THOMAS LAUTH

“I believe the Franklin College Dean Search and Screening Committee has selected four outstanding finalists,” said Thomas Lauth, dean of the College of Public and International Affairs. “Each of the finalists has a distinguished research record, is committed to excellence in teaching, has the experience necessary to manage a complex and diverse arts and sciences college and possesses the vision to lead the Franklin College into the future.”

Lauth led the search committee comprised of Franklin College faculty and a student representative.

Each finalist will make a public presentation from 8:45 to 9:45 a.m. in the Georgia Center Hotel.  Students and faculty will be able to meet each candidate at their respective presentations. The dates are as follows:

-          Alan T. Dorsey, associate dean for natural sciences and mathematics at the University of Florida, February 16

-          Diana L. Lipscomb, professor of biological sciences and former interim dean at the University of Florida, February 20

-          David. E. Richardson, senior associate dean and professor of chemistry at the University of Florida, February 22

-          Joel L. Marin, vice provost for academic personnel and dean of the faculty at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, February 27

“Building a strong continuum of undergraduate and graduate engineering education is essential to meeting state and national needs,” the agenda stated. “With this program UGA seeks to increase the state of Georgia’s capacity for engineering education.”

On Saturday, Stafford was named the 2011 Associated Press NFL Comeback Player of the Year.

The award is a testament to Stafford’s resiliency throughout his young professional career.

Detroit Lion and former Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford was named the 2011 Associated Press NFL Comeback Player of the Year. He led the Lions to its first playoff appearance since 2000. FILE/The Red & Black

Taken with the No. 1 overall pick by the Detroit Lions in the 2009 draft, Stafford entered the NFL with lofty expectations.

After throwing for 7,731 yards and 51 touchdowns in his career at Georgia, he was pegged by many NFL analysts as one of the league’s next elite young quarterbacks.

He joined the Lions and was tasked with turning around a failing franchise.

But due to nagging injuries and inconsistent play, Stafford largely failed to live up to the hype in his first two professional seasons.

In 2010, his season was ended by AC joint repair surgery and a clavicle shaving.

At that point, Stafford was limping and dragging his way into NFL obscurity.

Yet he emerged in 2011 healthy and determined to make the kind  he was drafted for.

Stafford started all 16 games for the Lions in 2011, leading them to a 10-6 record and and a wild card playoff berth and shattering records along the way.

He completed 63.5 percent of his passes for 5,038 yards, making him just the fourth quarterback in NFL history — and the second-youngest — to break the 5,000-yard mark in a single season. He also threw for 41 touchdowns against just 16 interceptions.

Stafford was the first Lion to win the Comeback Player of the Year award since its inception in 1998.

He received 21 votes from the 50-person panel of media members, six more than Cleveland linebacker D’Qwell Jackson.

The award should silence critics who have decried Stafford’s ability to succeed in the NFL.

Many thought he was a lost cause due to his inability to stay healthy, and that his potential was greatly inflated by drooling scouts coming out of the collegiate ranks.

But Stafford didn’t only complete a record-breaking year — he helped to engineer the comeback of an entire NFL franchise.

The Lions had been the dregs of the NFL for much of the 2000s.

After they became the only team in NFL history to go 0-16 in 2008, they quickly became the laughingstock of the league.

Yet Stafford has brought them to the level of playoff contender, and will likely have them in the mix to enter the playoffs again in 2012.

And in the process, he has finally established himself as a legitimate NFL quarterback.

Gov. Nathan Deal announced today a new need-based scholarship called REACH — Realizing Educational Achievement Can Happen — part of Deal’s Complete College Georgia initiative.

DEAL

Even though Georgia posted its second-highest score of the season — a 196.950 — it still dropped two places in the rankings with an average score of 196.605.

Although the Gym Dogs moved down as a team in total score, they moved up on two of the four events.

JAY CLARK

Georgia moved to No. 3 (49. 210) on the uneven bars, where it was previously No. 4 and moved into a tie for ninth on floor (49.04), where they held the No. 11 spot last week.

On vault and beam, the Gym Dogs dropped to No. 8 (49.2) and No. 3 (49.155), respectively.

Individually, Georgia has three gymnasts in the top 10.

On vault, senior Kat Ding is tied for No. 8 (9.905) after consistently posting 9.9s or higher in four of the five meets thus far.

Senior Gina Nuccio moved from No. 7 to the No. 6 spot on the uneven bars where she has a 9.88 average.

On beam, junior Shayla Worley dropped two places to No. 6 (9.88), and freshman Chelsea Davis moved out of the top 10.

Last week, the highest Gym Dog ranked on floor was junior Noel Couch at No. 47.

This week, Couch has moved up to No. 40 after posting a career-high 9.95 on the event in the meet against Utah.

The Gym Dogs will come home after a week on the road to compete against No. 3 Arkansas Friday at 7:30 p.m.

The saga of Jasmine James’ right knee continued into its third week with the chance of Georgia’s point guard playing seeming to increase by the day.

The Georgia women’s basketball head coach Andy Landers has been fielding questions about James since she first twisted her knee on Jan. 15 at Mississippi State.

JASMINE JAMES

Thursday night against that same Mississippi State squad was the first time James has dressed for a game since suffering the injury, and on Friday she took part in practice.

When pushed, Landers said he hoped to get her back on to court sooner rather than later.

“Hopefully if we continue the direction we’re going she’ll get some short minutes at Alabama,” Landers said. ”That’s more for her mental psyche to get her back into rhythm and into groove a little bit. We’re off next Thursday. I hate for her to be out for that much longer without a playing a minute or two and feeling good about it.”

But Landers can’t feel too bad about how James played in her return on Sunday, as she came off the bench and tied for the game-high in points with 18.

The only problem for the Lady Dogs is that she had to sub in for Meredith Mitchell, who was injured in a collision less than two minutes into Sunday’s game.

Coincidentally, Mitchell was the same player who had taken over point guard duties in James’ absence.

Let the Mitchell injury watch now begin.

Komen announced last Tuesday that it is revising its granting policies, and that Planned Parenthood, among others, would be affected by these changes.

The original statement did not outline a definite timeframe, but a Komen video posted Wednesday night explicitly stated that existing grants would not be affected. Only future funds would be subject to the aforementioned revisions.

Sam Hempel

This simple announcement fueled an outright uproar in the media and on social networks, and the ensuing frenzy has been detrimental to both Komen and Planned Parenthood. Each organization demonstrated an extreme lack of foresight, and they will both suffer for it.

The first mistake, for Komen, was to single out Planned Parenthood in its announcement. Perhaps making any announcement at all was a mistake. Either way, Komen drew undue attention to its severance with Planned Parenthood.

I have no doubt that this was orchestrated by pro-life forces inside Komen — most likely led by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel, now senior vice president of public policy for Komen — in an effort to bolster donations from pro-life donor bases.

Last Wednesday, that strategy worked. Pro-life bloggers sung endless praises of Komen for cutting off funding to the nation’s No. 1 abortion provider. Komen reported a 100 percent increase in donations that day.

But beyond Wednesday, or even last week, the move was a disaster. Prior to this announcement, Komen was well regarded by the general public.

As New York Times columnist Gail Collins observed, “Everybody likes breasts — infants, adults, women, men. Really, it’s America’s most popular body part.”

Komen irreversibly transformed itself from generally popular to emotionally divisive.

Not to be outdone by Komen’s fundraising tactics masquerading as media controversy, Planned Parenthood and its supporters pulled all the stops to counter the move.

They played the victim card, they pointed out the dirty right-wing politics and they won the hearts of sympathetic pro-choice bloggers. Certainly Komen’s decision was shrouded in pro-life politicking and questionable timing — valid subjects for complaint — but in terms of fundraising, Planned Parenthood’s response went too far.

Not that money is everything, but let’s keep this in perspective: Komen’s $680,000 grant to PP last year was less than one-tenth of a percent of PP’s billion-dollar budget.

Planned Parenthood and its supporters effectively intimidated Komen into backing down and issuing the reversal statement on Friday — whether or not it was actually a reversal I will discuss shortly — which played out in the media like a win.

I, however, disagree — beyond last week, it remains a huge, self-inflicted loss for Planned Parenthood.

From here on out, any apolitical organization or corporation considering donating to Planned Parenthood will probably decide against it. Why risk subjecting your organization to the emotional, passionate frenzy that always surrounds abortion, when you could give to a far less controversial organization like Habitat for Humanity or the American Red Cross?

And let me pop the balloon about Komen’s “reversal” statement issued Friday in response to the backlash: it is not a reversal. The only thing that actually changed was Komen’s decision to narrow the scope of its investigation criteria to exclude political investigation.

The Friday statement affirmed Komen’s pledge to fund existing grants, including grants to Planned Parenthood. This is almost exactly what Komen’s Wednesday video stated. Is the media really that uncritical of soft, nuanced PR language? It sure didn’t seem so on Tuesday.

Apparently Komen’s promise to allow Planned Parenthood to apply for future grants was portrayed as a huge victory for Planned Parenthood. In other news of equal significance, everyone reading this is allowed to apply for a job at Google.

Both parties in this affair have exhibited poor foresight and crisis management skills. And there are many lessons to be learned from this fiasco.

First of all, if you are not prepared to give a stirring defense of your view on abortion, do not donate to an organization that has chosen a side on abortion. This applies infinitely more to organizations and corporations. You — or your organization — will be portrayed as either a sociopathic baby murderer or a fanatical chauvinist toenail fungus.

Secondly, Komen should have never announced this move. If they wanted to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, they should have just waited until their next budget and not said anything.

Thirdly, Planned Parenthood should have avoided mud slinging. They have cost themselves millions of dollars in the future from donations that will never be, for fear of Komen-esque backlash.

Lastly, and most unfortunately, the true victims of this fiasco are cancer patients. Fighting cancer should be a unifying goal of our society, yet because of the political circus surrounding this spat, donations towards fighting cancer aren’t likely to increase.

And of all things to fight about, I cannot think of a worse subject.

— Sam Hempel is a sophomore from Atlanta majoring in biochemistry

In the LISTSERV email dated Nov. 23, 2011, the afternoon before Thanksgiving Day, Wolfgang wrote he was “not sure what to do” about the “ethical problems” that had allegedly “plagued” the College in the weeks leading up to the 2011 Thanksgiving break.

And so he found a new purpose for Locker 150, one of the student lockers located on the second floor of the South Campus Pharmacy Building.

Following a LISTSERV email from November of last year, Locker 150 was changed to a place where students and faculty could leave anonymous concerns about the pharmacy school. JULIA CARPENTER/Staff

Wolfgang has designated Locker 150 as “the place where any student can drop off an anonymous note alerting us to problems, ethical or otherwise, of which the faculty and administration should be aware,” according to the email.

Wolfgang said last week, however, that no specific incident or report impelled him to write the email in November.

In fact, he said he has received no complaints about ethical dilemmas from students at all, before or since sending the email out over Thanksgiving break.

“There is no drug abuse going on in this school,” he said. “No one has ever come to me with any evidence of this stuff going on in this school, but you know, college-age students, just like anywhere else on campus, is it possible? Sure. But no one has ever come to me with any evidence that we have students who are doing anything like you say.”

He insisted the email was a “proactive” measure meant to provide a space for students to share any and all possible concerns about behavior within the college.

“The only reason I sent that out is being a professional school, we should probably try to get out in head of things maybe little earlier than in some other schools,” he said. “I just wanted to make people aware to let students know that if there were something, I was available, that we had a mechanism available for them to come talk to us. I hope it doesn’t give the impression there’s something going on, because like I said, no one has come to me with any evidence of that.”

But in his email, Wolfgang wrote, “Many students have come to me and shared their concern over the behavior of their classmates, but no one has been willing to identify those involved.” And he also made specific mention of “a number of reports in recent weeks.”

Wolfgang said he checks Locker 150 “about once a week” to see if any students have left anonymous tips or complaints.

So far, he said no one has.

“You hear these little rumors and mumblings you know, and I just wanted to let students know that if there were something going on, I was here, or they could do it anonymously if they want to, or come to my office,” he said. “It prevents. It’s trying to get ahead of something in case there’s something going on, though like I said, I can honestly say no one has come to me and said, ‘This is something. I have evidence. Why can’t you guys do something about it?’ That hasn’t happened.”

In the Nov. 23, 2011 email, Wolfgang wrote, “This is a cause for concern at many different levels.”

Pharmacy e-mail