EDITORIAL: A NOT-QUITE LIVING WAGE

to those identical to BU, but as a school that prides itself on its research ability — why shouldn’t our offerings be just as competitive? Provost Donald Hall warned that next year’s stipend increases would come at a $1.54 million annual cost to the University.

Last year, BU announced its largest-ever donor campaign, EXCELERATE, with a $220 million dollar goal. As of this past December, only 25 percent of that goal is remaining. If we want to continue to draw students to conduct research and graduate-level work at our school — integral for our status within the SUNY system — a small portion of that funding should be promised toward graduate stipends.

Though not mentioned in the University’s press release, the recent stipend increases come after tireless advocacy by the school’s Graduate Student Employee Union’s (GSEU). The GSEU’s goal, an over $30,000 stipend for all graduatelevel employees, is certainly ambitious — and likely a far way off from possible in the near future. But these calls for change are not new, nor are they native to Binghamton. All around the country, from Cornell University to state schools in California, graduate employees are calling for living wages. While public universities have limited financial mobility themselves, an eventual path toward living wages can only be accomplished through assistance from those in government.

Hochul’s proposal to use tuition hikes to fund SUNY deficits drew criticism — and it should. This massive burden should not be placed on students. The governor is now an entire three weeks late in announcing her state budget, but we hope she heeds the demands of those around her. Last month, the New York State Senate and State Assembly passed one-house budget resolutions that rejected SUNY tuition increases and called for increased operating funds for SUNY. We implore upon Gov. Hochul to find explore new ways to fund our schools without limiting what makes them appealing in the first place. Hochul’s $1.5 billion dollar promise in new funding is promising, but it should be well-thought-out too.

For our graduate workers — which, though the University does not acknowledge in stipend increases, include more than just doctoral students — the path forward is certainly a difficult one, filled with bureaucratic hurdles. Nondoctoral graduate employees are still paying for broad-based fees, and their stipends remain low despite working comparable hours to their peers. assume a person is simply wrong for them rather than choose to persevere through issues that could be healthy for a relationship to endure.

Still, the Editorial Board is glad to see that conversations regarding stipend increases are entering the public sphere in full-force. Like those calling for a living wage, we simply want what is best for our school, and we hope officials in both the University and state government will pledge the same.

Additionally, there are fundamental flaws in the inherent premise of soulmates. Lots of those who marry their proclaimed soulmates get divorced years later. How does the idea account for widows and widowers? It assumes that another person completes an individual rather than encouraging individuals to complete themselves. It also justifies staying in toxic and, at times, abusive relationships because the criterion of being a soulmate surpasses all others that could possibly matter. Ultimately, the idea of soulmates allows for the compromise of personal standards, even though it is an archaic idea that has no reasonable basis.

While love and compatibility can be real and genuine, it is much more practical to assume that some people are just better suited for each other than others. And this theory, one of practicality, is contingent upon the single most human liberty an individual can possess — free will. Through the belief that a partner is not destined but rather found and worked for, people can see love from the vantage point that they have the power to choose. The theory acknowledges that love is not easy and shouldn’t be, and people should be satisfied because of their active choice to be with another person.

In Women’s Health, Sabrina Romanoff, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, explains that the traditional soulmate belief “paves the way for significant disappointment.” Instead, Romanoff suggests soulmates be “created,” not found. Those searching for soulmates should spend time learning about their prospective partner and work through difficult times, Romanoff says. This investment of time and energy that cultivates a relationship is a healthy facet of love and all of its complications. It inspires one to exercise agency and maintain high expectations for themselves, fostering a progressive and empowered outlook on love.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a sucker for a good Nicholas Sparks movie night. But as much as the heart-tugging plots make me wish for my own Ryan Gosling to build me a white house with blue shutters, I just don’t think it’s that simple. But the gray, the messy and the complicated — that’s how love exists beyond the big screen. I can admit that if it were easy, it probably wouldn’t be worth much at all. I guess that’s the point — to look for a soulmate and find someone pretty damn close.

Julia O’Reilly is a sophomore majoring in biology.

Texas judge’s attempt to ban abortion pills is dangerous Safe and effective abortion methods like mifepristone must be accessible

judge issued this new ruling, abortion is banned in nearly all cases, including in circumstances of rape or incest. Adding to America’s dismal health care system, there is a lack of availability to receive a safe abortion in so many states. With the new ruling, there is now the possibility that even in states where abortion is illegal, the most common method of receiving one may be banned. Abortion pills are known to be safe — according to over 30 years worth of studies analyzed by the New York Times, more than 99 percent of abortions completed using pills resulted in no severe side effects or hospitalizations. Dr. Caleb Alexander of

Johns Hopkins University noted that, “There may be a political fight here, but there’s not a lot of scientific ambiguity about the safety and effectiveness of this product.”

The decision to receive an abortion via a widely safe pill should not be the decision of one judge but rather the choice of women who actually receive abortions. Banning the abortion pill won’t decrease the number of women who have abortions, but it will decrease the opportunity for women to use a safe and effective pill. In addition, using a single-drug method to induce an abortion is somewhat less effective and safe than the currently used method, and banning mifepristone will not allow women to receive abortions via mifepristone even in states where abortion is legal.

In response to the Texas federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling, a federal judge from Washington State issued an opposing ruling — joined by 17 other states — stating that Kacsmaryk’s ruling is incorrect and is hindering the FDA from “altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone.” Kacsmaryk’s ruling was initially supposed to take effect seven days after it was issued, but the Supreme Court, which is next to hear this case, has held off of banning it until Friday, April 21 right before midnight.

While it is now under the purview of the Supreme Court to see whether or not mifepristone’s FDA approval will be removed and whether or not it will be banned, reducing access not only to abortions but to the safest, most effective way of receiving one is detrimental to women’s rights and health care. Removing the ability to receive the abortion pill via mail and in pharmacies jeopardizes women’s ability to make safe decisions for themselves in the United States.

Samantha Rigante is a freshman majoring in philosophy, politics and law.