Women’s Soccer down Becker – Julian Borges

Women’s Soccer down Becker

Julian Borges

Sports Editor

Rhode Island College wasted no time last Wednesday night. The Anchorwomen began making quick work of Becker just six minutes into the game. Sophomore midfielder Eleni Grammas put the first point on the scoreboard for RIC when she blasted in a shot past the Becker keeper following an impressive breakaway.

Just over 13 minutes into the game, the Anchorwomen’s lead doubled after an error from the Becker side resulted in an own goal—making the score 2-0.

Seven minutes later, sophomore forward Brittany DeGrooth made it 3-0 for RIC—however Becker denied the Anchorwomen a shutout victory. Two minutes after DeGrooth’s goal, sophomore midfielder Ciara McKissick of Becker assisted classmate and fellow midfielder Helena Ortiz (Memphis, TN) who slid in a pass to put Becker on the scoreboard—making the score 3-1.

Sophomore forward Olivia Capraro responded to Becker’s goal eight minutes later with one of her own. Capraro’s goal closed out the scoring in the first half. At halftime, RIC walked off the field with a 4-1 lead over their hosts and a 10-4 shot advantage as well.

Eight minutes into the second half, DeGrooth earned a brace in the 53rd minute of the game when she capitalized on a defensive mishap and rocked a shot in the upper right hand corner of the net to give the Anchorwomen a healthy 5-1 lead over Becker.

Capraro earned her own brace five minutes after DeGrooth’s second goal of the game. Capraro closed out the scoring for RIC in the 58th minute to put the Anchorwomen up 6-1.

Becker’s Ortiz scored the final goal of the game when RIC was fouled for a penalty in the box. Ortiz made the penalty kick to make the score 6-2 in the 64th minute of the game.

Rhode Island College freshman goalkeeper Amber-Marie Francois made two saves and allowed one goal. Junior keeper Brianna Sousa had three stops in the victory for the Anchorwomen. Becker sophomore Jordyn Martel made nine saves in the defeat.

The Anchorwomen walked off the field victorious with a final score of 6-2 and a 21-9 shot advantage over the hosts.

Women’s Volleyball fall to Eastern Connecticut – Enrique Castaneda-Pineda

Women’s Volleyball fall to Eastern Connecticut

Enrique Castaneda-Pineda

Assistant Sports Editor


This week, the Rhode Island College Women’s Volleyball team had three games against Mount Holyoke, Clark, and Eastern Connecticut, respectively.

Starting with Mount Holyoke, the ladies took the first set and asserted their dominance. Though the first game went well, they lost touch in the second set, but pushed enough to snag the 25-23 win. Taking into account the first two sets, RIC lost a bit of steam and gave up the third set 20-25. The fourth set was the final set, as the ladies finished off Mount Holyoke in a dominating 25-15 victory. The Anchorwomen ended the game in a 3-1 win. Jillian Ward and Courtney Lambrese lead the team in kills, with 21 and 20, respectively.

Immediately following the game against Mount Holyoke, RIC played Clark University. To start off the game, it seemed as though the team exhausted themselves against Mount Holyoke, losing the first set against Clark 11-25. After regaining some composure, they pushed to try and keep up with Clark, but the result was another loss with a score of 18-25. Finally, RIC tried to push it to an extra set. However, it was not enough as they pushed the last set into extra points, losing 29-31.

The last game against Eastern Connecticut was a close one. The match against RIC’s Little East opponent went into five sets. The first set was a tight win for RIC, 25-21. Eastern Connecticut responded by taking the second set 20-25, but again lost the third set 19-25, giving the 2-1 edge to RIC. However, RIC could not hold on as Eastern Connecticut took the fourth set 25-20 and the final set 15-12.

The Anchorwomen are now 7-8 and have a Little East Conference record of 0-3.

Women’s Golf defeats Suffolk – Enrique Castaneda-Pineda

Women’s Golf defeats Suffolk

Enrique Castaneda-Pineda

Assistant Sports Editor


The Women’s Golf team have been struggling since the beginning of the Fall season. However, they took a win against Suffolk to give them a boost of confidence and momentum. They have competed against Wellesley, Husson, and in the Mount Holyoke Invitational so far.

Against Wellesley and Husson, the team placed second out of the three—scoring a total of 483. Leading the team was Nicole Langella, who shot 92 to place 8th overall only to have fellow teammate Kelsey Hiler behind her at 9th place.

In the two-day Mount Holyoke Invitational, the team scored 432 on the first day and 429 on the second day for a total of 861. They placed 12th out of 14 teams, with Langella scoring 94 each day—totaling 188 and tying for 59th place out of 81.

Lastly, the Anchorwomen played against Suffolk, beating them 424-504, with Langella scoring the lowest score of the day with a score of 93.

The Anchorwomen will go on to play Middlebury College, and lastly Johnson & Wales University, to end the Fall season.


Men’s Soccer defeat Worcester State – Julian Borges

Men’s Soccer defeat Worcester State

Julian Borges

Sports Editor

Coming off an intense 3-3 tie against nationally ranked UMass Amherst, the Rhode Island College Men’s Soccer team dominated Worcester State 3-0 last Wednesday in a non-conference game.

Three minutes into play, Little East Men’s Soccer Rookie of the Week, freshman midfielder Kevin Tay Munoz, launched a corner kick to junior forward Komla Dogbey who headed the ball past the WSU keeper.

The Anchormen walked off the field at halftime with a 1-0 lead and 11-6 shot advantage over the visiting Lancers.

Just two minutes after walking back on the field following halftime, Dogbey scored his second goal of the game following a throw in from sophomore midfielder Dennis Vazquez. Dogbey careened around a Worcester State defender and slid in a shot to double RIC’s lead to 2-0.

In the 74th minute, Dogbey completed what would be his first hat-trick of the season when a headed ball from Vazquez lead to a breakaway. Dogbey’s breakaway proved successful when he blasted a shot down the line to make the final score of the game 3-0.

Senior goalkeeper Chris Moura made five stops and earned his fourth clean sheet of the season and 13th overall. WSU keeper Henri Guilmette also made five stops and allowed three goals in the defeat to Rhode Island College.

Hall of Fame inductions – Marissa Marsella

Hall of Fame inductions

Marissa Marsella

Anchor Staff

Rhode Island College is proud to induct eight new and well-deserving members into its Athletic Hall of Fame this year. Gail H. Davis, the first of the inductees, will forever be remembered as a wonderful coach for tennis, softball, and most notably, gymnastics. Not only has Davis accomplished the challenges of coaching, she also remarkably secured the position of the college’s first female administrator in 1976. Upon settling into Rhode Island after residing in Philadelphia, Davis twice served as RIC’s Interim Director of Athletics. Her mark will forever be left on the college with her assistance in designing and rebuilding the Murray Center’s athletic programming after the Walsh Gymnasium’s tragic and fatal incineration in January of 1992.

Outstanding outfielder Christopher V. O’Connors from Rhode Island College’s Class of 2008 secured a spot in the Athletic Hall of Fame after his accomplishments were recognized on the field. O’Connors ranked first all-time career batting at RIC, as well as second in doubles and walks, third in hits, fourth in total bases, fifth in runs scored, (as well as RBIs,) and seventh in career slugging with an average of .594 at the conclusion of his baseball career. Along with these achievements, O’Connors also ranked top five in numerous single season categories and in just 2008 claimed the vast titles of Third Team All-New England, First Team All-Little East, and the squad’s MVP. In 2007, he secured his position on Second Team-All Little East Conference as well as First Team NEIBA All-Star in 2006 as a sophomore, and Little East Conference Baseball Rookie of the Year. After securing the First Team-All LEC title, he established a new RIC single-season record for hits—knocking his 65th of the year in 2006.

The final inductees are also highly honorable individuals whose talents and accomplishments make Rhode Island College proud to broadcast. Amy L. Machado earned her induction into RIC’s Athletic Hall of Fame after starring as a third baseman from 2002-2005. Track and cross country star, Timothy P. Rudd, was awarded for the accomplishments he garnered throughout his time as a student before graduating in 2004. Dana J. Murnigham proved herself a standout in comparison to her counterparts for her track career in 2007. Donald E. Tencher and his influential ideals as RIC’s Director of Athletics in 2005 will forever be remembered. Tencher finished in the top 30 percent of the Learfield Sports Directors Cup standings among a field of 447 Division III institutions nationally, justifying this great honor as an inductee to the Hall of Fame.

Joseph G. Testa, a four-year letter-maker in men’s tennis at Rhode Island College between the years of 1997-2000, will also be awarded a spot in RIC’s Athletic Hall of Fame for his accomplishments in accumulating multiple winning seasons for the Anchormen during his tenure. Lastly, Robert G. Walsh will also be inducted for his legacy as RIC’s most phenomenal basketball coach for nine seasons between the years of 2005-2014. With a compiled record of 204-63 for his coaching career overall, Walsh allowed RIC’s basketball team to be recognized as the highest winning program, with a percentage of .764.

Congratulations and thank you to all of the Athletic Hall of Fame inductees who have been recognized by Rhode Island College. It is truly an honor for the college to have been involved with these admirable individuals who have left such an amazing impact on its athletic programs.

Third party votes are a waste – Mary Ellen Fernandez

Third party votes are a waste

Mary Ellen Fernandez

Anchor Staff


The upcoming election has stirred up a lot of anger, confusion and most of all indecision. For several Americans there is no easy choice in the 2016 election which leaves a large gap of people who may vote for a third party or just not vote at all. Either option is bad news especially for such an important election year. With our economy, foreign affairs and social justice issues this is not the year to make either decision lightly.

Most people are upset with both candidates and the issues that arise alongside them. Donald Trump is obnoxious, crude and has his history of shady business deals. Hillary Clinton has had her fair share of conspicuous matters, including an email scandal and inconsistent stances on important issues. While both candidates are not perfect it is important for American citizens to “choose the lesser of two evils” and vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate they think would be the best fit for president.

During the 2000 election the candidates Al Gore, Democrat, and George W. Bush, Republican, were in a race for the presidency. That year many citizens were not fond of either candidate and decided to vote for third party choice Ralph Nader. Nader, a liberal, ran on a platform similar to that of Gore’s. In the end, despite winning the popular vote, Gore lost the electoral college due to vital votes in Florida going to liberal candidate Nader. It is believed that had Nader not run the votes would have gone to Gore and the presidency would have been his instead of Bush’s.

In order for the United States to prosper Americans need to vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton based on matters concerning foreign, economical and social standpoints. Although you may not like everything about a candidate it is important to remember that it is a four-year term and the decisions we make are semi permanent. Voting for a third party, especially one running on a platform similar to that of Trump or Hillary, may take valuable votes away from a major candidate who actually has the ability to win. So when November 1 comes just remember that your vote in this election matters and instead of wasting it you should use it to choose a candidate that has a chance of winning and one that you believe will do best in office.

Strict teachers are better – Kristy O’Connor

Strict teachers are better

Kristy O’Connor


Every college student knows the relief of getting your syllabus on the first day of classes and realizing that you got the luck of the draw in the teacher department. Combing through the pages, you start to realize that the review on Rate My Professor is living up to its name. You have a “relaxed” teacher, also known as a bullshit class.

Back when I was a freshman, I too was swept up in the notion that this type of teacher was better. I used to wish every teacher was like the one I had who gave take-home exams, canceled class all the time, and let us be on our phones the whole class. Then I started to realize that, although this seemed like a good thing, it was actually counterproductive to my education.

Whenever I have a relaxed teacher, I notice a deterioration in my attitude towards school. I start to do less work because I know I can get away with it, and I begin to put off my assignments until the hour before they are due. I also allow myself to skip more classes because I know that the teacher will not care and will not take points off of my grade.

On the other hand, when I have the type of teacher that most college kids dread, I find a drastic difference in my demeanor and the overall way I treat my education. I do all of my homework, I attend every class, and I put my phone away for the entire duration of class. I do what every college student should be doing.

Over the years I have started to feel bad for relaxed teachers because of the way students treat them. There is a dramatic difference in the level of respect that they get, and students will not take their classes seriously. This is not fair at all to teachers who are doing their best to teach. They deserve to have students who are ready and willing to learn, but at the same time they need to treat the class in a way that will make students want to be there.

Relaxed teachers, however, are also unfair to students. You are paying for a good education and that is what you should receive. Having a teacher who makes the class so easy that you could learn more from watching a YouTube video is not fair to those who pay for college, especially the people who pay by credit.

Despite this, there are some teachers who are strict and relaxed at the same time. These are my favorite types of teachers. The level of respect is there, but you also know that the teacher wants you to learn and do well. These types of teachers help you through the class by finding balance between being your teacher and your friend.

With my time at Rhode Island College winding down, I have come to appreciate the variety of teachers that I have had, even the ones who made class so ridiculously easy that you could skip every class and still pass. The problem with this is if you have a class where the information you are supposed to learn relates to other classes you take, you will be screwed for future classes. Think about that the next time you purposely take a class with a relaxed teacher. Maybe it will change your perspective on things.

Point/Counterpoint: Should all drugs be legalized – Shane Inman vs. Angelina Denomme

Point/Counterpoint: Should all drugs be legalized

Shane Inman        vs.        Angelina Denomme

Managing Editor            Opinions Editor


Shane Inman

The idea that drugs should be illegal is a holdover from a more repressed time when we thought that tough laws could solve society’s problems. The war on drugs was an unmitigated disaster, our prisons are filled with people who don’t deserve their sentences, and those with substance abuse problems are afraid to seek help for fear of legal repercussions. Keeping drugs illegal is a mistake.


It’s true that legalization won’t solve every problem, but it only has to move us in the right direction to be worth it. The issue of availability is a reasonable one but legalization does not mean complete deregulation. Drugs could be controlled in the same way that alcohol is and certainly wouldn’t be freely available to children. These substances already cause harm, already end up in the hands of children; legalization won’t fix this unfortunate truth but neither will it be creating a new problem where one didn’t exist before.


The “think of the children” argument is often chosen to represent outdated and regressive values when rational evidence fails and this case is no exception. A lot of the allure of drugs, for kids anyway, comes from the fact that they’re so mysterious and  hidden from the public eye. Secrets are intriguing, so if anything, keeping drugs behind closed doors only makes them seem more appealing. As for the stigma, I’m glad you mentioned that because I see as another huge point in favor of legalization the fact that it would be one step toward eliminating this incredibly damaging mindset. Shunning and reviling drug users is not healthy for our society and needs to stop.


Angelina Denomme

Though you’re points are valid they do not address the concerns that legalizing all drugs isn’t an end all be all answer. Legalizing drugs will only end the institutionalization of addicts into the prison system. It doesn’t ensure that people will no longer fear getting help or that we will not face increased problems of people driving under the influence. Maybe old school repressive laws aren’t the answer but neither is opening the floodgates to every drug being readily available to our citizens and most importantly our children.


I disagree that legalization will not create a problem where one does not already exist. While the stigma associated with drugs does cause harm in the case of addiction it does have some benefits. By forcing people who partake in these drugs to do them off to the side of society they are kept hidden in houses in a way that makes it clear that this is a “bad” act. If drugs become legalized and are used openly in public it will begin to spark the interest of children younger and younger. As we know, the younger children partake in drugs the more susceptible they are to addiction and brain damage. Experimenting at 16 is one thing but doing it at 10 or 12 is a whole other ballgame I think should be avoided at all costs.


The “think of our children” argument is still valid today because it is our children who grow up to be our drug abusers and who put a strain on the system. The legalization of nicotine and alcohol have not fixed the problem of their abuse. Take nicotine products for example, it is only by making smoking illegal in public spaces, raising the age of those who can legally purchase cigarettes, funding research into the effects of cigarettes, providing free resources to help addicts quit and by constantly airing anti-smoking ads that we have been able to see a decline in the use of cigarettes. Who is to say that this sort of method of education and strict regulation will not work for other drugs. To truly end addictions education needs to take place and education need not include the legalization of all drugs.

ISIS: a different kind of enemy – Ryan Foley

ISIS: a different kind of enemy   

Ryan Foley

Anchor Staff


For years the United States has engaged in battles of ideas. The United States has mostly won those battles by defeating fascism in the 1940s and communism nearly half a century later. What if we have finally encountered an enemy that we just can’t defeat?

Today we are in a tense battle of ideas with radical Islamic terrorists. The most recent and most deadly group of them all calls themselves the Islamic State of Iran and Syria. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate, an Islamic state ruled by an absolute political and religious leader who is a  successor of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. This group is so radical even Al Qaeda distanced themselves from them. While initially dismissed as a miniscule threat ISIS has grown in power, strength and number of social media followers. Since 2014 ISIS has been wreaking havoc in the Middle East and its effects can be felt right here at home. ISIS beheaded American James Foley in August 2014 and has taken responsibility for several homegrown terrorist attacks in the United States including but not limited to the San Bernardino attack. Unlike previous terrorist groups this group has a large social media following and has no problems displaying its massacres of innocent people as if they do it for a bloodsport. It is almost like living in a real life never ending horror movie.

These are a different kind of enemy. They cannot be reasoned with. The existence of ISIS should make every American thankful to live in the United States. The territory controlled by ISIS is governed by Sharia Law which gives women virtually no rights and considers the First Amendment to the United States Constitution a laughing stock.

Winning this war of ideas may be a lot harder and take a lot longer than winning the previous wars of ideas. It is a task that the United States, and its allies, must take on in full force in order to prevent as much further destruction of innocent human life as possible and prevent Western Civilization from being replaced with a worldwide caliphate.

In defense of Bernie’s endorsement – Jonathan Carney

In defense of Bernie’s endorsement

Jonathan Carney

Anchor Editor


When Bernie made the decision to endorse Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention many conservatives and, disappointingly, many progressives accused Bernie of selling out. However, as someone who voted for Sanders in the primaries and who was not enthusiastic when Clinton won I believe this cynical interpretation of Sanders’ motives to be completely unsupported. The point of view is more of an emotional reaction than an educated analysis supported by evidence.

Sanders publicly explained why he endorsed Clinton but people are so used to not trusting politicians that they would rather make up skeptical theories involving him somehow getting something out of it than take a man for his word. We know enough about Sanders’ strong ethics and morals to realize that his own explanation is the most believable. He cares more about Trump not winning than he cares about beating Clinton.

Many people claim Sanders’ move was detestable however I believed he did the patriotic thing. He cared more about preventing Donald Trump from becoming President than he did beating Secretary Clinton and becoming president himself. Trump’s ideology was as different from Sanders’ own as it could possibly be. Clinton’s ideology varied from his as well but they agreed more often than people let on. A more accurate analysis of the situation than “Sanders sold out” came from journalists and talk show hosts referring to Sanders as a “warrior” who “fell on his sword” for the sake of the middle class. The same middle class he has spent his career protecting would fare much better under a Clinton presidency, despite her flaws, than under Trump’s.

Clinton has flaws and we can talk about them without the need to fabricate history. For one, I am not overly-enthused to elect the former Lady of Wall Street but Clinton is no Trump. You cannot compare Clinton’s shortcomings to those of the laughingstock who thinks that not paying taxes is something to boast about. Trump’s boasts are especially ironic given that tax evasion is considered unforgivable to Republicans if you’re poor. Clinton will do more for the middle class than the man whose most recent plan cuts taxes on the rich and raises them on the rest. For those considering it, libertarian candidate Gary Johnson would also be a pitiful alternative. A man unaware of what Aleppo is and unable to name a single foreign leader he admires is too ignorant to be president despite the fact that his values would not appeal to any progressive who took the time to research his positions.

Clinton supports raising the minimum wage. She does not make inane calls to ban an entire religion from entering the country. She plans to make college tuition more affordable even if she is not promising to make it free as Sanders did.  If you believe in what Sanders stood for Clinton is the closest you can get.