Kegan Zema — former Maine Campus editor of Style & Culture, whose post I took over in 2011 — falls in the latter category. Last I heard, he told me he was living in Brooklyn, N.Y., “basically running this ice cream store, this vegan ice cream store.”

He always had a keen interest in anything music, performing and recording under various names over the past few years — more than I’ve been able to keep track of.

A couple of weeks ago, Zema posted a link to a music video for a song he recorded as Dessert Lips, called “Looking Good, Feeling Good.” The new release is a complete, surprising departure from the last thing I had heard from Zema, which were a couple of bass-heavy post-punk songs he released under the name Journalism.

In the first few seconds of the video for “Looking Good, Feeling Good,” a thumping bass drum and low-end synth score a dark scene of flashing lights, alternately revealing and obscuring different angles of Zema’s black sunglasses-covered face.

Since he’s always had a great sense of humor, hearing Zema sing about “designer clothes” and “designer girls” made me wonder how thick a layer of irony he laid on the song. But if the track was meant to be laughed off as an elaborate joke, he put way too much effort into it. He ended up with a pretty good tune — it’s catchy, and the lyrics are fun and easy for singing along — but there’s enough variety and substance for “Looking Good, Feeling Good” to be more than a party-rocking anthem, though it could serve that purpose as well.

A few days ago, Zema sent me an email asking for feedback on his debut mixtape as Dessert Lips — which shares the name of the aforementioned song. The release features an extended version of “Looking Good, Feeling Good,” as well as three other tracks.

The rest of the mixtape is an interesting venture into electronic pop with each track branching out in a different direction.

It’s hard to ignore the parallels between opening track “Me, U and the Dance Floor” and the recent work of the Gorillaz: A simple-but-enchanting synth line is the thread that holds the song together, while Zema’s easy-to-grasp lyrics and Damon Albarn-like delivery make it easy to envision the song being played by a group of animated, ape-like musicians.

“Can I Join Your Synthesizer Band” comes off as kitchy, propelled forward by drums that may have been taken from one of those older household organs and lyrics that are like those of Zooey Deschanel’s oddball band in “Yes Man.” That said, the guitar solo and sense of urgency that close out the song give the tune a sense of direction.

Closing out the mixtape is “The Young and the Useless,” an Alphaville-like ballad that could have scored the school dance scene in “Napoleon Dynamite” if the band the school hired was Hellogoodbye circa 2006. Pedro and Deb would have had to awkwardly transition from slow to fast dancing when the song picks up toward the middle and concludes in an energetic lament about “looking for a love that can keep me alive.”

The initial cheesiness of the mixtape makes it easy to write this release off as another series of 1’s and 0’s clogging up the tubes of the Interwebs; but dig past the throwback gloss, and there is substance.

The only other feedback I have for Zema is this: Keep on keepin’ on, but let’s go with fewer credit card butt-swipes in the next music video.

The event raised $8,800 for One Fund, the official charity for victims of the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday, April 15. In the wake of an unbelievable tragedy in the birthplace of the American Revolution, nothing could be more appropriate to bring people together.

Within 24 hours of the bombings, Belfast-based Marshall Wharf Brewing pledged to make its full inventory of canned beers available for an event in Boston, via BeerAdvocate.com. “Let’s help heal Boston with beer!” was the rallying cry.

With help from Jack’s Abby Brewing in Framingham, Mass., breweries in Bar Harbor, Cambridge, California and Portland quickly pulled together to make the event happen. By Wednesday, April 17, nearly 30 breweries had sent beer or raffle prizes for the fundraiser. Many brewers donated aged brews from their personal collections to be raffled at The Tavern Framingham, where the event was held.

It goes without saying that Boston is a beer town, and Boston’s beer drinkers, regardless of their brand loyalty, are a community. The proof is in Boston’s history. From the pilgrims who had to stop in Plymouth because they ran out of beer on their voyage to the new world to the puritans who fostered the first “publick houses,” Massachusetts has been brewing since its first days as a colony of England.

But long before beer was produced on the scale we enjoy today, beer was brewed and served in the public houses that doubled as community centers. Unsurprisingly, the relationships, discussions and community that public houses made possible were among the ingredients that led to the colonial uprising against the British.

In anything but a smooth transition, the influx of Irish immigrants around the time of the Civil War deepened and broadened Boston’s love of beer. One need only walk down a street in Beantown to understand how deep Ireland’s influence goes and see how many historic pubs there are. In the 1920s, prohibition slowed beer production and forced many breweries to close, but it didn’t take long for beer to make a comeback.

The Puritans, revolutionaries, immigrants and bootleggers all speak to Boston’s history of resilience and independence, as well as its trademark combativeness — historically speaking, if you mess with Boston you’re going to have a bad time.

Many breweries are built on this heritage. One in particular is Samuel Adams, which was avanguard of the craft brewing movement. Their success helped make the growth of microbreweries across the nation possible. The founder, Jim Koch, kept pitching craft beer until he became one of its central figures who helped return Boston to prominence in the brewing world. Samuel Adams already brews a beer called 26.2, which is only offered during the Boston Marathon.

But like other breweries, Sam Adams is likely to brew a tribute beer in the wake of the attack. Harpoon Brewing Company has extended the hours of their tasting room in a series of “Brewed for Boston Nights,” where all beer and food sales will be donated to the One Fund as well. Brewers across New England were quick to show solidarity and support via social media.

The fact is Boston is a “brewing community” just as much as it is a political community. Brewers are noted for helping each other during hop shortages and breakdowns and regularly assist each other in problem solving. Brewers see each other regularly at beer festivals and events. Beyond the brewers, beer drinkers are also a community, and Boston is one of the symbolic homes for craft beer. For brewers, it was a simple matter of extending their concern to the people of the city after the shock of a terrorist attack.

In a moment of crisis, it isn’t always the case that grabbing a six-pack of beer is the sign of a self-destructive coping mechanism — sometimes the act of grabbing a pint with a friend, talking things through over a few beers or buying a beer for someone as a gesture of good faith is as close as anyone can get to feeling “normal” again. And in triumph or in defeat we often raise a glass. So buy a beer for Boston; or, if you don’t drink, raise a glass anyway.

According to the website, the coalition’s missions statement is “[t]o create and encourage a social, political and economic environment in which domestic violence no longer exists, and to ensure that all people affected by domestic abuse and violence are supported and that batterers are held accountable.”

Katrina Horgan, a campus correspondent, reported the event was something Her Campus thought of last year, but they were finally able to pull it off this year.

Her Campus, the popular online magazine among female college students, selects a “campus cutie” every week. Each cutie is profiled and recognized on the Her Campus website.

Candidates competing for the ultimate title of Ultimate Campus Cutie event were past cuties.

“[It was] an interesting way to get kids involved,” Horgan said.

The cuties had to compete in several events including a talent portion, a first date explanation, a beer pong final-cup shot and finally each cutie had to recap selected parts of their original interview with Her Campus.

Some cuties had fairly impressive talents, including hand stands, guitar solos, crash symbols and strip teases. They also smooth-talked their way through a first date experience.

Contestants included Derek Pratt, Mark Anthoine, Tyson Thongsavath, Jon Swavely, Johnny Jagger and Garrett Bernardo. The girls of Her Campus walked around throughout the show to raise money for each individual. A contestant’s place in the competition was dependent on audience donations as well as the judges decisions.

The event raised approximately $200 for MCEDV. The money was raised through the cover fee and donations from audience members to each contestant.

Jon Swavely took home the Ultimate Campus Cutie title complete with a white sash. Swavely, a third-year finance student, reported that Her Campus and MAAV did a great job putting on the event.

“I’m glad I was able to participate and help donate to a great cause,” Swavely said. “I’m thankful for everyone who came out and donated.

“This is something that should be done in the future,” Swavely added.

Taylor Emhart, the event’s master of ceremonies, is set to take over the campus correspondent position from the graduating correspondents Horgan and Olivia Fournier.

Emhart reported she was excited to put on an event from beginning to end.

“This is my first event,” Emhart said. “It was dramatic [but] smooth overall.

“It was a great way to interact with students,” Emhart added.

Emhart hinted that the Ultimate Campus Cutie even might happen again next year.

As soon as Jobs’ time in this world came to an end, studios began rushing to start work on a film based on his life. In the tech world, he who does it first usually fares best, and the same is true about movies.

Directors Aaron Sorkin and Joshua Michael Stern are currently working on films about Jobs, competing to see who can finish first. Unfortunately for them, they’ve already been beaten.

While the public was fixated on the race between Sorkin and Stern to the silver screen, the creative and subversive minds at popular Internet comedy website Funny or Die went ahead and made a movie of their own, titled “iSteve,” which they managed to write in three days and film in five.

The site is revered for their short sketches, featuring celebrities, that usually run about 3- to 5-minutes long, so the concern about the quality of their first feature length movie is fair. Can they handle a full-length movie? Will their audience, so used to quick bursts of hilarity, be patient enough to sit through a 78-minute, 9-second video? Is the movie any good?

“iSteve” feels more like a long Funny or Die video than it does an actual feature film, which is perfectly understandable: It’s not like they were trying to squeeze out a rush job and make people spend money on it in theaters. It can be watched on funnyordie.com while your email inbox and Facebook home page are open in another browser tab, although the film is engaging enough to draw focus on just one tab.

Funny or Die recruited Justin Long to portray Jobs, which might seem like a strange choice … until you remember that he was the face of Apple, for a while — remember the classic “I’m a Mac” commercials?

The movie starts with Jobs in a darkened room, mumbling to himself as he flips through note cards he’s prepared for a keynote speech he has to give the next day. After a janitor reminds Jobs that it’s getting late and maybe he should head home, Jobs notices we, the viewers, and launches into his life story.

One of the early scenes shows Jobs working on some project in his garage when future Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak — hilariously played by Jorge Garcia, best known as Hurley from “Lost” — walks by and stares at Jobs several times before working up the courage to ask, “Hey, feel free to say no, but do you think … that … you might wanna … feel free to say no … hang out sometime, drink some soda, maybe? Feel free to say no.”

Garcia’s recessive depiction of “Woz” throughout the movie is a hilarious jab at the alleged over-glorification of Job’s importance to Apple and the repression of Woz’s historical value in the company. There are many other funny instances when Woz quietly tries to insert himself into a scene that you might not catch without an attentive eye.

Some critics have said that the film drags at times, but there are plenty of different elements that keep “iSteve” at a good pace. Jobs’s drug-using tendencies, the strained relationship between Jobs and Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the strange assertion that Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan is responsible for many of Apple’s innovations all keep the film going and provide many laughs along the way, even if the laughs aren’t as big as those resulting from a big-budget comedy.

“iSteve” may have started as an attempt for publicity and a small “eff you” to Hollywood, but the end result is actually kind of funny and worth at least one viewing, if not more. Either way, suck on this, Sorkin and Stern: Funny or Die got the “Job” done first.

The album title from their debut record stems from yet another martial arts film titled “The 36th Chamber of the Shaolin.” The album was eventually certified platinum and it has grown to become one of the best albums in hip-hop of all time. The album spawned four singles including the hits “Method Man” and “Cash Rules Everything Around Me.” The former of the two showcases member Method Man’s talents. The opening sets the pace for the song: “Hey, you, get off my cloud / You don’t know me and you don’t know my style / Who be getting flam when they come to a jam? / Here I am here I am, the Method Man.” Following the release of their debut, the group would temporarily part ways to release an army of solo albums over the next few years.

While they are considered solo albums, each one featured heavy influence from the other members of the group. The first release was that of Method Man with RZA handling the majority of the production duties. During this time, ODB, Raekwon, GZA, and Ghostface Killah would release solo records as well before reuniting in 1997 for the follow up to “Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)” titled “Wu-Tang Forever.”

“Wu-Tang Forever” has been certified platinum four times. It was released as a double album and was actually nominated at the 1998 Grammy Awards for Best Rap Album. It featured three singles and, like in previous albums, RZA produced the majority of the album. After the release of the album, it was time for, yet again, another wave of solo albums. In addition to releasing a solo album, RZA also created the score for the movie “Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.”

The Wu-Tang Clan would continue this formula of group albums separated by solo projects. Unfortunately, in November of 2004, ODB passed away from a drug overdose. The group did move on without ODB. RZA has branched out into movies as well, his directorial debut, “The Man with the Iron Firsts,” was released last year. As of today, the group has released a total of five albums under the name Wu-Tang Clan plus numerous “solo” efforts that feature heavy collaboration from other members. In January of this year, it was announced that the group was at work on another album that is to be titled “A Better Tomorrow” and will be released in conjunction with the twentieth anniversary of “Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers).” The group recently performed at the 2013 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival.

The first time CISPA was passed by the House, the Senate threw it out on the basis that it did not protect enough privacy. The president has vowed to veto the bill if it comes through the Oval Office, without the privacy of the public in mind.

Federal agencies have had problems with hackers in recent years — hackers who work on the side of governments and in particular governments like China. The U.S. government has grown increasingly wary of the Chinese, due to the amount of hacking that has been associated with it.

CISPA has been backed by many in the world of Big Business. Tech firms, such as TechNet lobbying group and CTIA Wireless Assoc., all stand by the bill. In these industry groups are companies like Google, Apple and Yahoo that take steps to warn that the hackers who attack U.S. interests are working for money and are supported by Chinese Intelligence.

This seems comforting: Three of America’s top companies want to hand over personal information of their customers to government agencies. Why is this OK, and how has this bill had so much support in the House? We have to show our appreciation to the mighty Republican majority in the House — they have our best interests in mind. If they are so concerned about cyber threats from other countries then why make it easier to acquire our Web data?

The president said he will veto the bill if it violates the rights of its citizens; but what it lacks in securing privacy in one place it will make up for in another. The only way we can make sure that this bill doesn’t make it through the Senate is by letting them hear our voices. The negative repercussions that could come from a bill such as this would leave us vulnerable as a free people. We would need to watch what we say on Facebook, emails could be monitored and the FBI may know how many eggs your chickens are laying on Farmville.

The supporting of this bill by big business validates the fact that they care not for you the customer but for themselves and the holy U.S. dollar. We can’t do anything on the Internet anymore without having to go through one of the companies in the lobbying groups mentioned above. I think we need to wake up and not let these businesses control our government anymore.

How do we let companies like Google know we think their priorities are whack when they control so much on the Internet? Write your senator! Tell them and the president that CISPA is a crazy idea — we need to be heard, not pushed to the side.

Antonio Addessi is a third-year psychology student with a minor in Marxism and socialism.

A terrorist is a person aimed at making political gains through destructive actions. This does not mean, however, that there are unified politics at work behind all collective acts of terrorism. Those who committed the atrocities of 9/11 had a specific agenda. So did Timothy McVeigh when he went forward with the Oklahoma City bombings. Many lives were lost in both cases. Both acts were an attempt to make a point — a large one on a huge scale.

Notably, though, McVeigh was a Caucasian American who had once served in the United States military, whereas al-Qaida — the international terrorist organization responsible for the attacks on 9/11 — is a militant Islamic group founded by Osama Bin Laden. Obviously, “acts of terror” can arise out of totally distinct ideologies.

What does this tell us about terrorists, exactly? It tells us, perhaps, the most important thing of all. There is not an “average” terrorist. Unfortunately, when a large scale act of destruction occurs, many Americans scream toward Islam as the ultimate cause. But why? The deadliest act of terrorism aside from 9/11 is the Oklahoma City bombing. The Sandy Hook school shooting could very well be labeled as domestic terrorism — and it was perpetrated by an American-born Caucasian. I find it disheartening and extremely un-American that some misguidedly view the entire Islamic population as terrorists — we still have those people who hesitate to board a plane alongside a man reading the Quran or a woman in a hijab.

Belonging to a particular religion or culture does not make one a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who is politically radicalized to the point at which violence seems the only logical answer. Terrorists can be men or women. They can be tall or short. Perhaps they have blue eyes or brown. They may be extremely politically liberal or violently conservative. They may also be Catholic or Muslim or Atheist. They may be of Arab descent, or they might have been born in the U.S. to white parents. They could also be anywhere in between.

There is nothing we can say for certain about terrorists in general, other than that they are violent extremists. We cannot condemn an entire group of people for the actions of few of its members, and it is important to remember that more people are good than evil — we ought to air on the side of that assumption.

Jeri Cosgrove is a third-year English student with a concentration in creative writing.

Only two percent of these attacks have caused more than 10 casualties, but it’s the psychological effects that make them so difficult for recovery.

We mourn for days, for weeks and in some cases for years because we simply can’t imagine innocent people getting hurt. We can’t imagine it happening in our backyards, and we can’t fathom the idea of it happening to ourselves or to our loved ones.

The Boston Marathon bombings last Monday and the ensuing citywide manhunt spectacle on Friday expose our obvious fear of the world’s current political landscape. Folks from California to Florida were fearful for their lives, 3,000 miles away. Why? Because we never know when or where it will happen, we just know that it will.

Marathons and Fourth of July parades will soon lose their openness and innocence because we are afraid. We are afraid of what could happen. We are afraid of what will happen. Nonetheless, America will keep running — not on Dunkin’ but on our ambition for a safe, peaceful world, free of unexpected, unwarranted atrocities. Messing with runners was a bad mistake.

I’ve always compared distance running with surfing. Some may not even consider us athletes — we may seem laid back and easygoing — but the truth is, we work hard each and every day for little return, recognition or fame. Very few can make a living running or surfing, but we work, day in and day out, for the chance to catch that one wave, that one chance to show everyone what we’ve been working for.

The chosen few rise to the occasion and succeed, but the odds are against the many. An injury, a lack of sleep, poor diet or a bit of nervousness can make or break a race; but for those running in the Boston Marathon last Monday, it was out of their control.

For the 26,000 participants — 26,000 stories of qualifying, competing and beating “heartbreak hill” — they are tainted forever.

For Saco native Rob Gomez, who accomplished the second best Maine male performance ever, he’ll always remember this day, not his 32nd-place finish.

And for the father who finished to find his son running out for a hug, he’ll never forget that was the last one they would ever share. Too often we are forgetful of why we run, especially those of us who train with the main assumption that winning is everything. If you think about it, it’s an absurd pastime to be exhausting yourself relentlessly for no reason; but these acts of cruelty remind us the real purpose of running isn’t to win a race, maybe there’s more to it than just that.

Running has always been a test of the human heart and forever it will be.

The first responders, police forces, EMTs and citizens of affected areas — they will run next year. Those who ran and witnessed the chaotic events — they will run again. There will be much pride in wearing that yellow jacket because if there’s one place where violence doesn’t belong, it’s a marathon. There has always been more honor in outrunning a man than killing him.

In the words of Samwise Gamgee:

“Sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How [can] the world go back to the way it was when so much bad [has] happened? But in the end it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer…There’s some good in this world. And it’s worth fighting for.”

Don’t be afraid. We will heal, we will seek retribution and we will keep on running.

Logan Nee is a third-year economics and political science student.

Because, apparently, conservatives are so stupid that they can’t realize the difference between legitimate threats to the Constitution and fearmongering by special interests. And no one but conservatives would misrepresent the truth in order to manipulate the emotions of voters, right Mr. President? Wrong. The reaction by Obama and his gun-control cronies was utterly filled with outright lies, hypocrisies and straw-man arguments. Let’s examine them:

Hypocrisy No. 1

The Senate somehow distorted the rules in the vote. Cloture is a process that is used all the time. Since 1975, all cloture votes require a three-fifths majority, or 60 votes, in order to pass. The vote was 54-46. It failed by six votes: end of story. No distortion, no manipulation. If the president is so concerned with violation of Senate voting rules, perhaps he should direct his attention towards the number of procedural laws broken by voting on a bill that hasn’t been written.

Hypocrisy No. 2

Ninety percent of Americans supported the legislation. The results of a public opinion poll should not be extrapolated and assumed to be indicative of the entire American voting public. This is so wholly fallacious it barely merits mentioning. Besides, as I recall, President Obama, at the time of passage of your health care bill, a majority of the American people — 75 percent — opposed it. I don’t remember you or your supporters stopping and voting with the American people. This is not a democracy; mob rule does not decide public policy.

Hypocrisy No. 3

After the vote, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned that opponents of gun control are “not powerful enough to withstand the money” he’s going to “throw” at their districts. Wait a minute, aren’t liberals opposed to Citizens United specifically because they don’t like the idea that wealthy private individuals could influence politics? The National Rifle Association — which has millions of dues-paying members — is nothing more than an evil cabal; but Bloomberg cares about people, so it’s okay for him to openly try and manipulate local politics. Oh, sorry. I forgot lobbying — otherwise known as speaking out for your interests — is only evil when right wingers do it.

Hypocrisy No. 4

The idea that “nothing but politics” influenced this vote, that no one who is opposed to gun control legislation has a rational, meaningful argument, is utterly offensive. How dare you try to put parameters around how I think? You who are always lecturing about how important diversity and acceptance is. This is not a monarchy, and dissidence is not treason. Differing opinions, by merit of being different from the majority party’s, ought not be demonized. The presidency is not a bully pulpit.

Besides, several other amendments — including one that would have expanded the criminal background check system, which was supported by the NRA and sponsored by Ted Cruz no less — failed to pass. Why is there no outrage over this or the other amendments that didn’t pass and had bipartisan support? Could it be because they don’t fit into the narrative where Republicans only care about special interests and not dead children? Or maybe it’s because that might expose the Obama administration’s failure to prosecute people who have broken the current gun laws?

This notion that some sweeping piece of legislation will be worth it if it saves “even one life” is inherently un-American. Emotionalism is not meant to be the basis of policy, hence the existence of the legislative process. Security is not guaranteed by the federal government. As Thomas Jefferson so wisely said, “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither.”

Katherine Revello is a second-year journalism and political science student.

A fact-finding group of presumably objective outsiders determined the availability of ample funds for such modest pay increases. As the president of the Orono AFUM chapter put it recently, “It is not a question of having the money; it is the decision of where to spend it, and the choice is made not to invest in the faculty.”

The choice for years now has been to continue to reduce the number of full-time faculty on all seven campuses, to replace some of them with far cheaper part-time adjunct faculty, to refuse to hire even adjuncts in place of other retired and deceased faculty, and to save huge sums by denying pay increases for nearly all active faculty.

Millions of dollars have been spent on outside consultants, and this trend is only accelerating. A few faculty members might get some higher pay if they were offered positions at other institutions, but there are no guarantees that even an offer from Harvard would be generate a dime more. It usually depends on one’s field and on its perceived importance, or lack thereof, to UMS and, these days, to Maine’s economy and job creation for others. An offer from Harvard to a UMaine historian, for instance, might produce only good wishes and nothing else. Indeed, if one more historian left a department that has shrunk from 24 when I arrived in 1986 to 15 or 16 now (counting a couple of joint appointments), that would be viewed in some quarters as a cause of celebration.

To be sure, UMS’ own lawyers and other “experts” contend that AFUM has its basic facts and figures wrong and that the outside fact finders cannot be trusted either. Yet many of us — and not just faculty but also staff — recall the one-time small refunds we received several years ago, when another group of fact finders discovered that there really was no need for ever more deductions from our salaries for planned health care increases; that UMS had, in effect, been making a profit and was going to increase its profits until it was called to account.

True, these fact finders were hired by the four unions — faculty, professional staff, classified staff and custodial and maintenance staff — covering most UMS employees. But if their analyses had been wrong, why would we have received even a dime more?

Those other three unions have by now concluded their respective negotiations. Whether they were pleased with the results I can’t say; but I’ve not seen any celebrations, to say the least. Still, many employees understandably prefer to have a new contract, whatever its terms, than to remain in limbo under the expired contract.

“Work to Rule,” however, has been approved by a majority of members in each of the seven campus AFUM chapters. The term really means doing only what is required by the expired contract and not what is, in effect, voluntary on faculty members’ part. Yet no faculty member wishes to harm any student or colleague, so that “Work to Rule” hardly means moving toward any real power. Far from it. In the absence of the power to go on strike — a basic pre-condition of AFUM’s formation decades ago by nervous legislators and other state officials — the term actually means POWERLESSNESS.

Yet even this Orwellian sense of “Rule” has been challenged by UMS as a violation of the expired — but still prevailing — contract in the case of certain programs at the University of Southern Maine. What happens next remains to be seen.

It is so demoralizing to see so little appreciation from the powers that be of the hard work of the vast majority of UMS faculty with salaries, contrary to UMS’ claims, far below those of nearly all “peer” public universities. I honestly don’t know why things have to be so dismal and why faculty have to spend time trying to determine how to “Work to Rule” in order to try to obtain some results.

But what has happened in public higher education in the state of Maine has happened in many other states in recent decades, and few public officials — governors above all — have shown any genuine commitment to making the situation better rather than worse. Let’s instead blame those allegedly underworked and overworked professors save for the few who indeed deserve praise for bringing in outside funds and for helping to create jobs.

One notable example, however, appears to be Connecticut’s first-term Gov. Dannel Malloy. Not a single Maine Governor in my 27 years at the University of Maine — John McKernan, Angus King, UMaine alumnus John Baldacci, Paul LePage — has demonstrated any such commitment. The ultimate losers are, of course, Maine’s students and their families.

Howard Segal is a professor of history at the University of Maine