Women’s Soccer sink to JWU, 4-1. – Julian Borges

Women’s Soccer sink to JWU, 4-1.

Julian Borges

Sports Editor


Following a devastating 5-0 loss to Western Connecticut last weekend, the Anchorwomen have lost their second game in a row. Last Wednesday night saw Rhode Island College fall to host Johnson and Wales.

The game started off in RIC’s favor. Just over 16 minutes into the contest, sophomore forward Oliva Capraro capitalized on a cross from classmate and midfielder Eleni Grammas to score the team’s only goal of the game.

Roughly six minutes later, the hosts scored their first of four goals in the game. Freshman midfielder Catherine Nolan assisted junior forward Kyra Selner who notched the equalizer for the Wildcats.

Eight minutes later at the 30-minute mark, JWU would break the tie they had created. Johnson and Wales took a corner kick that resulted in a goal credited to Nolan. The Anchorwomen would walk off the field at halftime down 2-1 while the Wildcats walked off with the lead and an 8-4 shot advantage over the visitors.

Coming back to the field in the second half, it did not take long for the Anchorwomen to regain some steam. RIC dominated possession and outshot their hosts 4-1. While the Anchorwomen were creating scoring opportunities, the lights at Scotts Miracle-Gro Athletic Complex mysteriously went out. This resulted in a twenty minute delay of the game until the power was turned back on.

When play resumed, the Wildcats were awarded a corner kick. Sophomore forward Deja Hursey (Columbia, MD) won the ball and fired a shot from outside the box to make the score 3-1 for Johnson and Wales.

In the 75th minute, freshman midfielder Molly McCormack closed out scoring for the game when she drilled the ball in the net for the fourth goal for the Wildcats. The Anchorwomen never regained momentum following the restoration of power at the stadium. The hosts left the pitch with a wild 24-9 shot advantage over RIC who left the field defeated. Final score: 4-1.

Wildcat goalie, freshman Colleen Lynch, made five blocks for JWU while RIC’s Brianna Sousa made ten saves in her first start. While the road seems a bit bumpy, the Anchorwomen have it in them to get the ball rolling again.

Women’s Volleyball beats Worcester State – Enrique Castaneda-Pineda

Women’s Volleyball beats Worcester State

Enrique Castaneda-Pineda

Assistant Sports Editor

This week in Women’s Volleyball, our Anchorwomen went up against Western Connecticut and Worcester State—coming off back-to-back losses against Clark and Eastern Connecticut.

Looking to break that losing streak at home, the ladies went full force against Worcester State. However, starting with Western Connecticut, the team seemed worn out and could not get anything going until the end of the game. The first set ended in a 10-25 loss for the Anchorwomen. Following this, the second set was a 15-25 loss—both losses by large margins. Finally, the Anchorwomen picked up some sort of steam in the last set with 11 kills, (the most in the game in one set.) However, it was not enough to take the win, ending in a 18-25 loss and a 3-0 sweep.

Leading into the big match against Worcester State, Rhode Island College had the home court advantage to give them an edge. Both teams started off strong offensively as RIC went to record 16 kills for the first set and Worcester 12. RIC would take the first set by a tight 25-23 win. In the second set, Worcester State began to lose its edge as RIC remained strong, with another 15 kills in the set and only 4 errors. Worcester State had 12 kills and 7 errors, resulting in the set ending 25-19. The Anchorwomen powered through the final set, limiting their opponents to only 7 kills and taking the third and final set to break their three game losing streak.

Currently the team is 8-9 with only eight games until the Little East Conference Playoffs, beginning on November 1st.

Two victories for the Women’s Tennis team – Marissa Marsella

Two victories for the Women’s Tennis team

Marissa Marsella

Anchor Staff


The Women’s Tennis team struck again as they defeated Worcester State in a resulting 7-2 match. They gained a 3-0 advantage after the doubles matches, winning all but three of them. Rhode Island College’s famous No. 1 pair of Dayna Reilly and Julie Reddy posted an 8-2 win against the Lancers while the No. 2 spot of couple Isabella Romeo and Katherine Braganca matched their score. The No. 3 doubles team of Laura Nastasi and Jorgie Martin also took the match, however, by forfeit.

Singles action proved four victories for the Anchorwomen. Reilly secured a perfect score of 6-0, 6-0 against her opponent in the No. 1 spot. Reddy performed similarly in No. 2 singles, defeating her Lancer 6-1, 6-1. The No. 3 and No. 4 singles spots, unfortunately, were won by Worcester State. However, RIC struck back in the No. 5 and No. 6 singles. Romeo tallied another win for the Anchorwomen with a score of 6-3, 6-1 while Jenna St. Lawrence won by forfeit.

After crushing Worcester State, the ladies went on to show up the Cougars of Clark University during Senior Day with a final score of 7-2. At No. 1 doubles, Reddy and Reilly defeated their opponents 9-7 while Braganca and Romeo posted an 8-6 win together at the No. 2 spot. Nastasi and Martin defeated the Cougars 8-6 as well at the No. 3 doubles spot.

Senior Day continued in favor of the Anchorwomen as they proceeded to win four out of six singles matches. Reilly posted a 9-5 win against the Cougars in the No. 1 spot, Nastasi emerged with an 8-4 victory for RIC during No. 3 singles, Braganca downed her Cougar opponent 10-1 at the No. 4 spot, and Romeo defeated her opponent in No. 6 singles with a score of 7-4.

Congratulations, girls!

Men’s Soccer breaks Gordon’s win streak – Julian Borges

Men’s Soccer breaks Gordon’s win streak

Julian Borges

Sports Editor


This season, the Anchormen are on a roll. Coming off two victories last week, the Men’s Soccer team defeated Gordon College 2-1 on the latter’s turf last Tuesday afternoon. In the two wins leading up to this game, Freshman defender Jack Clancey notched his first career goal in a 2-1 victory over Western Connecticut. Better yet, Komla Dogbey snagged the title of Little East Men’s Soccer Offensive Player of the Week for his hat-trick in the 3-0 victory over Worcester State.

Just over seven minutes into the game at Gordon, Dogbey assisted junior forward Cooper Ferreira to put the Anchormen on the scoreboard first. At the end of the half, Rhode Island College maintained a 1-0 lead as well as a slim 10-9 shot advantage over their hosts, the Fighting Scots.

The Anchormen returned to the second half and scored faster than they had in the first. Just five minutes in, sophomore midfielder Dennis Vazquez blasted a pass from senior midfielder Dan Monteiro underneath the crossbar to double the lead and close out RIC’s scoring.

Ten minutes later, Gordon responded with their only goal of the game. Senior Caleb Cole worked with Sophomore and fellow midfielder Josh Beveridge (Anchorage, AK) to assist junior defender Ben Gradert (Hudson, OH.) Gradert converted the pass to send a shot past RIC senior goalie Chris Moura. This goal closed out the scoring for the match. The Anchormen left the field victorious–now holding a 9-3-1 record overall.

Moura made six blocks in the victory. Gordon goalie, Senior Josh Spoonhour had three saves. In the end, the Anchormen served up one great match, and it seems there will be plenty more to come.

Catching up with Cross Country – Marissa Marsella

Catching up with Cross Country

Marissa Marsella

Anchor Staff

Last Saturday morning, The Rhode Island College Men’s Cross Country team competed at the 21st Annual James Earley Invitational. The boys performed well, although the team competed individually. Out of 431 runners, RIC’s own Junior runner Jonathan Carney finished in 130th place with an impressive time of 28:13.99 over the 8k course. Freshman athlete Helder Gomes finished 289th with a 30:33.97 run time. Sophomore athlete Jeff Garson placed 290th with a timed run of 30:34.45. Carlton Eaton placed 283rd with a time of 34:23.49.

Ladies Cross Country action also came from the James Earley Invitational, where RIC Sophomore Margaret McCaffrey notched 164th place out of 459 runners—securing a 33rd place win out of 41 teams for the Anchorwomen (with an 883.0 overall score.) McCaffrey had a timed run of 25:34.41.

Junior athlete Briana Lenihan finished in 170th place with a time of 25:36.65 and Freshman Cassidy Bissitt came in 222nd place with a time of 26:08.41. Senior Allison Lomas finished in 295th place with a time of 27:13.12, Junior Lissa Almanzar posted a 357th place finish of 28:34.28, and Freshman Winnely Figueroa finished in 366th place with a time of 28:53.79.

Senior Abigail Dandurand had a timed run of 29:30.48, finishing in 397th place. Freshman athlete Sarah Basler came in 405th place with a time of 29:43.46, while Junior Tess Rhoat finished in 428th place (32:07.33), and Sophomore Margaret Buckley finished the race in 448th place with a final time of 37:33.32.

Catch up with the Cross Country teams next week as they travel to the Western New England Invitational on Oct. 15th at 10:30 a.m.!

Voting is imperative – Conor O’Brien

Voting is imperative

Conor O’Brien

Anchor Contributor


The presidential election is coming up fast in what can only be considered the wackiest cycle the American public has ever seen. With the candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump leading the two major parties people seem to be more apathetic than ever and refuse to vote at all. To that I ask a simple question; why?

Registering to vote is an action that everyone must take part in. It’s a simple process and takes maybe five minutes of your time. To those who are already registered and will not vote this year I would ask that you reconsider.

For those of you who will not vote, because you believe Trump and Clinton are the only options, I say that this is simply not true. There are many third party options out there for whom citizens can vote, most notably, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who recently visited our campus, and the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who seems to be resonating with college kids and independents alike. Do your research and find out what policy and political stances sit right with you, and if you like one of these candidates, vote for them.

Some might say that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, but every vote that a candidate gets raises poll numbers, and if a candidate polls at five percent in the general election, the party they represent would be eligible to receive federal funding for the next election. For third party candidates this could have a huge impact on future campaigns. Even though a candidate may not have won, the party they represent and the values they uphold gain significant strength with just numbers at the polls.

If you find none of the candidates likable, I say this: vote anyway. It is your right as a citizen to vote for whomever you wish.

Not voting is a means to say you don’t care what happens to your country and have relegated it to fail as a democracy. People should care about what happens to their country. This election, many people are complaining a lot but not putting their money where their mouth is. Don’t just sit there and whine, make your concerns known by voting for whomever you believe will best represent you.

Love & longing in the break room – Kristy O’Connor, Louisa D’Ovidio

Love & longing in the break room

Kristy O’Connor



Louisa D’Ovidio



Office romance might be glorified in just about every third rom com since “(500) Days of Summer,” but off the silver screen, these flings and relationships are much more difficult to navigate and have a decidedly less cute accompanying soundtrack.

The workplace seems like no place for romantic relationships, as they can shift the focus of why you are really there and cloud your judgement, leaving you with an unprofessional reputation.

The first thing to consider when entering into any new relationship is the level of awkwardness the eventual break up will produce. If the relationship ends, facing that person first thing in the morning at their desk after a night of crying and or fighting is something you must be prepared for. Following that, any work, projects or professional interactions you have to have will be clouded by the pain, anger or hurt that the break up produces.

Think of your coworkers and your superiors at work too and what their reactions may be. Dating in the workplace could make other people uncomfortable and maybe even angry. This is especially likely if you or your partner have differing levels of power or even a direct line of power between you.

Consider dating your boss and how that would ultimately change your entire work dynamic. You would not want to get a promotion that you worked hard for and earned and have other people say you got it because of who you are dating. This is probably one of the most common occurrences when people are dating in the office because a degree of favoritism could develop. If you were dating someone and they did something wrong in the workplace, you might not report them, but if anyone else did the same thing, they would get reported. This could lead to hurt feelings, rifts within teams and lead everyone into trouble. If you date in the workplace you need to be able to separate work from your personal life and this can be exceedingly difficult.

Additionally and perhaps most importantly, when the workplace is where you met and the basis of what you have in common, that topic of conversation or issues that exist there can cloud your every interaction or even become the only thing you can talk about. Embarrassingly you may find that your work is the only thing either of you truly have in common and you may realize that your relationship has no foundation other than where you work.

Maybe dating can succeed if you work in a giant corporation, where the possibility of being met with your ex everyday is very, very small. But most co workers inevitably need to see and interact with each other.

Don’t date people you share the same workplace with unless you know for sure that it won’t cause problems. Don’t date someone who you will have to see every working day until one of you gets fired or quits. Don’t date someone who you cannot get away from, hide your embarrassment or ever be seen in a professional light again. Don’t date someone you work with unless you can absolutely guarantee that you will get married, which no one ever can.

Media giants – Samantha Scetta

Media giants

Samantha Scetta

Anchor Editor


Media: we live for it, live through it and live by it. What the media is producing is out of our hands yet it is absolutely everywhere we look. During the Presidential Debate last week media was a topic that was barely touched upon by either of the future leaders of America.

Most of us check our email and Snapchat feed before we even eat breakfast. We brush our teeth to the morning news, listen to the radio on our ways to school or work and scroll down Facebook before we go to sleep. Since the internet has the ability to blow the election out of proportion presidential candidates have some massive competition to change the way American minds function.

Surely candidates could raise or lower minimum wages, force tax cuts upon the wealthy, gather a stronger police and military force and cut off international relations. Will Clinton beat ISIS? Will Trump succeed in keeping workers and corporations on American grounds instead of fleeing to Mexico or China? That’s not what most 14-20 something year olds are entirely concerned about.

Stabilizing the world they say; how about controlling brainwashing advertisements for shiny cars, genetically modified food and makeup applied by women that are so photoshopped you probably wouldn’t recognize them if you saw them in real life. The candidates are not so concerned about the reality of America which is the reality that exists in a virtual space.

With social media acting as an active political force taking the two candidates even remotely seriously has become impossible. Media, more specifically social media, is a major platform behind the candidate’s’ success or failure however it’s a topic that is very rarely touched upon by Trump or Clinton. I can’t help wondering if  Trump or Clinton ever crack a smile at the thousands upon thousands of videos made using voice overs and animation to make them look as ridiculous as humanly possible.

Politicians, and celebrities, in America seem to live in an untouchable world that is separate from us. They are whom we aspire to be without knowing personally. As far as the presidential election goes, I can not recall a time when I have heard someone say they aspire to be like Trump or Clinton.

The presidential candidates are not the true backbone of America. The true rulers of the country are who you listen to on the radio, who you watch on television, and whose clothes you are wearing. As much as the president is important, they simply do not have the resources and wit to able to do as much damage to the general public as the media can.

Debate night debated nothing – Mary Ellen Fernandez

Debate night debated nothing

Mary Ellen Fernandez

Anchor Staff


On Sunday night, October 9, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump made their way to the main stage live on CNN for the second to last debate night of the 2016 election. Moderators Anderson Cooper, a CNN news reporter, and Martha Raddatz, an ABC news reporter, were in charge of keeping audience noise under control, candidate’s responses within a two minute margin and asking partisan questions to both Clinton and Trump. These debates are serious and it is the job of the station hosting them to discuss important issues regarding our country. However, the second debate did little to create unbiased moderating and at times both candidates went well over their permitted time to speak. This was the catalyst for an extremely unprofessional, confusing and at times frustrating debate for the viewers.

It is no surprise that during their time on stage both Trump and Clinton had their fair share of disagreements but the moderators did little to nothing to seize the candidates unnecessary banter or crowd appraisal. This caused chaos on the debate floor which in turn took away from time that could’ve been spent discussing important issues.

A tape that was recently released by Washington Post containing graphic and insulting language from Donald Trump was brought up on two occasions during the debate from moderator Anderson Cooper. This topic, which had already been addressed by Mr. Trump before the debate, was a mere stunt to create an entertaining situation for the audience. It should be said that I am equally appalled and offended by the disgusting things said on the tape however those actions and the statement distributed by Mr. Trump after the fact should speak for itself. Regardless, important topics like health care reform, foreign affairs and the economy lost out on speaking time because the hosting news station wanted to discuss scandalous affairs.

As an undecided voter, I found the debate to be noisy, poorly organized and horribly controlled by the moderators. The two-hour long discussion of issues turned into a he-said she-said battle between both candidates which left little said about either of their policies. Several times during the debate, Mrs. Clinton went over her speaking time by as much as 12 seconds with no interruption from Cooper or Raddatz. This was clearly a biased and unfair judgment on the moderator’s part which created an irritated and interruptive approach from her opponent. Both candidates seemed to rush through the important questions with each of them failing to pinpoint a relevant answer to most. If I were asked to make a decision on who to vote for based on that last debate I would have to honestly say neither.

The point of a debate is not to pit two candidates against one another and discuss their scandals it is to get a better idea of what they plan on doing to build up our economy, keep our country safe and discuss other serious matters. CNN and it’s moderators failed to uphold an orderly, nonpartisan, unbiased and effective environment during the debate which left the voters, decided and undecided, with more anger and confusion.




Campaign rhetoric ignores issues – Ryan Foley

Campaign rhetoric ignores issues

Ryan Foley

Anchor Staff


I know I speak for many when I say that I don’t like where the presidential campaign is going. Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction according to the Huffington Post Pollster. There is plenty to talk about as far as the issues are concerned yet, for some reason, the campaign rhetoric always ends up back in the gutter dealing with issues that have nothing do with ordinary Americans.

The first reason that campaign rhetoric gets so off topic is that both have so much baggage. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for close to forty years as First Lady of Arkansas, then First Lady of the United States, United States Senator from New York and finally as Secretary of State. Since politics have changed so much since her husband has been president she has been on every side of every issue. She wants to talk about race relations, but cannot escape the fact that she championed her husband’s 1994 Crime Bill which put a large number of African-Americans in jail. She wants people to believe she is a champion for women while expecting them to forget all of the nasty things she said about the women who were romantically involved with her husband. The same is true of Donald Trump who has been well known for decades as well. He wants people to forget that he has previously said very nice things about Hillary Clinton, given money to Democratic politicians and made some very unflattering remarks about women on a hot microphone in 2005.

The second reason candidates have stilted conversations is that both have very low favorability ratings. It appears to be the strategy of both campaigns to drive the other candidate’s negative numbers up as far as possible so that many of their opponent’s would-be supporters decide to stay home on voting day. In this election it seems as though more people are participating in a phenomenon known as negative partisanship wherein they are voting against a particular candidate than they are voting for a particular candidate.

The final reason candidates are not talking about the real issues is that it just is not as exciting as tearing each other apart. The first debate was ratings gold; though it might not have been such a hit had everyone assumed it was going to be a solely policy oriented debate. The American people have a strange desire to see drama as evidenced in the popularity of reality TV shows. The media loves a circus so they are determined to get the candidates to fight with each other rather than discuss how to solve the country’s most pressing problems.

On November 8, 2016 this will all be over. I, like many Americans, will vote for the candidate which I feel is the lesser of two evils. However, I would feel much better if the candidates would spend less time talking about the past and more time talking about the future.