In the days of virtual learning, it’s more important than ever to create a functional space to stay productive and motivated while living at home. Here are five tips to make your space work for you. 

1. Find your space. 

Some people may find they can work anywhere, but if you’re struggling to concentrate, it may help to clearly define the space you work in. Whether you work in your room, your basement or somewhere else, it helps to make your study space separate from the places where you relax and unwind. Having a consistent space to work in can even increase productivity because your brain will come to associate that area with studying. 

2. Set it up.

Once you identify your work space, set it up to maximize productivity. Make sure you have everything you need – like pens, pencils, sticky notes, etc. – nearby. Having everything on hand will keep you from having to take unnecessary breaks to search for something. You should also keep the area as clutter-free as possible to limit distractions and decrease anxiety. 

3. Make it comfortable. 

Let’s be honest, no one wants to spend hours somewhere uncomfortable. By adding pillows to your chair, increasing lighting and putting up pictures or decor that make you happy, you’ll find your study space is somewhere you actually want to go, even if you don’t feel like working. 

4. Keep a schedule. 

Since making the transition to online school, you may find your daily routine has gone out the window. Set up a schedule where you block out the time you study and stick to it. Keeping a daily planner or setting alarms and timers on your phone can help with this. Make sure to plan blocks for when you’ll be working on each class, as well as when you’ll be taking a break. By having a time when you are allowed to step away from studying, you’ll be able to focus more when the time comes to work. 

5. Set up rules. 

While you’re studying, do what you need to limit distractions as much as possible. Figure out if you work best in absolute silence or if you need background noise. Keep your phone in another room if you need to. Setting up rules can also apply to family members, so if you are having to share a space with someone else or if you keep getting distracted by your siblings, let your family know what rules you have and what you need from them. This will give you the privacy and space you need to concentrate on school. 

By making these simple changes, you can create a positive, productive space for yourself to power through the rest of the semester. Focus on what you need, and create the space around that. 

In light of COVD-19 sweeping its way across the country, Govs. Laura Kelly (D-Kan.) and Mike Parsons (R-Mo.) both issued statewide stay-at-home orders for the following weeks. However, the Governors differ in how they come to that decision and what the order means for their state. 

Kelly acted first, releasing Executive Order 20-16 March 28, which calls for Kansans to not leave their home except for essential functions, including going to grocery stores or pharmacies, seeking medical care, caring for family members and performing essential work. The article also states that limited outdoor activity that respects social distancing protocols is safe. 

The article went into effect March 30 and lasts until April 19, though it is open to being extended. 

Kansas was the 22nd state in the nation to make such a decision. 

 “I know this is hard, and I can’t tell you how much I wish it weren’t necessary, but we have a small window to ensure that Kansas does not suffer the same terrible fate of other hard-hit states like New York and Missouri.” Kelly said. “We’ve all got to do our part to help stop the spread of the disease. Stay home. Stay Safe.” 

The Governor’s website says that the goal of the order is to promote a statewide uniform response to the pandemic, and to give medical facilities time to prepare for the expected surge of patients in the coming weeks.  

In Missouri, Parsons issued a similar order April 6th. The order places common restrictions on not leaving your house except when necessary but is more flexible when it comes to keeping businesses open. 

The order is effective until April 24 and specifically allows Missourians to get takeout or delivery from restaurants and go to churches as long as social distancing measures are respected. Nonessential businesses that stay open must have fewer than 10 people total, and they must stay six feet away from each other. 

In addition, even essential businesses must limit their customers. The state says small spaces must have no more than 25 percent of maximum capacity and larger spaces must have no more than 10 percent of maximum capacity. 

Experts say the flexibility in Parson’s order is not good enough for our current situation. 

“That does not look like a stay at home order,” said Cindy Prins, and epidemiology professor at the University of Florida. 

After days of criticism Gov. Parsons doubled down on his decision. 

“This power is something I think should be rare for the government to ever take advantage of, and for one person to make the decision for six million Missourians without due process, [would be] jeopardizing their liberty,” Parsons said.

These statewide orders come after city and county measures were already in effect in the region. Kansas City has been under stay-at-home orders since March 21. Johnson, Jackson and Wyandotte counties were also included in the order. 

“My view is that it is essential for public health to make sure that we are getting the stay at home message across,” Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucus said. 

He also noted that prior to the order, Kansas Citians were not as cooperative with stay-at-home and social distancing recommendations and hoped the order would encourage residents to take the situation more seriously. 

Clay County, where William Jewell is located, extended the stay at home orders the following day. 

As of April 7, Missouri had more than 3,000 confirmed cases and 53 deaths. Kansas recorded 900 cases and 27 deaths.

Sweetman, a philosopher and professor from Rockhurst University, began the evening by presenting his views on the subject – mainly his concern that the technology of genetic modification could be used for nefarious purposes such as reproductive cloning or the selection of the certain traits in order to create so-called designer babies. 

Sweetman also emphasized the difference between the genetic testing in principle and in practice. He argued that while it may be ethical in principle for the treatment of diseases and potential benefit for longevity, in practice testing presents too much of a risk for the destruction of viable embryos, the creation of designer babies and eugenics. 

Overall, the crux of his argument was rooted in the complexity of this issue. What he sees as potentially “cultural shifting issue” should be decided “by the general public through the democratic process.” 

Alvarado, director of science from the Stowers Institute, made the case for the therapeutic benefits of genetic testing as well as the need to contitune driving the scientific process in all aspects. 

Alvarado was not shy to answer concerns about genetic manipulation, and he adamantly condemned its usage for reproductive cloning, selecting “designer” traits in children and the experiments of He Jiankui – the Chinese doctor who edited the genomes of three embryos without consent from any ethics committee or the families involved. 

Jiankui was jailed for three years for these actions and faces a $430,000 fine. 

However, Alvarado praised the potentially life-saving capabilities of genetic editing, citing real world examples of children who have been cured of life-altering maladies because of CRISPR technology. He also urged listeners to understand the difference between science and technology, and that continued funding of scientific research is essential. 

“CRISPR [the genetic editing tool] was not even thinkable when I was in school, or even five years ago” he said. “We don’t know what’s coming down the pipeline, and nature may have solutions for many of our problems that we don’t even know about yet.” 

In one particularly passionate moment, Alvarado also emphasized that pursuing new technology in the United States or in Europe means that we have a say in the ethics of such technology. If research is only advanced in countries under authoritarian regimes, ethics might not play the role they should in the discussion. 

By the end of the evening, and a brief question and answer period, both men seemed to find common ground. They decided that certain uses were morally wrong, but that because it could increase the quality of human life, it is in the best interest of everyone to contitune to have these discussions about the real world ramifications of such powerful technology. 

“For a pluralistic society to hear that religious authorities, secular authorities, ethicists, scientists, etc. agree on something, I think that’s important,” Alvarado said. 

He also thinks that it will help everyday people in deciding their opinion of the subject.

The lecture was well attended by students, faculty and community members alike, who enjoyed discussion and desserts after the lecture. 
“The opportunity to have two great minds – specifically a geneticist and an ethicist – come together to talk about a very controversial issue was a very enlightening and enriching experience,” said Chris Seward, senior biochemistry and Applied Critical Thought and Inquiry major.

In the last five years, Germany has seen a substantial rise in immigrants and refugees, welcoming 1.5 million Arab refugees since 2015. At the same time as this influx of people, Germany has seen an increase in supporters of the far-right movement. 

Tensions came to a head Feb. 18 when one man went on a shooting rampage, killing nine people and injuring six more in Hanau, Germany, just outside of Frankfurt. 

The shooting began at Midnight Shisha Bar, a hookah bar just past 10 p.m. It then moved to the nearby Arena Bar and Cafe. Both bars were popular with young people of foreign descent, especially Turkish and Middle Eastern immigrants. 

Later the shooter was found dead in his home with his 72-year-old mother, who also died. Both had severe gunshot wounds. 

Though German privacy laws do not allow for the gunman’s name to be released, many reports, including an official gun license, point to Tobias Rathjen. 

Despite the fact that he passed the background check and mental fitness requirements for gun ownership, Rathjen’s internet history points to a dangerous belief system. 

He posted several videos in which he wished for a “rough cleaning” to decrease the global population by half. He cited 12, predominately Muslim, countries which he felt needed to be “exterminated”. 

“We now have ethnic groups, races or cultures in our midst that are destructive in every respect,” the 43-year-old domestic terrorist said. 

In his video he also spoke directly to Americans, urging them to “fight now.”

Many of those who died in the attack were German citizens, the children of Turkish and Kurdish workers who immigrated in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Turkish officials said that five of the victims were Turkish citizens. 

Since the attack last week German authorities have been outspoken in condemning Rathjen’s actions. Chancellor Angela Merkle said the shooter had “right-wing extremists, racist motives” and called racism a “poison.” 

Claus Kaminsky, mayor of Hanau, said it was “the hardest day in our history” and spoke about the usual peaceful nature of the city. 

The far-right attack points to a sobering reality in Germany and in many places around the world – far-right ideology is gaining momentum. Hanau is known for being a diverse and tolerant city, and yet extreme violence still took place. 

Prior to this incident many people assumed that the far-right movement was isolated to the eastern part of the country, which has been hit the hardest by unemployment. This attack proves that the racist ideology has spread. 

In the last city elections the far right group Alternatives for Germany (AfD), won 10 percent of the vote. In the national elections in 2017 the group won 89 seats, making it the third largest political party. 

The AfD has never publicly endorsed violence, but their rise in popularity has coincided in a sharp increase in neo-Nazi attacks in a country that has spend the last seven decades trying to repair the damage committed under Hitler’s regime. Racism-fueled violence increased from 1,200 attacks to 1,664 attacks in 2017. 

“Islam does not belong to Germany,” said their manifesto, which was published in 2017.  

Frauke Petry, leader of the AfD, also called for police to shoot immigrants trying to cross the German border in 2016. 

2019 saw multiple far-right attacks throughout Germany. In June, Walter Lübcke, a politician from Merkle’s own party, was assassinated for his pro-migrant beliefs – the first far-right assassination since World War II. 

In October, one far-right man live-streamed himself storming a synagogue and killing two people on Yom Kippur, a Jewish holy day. He was allegedly inspired by the shooter in the deadly attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. 

Angela Merkle’s successor as chair of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, resigned recently after a scandal in the party involving party officials coordinating with the AfD in order to support a centrist candidate for governor of Thuringia. 

This broke a longstanding tradition of the government not cooperating with the far-right party. With Merkel’s time as Chancellor over in the fall of 2021, and her natural successor out of the running, many in Germany worry the AfD might gain control and shift the country closer to its pre-war days.