|
A personal take on the fate of The Office spinoff.  Image c/o Rotten Tomatoes By Lillian La Salle Associate Editor For the whole month of October, fans of The Office were left in limbo as creator Greg Daniels and other cast members hinted at a possible reboot of the beloved show. Luckily, these speculations were cleared up at the beginning of November by multiple sources such as USA Today, ScreenRant, and The Wrap which jumped at the chance to clear up any confusion amongst the die-hard fan base. Personally, I am so thankful these speculations were not true. At least not in the way I was thinking. Greg Daniels is apparently seeking to spin off the show instead of rebooting it with the original cast, “I can't imagine wanting to make it with any other cast. I've said before that if there was to be anything, it would probably be more like what "The Mandalorian" is to "Star Wars," rather than trying to get Princess Leia with a new actor” (USA Today). And thank god he couldn't imagine this new version because The Office had a good run.
Even his consideration of a spinoff is giving this sitcom a little too much importance in the grand scheme of new TV, with new concepts still on the back burner while other mediocre shows have been given the spotlight for far too long. Don't get me wrong, I loved The Office, but to give background, I would choose Parks and Recreation and Leslie Knope's shenanigans over a show that made me physically cringe from discomfort any day. Greg Daniels explained to ScreenRant the methodology of creating the new show, having it “exist in the same overall universe [allowing] for potential guest appearances from original characters” once the new cast members have gotten their foot in the door of the TV Show universe. This sounds like they are trying to live in the Marvel Meta-verse with all these new characters and trying to figure out how to make the same kind of show, without having it fall prey to the failure that is most reboots. It's just The Office, it's not that deep, and it’s had its time in the spotlight. Maybe another office sitcom could be funny, but with constant comparison to what once was, it will be a challenge to make it as successful as its many 2000s counterparts. While I have your attention, I am going to be controversial and say The Office was great, not fantastic, but great. It had good references that audiences could repeat to each other to form a community, but ultimately it is very overhyped, and I blame Jim and Pam. Jim and Pam are idolized for the best love story, but Jim routinely makes decisions without Pam, they lack proper communication skills, and it is evident towards the end when the other cameraman comes in that it is really taking a toll on their relationship. Maybe this is what makes them so appealing to others who see it as an achievable love story, but I would rather not have the airtime wasted on their will they want only to see that they did and had pretty lackluster lives. When people say they want a relationship like Jim and Pam’s, I'm taken aback. I need that Michael and Holly, Dwight and Angela energy. They would go to bat for each other no matter the situation, be it a that’s what she said joke or a new lease for a beet farm, these two couples are the standouts of the show. I now realize that was my biggest beef with The Office spinoff, seeing the audience get entranced by a vanilla, non-communicative couple who seem like they've settled in all areas of their life. Anyway, I will get off my soapbox, but a spinoff of a great show is not the way to go, especially for one as monumental as The Office.
0 Comments
 Image c/o MANGO; ZARA; EVERLANE; ELOQUII; MACY'S; OLGA SIDELNIKOVA/GETTY IMAGES By Isabella Wynn Visiting Opinion Columnist Humans are running out of original, creative ideas. We see this in creative fields such as fashion, makeup, or movies. There have been a multitude of remakes or live actions rather than fresh film ideas. A third Willy Wonka movie is to be released soon following the Little Mermaid live action. Makeup was bold, sharp, and dark in the late 2010s and nowadays subtle pops of color and a clean, glossy look is in, reflecting trends from the 80s and iconic Marilyn Monroe looks.
Fashion trends have been consistently making comebacks. From the return of 80s fashion to Y2K red carpet looks, we appear to be running low on new, decent trends. In taking a look at this Fall's fashion trends, I came across the return of some old trends as well as some potentially new trends that I believe should not be trending in the first place. Olive Green Bomber Jacket: Flop This trend is unfortunately a flop for me. I adore the color green, especially an olive, however this style of jacket looks like something I could pick up at Forever 21. Forever 21 has its hits, but this is not one of them. I think a bomber jacket gives millennial fashion. It's not my thing. Gold Tube Hoop Earrings: Favorite I am honestly a little indifferent to this trend solely because I am on team silver jewelry. I feel as if gold jewelry looks tacky on me but it looks sexy and expensive on others. I do however love the chunky jewelry trend. I find myself in love with chunky rings and fun statement necklaces. Denim maxi skirts: Favorite Now my take on this may be a little controversial. I have heard a lot of talk about how ugly denim maxi skirts are but I have to disagree on this one. I am personally a fan of almost anything denim. If mom jeans could make such an influential comeback, denim skirts can make their own comeback. I think when styled right they can look so awesome. The denim blazer: Favorite Remember when I said I am a fan of almost anything denim? Enough said. Metallic: Flop Major flop here. Metallic clothing, shoes, and accessories, for everyday? No way. Halloween and EDM made a baby and this trend is what popped out. Metallic clothing often looks cheap and I am reminded of a Forever 21 metallic skater skirt I swear I've seen before. I may rock some metallic for a costume or a festival but I do not want to see metallic pants at the grocery store. Leather: Flop Now, let me explain: leather is awesome; but this specific trend with leather? Not so awesome. This trend consists of street style leather such as adidas maxi skirts or t-shirts. I cannot get behind casual leather, I hate it. Mary Janes: Favorite These shoes may have traumatized me as a kid going to Friday masses at my Catholic K-8th school, but I love the look of them nowadays. I think they are so adorable and can really elevate an outfit. Mary Janes have been forgiven. Red: Favorite This trend is boring to me but red will always be a classy, wearable color. Slingback, kickstand, and kitten heels: Favorite These dainty heels are a favorite of mine even though I hate how they look on me. I think people who have a fragile look to them can rock these. I think they are so sleek, I love them. Lace: Favorite The idea of this trend is also a bit boring to me but I do adore lace. It can be styled in a cute, frilly way or in a sexy way and I love that versatility. Lace will never go out of style. Fancy flats: Flop I am an avid flats hater. I personally don't think they look good on anyone. They remind me of millennial fashion and middle school before my mom let me wear heels. Perhaps they're comfortable but unfortunately I am an advocate of style over comfort. I would rather walk barefoot over legos than wear flats out. Denim on denim: Favorite I have been rocking and loving a denim on denim look for some time now. I am a huge fan of a Canadian Tuxedo and, like I've said before, a fan of denim in general. I think this trend is awesome. This fall, fashion trends seem to be all over the place. A lot of these trends, and more that I came across, do not make me think of fall. I never really know what is actually "trending" and it was fun to see what trends are resurfacing. Fashion is unique to everyone; it is fun to play with different styles and pieces. Wear what makes you happy and have a fun, fashionable fall St. Mary’s. Which Morticia was the best, from newspaper comics to Netflix series  Morticia Addams in "The Addams Family." (Image c/o Paramount) By Val Hill Visiting Opinion Columnist Over the years, there have been many versions of The Addams Family. Along with that brings different versions of Morticia Addams, who is considered to be one of the “mothers of goth.” So which Morticia is the best, and what separates her from any of the other versions?
But first we need to look at the many different variants of The Addams Family from over the years. The idea first started as a comic in 1938 by Charles Addams on page nine of The New Yorker. It was just a simple black and white single-panel that depicted a salesman trying to sell a vacuum cleaner to the spooky family. That panel was the spark that was needed to light the fire for the 1964 TV show, starring Carolyn Jones as Morticia and John Astin as Gomez. The TV show was only the tip of the iceberg, making room for cartoon shows, movies and a Netflix series. And with all these different Morticia’s, which actress did the best job at bringing her out of the coffin and onto our screens? I believe that the best portrayal of Morticia came from The Addams Family Values, made in 1991, starring Anjelica Huston. Her performance and added depth of the character made the movie so much better. The almost corpse-like color of her face and the way she moves in her long and slender black dress making her look as if she was floating across the set made her the best choice. The on scene chemistry between Huston and Raul Julia, the actor for Gomez, was immaculate. It was as if the two were an actual couple in real life, and the embodiment of the dynamic between Morticia and Gomez. Huston’s dedication to the role of Morticia was amazing, bringing the whole franchise to new heights. The Maui Fires, Ukraine, and the Biden Administration’s Response to Disaster.  (Image c/o Matthew Thayer/The Maui News via AP, File) By Jules Miles Opinion Columnist Recently, the Biden Administration has come under scrutiny for sending significantly more aid to Ukraine than to those suffering in the wake of the Maui fires. According to NPR, “The Biden administration is asking Congress to approve $40 billion in emergency funding, including $24 billion for Ukraine as part of security, economic and humanitarian assistance for the country as it defends its borders against a Russian invasion.” In contrast, merely $12 million has been sent out to aid Maui, as described in “FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration’s Latest Actions to Support Communities Impacted by Maui Wildfires,” published by the White House in order to record the aid Maui has received on behalf of the federal government and associated organizations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, had also “made available more than 50,000 meals, 75,000 liters of water, 5,000 cots and 10,000 blankets and shelter supplies to the county government for distribution,” and provided funding to the Hawai’i Fire Relief Housing program, which in turn was established by the American Red Cross.
The disaster of the Maui fires is unprecedented; the massive loss of human life that said fires incurred is a national tragedy—and yet, the people of Maui have an entire nation of people to help them, to take action to prevent such a disaster from ever occurring again, and to aid the people whose lives have been devastated by the fires. In contrast, the very nation of Ukraine is under attack. They have nowhere else to turn but to the rest of the world—and so it is imperative that the global community rally behind them. Like Maui, Ukraine, too, has been devastated by disaster—one that cannot be understood by anyone who has not had their lives destroyed by war. According to the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, since the beginning of the war between Russia and Ukraine to the date of July 30th of this year, there have been 26,015 recorded civilian casualties in Ukraine: “9,369 killed and 16,646 injured.” The Maui fires and the Russia-Ukraine war are both humanitarian tragedies, crises that must be addressed through the support of those who are able to provide it—and yet, they are tragedies that vary immensely in scale, with the former having claimed 114 lives, and the latter having claimed thousands. Additionally, while the destruction in Maui has passed enough so that residents have been able to return home to Lahaina (as of September 25th, as reported by the New York Times), the war in Ukraine goes on, with no end or hope in sight. As Seung Min Kim writes of Maui for the PBS News Hour, “It will take years to rebuild Lahaina, where just about every building was obliterated”—and the very same is true for Ukraine. In the face of this humanitarian crisis, and of the scale of the destruction waged against the people of Ukraine, two things are blatant: Ukraine needs outside aid, and it needs more aid than those recovering from the Maui fires. It doesn’t matter “who” any humanitarian disaster belongs to—only that it is tended to with the gravity and aid it deserves by right, and that the people whose lives have been destroyed by said disasters receive the dignity and relief they so need. The world, as it exists today, is incredibly globalized; no nation lives in isolation from the rest of the world. As such, humanitarian disaster anywhere is a matter that concerns the entire world—not only from the transactional standpoint of what allies stand to gain from each other through providing aid to each other in times of crisis, but from a standpoint of basic human kindness and protecting human rights by fulfilling human need. Victims of destruction and disaster (no matter the cause) deserve aid—because, quite simply, it’s the only right and human thing to do. Sources: The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/08/23/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administrations-latest-actions-to-support-communities-impacted-by-maui-wildfires3/#:~:text=Last%20week%2C%20President%20Biden%20made,protective%20measures%20for%20Hawai%CA%BBi%20County. TIME Magazine: https://time.com/6307022/biden-maui-wildfires-missing-dead-federal-response/ The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/article/maui-wildfires-hawaii.html PBS News Hour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-biden-says-government-will-help-maui-for-as-long-as-it-takes-in-fire-recovery United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2023/07/ukraine-civilian-casualty-update-31-july-2023 BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682 NPR: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/10/1193303180/biden-ukraine-aid How old is too old to be making decisions for the United States?  Image c/o The Washington Post By Madison Sciba Editor-in-Chief The oldest member of the United States’ Congress is 90 years old. California Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein has been in congress since 1992, has been in politics since 1969, and is still responsible for passing laws. Another senator, Republican Charles Grassley is 89 and has been in the Senate for 42 years. There are 20 members of congress who are over the age of 80. That is 15 years past the US’s average retirement age of 65. The past two presidents have been over the age of 70 when they first took office. That’s five years after they would have retired if they were in any other line of work. So why are we still allowing these elderly grandparents to hold the most important and influential roles in our government?
Any gen z or millennial knows the struggle of having to teach their grandparent how to use an iPhone, now imagine someone the same age as that grandparent in charge of making legislation surrounding technology. Right now, technology is advancing rapidly and our laws need to be able to keep up with it. There is very little, if any, government regulation on the use of AI and other advanced forms of technology. However, we are living in a world where those kinds of regulations are necessary. Yet those who are responsible for passing these regulations are decades behind the rest of the country when it comes to understanding this technology. Back when the founding fathers were forming the government and writing the Constitution, they couldn’t have imagined that there would be people in their 80s still responsible for the government. Since the 1990s, the average age of members of congress has increased dramatically. There has been less turnover in elections, with congress members like Feinstein and California representative Nancy Pelosi who have been running for re-election and winning for decades. In an ideal world, these politicians would recognize that they are too old to serve and they would stop running for re-election and make way for a younger generation of politicians. Sadly, this is not the case for American politicians. The solution seems simple enough: since there is an age minimum for congress, make an age maximum. That is easier said than done. The people who would need to make this age limit are the same people who would be harmed by the implementation of an age maximum. Until our politicians become more self aware and start caring more about what is best for the United States and not their own agenda, then maybe age limits can be passed. That, however, is extremely unlikely, so it is now up to us as the voters to vote these antiquated grandmas and grandpas out of congress and bring about a new, younger generation of congressmen and women. Sources:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/politics/oldest-members-of-congress.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/congress-age-demographics-house-senate/ https://www.newsweek.com/average-age-congress-senate-older-ever-before-1823840 https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography Image: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/06/02/senate-age-term-limits/ Disney’s live-action remakes need to stop.  By Madison Sciba Editor-in-Chief Disney’s persistence in making sub-par live action remakes of beloved classic animated films has become tiresome. Cinderella was good, Beauty and the Beast was okay, Mulan was dreadful and so on and so forth. Disney hasn’t exactly been hitting it out of the park doing live-action versions. Most audiences are tired of these remakes, sighing every time the next one is announced rather than being excited.
When Disney first announced that they were in production of a live-action version of the 1989 animated film The Little Mermaid, most people’s first reaction was not excitement but rather worry. Worried that Disney was going to butcher a much loved classic, just like they did to Mulan. The live-action Mulan came out in 2020, and due to the pandemic, most viewers watched the movie on Disney+ where there was an added fee to see the movie. Fans of the 1998 animated film were quick to dislike the live-action version for a variety of reasons. The lack of the beloved mini-dragon, Mushu, was a huge disappointment for fans. The character, originally played by Eddie Murphy, is arguably one of the best parts of the original film, providing the majority of the comedic relief to a film that centers around war. This along with the decision to not make the movie a musical left fans devastated. Donny Osmond’s “I’ll Make a Man Out of You” is one of the most iconic songs to come out of a Disney film, not to mention the incredible montage that plays in the film during the song. When making the live-action version of Mulan, Disney removed everything from the movie that made it a fun, loveable family film. The latest classic that Disney has chosen to go after is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, a movie that is a significant part of Disney’s history as well as the history of cinema. The 1937 film was the first ever full length animated feature film, and the first major success for the Walt Disney company. The film was an incredible show of innovation in the world of animation and was even the first movie to have an official soundtrack. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gave one full sized honorary Academy Award and seven miniature awards to Walt Disney in 1938. The Walt Disney family museum, where all of the Oscars won by Walt Disney studios are held, explains in an article on their website, “The Academy honored Snow White as ‘a significant screen innovation which has charmed millions and pioneered a great new entertainment field for the motion picture cartoon.’” Now the Walt Disney company has decided to remake the iconic film, and it is being surrounded by controversy. While the movie is supposed to be Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the new 2024 live-action will not include the Dwarfs, and once again Disney is drastically altering the story to fit a current narrative. At this point, they should just come up with a new story. If Disney thinks that they need to alter the original stories of Mulan, Little Mermaid, and Snow White to make them suitable for a modern audience in a live-action format, then maybe those should not be made into live-action at all. Why does Disney keep doing live-action remakes anyway? They have almost all been box office failures, with Pinocchio, Peter Pan and Wendy, and Dumbo receiving no notable success. Does Disney not have any new, original ideas? They keep making live-action flop after flop, not understanding that their audience does not want another remake; they want a new, original story. It is completely acceptable to use those classic stories as a jumping off point for new ones, but just remaking and changing these movies for the worse is not the way to go. Some examples of using classics to make a new, great story are Maleficent and Cruella. Both films received much better reviews and audience ratings than the other Disney live-actions. They were based on classic Disney films (Sleeping Beauty for Maleficent and 101 Dalmatians for Cruella) but took a new approach. Audiences enjoyed seeing another side to the infamous villain, Maleficent, bringing a whole new angle to the character. Getting the intricate back story to Cruella DeVille was a great example of using another film as inspiration but still creating something new and interesting. Disney was once the epitome of filmmaking, but they are now releasing flop after flop. They need to regroup, be original, and stop copying their own work from decades ago. Bring back old Disney. Bring back the Disney that had people, young and old, flocking to theaters with friends and family. Bring back the Disney that would make Walt proud. Sources: Imdb.com https://www.filmsite.org/snow.html https://www.waltdisney.org/blog/snow-white-and-seven-dwarfs-honorary-academy-awardr https://www.insider.com/disney-snow-white-2024-cast-release-date-controversy-2023-8#zegler-has-also-likened-the-prince-in-the-film-to-a-stalker-and-hinted-that-his-part-of-the-story-is-going-to-be-changed-significantly-7  A goodbye from The Collegian's outgoing EIC's To the Saint Mary’s Community,
We are so honored to have had the opportunity to take the helm of this incredible publication. The Collegian has been a staple of Saint Mary’s student life for almost 120 years, and it was truly a privilege to be able to shape some part of this great legacy. Our time with The Collegian has been a challenging and rewarding experience. Navigating student journalism in a pandemic, and through school scandals, censorship, and a societal shift to digital news has provided us with numerous opportunities for learning and growth. After surviving the past four years, we are confident this publication is here to stay! The Collegian has been an incredible space for personal growth and career development. There is no better way to learn the ropes of the journalism industry than to be thrust straight into it and learn to navigate running a paper along with your peers. The experience we have gained in this newsroom has been truly invaluable. Later in our careers (hopefully both in journalism!), we will definitely look back fondly at our fulfilling, fun, and oftentimes chaotic years with this publication. We are so grateful for the continued support of SIL, the Communication department, the SMC administration, and our readers on and off campus. A special thanks to our advisor Nolan Higdon. Having a seasoned journalist like him guide us was indispensable. We look forward to reading The Collegian for decades to come, and wish Madison Sciba and Lillian La Salle the best of luck as they take over the leadership of this incredible paper. We hope you like this issue, and we are thrilled to see our names and articles in print one last time! With gratitude, Ryan Ford and Kiera O’Hara-Heinz Editor’s-in-chief’s Note from Kiera: As an aspiring journalist, working with The Collegian the past three and a half years has been incredible. I am endlessly grateful to have had the opportunity to lead this publication. In my time writing for The Collegian, I hope I was able to bring some attention to the issues facing the SMC community. Whether you loved or hated my articles, thanks for reading them! Note from Ryan: I could not be more grateful for the opportunity to serve as Co-Editor-in-Chief at The Collegian this past year. After joining as a sports writer last year, The Collegian helped me realize my passion for journalism. Thank you to everyone who read any of our articles over the past two years, I will always look back on my time at The Collegian with the fondest of memories. Should students have the option for a more practical life skills class at SMC?  Image c/o Saint Mary's College By Lillian La Salle Culture Section Editor/Visiting Opinion Columnist Saint Mary’s is one of the few schools on the West Coast to offer a seminar course which some students adore and others despise. It's understandable to dislike seminar, especially if you had a subpar teacher who didn't know how to get that one kid with a few too many opinions to read the room and finally stop talking. We’ve all been there. Luckily, for the rising sophomores and future Gaels, they only need to take 3 seminars instead of 4. However, these core classes take up a lot of SMC credits that could go to taking some much-needed courses in the upper division major requirements. What if instead of having us take one of these courses and learn not one, not two, but 5 or more different philosophical concepts that are too dense for any sane person to understand, we learned about some necessary skills that would help us after college? What if instead of having multitudes of extra career courses, financial planning, and mental health gatherings, SMC actually put its efforts into creating a student improvement course to replace one of the seminars? After two seminars, the whole reading and discussion with your fellow peers who probably also didn't do the reading becomes very repetitive, and our time could be spent learning about what an ROI and 401K are, or how to not get conned when we have to take out more student loans to continue to go to SMC. Don't get me wrong, I love seminars and think that we learn very valuable communication and close reading skills in this context, but like I said earlier, how different will our third or fourth seminar be from our first or second? Meanwhile, we are floundering after college to try to invest in the right accounts so we can possibly support our family, buy a house, and pay for our kids' college, even though these three goals seem mutually exclusive nowadays. We need to learn not only about the great texts but about what life experiences have shaped us as humans and what we don't like about ourselves and what we want to change about ourselves. SMC is good at shaping our identities in a very hands-on way, but it causes students immense stress to cope with self-discovery, friends, academics, activities, and all the other programs we need to complete in order to be eligible candidates for a successful career in the future. We can't be left on our own to fit all the important parts of adulthood into the cracks of the already bursting schedule filled with parents, advisors, and friends' expectations of us. We need the seminar to become a course that helps students understand how to lead a productive and successful life after college and gives them all the proper financial and social skills we need to know how to use in order to accomplish our goals. By Vivian Hill Mascot Enthusiast We have all been guilty of using the saying “It’s okay because God is a Gael.” But what if SMC introduced more than only God being a Gael? Why not get the whole Trinity in there too? God is the Gael, the random guy that dressed up as Jesus. Even though I’m sure he was trying to be Moses to “part the red sea” the costume works well for being Jesus. And finally, for the Holy Spirit, we have Jeffery the giraffe. Put some wings and a halo on him and you have the final piece of the new SMC Mascot Trio. With this new trio, SMC will stand out amongst any other team. For God and the whole Trinity on our side. Basketball games would be so much better and the crowd would be so into it. With the Brothers on the sidelines and the Trinity as part of the mascot, SMC would be an unbeatable team. And have an even more powerful crowd to cheer along. If only God is a Gael, then why even be a Gael? Have the Trinity on our side Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because why shouldn’t this work? God is a Gael, right? No, it’s even better. The Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are Gaels now. HAPPY APRIL FOOLS DAY FROM THE COLLEGIAN STAFF!
Everyone loves paying more money! By Molly Baziuk Visiting Opinion Columnist, Reluctant Tuition-Bill-Payer Hooray! SMC tuition is being raised yet again with cries of joy being heard through every corner of campus! This is stellar news from the community as it seems there are clearly some very underfunded parts of the school and what better way to get more money than to take it from starving college students who, well let’s be honest, probably can’t afford a decent meal or housing! But hey, we could all use a bit of student enhancement! They said they’ll put more money towards student activities, so thank God our Gael we have rich folk here who can attend those activities while everyone else slaves away at work to get out of even more massive loads of debt! Maybe raising tuition will go towards fixing that delightful wifi that crashed about 67 times while I wrote this article, or perhaps towards meals, but we all know Oliver will stay as peachy as ever and more and more students will have to drop out due to this raise. But hey, maybe those underprivileged students who are on full scholarships can finally get a taste of what one percenters have to deal with on a day to day basis. Now we will all be paying like we’re supposed to and everyone will be equal! The decision to raise tuition is a stellar one by our administration, after all, this school gives out so many scholarships. Saint Marys’ decision to raise tuition is a lot like my relationship with my Safeway Club card. Every time I go to Safeway I use my club card and feel ecstatic because of all the great deals and discounts that come with shopping there. I always end up spending way more than I intended because Safeway says they’re giving me free money and even though they raise prices, they give random discounts on bread sometimes. Who doesn’t love bread? Exactly, and who doesn’t love a good Saint Mary’s tuition raise? HAPPY APRIL FOOLS DAY FROM THE COLLEGIAN STAFF!
|
STAFFMadison Sciba '24, Archives
May 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed