Editor's note: This is the final editorial of a three-part series addressing the critical topic of sexual assault on campus.

In this editorial, The Threefold Advocate will address the University's policies regarding the "disciplinary procedures" of sexual assault.

The current student handbook defines sexual misconduct as "any touching of the genital area with or without clothes. This includes but is not limited to sexual intercourse, oral sex, mutual masturbation and intimate touching. Sexual misconduct also includes more than just the physical body, every effort should be made to protect the mind, spirit and emotions within this area."

The handbook then goes on to address harassment as a whole. Although sexual harassment is mentioned, it is not addressed specifically.

Sexual harassment is a crime that requires more than a brief reference.

The Threefold Advocate has taken the liberty of aiding the University in the creation of a sexual harassment clause that should be added to the student handbook.

"Sexual harassment of any kind will not be tolerated, and the accused perpetrator will immediately be removed from campus until judicial proceedings find them guilty or innocent of the act. If found guilty, the subject will immediately be expelled from the University."

First of all, the accused perpetrator should be removed from the premises because, if they are in fact guilty, that means that other students are potential victims.

Also, emotional trauma could occur if the victim should come into contact with the perpetrator during the time from which it was reported until a final decision is made. On a small campus like JBU, such contact is very likely to occur.

Lastly, the reasoning behind expulsion should be obvious.

Convicted perpetrators of sexual harassment should not be allowed back on campus for any reason because the University has a responsibility and a duty to protect its students.

The addition of consequences and set disciplinary actions involving sexual assault will not only smooth the process for the University but also act as a preventative measure. These are things that are missing in the University's policies.

We expect that, as the student body's voice, this editorial series will not be simply dismissed, but taken seriously by both the students and the administration.

Believing that current core requirements are prohibitive when applied to transfer students, The Threefold Advocate addresses this editorial to the Core Curriculum Committee at John Brown University.

We applaud the effort that has been taken in altering Gateway courses, creating specific sections to benefit transfer students. But that effort is not enough.

Transfer students typically have the basics of how to write a paper, what constitutes plagiarism, etc., down prior to arrival at JBU. If after a year or two of college they don't, it's their own fault.

Most colleges have an intro-to-college-life course similar to the Gateway program. We are pleased to note that such courses, if taken at Christian institutions, typically transfer in as Gateway credit. If taken at secular schools, however, these courses are useless here, ostensibly because part of Gateway's purpose is to give incoming students JBU's blueprint for "integrating faith and learning."

This theme of integration does not require a two-hour course already devoted to other topics. Realistically, the roles of faith in academics and academics in faith could be more effectively addressed in a one- or two-time seminar created specifically for that purpose. The University's views could be succinctly expressed and followed up by open-floor discussion.

If Orientation, Gateway or some other introduction to JBU were the only time and place that faith and learning met on campus, extending the discussion over an entire semester could be reasonable. But if that were the case, the University would have little right or reason to call itself a Christian school aside from offering Bible classes.

Instead, the conversation of Christianity and intellectual pursuit is one students can and do continue with professors in every field and every class. Much of what Gateway does, therefore, is simply transplant "faith in learning" to less rigorous learning.

Helpful for freshmen, unnecessary for juniors.

Gateway may be the most obvious offender, but it is not alone in making life unnecessarily complex for veteran college students.

Changing catalogs can do enough to frustrate students' hopes of graduating in four years; imagine what changing schools must be like.

The Advocate thanks the Registrar's Office for its work to help future JBU students know what courses to take at community college. Adhering to JBU's track while enrolled at a two-year school may cost a student an associate degree, but the time and money saved on the way to a bachelor's is worth it.

Many or most potential transfers, however, don't begin college knowing what university they will move to in two years. In such cases, a one-hour health course elsewhere will only be ground retread in JBU's two-hour Wellness requirement. The comparative uselessness of courses already taken is surely enough to lose the University a fair bit of transfer business.

Many schools seek to attract students by counting an associate degree from regionally accredited schools as automatic core fulfillment.

This we do not encourage at JBU. The practice would arbitrarily treat a piece of paper as an accomplishment, something academia is already far too guilty of. Additionally, the University's Bible requirements rightly set its core apart from other schools' curricula.

We do, however, encourage more room for negotiation in transferring credits from both two-year and other four-year institutions.

Sometimes, one credit hour could be stretched to two-credit hours are at most, after all, an imperfect measure of how much work a course requires. In other instances, hours beyond one core requirement could slide over to fulfill part of another core section.

JBU's core has evolved over the years. Consider allowing it some room for more evolution in the case of transfers.

In America, we are very good at forgetting.

We can hear about someone's death in Iraq, feel sorry about it for 10 seconds and then change the news station to Food Network so we don't miss our favorite chef. We forget our friends' birthdays, anniversaries and even forget what we ate on any given day.

With all this forgetting, it is amazing what we pick to remember: celebrities.

We all remember where we were the day that Heath Ledger died, and who could forget when Britney Spears went bald (an image frightening enough to haunt us for years).

The most recent worldwide celebrity tragedy occurred on June 25, when Michael Jackson unexpectedly died. I, like most people, have enjoyed dancing to "Thriller" and singing "Beat It," and-though I was taken aback and saddened by Jackson's death-I did not have the same response as many people did.

I did not cry or dedicate my Facebook profile picture to him. I would have to say that I was saddened most by his complicated and confused life. He obviously led a glamorously odd life and had some questionable relationships, but something about his talent in music and dance drew people to him.

Just because he was a celebrity did not mean that Jackson liked being in the limelight. His song "Leave Me Alone" from his 1987 album "Bad" seemed like the cry of a man longing to be left alone by the media. After all, the music video begins with tabloids about him being thrown onto his porch.

Jackson seems to be back in the spotlight with the release of his Sony Pictures movie, "This Is It," which opened around the world Oct. 21 for a two-week run. With all of his talent and fame, Michael did not want to be bothered, and I dare to say that this new movie about his London concerts will be doing just that.

It appears that the movie is simply a ploy to make more money and exploit Jackson's life one more time, even though he is dead. It is ridiculous that even when the King of Pop has died, he cannot get out of the limelight.

This leaves me wondering, where are the movies about the nobodies of our generation who deserve to be remembered? Why do documentaries like "Born into Brothels" and movies like "Slumdog Millionaire" only experience a short period in the limelight and are then forgotten? Did they just not make enough money for Hollywood? Are Americans too apathetic to these real stories of hardship and poverty that we would rather watch someone who has trouble picking out which $100,000 car to buy?

Maybe we should start picking who we remember based more on their character and impact and less on their economic status.

I say we leave the eulogies of Michael Jackson alone and find someone who is really dying for something worth honoring.

Injustice is something we hear about frequently. On campus, we have International Justice Mission and various other CAUSE ministries. We send mission trips around the world and frequently host or hear talks from missionaries living abroad.

Yet, despite so often hearing about it, how often do we do anything? In reality, what can we do?

In Malawi, Africa, there are millions of orphans. They are orphaned mainly by AIDS, but starvation and inadequate medical attention also contribute. This fact alone raises questions about the unfairness that so often seems to dominate our world.

Yet there lies an even bigger impasse. Despite the overwhelming number of orphans, the Malawi government does not encourage adoption. As of now, the law is that someone must live in the country for two years to adopt a child. That, or be Madonna.

Granted, for those few hundred children who do get adopted each year, their lives are changed forever. They have hope and the chance to be loved, nurtured and raised without the terrible affliction of poverty. Yet the fact remains that there are so many who do not ever get that chance. Why would a country not only do so little to help its own people but, in fact, make it more difficult?

There are obvious political, financial and geopolitical influences that make that question complicated and difficult to answer. Is it a question that we can answer? No, probably not. We cannot see nor understand the mind of God.

In America, we suffer from a disconnect. It isn't necessarily as though traveling to some African country and working with orphans for a week on a mission trip will do that much. I am not trying to be skeptical when I say that, but I have done it myself.

You can see the tragedy taking place around you and even experience it, but it's so easy to forget and lead a once again complacent life. It's easy to be detached from world struggles, and we have to be intentional about engaging in the discussion and fight to bring justice to those around the world too impoverished to do so for themselves.

I have friends living in Malawi right now with their four young children, one of whom is adopted. They are working at an orphanage called Esther's House and are working to bring awareness of the troubles surrounding them. They have taken the call of injustice very seriously, yet even they struggle to find answers to the questions as they live amid it.

So what can we do here to make a difference?

Our striving should be in prayer, in helping to bring awareness, in being politically informed, and in seeking to live beyond ourselves here, right where we are. Revenge is the Lord's, and both justice and injustice alike must be dealt with in grace. Maybe we cannot adequately answer the questions we face, but we can accept in grace what we do not understand and fight for justice in every way we know how.