A SEASON OF CHANGING LAWS

Everyone loves waffles. Recently, "waffling" appears to be a popular
activity among public figures and officials. Thankfully, this wave of
ambivalence has drifted in favor of UF.

Gov. Charlie Crist dropped his dreaded threat to veto a bill allowing
UF to charge a higher tuition.

Crist's change of heart came in light of two developments - his
realization that 11 presidents unanimously supported the bill and the
fact that the bill won't be taking effect until the fall of 2008.
Also, the bill only affects UF, Florida State University and the
University of South Florida.

We should be happy that Bernie Machen won't have to resort to
panhandling in order to support our beloved school.

According to an Associated Press article on Wednesday, the tuition
differential bill would initially increase the tuition of incoming
freshmen by 15 percent. However, over the next few years, this
tuition hike could reach up to 40 percent for UF and FSU, with USF
reaching almost 30 percent.

We're sure this future tuition raise may cause the unfortunate side
effect of a panic attack for those who do pay for tuition.

Crist asserts that he previously intended to veto the bill in order
to support the families burdened by such a fee on top of their rising
cost of living expenses. He also believes that the delay of the bill
taking effect will allow the state time to find an alternative, more
beneficial solution.

Crist not only felt pressure from the presidents of the universities
but also business leaders arguing that Florida universities needed to
keep up with the Jones'.

Normally we view the corporate world as soulless money-hoarders, but
we applaud their support.

Ultimately, we should give thanks that classes located in Ben Hill
Griffin Stadium are not imminent.

On a more ominous note, students beware - no longer can you loosely
mention the word "bong" anywhere near a school campus. Be cautious
when doodling on papers that you don't inadvertently draw anything
resembling a pill, a cigarette or a joint.

The Supreme Court has deemed actions that usually elicit laughs or
shoulder shrugs as harmful and promotional of drug use.

In the landmark case Morse v. Frederick, a student in Juneau, Alaska,
held a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in a public area across
from the school. The prominently displayed banner was an attempt to
test the boundaries of free speech at the school where the student
had previously been disciplined by the principal. The principal
suspended the student for refusing to take down his sign.

Though the ruling was in favor of the principal and awarded her
immunity from any lawsuits, the court was split on this controversial decision.

Members of the court believed they were protecting student interests
because clearly, all those special anti-drug campaigns are
irrelevant. It's not like students have access to televisions, radios
and other forms of influential media. And they never utter any words
regarding drug use throughout the school day.

The student asserts that he meant his banner as joke. Whether this is
true really doesn't matter because he wasn't even on the school's
campus. If he were, we can't assume that students live in a bubble.

Above all, since when did a sign jokingly mentioning bong hits almost
equate to taking a bong hit? Ever seen the movie "Minority Report"?
It didn't end well.