearm safety by the government. A 2014–2017 county‑level study showed high gun violence in areas with both high median income and high poverty reveals that violence is not simply a matter of personal behavior—it is shaped by social conditions that current laws do not adequately address. 

However, these opposing views are right about one thing, any new policy or regulation that the government makes must avoid unnecessary burdens on responsible gun owners. This is a reasonable point because acknowledging it strengthens the argument for reforms in the firearm safety issue that is constantly being brought up in the government. This does not excuse that reasonable caution is justified for inaction. This evidence shows that without stronger background checks, mental‑health evaluations, and community‑informed interventions, the United States will continue to see more gun violence that has a resale cause to be prevented.

When reviewing these problems that arise with gun violence, it is important to solve these problems from the inside out. This starts with having more detailed background checks before purchasing a gun. Additionally, a mental-health evaluation before purchasing a gun could help the decrease of gun violence. By starting small to help solve the problem, we can help stop gun violence from a community-based level, to stopping it once and for all in the United States.

Jamillet Arellano, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Once again, immigration has become one of the most striking issues in the United States. This includes headlines focusing on the frequent ICE encounters, political speeches that emphasize topics like safety and security, along with public debates about real people with families, talents, histories, and struggles being talked about only as numbers and not humans. The current administration continues to propose stricter enforcement and policies that will target undocumented immigrants, arguing that immigration threatens economic stability, cultural stability, and national security. Beneath all the political noise lies a much more heartfelt question: Is immigration truly a national crisis, or is it a test of the nation’s commitment to human rights and economic reality?

People who are against immigration often argue that immigrants take away jobs from U.S citizens, raise crime rates, and abuse public resources. The Cato Institute argues these claims, showing how immigrants not only boost the economy, but also pay taxes, and are statistically less likely than native-born Americans to use welfare and or commit crimes. The article concludes that although there are many common misconceptions regarding immigrants, Congress acts to enforce stricter policies, and enforcements are almost always not supported by research, facts, or statistics. This leads to misrepresentation of the broader economic and social impact of immigrants.

A recently published article examined Henry Pratt's influence on immigration policies and his involvement in shaping U.S immigration policies in the early 1900’s. His policies and ideas were rooted in scientific racism and eugenics. It was found that public support for deportation policies often correlates with declining levels of empathy toward immigrants, suggesting that fear and emotional framing heavily influence these debates. 

Historically, these concerns are not new. In the 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, immigration set off similar backlash. Primary sources coming from the Library of Congress demonstrated how the Irish, Italian, and the eastern European immigrants were often blamed for threatening American Labor and cultural traditions. Henry Pratt later helped shape constraining immigration policies, which were as mentioned, rooted in racism and eugenics, as they argued that certain groups were unfit for citizenship because they were not biologically inferior. Exclusionary laws came about because of this ideology, revealing how fear can harden into policy. 

Charles Hirschman, a demographer, explains in a study how immigrants have persistently contributed to the growth in the workforce, entrepreneurship, and long-term economic expansion. Immigrants are far from draining the economy, as they have balanced the statistics in declining births, filled critical labor shortages, and supported industries ranging from agriculture to healthcare. Immigrants help sustain the economy.

Opponents often highlight how border enforcement is a matter of national security. Immigration is not solely a security issue, and when framing it as such, it ignores human rights obligations under international law. Drawing from Amnesty International, refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants all have distinct legal protections as they are not all the same, and combining them undermines security measures for vulnerable populations.

The World Bank’s 2023 World Development Report was criticized by legal scholar I.M. Kysel, who argues how migration policies are frequently placing economic productivity above human rights. Yet again, they are viewing migrants as statistics instead of individuals with rights, all while reducing their experiences to economic terms.

When there is rapid growth in a city's population, cities can experience extreme pressure to provide housing, infrastructure, and public services. If there is no support coming from the government, it becomes extremely difficult to meet these demands. Although these challenges are real, there should be a better way to address such issues, which is through better planning, expanding work authorizations, and increasing funding for such projects, instead of allocating funds to support mass deportations and broad immigration restrictions.

The debate on immigration ultimately always comes down to the nation's values. Research shows that when people take the time to listen to migrants' personal stories of hardship, displacement, and perseverance, they are more likely to oppose such inhumane policies. Universities like Regis, rooted in Jesuit values and traditions like social justice and human dignity, can help promote thoughtfulness and compassion regarding immigration while recognizing that immigration is not only a policy, but a moral conversation regarding belonging. 

The United States can face immigration as a choice. It  can treat immigration as a crisis and drive the issue with fear, or it can approach it with facts, fairness, and historical understanding. Immigrants are not animals and they are not criminals. They are workers, students, neighbors, and innovators who contribute to their communities every day. Data shows that today's immigrants not only strengthen the economy, but also strengthen our communities by sharing their culture and love with the country. Immigration is not a crisis or threat, indifference is.

Serenity Sena, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

When browsing the mall and stores, how often do you make a point of looking at the tags attached to clothing pieces? Unfortunately, it is not a habit for most people. This lack of attention is exploited by fast fashion brands. These companies prioritize cost effective methods by using synthetic fibers while still increasing the price. More supply chains keep opting for the use of synthetic fibers over natural fibers, which raise questions about sustainability and ethical sourcing in the fashion industry. They capitalize off of the lack of awareness of material sourcing, ethical practices, and sustainability. So why is this important for the environment and ourselves?

The use of synthetic fiber was a significant shift in the fashion industry as they are a man-made fiber that have largely replaced natural fibers in the production of garments and textiles. A 2023 Earthday article explained how synthetic fibers make up almost 70% of our clothing. The most common types of synthetic fibers used are polyester, nylon, spandex, acrylic, and nylon. They offer advantages of production speed and costs, as it is comparatively cheaper to produce polyester clothing than cotton. However, this comes with a price. It is estimated that 342 million barrels of oil is used to produce plastic fibers each year. The fashion industry also accounts for the 700 million tons of CO2 emission each year. The making of clothing accounts for the significant environmental damage. 

Not only is this harmful for the earth, but it’s also harmful for humans. The plastic material leads to discomfort as it can be itchy, produce unpleasant odors, and has the tendency to appear cheap. According to an Inspire the Mind article, plastic fibers contain formaldehyde; a harsh chemical that is linked to skin irritation, allergic reactions, and hormonal imbalance. Not only does it have an effect on humans, but synthetic fiber clothes break down faster causing wear and tear on clothes. With this, clothes have a tendency to break down faster which ends up being trashed. According to the EPA report, 11.3 million tons of textile and garments end up in landfills. It causes long-term environmental damage due to their slow degradation rates, as they can take up to 200 years to decompose. 

The quality of clothing has changed over the years. Previously, most clothing articles were made from cotton, silk, wool, and linen. They provide comfort, breathability and durability. The benefits of natural fibers include being more comfortable; regulating heat and moisture allowing the body to perform properly and are gentle on skin. The preamble fabric allows sweat and odor to pass through. Online clothing store Crann Organic, reports that natural fibers are more absorbent than synthetic fibers and makes us stay more drier and comfortable. It is natural for the body to wear natural fibers instead of synthetic fibers as they are less constricting and have less altercations. 

Natural fibers are environmentally conscious. Garments and textiles are more durable, meaning they will be thrown out less. They are biodegradable clothing, so they decompose faster than synthetic fibers. They leave a smaller environmental footprint compared to their synthetic counterparts. However, there are drawbacks to natural fibers. These materials can be delicate and require extra care. Furthermore, the environmental impact is not always straightforward. For instance, Suston Magazine explained cotton cultivation can deplete water resources in already arid regions. Additionally, some textiles derived from bamboo or wood pulp utilize chemicals in their manufacturing processes, reducing their overall sustainability. Ultimately, there is no entirely ethical way to obtain clothing without some level of impact, but we can make conscious choices to minimize harm and select the most sustainable alternatives

The shift in the fashion industry has been dependent on synthetic materials by brands, a trend that ultimately damages both the environment as well as the fashion industry itself. Clothing should prioritize comfort and quality, yet many brands seem to lack care, focusing only on profit. Therefore, it is essential that we become more mindful of our purchasing decisions for the planet’s well-being.

Sustainable fashion is a luxury. It is important to shop with intention. Look at the tags and notice what you are buying. It may not be accessible for some, but many thrift stores and second hand shops have a variety of good quality clothes compared to the mall that are cheaper. It is challenging to not buy from places like H&M or Shein. It is more affordable but it comes with a cost of knowing workers are exploited and corporate chains are harming the environment. Overall, we are here for a small amount of time, and we have to help the earth as much as we can.

Zoe Josifek, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Research increasingly shows that abortion bans and the defunding of reproductive health organizations correlate with a rise of intimate partner violence (IPV) and increase the chances of vulnerable women and adolescents being entrapped in cycles of relational abuse. A 2024 Health Research increasingly shows that abortion bans, and the defunding of reproductive health organizations, correlate with a rise in intimate partner violence (IPV) and increase the chances of vulnerable women and adolescents being entrapped in cycles of relational abuse. IPV is described as a pattern of coercive and assaultive behavior that may include physical injury, psychological abuse, isolation, sexual assault, and reproductive coercion. 

A 2024 Health Economics Journal identifies that the restriction of healthcare resources has impacts on IPV across the board of reproductive-aged women, but significantly more for those ages 18-24. Rising IPV against this demographic of women is a result of the lack of and the defunding of healthcare globally, but also on a local scale. In the same 2024 Health Economics Journal mentioned previously, crime data collected from the years 2000 to 2016, show that mandatory waiting periods (MWP), where a patient is required to seek some form of counseling before being allowed to receive an abortion, are associated with a 15% increase in IPV. It was mentioned in the journal that the financial burden, secrecy, and lack of control over reproductive decision making can create tension within a relationship, increasing the potential of physical and emotional abuse. Restrictive abortion policies are likely to reinforce operating household power differences by placing additional economic and emotional strain on individuals already threatened within the relationship.

As access to reproductive healthcare becomes increasingly limited, pressures can play a part in increases in reported IPV cases at both local and national levels. However, anti-abortion opponents believe that having access to reproductive healthcare options is objectively immoral. A 2021 Georgetown Journal points out that the most common argument against a woman’s right to choose is the belief that abortion is “murder, no matter the biological stage.” Philosopher Don Marquis argued in his 1989 essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” that abortion takes away and deprives one of the future and what value it could hold in the future. Marquis believes that abortion does not necessarily affect the healthcare practitioner aborting the fetus or the one making the decision to abort a fetus, but the actual fetus itself, as it will never have an opportunity to live and make decisions for itself. Marquis’ argument is built on a foundation of philosophical views, not through objective health data. For those who view abortion as morally incorrect, it does not change the fact that abuse is a widespread problem globally, which is not only a criminal justice concern but also a public health issue among women.

The defunding of reproductive healthcare organizations that provide reproductive resources shifts the moral issue by ignoring the immorality of rising IPV due to reproductive restrictions. Mallory, a 19-year-old college student living in Texas, shares her experience with IPV and abortion access through a story published by Planned Parenthood. Mallory’s story describes how she found out she was five weeks into a high-risk pregnancy against her will, from her abusive boyfriend. Mallory decides that it is for the best for her own health and well-being to proceed with an abortion via abortion pills from a well-known reproductive healthcare provider. Between the high-risk pregnancy and the IPV Mallory was facing, her life was on the line, and if she had not had access to reproductive healthcare, she would not have had the choice to have a thriving future, as she would have been stuck in an abusive relationship with an unintended child. Mallory’s story is not an abnormality. Her story parallels many other real-life experiences across the world, with a small portion documented by news sites such as PBS News Hour and the 19th, where survivors explained that access to abortion was their way of escape from an abusive partner.

The increase in IPV is not just a notional statistic. It is a classmate, a coworker, the waitress at your neighborhood restaurant, a sister, a daughter. If reproductive healthcare options are restricted and defunded because abortions deprive a fetus of a future, there must also be another question asked: what future is a woman guaranteed when they are forced to birth a child resulting from violence or coercion? By forcing women to birth children against their will, society risks the continuing cycle of trauma, economic dependency, and vulnerability, which limits safety and well-being.

Vanessa Candito, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Every weekend, students from Regis University, University of Denver, and Metropolitan State University of Denver head downtown to Denver’s LoDo, RiNo, and Capitol Hill neighborhoods. Ubers swarm the city and lines wrap around buildings glowing with neon signs. For a lot of students, nightlife is part of the college experience, a way to celebrate finishing a hard week, meet new people, and feel grown up in a new city. But there’s an uncomfortable possibility that doesn’t get talked about enough, is Denver’s nightlife actually safe for college students? The honest answer is complicated.

On paper, Denver looks safe compared to other major cities. There’s usually a noticeable police presence in busy areas. Most bars have bouncers who check IDs thoroughly and regularly. The buses run connecting campuses to downtown. The city has put money into making sure there is some safety and it has worked as violent crime has decreased. Most nights end without issues. Most students go out, have fun, and get home safely.

Some people argue that concerns about safety are over exaggerated. They say that college students are adults who make their own choices. If someone drinks too much, walks off alone, or doesn’t plan a ride home, that’s not the city’s fault. Compared to cities like Chicago or Los Angeles, Denver doesn’t consistently have national headlines from nightlife violence. From that perspective, the issue isn’t Denver, it’s personal responsibility.

There’s truth to that. Alcohol clouds judgment and staying with friends, pacing drinks, and planning transportation in advance lowers risk. A 2022 study from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reported that college students who engage in heavy drinking are more likely to experience assault, injury, and academic difficulties. Students who take those steps are far less likely to end up in dangerous situations. Personal choices matter. But narrowing the solution to “just be responsible” ignores the reality of college culture.

Denver has built a strong presence around breweries, bar crawls, and bottomless drinks for low prices. Drink specials and themed nights are meant to encourage heavy consumption. Peer pressure is real, especially for first year students trying to make friends. Expecting 18 to 22 year olds to always make perfect decisions in crazy energy and alcohol heavy environments isn’t realistic. That’s not an insult to students, it's real life and we have all witnessed it.

Transportation is another factor. While the buses are helpful, the late night bus schedules can be limited. After midnight, students often rely on Ubers or end up walking home which can be a long distance. Downtown streets can feel very different at 1:30 a.m. than they do at 6 p.m. A 2023 article from The Denver Post reported that downtown Denver businesses and police continue to acknowledge concerns about crime late at night and public safety in busy areas. Poor lighting in certain areas, crowded sidewalks, and foot traffic create times for theft. Car break ins and phones being stolen have been issues in downtown. Even if violent crime isn’t major, that doesn’t mean risk does not exist.

There’s also the issue that barely ever makes major news headlines, harassment and sexual assault. These issues are often not reported, especially when alcohol is involved. Universities across the country, including Regis, continue to expand Title IX knowledge because risks in social settings are real. The absence of viral stories does not mean the absence of danger.

Safety shouldn’t rely solely on the idea that “nothing bad will happen.” It should be something actively practiced and talked about. Right now, most safety conversations happen during freshman orientations. After that, talking about it goes away. Students are encouraged to explore Denver, but educating about how to have a safe nightlife besides “don’t drink too much” is small. Why not have small workshops each semester? Why not partner with downtown venues to promote safety measures taken for night life?

If the question is whether Denver nightlife is safe, the better answer is that it depends on preparation and knowledge. For students who go out with a plan, stay together, and watch out for one another, Denver can be pretty safe. For those who do not know the environment or assume nothing will happen to them, danger increases quickly.

The reality is that nightlife is part of college culture, whether we like it or not. Pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make students safer. But having honest conversations might. Denver isn’t a a major danger zone, but it’s not perfect either. It’s a real city with real risks. The Regis community should treat it that way not with fear, but with awareness.

Charlie Means, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

In this current political climate, one of the biggest threats facing universities is the current federal administration’s attacks against them. If the word “attack” seems a bit harsh, that’s understandable. But, it is an apt description for what is happening right now. There are a myriad of complaints that one could make about universities in the United States, such as, they’re too expensive, the admissions process is a nightmare, there’s a lack of good gluten free options in Main Hall (that last one may be more of a personal issue). But, that does not justify the actions that the current federal administration is taking. 

As NPR put it, “The Trump administration is at war with higher education. They've cut more than $10 billion in research grants. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has locked up student activists. And now the State Department is threatening to restrict foreign students from enrolling.” Let’s break down that quote by sections, starting with the fact that Trump has cut more than $10 billion in research grants. That is an absolutely staggering number, and the impact of those cuts could be severe. Universities are where a lot of cutting edge medical research takes place. For example, the first successful Hepatitis B vaccine was made by a collaboration between the University of Pennsylvania and the Fox Chase Cancer Center. Even as recently as last year, Michigan State University received the 2025 Golden Goose Honor (a fantastic name for an award), for the success of cisplatin, which is a critical part of some of the most cutting edge cancer treatments. Because of what the current administration is doing, projects that result in developments like those might not take place anymore, and effects are already being felt. Clinical trials in several medical fields have been halted, and it could result in a large number of people dying from potentially preventable ailments. 

Moving on to the next part of that quote from NPR, where it talks about the administration's attack on international students, that should come as no surprise. Trump’s anti-immigrant stance is incredibly well documented, and “securing our borders” was one of the main issues he ran on. Since taking office, Trump has made good on his promises, particularly when it comes to universities. According to the State Department, the administration has revoked 8,000 student visas. The justification given by the State Department was that they were revoked because of criminal activities, but half of the “crimes” committed were drunk driving by college students. That is not even a reason to suspend someone from school, much less kick them out of the country. Actions like this can have a profoundly negative impact on not just these students who came here to better themselves, but for the country as a whole. These are some of the best and brightest minds coming here to learn and potentially contribute to the United States, either economically, socially, politically, or medically, just to name a few potential ways. Now these students might be going elsewhere which would be a huge blow to the United States, and it's all because they are scared to come to the United States, which should not be what we as a nation stand for. 

So what can be done about this? Frankly, in the short term, there isn’t much one can do besides protest these policies if they don’t align with your beliefs. But in the long term, paying attention to local ballot measures that come up each year that could protect universities is going to be critical, as is voting for representatives at the state and federal level to push back against this administration's policies. To close out this Op-Ed, I would like to see that we here at Regis have been fortunate to avoid much of the targeting that has befallen other universities, but it would not surprise me if we are a target at some point over the next four years. So keep reading the news, stay informed, and be prepared to stand up for what you think higher education should be.

Logan Flores-Peoples, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

In 1843, “mental hygiene” was known to“preserve the mind from all incidents and influences calculated to deteriorate”, being the first introduction to what we know today - Mental Health. Mental Health is a huge issue that everyone is aware of and familiar with today. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Mental Health is “a state of mental well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their abilities, learn and work well, and contribute to their community”. It is important to acknowledge that it “is a basic human right”. These are facts that the growing generation knows by heart. People back then weren’t familiar with the true definition and context of mental health, until deaths by suicide took a toll in recent years, hinting that people’s states of mind were a leading cause. We see the growing issue of mental health and people losing their lives due to many factors, negatively impacting their mental health. 

The World Health Organization (WHO), estimates that approximately 727,000 people die by suicide every year worldwide, with millions attempting to. That’s 60,583.3 people a month, 13,980.8 people a week, and 1,991.8 people in a single day. According to Worldometers, so far in 2026, there have been over 95,000 deaths from suicide, highlighting the major public health challenge. According to Pew, mental health is one of the risk factors that elevates the likelihood of suicidal thoughts being present or suicide happening.

While the reasons vary, there are many opportunities and room for preventing what could lead to suicide that may be happening in our backyard. As of today, 12 states have passed a law permitting public schools to allow students to have mental health days. Research shows that the mental health days have positively impacted students and allowed them to return with no penalty or decline in their academics. The proposed stance is to allow students at Regis University to take mental health days when needed, without penalty to their semester standing. The closest and legal way of providing credibility is by allowing this to be present. If a student needs two or more off days for their mental health, then counseling would be mandatory (provided by the school). This ensures that the days are being used to the benefit of the students, while also allowing Regis University to ensure that the days are reliable and truthful.       

Texas is leading the nation in suicide deaths with an estimated 4,382. Colorado ranks twelfth with an estimated 1,297 deaths. One could say that the sizes contribute to the gap between the two states. However, in Texas, the age group at highest risk is 20-24. These ages are typically the college-student age. Texas is top 5 for possessing the most universities and colleges with over a million enrolled students. 

Being a San Antonio Native, I mourn for the lives that have been lost by suicide in Texas alone. The ages are near my age and are around the college student ages of freshmen to seniors. This issue must be brought into recognition, and action must be taken. 

There is no controversy when it comes to the number of suicides in America, let alone the world. However, there are two controversial statements when it comes to my stance. One being that the suicides were due to other issues related to mental health, but medication was not involved. This statement shows that having off days wouldn’t be beneficial to these students. However, it is an inappropriate statement to make, not being fully aware and understanding of their situation. The issues vary from academic, athletic, and personal burnout. While not knowing the issues, we need to remain in action for the safety of our students’ lives. Another controversial statement is that these days would be abused by students taking advantage of these days and using them elsewhere. This statement is solved with the proposed stance that counseling would be involved on the second day and on. 

If burnout is “a state of emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion caused by prolonged stress”, then what are we calling the culture that we celebrate on campus? Success? Or slow-breakdown? We talk about excellence - but can excellence exist without balance? Cura personalis calls for us to care for the person fully for who they are, not just their performance. So what are the products that Regis is producing - Resilient leaders or Exhausted achievers? If Regis values the community and the student body, then shouldn’t we value the safety and well-being of everyone? Excellence doesn’t thrive on exhaustion, but on recovery. 

Mallory Wilson, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

“Make America Great Again”, he enthusiastically shouts to a large group of people attending his patriotic rally, many of whom are wearing merchandise proudly promoting the same slogan. The well-known catchphrase originally appeared in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign. It has now engulfed American politics and will likely remain a long-lasting mantra associated with either a promise for stability, or a blatant display of exclusion. But regardless of what is associated with this infamous phrase, what exactly is the 47th president of the United States referring to when he uses the term, “again” in his trademark? When was America “great”? Surely not during the 50s and 60s when Jim Crow laws were implemented and thriving, or when Native Americans were unjustly displaced throughout the mid-1800s. Furthermore, to question the notorious catchline, who exactly was America great for? America wasn’t “great” for women in the early years, as they weren’t permitted to vote until 1920. America certainly wasn't “great” for the queer community, as the Stonewall Riots occurred as recently as 1969. And “great” can absolutely not describe the current treatment of immigrants in a country that claims to be an inclusive melting pot where all are promised a new life no matter race, religion, or origin. 

According to the American Immigration Council, since 1965, over 70 million immigrants have moved to America and as of January 2025, 53.3 million immigrants currently call the United States home. This was the largest number ever recorded. Immigration has historically benefited America economically and culturally. People arriving in the U.S. bring innovation, fill essential workforce needs, promote family unity; all of which, according to the current president, are core principles of American values. Many immigrants go on to experience the tedious process of becoming a U.S. citizen, as America has traditionally encouraged immigrants to leave their own country to create a better life in a place that promises them just that. Historically, immigrants have proven to contribute exponentially to the U.S.’s workforce and economy. In 2023 alone, immigrants generated about $1.7 trillion in economic activity and paid roughly $652 billion in local, state, and federal taxes, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Immigrants bring unique skill sets and educational backgrounds, complimenting U.S. workers as opposed to threatening their positions. With immigration comes innovation, the creation of jobs, and consumerism that drives the economy and creates employment opportunities for all Americans. 

While immigration is certainly beneficial for the U.S. economically, it is also the only way to a better life for a lot of families. A common misconception for many American citizens is that immigrants come to their country to spread crime and steal jobs. However, research shows that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crime than the U.S. born at a national, state, and county level. In fact, a research report from Harvard University proves the claim that immigrants skyrocket crime rates hasn’t been true in America for the last 140 years. So why do immigrants come to America? In 2024, there were over 100,000 cases of asylum-seeking immigrants, and that number only includes those who went through the official asylum application process, says Docketwise. Many immigrants are fleeing from persecution often based on political opinion or association with a particular social group. Asylum seeking reflects humanitarian needs in countries that need policy shifting and evolving legal systems. Contrary to popular belief, immigrants come to America enticed by possibility, not to raise crime rates. 

In January 2025, the United States swore in a new president to office, and based strictly on statistical evidence, the word “great” is not a fitting adjective to describe the current state of America. At the beginning of Donald Trump’s term, GovFacts reported 40,000 people being held in detention centers. By December of the same year, this number had risen by almost 75%. While immigration detention centers were not normalized until the mid-90s, it is on track that by the end of Trump’s second term, the centers might rival the entire federal criminal prison system. Due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, there has been a significant increase in funding for expansion of immigration control, resulting in nearly $15 billion per year to use on immigration detention (HHRG-118-JU01-20240111-SD012). A portion of money that large could go to public education, healthcare access, climate resilience, gun reform, and affordable housing, rather than the separation and imprisonment of people simply searching for security. There is no reason a country should be building walls while thousands are living under bridges. So, what does “greatness” look like in a country that is so divided? Greatness is not built through walls and detention centers. Greatness is built through resilience and expanded compassion. Greatness in a country looks like abolishing slavery, granting women equality, and recognizing civil rights. It does not look like governmental exclusion of human races due to where they come from. America is “great” when inclusion is chosen over isolation. Immigrants are not a threat to America’s greatness, rather they are evidence of it. 

Sanskar Koirala, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

In the world today, the human right to free speech is facing an increased level of threat. Across the world, governments are censoring the press, silencing dissent, and controlling information to maintain their grip on power. In various countries of the world, speaking out against injustice has led to intimidation, violence, or arrest. However, at the same time that conventional means of expression are being curtailed, there has been an emergence of a new front in the fight for human rights—digital advocacy. Social media sites that are often regarded as superficial have turned out to be very vital in the fight to expose human rights abuses, challenge censorship, and give ordinary people the power to speak the truth to empower. Digital advocacy has turned out to be an important means of defending the human right to free expression in an era of repression.

Opposition to digital advocacy has been founded on the perception that digital advocacy is superficial, easily manipulated, and does not have the power to bring about change. This perception has been informed by research that has indicated that online visibility does not always have an impact on the policies of governments, even when global visibility is at its highest. For example, while #StandWithUkraine was successful in altering international perceptions, it was not powerful enough to alter government policies on its own. Other arguments against social media activism contend that social media is rife with misinformation, “echo chambers,” and biases inherent in social media algorithms that favor “sensational” rather than “true” content. Sharma and other researchers contend that this environment promotes false information faster and further than true information, making it difficult to promote authentic human rights activism. This, they argue, shows that digital activism is not an effective bulwark against government censors and manipulators. 

However, these arguments fail to take into account an important truth: oppressive regimes fear social media activism because, despite its inability to immediately change policies, it does change perceptions, saves information, and creates safe avenues for free expression when protests cannot be held. The level of international awareness created by social media is an effective counterbalance to oppressive regimes that try to silence dissenting voices.

Studies have been consistently showing that digital advocacy holds tremendous revolutionary influence. Schiocchet, Muller, and Castilho, for instance, discuss the role of Instagram in human rights education, although the challenges that come with algorithmic restrictions. The studies show that social media provides an opportunity for breaking down tough issues and engaging with a population that would otherwise be out of reach. Özkan, on the other hand, provides an insightful discussion on the role of social media in mobilizing attention all over the world on human rights abuses through hashtags, stories, and campaigns. These are not empty actions, but a coming together of people in solidarity with victims of human rights abuses, and a celebration of their stories and information that the government would otherwise want to keep suppressed. Digital advocacy provides an opportunity and platform for marginalized voices to be heard, especially where traditional media seems to fail them. The #SayHerName movement, for instance, was led by social media and was instrumental in acknowledging Black women victims of police brutality, an issue that traditional media had consistently failed to highlight. This movement, therefore, shows that digital advocacy provides a platform for restoring the dignity of the marginalized and the oppressed, and for giving them a voice that would otherwise be suppressed by traditional power structures. When a government seeks to suppress information, digital advocacy provides a lifeline for truth-telling.

In countries where there are conflicts, digital advocacy ensures that the suppression of human rights cannot go unnoticed, as shown in the #StandWithUkraine movement that used viral stories, pictures, and videos to mobilize outrage and solidarity for Ukraine. Although it cannot be said that such actions and movements make a difference in policy, they provide a form of visibility that ensures that the actions of the government are not hidden, and that there is a record of what transpired, a way of saying that human rights abuses cannot and should not be done in secret.

Naturally, digital activism is not without risks. Falcone’s study cautions against the vulnerability of increased online presence, such as surveillance, harassment, and algorithmic throttling. Moreover, it is vital to develop digital literacy to combat misinformation and engage in ethical online behavior, as discussed by Kulesza. However, it is essential to realize the need to develop digital security measures rather than turning away from digital activism.

It is, therefore, important to realize that digital activism, despite all the risks and shortcomings, is a force to be reckoned with. In a world where speaking out can literally mean giving one’s life, where journalists are jailed, and where people are silenced, social media becomes a shield against such oppression. Digital activism is a force that gives voice to those whom governments seek to silence the most. Moreover, it is a means of recording atrocities committed against humanity and rallying global support from college campuses to international organizations.

Free speech is one of the most important human rights. Without it, all other rights are threatened. With the rising levels of oppression around the world, it is the duty of students, teachers, and global citizens to engage in critical and ethical digital activism. The tools are in our hands. The question is whether we will use it to defend those whose voices are silenced because they cannot speak freely.

Alexander Cardenas, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

In the United States, Immigrations and Customs Enforcements (ICE) detains tens of thousands of people while they wait for their immigration hearings. These facilities are described as non-punitive and defended as a necessity to ensure court appearances. Though ICE is constantly in the news headlines, detention is presented as the practical solution.

On the surface this is very reasonable; legal systems require strong structure, and appearing in court is the first step to that structure. Supporters of detention argue that without this system, people will hide and ignore court proceedings. However, research will tell you a vastly different story.

A review published in BMC Psychiatry found that “anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder were most commonly reported both during and following detention.” The same review concluded that “higher symptom scores were found in detained compared to non-detained refugees.” Basically, detention resulted in heightened negative mental health outcomes. 

Additionally, a 2024 Campbell review solidified this point, noting that “clinicians have expressed concerns over the mental health impact of detention on asylum seekers, a population already burdened with trauma”  Considering many immigrants are asylum seekers intending to flee violence, instability and various violations of human rights, detention just simply adds to the traumatic life they have lived.

Again, this pattern comes up in the Journal of Traumatic Stress, where academics report that “studies consistently report that asylum seekers held in immigration detention have relatively high rates of mental distress.” This does not come based on one bad facility or flawed research; it is a trend across research designs as well as other countries. 

Detention for short periods of time is not harmless either. Various studies have shown that mental health symptoms increase after only short periods of confinement. The trauma stems from the experience itself, not the length of detention; which only worsens these symptoms.A 2025 study in the Journal of Migrant Health documented worsening physical health conditions as well as a limited amount of health care within the facilities. This is especially heightened with individuals who have preexisting conditions. 

However, International institutions have noticed, specifically The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They state that “Detention should normally be avoided” and only used as a last resort solution. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies detention as a major risk to migrants' mental and physical health. These are not activist statements. They are formal conclusions from global health and legal authorities.

On one side of the argument, detention may be justified in some cases that involve serious crime or are a clear flight risk. Immigration systems cannot operate without accountability. However, the narrow justification does not match how today's detention is being used. Namely, many of those confined right now are asylum seekers with no violent criminal history.

Criminologists argue that detention centers for migrants more closely resemble punitive incarceration rather than administrative processing. When detention starts to clearly resemble and function like a prison, it is hard to claim it is procedural. 

But there is another option. Community-based supervision programs, structured management of individual cases, and regular reporting systems can ensure court compliance without the documented mental and physical harm. Not only do these alternatives cost less than a detention bed and have demonstrated strong appearance rates in immigration court. If the goal really is ‘compliance’, then detention is not the only tool available. 

For a community that talks about dignity, justice, and human rights, this issue is very relevant. Immigration law should be enforced. But enforcement should not default to a system that is consistently linked to trauma, disrupted healthcare routines, and worsening mental health. The debate has nothing to do with whether a law exists. It has everything to do with how those laws are enforced. When multiple fields of study point in the same negative direction, detention becomes merely a choice, not a necessary course of action. Detention should be rare. Alternatives should be the first standard. The evidence points clearly to that.  

Jaime Soto Ayala, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

The death penalty is a very controversial topic around the world. As of recently, there has been a lot of debate and controversy in Japan. The debate and controversy of the death penalty in Japan skyrocketed after Iwao Hakamanda, a Japanese man who was on death row for over 45 years, had his case reopened and he was deemed innocent after all that time. This led to most lawyers in Japan being against the death penalty. According to the Associated Press, most Japanese lawyers were against the death penalty because “Japan has one of the world’s lowest murder rates, making the need for capital punishment unconvincing” and “the risk of wrongful convictions and the lack of evidence that the death penalty reduces crime.” Japanese lawyers are essentially explaining that there is no reason for the death penalty to be allowed in Japan. Japanese lawyers explain first the logical side to the debate that since Japan has low crime (and the lack of correlation between the death penalty and crime reduction), having the death penalty be allowed would make no sense. On the other hand, the Japanese lawyers also target emotion in their argument as they bring up cases of people who were on death row for many years only to turn out to be innocent in the end.

In juxtaposition, not all Japanese lawyers opposed the death penalty. According to the Associated Press, “Some lawyers favor keeping the capital punishment as a way to address the victims’ feelings.” Essentially, in those Japanese lawyers’ eyes, it is only just to keep the capital punishment (the death penalty in this case). While this may be a good point, the cons of keeping capital punishment outweigh the pros. Considering the percentage of wrongful convictions being too high (which will be addressed later), people around the world can’t take the too high of a chance of sending an innocent person on death row just to serve “justice.” Additionally, keeping capital punishment to address the victims’ feelings and their families’ feelings does not actually solve anything. Forgiveness will resolve the victim’s and the victim’s families’ feelings more than revenge could. Additionally, if the families or the victim would want the guilty person on death row to be served justice and if they want to  get revenge, killing them wouldn’t be the best way to do that. Keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives would be a better path to revenge and justice as the guilty person would experience more pain and guilt (and would learn more) than just getting killed.

Now, why should the death penalty in Japan matter to a Regis University student? A Regis University student needs to understand that wrongful convictions are very possible and not that rare. In fact, according to PubMed Central (PMC), “Death sentences represent less than one-tenth of 1% of prison sentences in the United States (7), but they accounted for about 12% of known exonerations of innocent defendants from 1989 through early 2012 (2), a disproportion of more than 130 to 1.” The problems that surround the death penalty in Japan are also in the United States. There is too high of a probability of an innocent person being on death row. Understanding the severity of the issue or even just the presence of the issue in the United States is the first thing a Regis University student needs to do. Being informed is the first step to change. In fact, according to Sage Journals, their study showed that, “the groups provided with information on wrongful conviction rates were less likely to support the death penalty than those with no information; the higher the conviction rate, the lower was the support.” This tells us that people’s perceptions on capital punishment will get more negative the more they hear about wrongful conviction rates. Regis University students can notice this trend and use this as a way to put an end to capital punishment (the death penalty) in the United States.

Now, the problems with the death penalty, specifically the wrongful conviction rates can be applied outside of the death penalty debate. It is easy to be convinced of the wrong thing and Regis University students have to be careful with what they read and what they believe. Understanding the reality behind convictions for crimes will allow Regis University students to be more careful over other aspects that could and would impact their life.

With the growth of AI, Regis University students have to be even more careful with the information they trust as reality such as information that has to do with politics. AI could spread misinformation and even sometimes disinformation (depending on if AI is referencing incorrect information people put out on purpose) influencing people to vote a certain way. Taking into account the death penalty debate in Japan and the number of wrongful convictions for crimes (in general), Regis University students have to be careful over what they choose to believe and what information they pass on to other students in order to create a more peaceful, richer, and welcoming environment at Regis University that can also be applied outside of Regis University.

Vanessa Candito, Guest Writer from Writing for Media 

The Regis University Athletics Department has been notably more successful in the past few years. However, with this success came dramatic amounts of cut athletes from each sports team. These cuts come from the reduction of scholarship money. For teams like the men’s and women’s golf teams, this meant the immediate dismissal of players, without prior notice.  

These drastic cuts had to be done to get the financial status of The Regis University Athletics Department back on track. Within the past 3 years, women's basketball, women's volleyball, women’s softball, and women’s lacrosse have all been named RMAC tournament champions. In the 2023-2024 season, women's lacrosse was a semi-finalist in the NCAA division two tournament. Now that changes have been made, hard decisions have forced Regis athletes to reevaluate their ability to stay at and afford a Regis education, without the financial aid of athletic scholarships supporting them. The remaining coaches and athletes have witnessed the issue impact the team in practices and games.

Candi Letts, head coach of the Regis University’s softball team (reigning RMAC tournament Champions) reflects on these newfound challenges built by financial barriers. “Only in the past 15 years have I seen money being not just a big factor but the biggest factor in recruitment and where a player ends up going”. This plays a huge role in what type of players go where, and can decide the success of a school's program. 

Letts has coached at plenty of schools, all over the country and at many different levels. When comparing financial fluctuations in athletics programs, Lettis claims Regis is at an 8 on a scale of 1-10. The rating suggests that Regis University will not be able to afford any type of debt crisis. A challenge of this magnitude would cause the university to lose players, publicity, respect, and status. 

In a rebound back from the financial issues of last year, success both athletically and academically is equally important and necessary. This comeback, fueled by our community, would be impressive. It would better support the coaches, athletes, and athletic staff in many ways.

Hannah Law, Guest Writer from Writing for Media 

The Regis Ramblers (theater club at Regis University) are back in season and are putting on the amazing show, “Shrek the Musical”. With a new musical this year, it also means welcoming new and talented stage crew members. Stage crew is open for anyone to join and is volunteer based and welcomes all students, family, and alumni to help. There are plenty of options to choose from when it comes to roles in stage crew. These roles consist of set building, prop crew, costume crew, and crew that works with technology such as mics, music, and lighting to make the show amazing. This will all take place at Regis University in Denver, CO.

Anyone interested in volunteering should come to the Mountain View Room on March 1 to help build the Shrek set. This includes building and painting for those that want to get hands-on experience and crafty. The next big date for the stage crew is March 15 where they will be loading the built sets into the designated spot where the sets are usually kept, which is in the Mountain View Room at Regis. March 16 is when tech week starts and where the magic begins. Tech week is a week when both actors and stage crew come together and start the final rehearsals before the live shows start. Tech week is mandatory, so please keep this in mind before applying. Shows start on March 13 and go till March 16. After the last show, the stage crew and actors will strike down the set. This means taking apart the stage, bringing sets back to the workshop and cleaning up.

I was able to get in touch with Kristin Schad, a stage crew member for the show “Mamma Mia!”, which was done in 2024 by the Regis Ramblers, and asked about her experience with stage crew. “I was able to gain new friends when I joined last year and I decided to join again this year because my friends are there again.” When asked about things to expect when being in stage crew, Kristin emphasized that there are things that can go wrong and that those who want to join stage crew should be ready to adapt quickly. She reiterated how fun the experience was and that this experience created fond memories for her. “More positives outweigh the negatives,” she finished.

The Regis Ramblers would love to have new members join the family and are excited to meet everyone on the team. If anyone is interested or have any questions about stage crew, please contact the director of the Regis Ramblers at wkelly003@regis.edu

No application is needed and any help is wanted. Time to bring Shrek’s swamp to life with some stage crew magic!

Katherine Fragoso, Guest Writer 

Note: This article was written for Writing For Media, with Dr. Emily Stones and in collaboration with Delia Greth, Academic Success Coach at RU, and Karlett Eguiliz, Financial Aid Counselor at RU. 

Student activists at Regis University have launched a new initiative aimed at supporting immigrant students and their families.The Student & Family Immigrant Resource Center, located in Main Hall 343, officially opened Tuesday, February 4.

The Center, a project created by the student, faculty and staff-run Undocumented Student Resource Alliance + (USRA+), provides essential resources and a welcoming space for immigrant individuals, including those from mixed-status families. USRA, originally a small group that met weekly in various locations around campus or via Zoom, has officially opened up this office space. Their help to open up a resource center marks a significant milestone for the organization.

It is designed to help students navigate the challenges of their immigration status while fostering a sense of community and belonging. The center offers a variety of services and resources to support students, including academic assistance, mental health services, legal referrals, and assistance with finding and applying for scholarships.

“We want to make sure undocumented, DACA, refugee, immigrant, and ESL students have a voice here at Regis,” said Karlett Eguiluz, a USRA member. “The center is a place where these students can find support, guidance, and resources, and where faculty and staff can learn how to better serve them.”

Eguiluz emphasized that, while the center is small, its impact is powerful. The team behind the project is made up of dedicated students, faculty and staff who are committed to helping immigrants and displaced students and families during difficult times.

“Each person at the center comes from different areas of campus,” Eguiluz explained. “We bring our diverse skills and knowledge to make sure students have the help they need. And if we don’t have the answers, we will look in our networks to find resources for them.”

The center’s soft launch on February 4 featured a community gathering designed to provide comfort and support for students who faced difficulties due to their status. The event showed an empathetic campus environment and support, while being sociable and welcoming. They advised no one should have to go through these issues alone. The event was informative but also exciting. They provided snacks and desserts at no cost plus plenty of creative activities. 

As the national climate surrounding immigration policy remains tense, the Student & Family Immigrant Resource Center has become even more crucial for the Regis community. With many individuals in the community facing uncertain futures regarding their status, the Center is dedicated to providing a safe space where students and their families can find the support they need.

The Center's launch is part of a larger movement at Regis University to offer solidarity and resources for marginalized populations. As the program continues to grow, members of USRA+ are hopeful that it will make a lasting difference for students and their families.

USRA+ wants to make sure that everyone, regardless of their immigration status, knows they have a place here at Regis. 

For more information or to get involved, students and families can visit the center in Main Hall 343 or contact the USRA+ members directly. USRA+ also has an email which is regularly monitored. monarch@regis.edu

Mallory Wilson, Guest Writer from Writing for Media 

Denver, Colorado’s Regis University, long known for its deep involvement with Hispanic culture, officially earned national recognition for this identity in March 2023. Regis University is officially the second Jesuit Institute in the country to be declared an official Hispanic Serving Institute. The requirement for being an Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) includes being an eligible institute of higher education, offering at least a two-year academic program that leads to a degree, and the student body must have a Hispanic population of 25% or more. Through diverse student activities, courses centered around Latin American history, and Ignatian spirituality coming directly from Spain, Regis puts a lot of value in their Hispanic roots.

Regis University being declared a Nationally Hispanic Serving Institute, a title only 10% of universities in America qualify for, is a huge honor for the entire community. The relatively small university is located in the Northern part of Denver, attracting many minority students, especially those of Hispanic descent. Regis’ official enrollment statistics as of 2023, deemed 43% of their student population Hispanic. This almost doubles the required percentage to receive this honorable title, but what does this designation really mean for the Regis community?

I sat down with Dr. Erin Winterrowd, Academic Dean and Associate Professor in Psychology at Regis University. Winterrowd identifies the two main impacts of this award: social justice and financial stability. She emphasized the significance of the prestigious declaration of the University and used terms such as, “diverse”, and “multicultural” when describing the impact of this award. These are words that encapsulate the diversity of the Jesuit Institute, and makes it a more appealing place to not only attend, but also to work. This title is putting a necessary focus on the centeredness of any students who have been historically excluded from higher education opportunities. Identifying as a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI)“identifies the stereotypes and microaggressions and gives us permission to make addressing them a priority” (Winterrowd). The declaration of a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) is not simply a title for the University, but a mission to reduce structural and historical inequalities.

Winterrowd not only addresses how this award focuses on social justice, but also makes Regis eligible for dire funding and grants that benefit many of the offered academic programs at the University. As a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), there is a heavy focus on the Hispanic community, but also on the financially unstable students. The title evens the playing field for financially underserved students. One example of this is the biology department at Regis. The program received a grant that allowed research over the summer and ensured students didn’t have to work while completing said research. Winterrowd states, “It means we get to try and fund outside and beyond, not just inside, which serves more students in the long run” (Winterrowd). According to Winterrowd, the title of Hispanic Serving Institute better represents the student body and is beneficial for not only the Hispanic community at Regis, but for everyone who attends or works at the university.

Angel Pedroza, Guest Writer from Writing for Media 

Rising Roots is an all-new podcast, set to release later this year. It is produced and hosted by Regis University professor, Dr. Camilo Perez, and Regis University students, Magdalena Tapia and Angel Pedroza.

Rising Roots offers a platform for local non-profits, community leaders, and advocacy groups to share their stories. Through in-depth conversations, the podcast aims to amplify the voices of marginalized communities and foster awareness. Dr. Perez notes how he believes this podcast could help fight against negative stereotypes and dominant narratives in the media about migrants and minority communities. 

“Rising Roots was born off an idea to give life to a space, in which we could explore the work of different organizations that are working toward social justice,” says Rising Roots host and producer, Dr. Camilo Perez. “A lot of these organizations are doing such important work. They are really focused on the work and what they are doing with their communities. But they are not communicating what they are doing.”

The podcast offers listeners several unique features. Some episodes are recorded completely in Spanish, and are accompanied by English subtitles. Other episodes are recorded completely in English, and are accompanied by Spanish subtitles.

“As a Hispanic Serving Institution, one of the things we want to do is not only to vouch for the preservation of language and promotion of bilingual spaces, but also, to create opportunities to know more about what the Hispanic community is doing,” says Dr. Perez. 

The Rising Roots crew plan to launch their first season this semester, most likely sometime during late February or early March. Listeners can stream episodes on music platforms like Spotify. The Rising Roots crew is also trying to partner with local community organizations to share the podcast through local media outlets, boosting collaborative opportunities with benefits on both sides. 

Rising Roots is a podcast developed under the Peaks Co-Lab. According to Dr. Perez, “It is a space of collaborative work in which we engage in research and creative work to talk about social justice, and the role that communication can play in social change processes.” Rising Roots recognizes the efforts of local organizations and fights against dominant narratives, while also engaging the Regis community.

Jameson Johnson, Guest Writer from Writing for Media

Gabriel Espinoza, captain of the Regis Rugby Club team, was awarded the Scholastic All-American award for his accomplishments in academics and in rugby.

Serving three years of dedication to the Regis University rugby program, Gabe is immersed in the rugby community of Denver. He has played matches with the Littleton Scots and the Harlequins. Gabe’s coaches, Matt Huff (Regis alum), Jason Burbach, and Sean Lanoza (Regis alum), have been heavily involved in the successes of not only Garbriel but three other members of the Regis Rugby team. All three players received the Scholastic All-American Awards this year. 

Gabe claims that being awarded recognition from the prestigious Scholastic All-American Awards is about more than just the award. To him, the honor highlights the balance of athletic and academic excellence, reinforcing the importance of discipline both on and off the rugby pitch.

The Scholastic All-American Awards through the College Rugby Association of America (CRAA) have recognized the dedication of college rugby athletes since 1984. The program has since expanded to Division I, Division I-AA, Division II, and lastly, Small College (Regis meets this qualification). Any awards granted to college rugby players now come through the National Collegiate Rugby Association (NCR), which was founded in 2007.

This recognition also serves as a reminder that continuous improvement is always within reach. With the rugby sevens season beginning, the team's captain is eager to return to training, and looks to strengthen the bonds that make rugby more than just a game. Gabe emphasizes the camaraderie and commitment required to succeed, stressing that anyone looking to get involved can do so by attending practices and embracing the team’s culture of perseverance and mutual support. Gabe has also been involved in the Rocky Mountain Rugby Association, and has been responsible for planning DII and Small College tournaments at Regis University as the club’s president. To learn more about the rugby team, follow @regisrugby on Instagram.

Lucy Hackley, Guest Writer from Writing for Media

To kick off the spring athletic season, the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee is looking to hold a Gatorade Pong Tournament at the home opener for the Regis Women’s Lacrosse team at the beginning of March. Thomas Gilhooly, the Athletic Director of Regis University, urges students to attend the event, and to keep an eye out for the spring athletics schedule as the pong tournament is one of many student engagement events.

The lacrosse team made a tenacious final four last season, and brought in their sixth consecutive RMAC Championship. Despite Regis’ athletic accolades, student attendance remains low at sporting events. Empty stands continue to plague the teams, and with the winter season coming to a close and the spring season ramping up, the athletic department hopes to increase student engagement at the upcoming home games.

Gilhooly, spoke of his goal to create a “singular mission-based community” and that everyone needs to buy in for the campus to reach this goal. Gilhooly is looking at “creating a community and not just two communities”, nodding to the lack of unity between student-athletes and the student body. Gilhooly strongly believes that to get the most out of a Jesuit education we all must participate in all the communities on campus which is “the real gold of coming to a Jesuit institution”.

When asked why he believes that students have yet to buy in, he explained that there were communication issues between the athletic department and student engagement in advertising the freshman athletic pep rally during the first week of classes. “Nobody has come along and made it a deliberate action,” he says.

Gilhooly entertains forming a mandatory new athletes pep rally during move-in week, to engage the freshmen and their parents in Regis athletics early on. First impressions are invaluable in successfully getting people interested in school events. With the future collaboration between Regis University and student engagement events, the Regis Athletic Department hopes to see an increase in athletic attendance and an overall boost in school spirit!

Alex Walker, Guest Writer from Writing for Media 

Regis University is actively searching for a new Director of Student Engagement and Leadership (SEAL), with plans to fill the position by the end of February. The search follows the departure of Dave Law, who served as director for 22 years before transitioning to the office of Alumni Engagement. His legacy of leadership and engagement on campus left a significant impact. The university hired a new director last year, but they left the position after approximately one year. 

If our next director does the job well, they will be, “connecting students’ academic lives to their engagement outside of the classroom and then helping students find meaning in the things that they’re doing outside of the classroom and how that can move them beyond their time at Regis,” said Quinn Waller, Academic Program Coordinator for the Academic Internship Program and head of the search committee. She emphasized that the position is “pivotal” because it connects so many of the offices on campus to each other and to students.

A dedicated search committee, which includes various members from across the university community, leads this search. This committee consists of Quinn Waller, Dr. Erica Ingalls, Gretchen Weber, Adi Espinoza, Hailee Stamps, and Alex Walker, all of whom have strong ties to the Student Engagement and Leadership office and extensive experience at Regis.

The interview process includes revising and screening applications followed by multiple rounds of interviews involving various stakeholders to ensure a quality candidate. The first round took place in late January, with second-round interviews scheduled for the first week of February. The committee plans to make a final decision by the end of the month. It is widely acknowledged that the Director of SEAL is a critical role on campus, as it is not just about student activities and new student orientation, but most importantly about creating a vibrant campus culture and fostering student leadership.

As Regis looks for a candidate to carry forward the legacy of Dave Law, the campus community is hopeful the new director will bring fresh energy and continue to build on the foundation he established in student engagement and leadership.

Eamon Lujan, Guest Writer from Writing for Media

Rehearsals have begun for the Regis Ramblers’ production of Shrek the Musical, with performances slated to start on March 20. Ramblers are hard at work rehearsing choreography, singing, and blocking every Thursday from 7:30 to 10 p.m. and every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The choir room and recital hall will be in use during these times until March 15th, when the production begins setting up the stage in the Mountain View Room. Time is of the essence for a show that begins performances in seven weeks, with little time to dedicate to reviewing material. Rehearsals introduce new material that students are expected to review and practice outside of rehearsal time, which has ended up cultivating quite the group of dedicated thespians.

The Ramblers, the creation of computer science professor Dr. Dennis Steele and his daughter Shannan Steele, will celebrate its 30-year anniversary in fall of this year. Dr. Steele worked at Regis and his daughter is a Regis alum who still works as an actress in the Denver area. The program is now run by Tanner Kelly and Dallas Slankard, with Daniel Zil and Chi Nnanna serving as student co-presidents.

This is Tanner’s seventh year as the head of the Ramblers, responsible for music and direction. His favorite thing about the Ramblers is “that it is a program that has kids from many different majors, including the Global Inclusive Program.” He’s excited to do a show that features such a large cast, saying “There’s a lot of roles and opportunities for students to shine and have their moment in the show.” Dallas serves as the Ramblers’ choreographer and has been with the program for two years. “It’s low pressure and everyone’s here to have fun!”, she said while preparing for a Thursday night rehearsal. When asked what she’s most excited about in

Shrek, she said “Honestly, Joey, to see his Farquaad, because dancing on his knees will be hilarious.”

If you are interested in joining the Ramblers, they are still looking for actors to fill in some gaps in the cast. The Ramblers encourage people to show up for a rehearsal so they can meet everyone and make an informed decision.

For more information, email Tanner at wkelly003@regis.edu

Emily Garcia-Munoz, Guest Writer from Writing for Media 

Regis University kicked off an art exhibit at the Dayton Memorial Library from Dec. 4, 2024, to Jan. 24, 2025, centered on the theme of Decolonizing African Art. The exhibit had a diverse collection of African artifacts, each offering a unique story about culture, history, and artistry. The goal was to provide an experience that helped visitors connect with Africa’s vibrant traditions and past.

Frank Miller, a senior at Regis University and an advisor involved in curating the exhibit, explained, “The ultimate goal was to have people learn about each object individually and understand the practice it was related to. We wanted visitors to contextualize these pieces to see their true meaning.” Miller also participated in the Decolonizing African Art class by Dr. Montes that inspired the exhibit. Miller explained how the project aimed to challenge misconceptions about African art shaped by colonial views. 

Decolonizing African art involves reclaiming and reinterpreting artifacts that have often been stripped of their cultural significance. “African motifs were used but stripped from their original contexts,” Miller said, noting how colonialism changed the true meaning of these objects. The goal of decolonization is not only to remove colonial influences but the ability of African art and cultural artifacts to convey their original meanings, histories, and purposes on their own terms. Students played an essential role in curating the exhibit, researching and rewriting descriptions for each artifact to correct outdated or offensive interpretations. “Many descriptions were simply wrong,” Miller said. The students worked hard to create accurate, concise cards that restored the objects true value and meaning.

The exhibit also received significant support from generous donors, with three to four individuals contributing pieces to the Regis collection. Without their donations, this exhibit would not have been possible. The opening featured a Q&A session with donors like Paul Hamilton, sparking rich discussions about the global importance of African art and its ability to connect cultures worldwide.

Curating the exhibit presented several challenges, especially in representing the diversity of African cultures. “There was a lot of diversity in the collection, with each piece coming from a different cultural background,” Miller explained. “The challenge was ensuring each object stood out on its own while blending with the others.” Students carefully arranged the artifacts to respect their cultural significance while making sure the exhibit was aesthetically appealing.

The Decolonizing African Art exhibit at Regis University was a powerful start that highlighted the importance of reinterpreting and appreciating African art. Through student involvement and generous donor support, the exhibit successfully engaged visitors with Africa’s rich artistic heritage. It also sparked important conversations about decolonization, cultural identity, and the role of art in shaping our understanding of history.

• Genre/Topic/Writing Interests: Philanthropic Perspective, Internally Driven, Dark

• Author’s Statement: “I intentionally try to write about dark topics. It is an outlet for me, and I want to invite readers into a conversation about the things that we don’t always talk about”.  

• Coming Soon: The Wizard, a dark, dystopian story.

• Get in Contact: Connect with Ryan on Instagram, Facebook, or LinkedIn

• Genre/Topic/Writing Interests: Fantasy, Science Fiction, Speculative Fiction, Creative Nonfiction

• Author’s Statement: “At first, my writing began as an attempt to become like my favorite writers and tell cool stories. Then, writing became a method of therapy for me; using art and creating thematic literature analogous to my personal experiences. Now, the point in my writing is a combination of the two, glued together with abstractions of socio-economic and political commentary."

• Coming Soon: Currently working on a dark fantasy series and seeking publishers for his creative nonfiction short story anthology.

• Get in Contact: Connect with Jeff on BlueSky at @jefferycurry.bsky.social.

• Genre/Topic/Writing Interests: Motherhood, Feminism

• Author’s Statement: “I have to write to get the matter between my ears on paper. If I don’t, it will ramble around endlessly. I am compelled by communicating and reaching readers and connecting to people.”  

• Coming Soon: Breakthrough Bleeding, a hybrid memoir about PMDD, Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder 

• Get in Contact: Connect with Lauren on LinkedIn

• Genre/Topic/Writing Interests: Fiction, Creative Nonfiction  

• Author’s Statement: “My purpose in writing is to craft work that explores life’s complexities and relationships, offering readers hope and reflection.” 

• Coming Soon: Room 2: A Novella in Stories, and The Cost of Living: A Novel

• Read Now: Toubab in the Middle, available for purchase on Amazon

• Get in Contact: Connect with Johnny on Instagram, Facebook, or Medium

• Genre/Topic/Writing Interests: Drama, Sports, Screenplay 

• Author’s Statement: "I believe in the power of storytelling to connect with others, highlight experiences and promote understanding across various backgrounds". 

• Coming Soon: A short story, Chasing Summer, that has been presented at a public reading and was released in the 2024 Spring catalogue of the North American Review.

• Get in Contact: Connect with Cyrus on X or LinkedIn.

• Genre/Topic/Writing Interests: Outdoor, Adventure, Nature, Law, Personal Narrative, Personal Growth, Non-Fiction

• Author’s Statement: “As I wound down my legal career after 40 plus years, I decided it was time to pursue writing… entailing outdoor activities like fishing and reflections of my legal career…cherishing values of integrity, resilience, and the dignity of human experience. I hope each story contains some emotional truth or implied lesson that may be useful in considering obstacles and challenges in life.”

• Coming Soon: Searching for a Spark Bird, a creative nonfiction novel, Muskie Drift with a Friend, a personal narrative, and Unfinished Business, Howard’s memoir.

• Get in Contact: Connect with Howard on LinkedIn, or through his page on Schwabe.