A glass ceiling often exists for women and ethnic minority groups in academia as in corporate America. It is an invisible and artificial cap on advancement, a bar to leadership level seen but not reached. It results from socioeconomic and political structural conditions, historical legacy, power relations, cultural interactions and lived experiences, among others, not from these people’s preference for supporting roles.

Asian Americans in the workforce have reported difficulty getting mentors or sponsors and exclusion from informal networks. Traditionally, Asian Americans have concentrated in the science, technology, engineering and math — the STEM disciplines, although that has been changing. Many naturalized citizens and immigrants arrived as adults for doctoral training. Some have cited the lack of competitive communication skills, social capital, and cultural understanding for operation in American organizations. Those who are American born or raised also encounter obstacles. For example, behaviors appropriate in their cultural milieu are perceived to be lacking leadership caliber in corporate America, not unlike women and other ethnic minorities.

The Asian American population is highly heterogeneous; categorically it faces the “foreigner” stereotype. Individuals and media continue to perceive and portray them as foreigners. U.S. born Asian children who are similar to other American children are found to be subject to persistent disadvantages merely because they look foreign. Glass ceiling can involve unintended and implicit biases reflected in people’s attitudinal orientations and institutional practices. The above provides just a few perspectives.

To increase Asian American faculty members, the University needs to engage willing partners in serious commitment, strategic and conscious effort to recruit and retain them, as in the recruitment and retention of other ethnic minorities and women in STEM, toward a diversity that also embraces gender, religious belief, national origin, sexual orientation, in addition to others.

I am personally appalled that students would support the outright bullying of Mary Siegel. One against 500? If you’re going to fight her at least fight fair. What Siegel did was perfectly justified; whether on the Honor Committee or not, all students have the responsibility of reporting what they believe to be violations. Not only did Jason Smith have multiple unexcused absences, but when given the opportunity to rewrite and submit papers a later date, he could not even follow through with that. His excuses and justifications don’t match up, thereby justifying the need to bring it to the Committee. As a fourth-year student, he had a obligation to provide a good example of conduct and studiousness to those younger than him and to those outside the university. He violated the trust Siegel and Michelle Fox bestowed upon him. What appears to be the main cause of outrage was the verdict given; obviously this is more a conflict with the single sanction policy than that of Siegel herself. In the “real world” people that go to trial aren’t necessarily directly taken to jail or given the death penalty; the punishment is modified to fit the crime. In order to prepare us all for the real world, the Committee would do better to modify the punishment; for example, Smith could have simply not been allowed to pass the class and be required to perform community service. Grow up, pick on somebody your own size, and take issue with the real problem at hand: that of single sanction.

I have been frustrated lately with the uninformed opinions about the recent open honor trial, especially the notion of “triviality.” Triviality doesn’t necessarily refer to the gravity of the assignment or the seriousness of the class, but rather refers to whether the act in question would compromise the community of trust. The honor code applies to all assignments, in all classes, right through the end of fourth year, as it certainly should. Would anyone argue that we are allowed to cheat in easy classes, or when we are a month away from graduating? I want professors to trust me when I say that I had a family emergency or that my printer broke, whether I am in a pass/fail one credit seminar or a 200-person lecture class, whether I’m a first-year student or it’s the last day of college classes. To me, this is why I think Jason Smith’s actions cannot be considered trivial. Lying about your reason for not completing an assignment or for missing class affects every single academic interaction at this University.

I do not support the single sanction for a myriad of reasons, but under our current system, Smith received a fair trial and just outcome. I would urge the current campaign “Justice for Jason Smith” to stop talking about this trial and put the vast amounts of energy they have into working with honor in the formulation of an acceptable and effective multiple sanction system. Then, future students who violate our community of trust can still be punished for their actions without the automatic cruel punishment of expulsion. The current campaign is misleading and uninformed, and ultimately not constructive — neither for Smith nor the community of trust.

Imagine you have been invested with the power to choose a major university’s next commencement speaker. You can choose anyone you want — business leaders, political officials, talented artists — everything is on the table. By what criteria would you make your decision? Would you choose a speaker in line with the values according to which the school was founded or would you simply choose the biggest name out there? If at our own University, for example, would you pursue someone who adamantly opposes the freedoms of expression and religion espoused by our illustrious founder, or would you seek someone who embodies the liberties he promoted? The University of Notre Dame faced this predicament and went the wrong way with it. The Roman Catholic Church has long been the most stalwart defender of Christian social values; it has been a bastion around which pro-life, socially conservative forces can rally. In inviting President Obama to serve as its commencement speaker, Notre Dame dilutes the message that its mother church proclaims, demonstrating disregard for the principles so highly valued by many Catholics.

Our President’s pro-choice record is long and distinguished. I have written about this elsewhere, so I will only touch on it briefly here. As a senator, he received the highest possible rating from NARAL, a strongly pro-choice group. Since becoming President, Obama has taken active measures to remove anti-abortion regulations put in place by the previous administration. He has lifted a ban on providing funds to international organizations that advocate or provide abortions. He intends to reverse a rule put in place by the Bush administration protecting health care workers from being forced to conduct abortions. He has also overturned a Bush administration ban on the use of embryos in stem cell research. Quite the track record for his first 100 days in office. Some might argue that Notre Dame’s invitation to President George W. Bush to speak in 2001 was as misguided as their invitation to Obama; Bush supports the death penalty, which the Church opposes. Bush’s support for the death penalty, however, pales in comparison to Obama’s pro-choice record.

Indeed, Obama has already drawn heat from the Church for these moves. In a report by Foxnews.com, one Vatican official stated “Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst.” Other Catholics have joined in, and exhibit a fear that Obama’s pro-choice policies will continually conflict with the Church. Though 53 percent of Catholics voted for Obama in November, an even more lengthy list of pro-abortion acts will likely not improve his popularity among them.

Some have argued that Catholic pro-life doctrine is no longer relevant to present-day college students, and that the relatively greater significance of issues like the economy argues in favor of the invitation of Obama. I would argue that this in fact provides a stronger argument against the proffered invitation to Obama. The significance of religious doctrine is that it does not kowtow to cultural relevance. Religious doctrine represents truth, and truth is permanent. When religious doctrine ceases to be relevant, this does not mean that it has ceased to be truth. Modern Christianity struggles mightily with this issue. Because many aspects of Christian doctrine can be confrontational or command morality that runs contrary to that held by the public, it is tempting to back away from controversial aspects of the faith, to minimize their importance in order to not alienate the people who do not subscribe to their tenets. The Church should not fall prey to this. Rather than suborning religious doctrine to the popular climate, the Church needs to reinforce and reinvigorate its arguments. The Church’s anti-abortion stance is a defense of human life; therefore it is of vital importance that they not cede ground to those who choose not to see it as an issue. Inviting a speaker with a resume as staunchly pro-choice as Obama’s shows a preference for temporal relevance over permanent truth.

A religious university has a responsibility that transcends that of a secular university. They have the responsibility to uphold the religious well-being of their students in addition to their academic success. On the Notre Dame Web site, their president is quoted as saying that Notre Dame had a “distinctive mission to be a Catholic university, inspired and guided by a great spiritual position.” The religious responsibilities of the university come into conflict with its actions when it brings in a speaker whose views counter one of the most well-known stances of the Church. Much as our own University would not likely bring in a speaker with overtly authoritarian views in direct opposition to the principles of liberty embraced by Jefferson, a Catholic university should not flout the beliefs of Catholics worldwide in order to make itself culturally relevant.

Robby Colby’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.colby@cavalierdaily.com.

This past week was marked by a disturbing level of personal attacks against Mary Siegel, the Honor Committee’s vice chair for investigations, for her role in the open honor trial of Jason Smith. More than 250 students signed an online petition for her removal from the Committee. More than 450 joined a Facebook group with the same aim. Though the anger of the student body about the result of the trial may be justified, the petition and the Facebook group picked the wrong target. Fortunately, the administrators of the Facebook group have taken a step in the right direction by toning down their attacks and changing the group name from “Remove Mary Siegel” to “Justice for Jason Smith.” Others who take issue with the recent verdict would also do well to remember that it was a product of the entire honor system, not any one individual.

By all accounts, Siegel did exactly what she was supposed to do under the current system. She saw an instance of lying at the University and reported it. Regardless of her affiliation with the Committee, that is clearly the right of any student here. Her report went to the Investigative Panel, which decided it was more likely than not that an honor offense occurred. The case then went to trial and a student jury deliberated for four hours until it decided that the accused student was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The single sanction was applied, and the guilty student’s enrollment was discontinued.

We can no more blame Siegel for the result than investigators, Investigative Panel members, student jury members or counsels involved in the trial. Even those unhappy about the verdict — for all their complaints about Siegel’s inside connections — acknowledged the fairness of the accused student’s counsel during the trial. If anything, the publicity associated with an open trial ensured that the Committee was more careful than usual about its procedures. Within the system that we, the students, have put in place, Siegel acted appropriately.

Setting aside the ad hominem attacks against Siegel, students have voiced legitimate concerns about the verdict. Some have argued that a jury composed disproportionately of first- and second-year students may have held an idyllic view of the honor system without considering its negative repercussions. Others believe “making excuses” is not the same as telling a bald-faced lie. There may even be some who question if anything done during a one-credit pass-fail seminar during a student’s fourth year really merits expulsion. And even though the trial’s open nature made some information more readily available, some students also have expressed dismay about the system’s general lack of transparency.

Those students opposed to the verdict do have several avenues more appropriate than attacking Siegel for addressing their concerns against the trial. If they believe that the jury panel was not appropriately composed, they can push for new bylaws mandating a minimum number of jury members from an accused student’s year on the jury. If they believe that Siegel’s status within the Committee affected the verdict, they can argue for a more stringent code of ethics. If they have a problem with the application of triviality or the single sanction, they can propose a referendum to address such issues on next year’s ballot.

Whichever path they choose, those upset with the trial should not blame the messenger. If they truly believe the outcome was unfair, they should set their sights much higher.

After a recent open honor trial, some members of the University community have questioned the fundamental fairness of Honor Committee’s trial procedures. Unfortunately, much of the criticism now leveled at honor procedures is based on incomplete knowledge of honor bylaws and procedures. While some in the University community may disagree with the verdict that a random student panel reached, none should question the fairness that honor’s procedures provide and the diligence with which Committee representatives and support officers work to ensure fairness. I hope to clarify some of the misinformation that has been circulating about the Committee’s trial procedures.

Many critics have claimed that the reporter’s involvement in the case and her status as a Committee member somehow tainted the outcome of the trial. This is not case for several reasons. Most obviously, she did not officially assume the role of Committee member and Vice Chair for Investigations until this past Sunday — an entire week after the open trial. Thus, her involvement in the case was limited solely to that of a reporter — she had absolutely no role in any procedural aspects, such as selecting the jury panel or the Committee members who served on the investigative panel.

This case has led some to question the ability of the Committee to impartially carry out its procedures when a Committee member serves as the reporter or is otherwise involved in a case. The Committee’s bylaws outline a clear procedure should such a situation arise. Specifically, in accordance with Section V of the Committee’s Code of Ethics, the Committee goes to great efforts to ensure that the Committee members and support officers assigned to a case do not have any competing interests in that case.

Others have also called into question the ability of the Committee to provide accused students a jury of their peers. In the event an accused student requests a random student panel, the Committee goes to great lengths to provide an unbiased and random panel. To achieve this goal, the Vice Chair for Trials selects jurors at random from the entire student population. The Vice Chair for Trials then further screens the jurors to prevent any conflicts of interest that could result in a biased panel. When a student requests a random student panel, it is the responsibility of the Committee to follow these procedures in order to satisfy that request; however, if an accused student is to receive a random panel, University students must play their part as well by responding to juror summons.

These are just a few of the precautions the Committee takes to ensure that each student accused of an honor offense receives a fair trial. However, the honor system ultimately belongs to the students and it is our responsibility to uphold it. Indeed, the system requires student ownership to effectively function and deliver the benefits that have been recently discussed in these pages. Student ownership means more than personally pledging not to lie, cheat, or steal — it means holding others accountable as well. This may mean reporting a fellow student when necessary. The decision to report a case is of course a very difficult one, but ultimately the reporter is not responsible for the verdict. An unbiased jury of one’s peers makes the final decision at trial, not the reporter.

The recent criticisms of the honor system have been based on largely inaccurate information regarding the Committee’s trial procedures. Although I hope students will continue to debate any and all aspects of the honor system, we need to make sure that this debate is constructive by focusing on facts and ensuring we treat fellow students with respect. To this end, I encourage any student with any concern to attend the community concerns portion of the weekly Committee meetings.

David Truetzel is the Honor Committee Chair and a third-year student in the Commerce School.

It is easy for University students to grab a hamburger for lunch in between classes. But how many cows would it take to feed the entire University community?

Perhaps not as many as one may think. Living Gifts: Heifer International at U.Va. seeks to combat world hunger in a more unorthodox manner than usual: by supplying actual livestock to needy communities around the world. Heifer International’s “mission is to end world hunger, poverty and to care for the earth,” according to its Web site. The organization began in 1944. More than half a century later, it now exists in 125 countries and has helped 8.5 million families.

“Our club is intent on being able to donate [to HI] but we also really want to raise awareness and promote the idea that world hunger can be managed,” said third-year College student Caitryn McCallum, co-president of Living Gifts.

HI teaches communities environmentally-sound agricultural techniques so they can protect their own resources, according to the group’s Web site.

“They are a really eco-friendly group with eco-friendly ideas,” Furber said. Living Gifts hopes to bring awareness of these ideas to the University, and they are therefore “trying to grow our presence on Grounds,” she added.

McCallum noted that the University’s chapter, as one of two college groups designed to support HI, is currently working on getting established on Grounds, before looking to help the wider Charlottesville community.

McCallum and College student Kerilyn Daniel started the organization in spring 2008 but it did not become active until this year. This semester has seen the organization’s greatest increase in membership.

The club is also looking to involve other student organizations — specifically Greek organizations — as a way to raise awareness through social events, said third-year College student Kappie Farrington, Living Gifts’ community relations chair.

She added the group already had one fundraising event this semester. To raise money for HI Living Gifts, group member and third-year College student Katie Schroeder designed Valentine’s Day cards that said, “To my Hunny.” The cards were free, but volunteered donations were used to buy two beehives for HI.

Living Gifts hopes to hold another fundraiser this spring: “Cow-pie Bingo.” The event would involve a large-scale game of bingo and a live cow, with students betting where on a grid the cow would first defecate.

Although a creative idea, Cow-pie Bingo has encountered some difficulties getting started, including issues negotiating risk management because of the presence of a live animal and the potential for toxic waste.

“We also have to make sure no one gets offended,” said second-year College student Stephanie Chubb, the club’s fundraising chair. “We aren’t mistreating the cow, we’re just watching it poop.”

There is also the issue of finding a cow.

“We are having trouble getting [Cow-pie Bingo] funded,” said treasurer McKenzie Furber, a second-year College student.

Although an endorsement letter from Heifer International helped the University’s chapter gain more support from Student Council, Living Gifts currently relies entirely on donations for prizes at fundraising events. Moreover, members have paid for all publicity “out of their own pockets,” Furber said.

The group has not received funding from the University yet, one of the reasons the members are keen to work with other organizations that could help co-sponsor events.

“We’re still hopeful that if we show more activity around Grounds, [the University] will be more generous,” McCallum said.

The group has several ideas for raising awareness of its presence on Grounds. One idea is a “Sacrifice Meal,” during which students would swipe into a dining hall as usual, but only fruit, bread, soup and water would be served. The money the dining hall would save would then be donated to HI. Another idea the group is considering is an “Oxfam Meal,” which would simulate the world’s actual food distribution and provide meals accordingly.

“It’s turned out to be really complicated,” Chubb said, “but we are still trying to do it.”

Living Gifts aims to come up with events that allow students to participate in more hands-on ways, rather than through simple donations.

“[Students] really want to get actively involved,” Farrington said. ”They don’t just want to give their money away.”

She cited programs like Alternative Spring Break and the newly-created Global Development major as examples of University students’ activism.

Although she acknowledged the merit of such activities, Farrington emphasized that “the impact of a sustainable gift, such as a livestock, is going to be more long-lasting and beneficial to a community than a few weeks of aid work.”

Heifer International needs money more than anything else. Donors can choose what animal or object they purchase for a community, but cannot choose exactly where their money goes. HI sends the funds where they are needed most.

“But remember that included in that ‘price’ is not only the cost of a cow,” McCallum said, “but the cost of shipping it and then teaching people how to care for it and use it sustainably.”

Chubb said the group is busy brainstorming. “We really need people to support us,” she said, “because carrying out our task is not going to be feasible otherwise.”

Twitter. Tweep. @reply. Lately, it seems that I’ve been hearing these strange words all over the place.

First, I hear that Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer broke up because Twitter was the “other woman” in their relationship. Then, I hear Barbara Walters debate the usefulness of Twitter updates on The View. Later, I read about a full-blown break-up fight between Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson through Twitter updates. And finally, I hear about the growing need for Twitter writers to update celebrities’ pages for them.

All of this Twitter talk got me thinking, why is Twitter so popular anyway? According to its Web site, Twitter is “a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?”

Apparently other people have also questioned the need for these updates because the Web site directly answers this question: “Why? Because even basic updates are meaningful to family members, friends, or colleagues — especially when they’re timely.”

But I am not entirely convinced that my family members, friends, or colleagues care that I am going to get my hair cut or that I am eating pizza for lunch. Moreover, I am not entirely convinced that my family members, friends, or colleagues should even know that I am doing these things in the first place. We already have statuses for things like G-chat and Facebook and blogs for people to express their every opinion. But Twitter is becoming a full-blown phenomenon. Want proof? The site is often so busy you cannot access your account at all.

The insane popularity of updating devices like Twitter shows our growing obsession with talking about ourselves and reading about others. But when are we going to decide that enough is enough?

Before cell phones, e-mail and social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, people had to make much more of an effort to stay in touch. People had long phone conversations on the weekends instead of sending clipped and carefully orchestrated text messages. And the time requirement meant that only people who really cared about your life knew all about it.

Now, we want everyone we’ve ever known, and even people we don’t, to know our every move. I admit that I am just as guilty of this fact. While I do not have a Twitter account, I do update my Facebook status with pointless comments like “Lindsay Huggins hates the rain.” I cannot tell you why I feel compelled to do this, but for some reason or another, I do. Maybe it is because I see other people do it and feel influenced to do it myself. Or maybe it is simply that I do think other people care.

It’s not that there is anything wrong with people who constantly update their statuses on all of these different sites. It would be strange if they were the only ones doing it. But how compelling can someone really be in 140 characters or less (the Twitter update limit)? And do we really need to know the constant activities of our friends?

As our society has grown more dependent on technology for communication, we have become more interconnected than ever. Our ability to know more about some people has evolved into a desire to know more about other people as well. Back when Facebook was a bare-bones site with only one profile picture and an erasable wall to write on (remember that?), you kept in touch with friends through quick little comments just to say hello and check in. Now that Facebook has evolved into a fully interactive site with updates on your friends in real-time and options to upload an unlimited amount of pictures and videos, you find that you can keep in touch with friends without even making the effort to leave a comment because their activity is splashed all over your mini-feed.

It is a sad fact that the more interactive these sites become, the less human contact is required at all. Human beings are inherently curious, and it is only natural to want to know what is going on around you. But the popularity of Twitter for its constant updates shows a distinctly new desire to step outside of one’s own life and somehow inhabit another. Twitter is just an extension of our cultural obsession with others, something which can easily be seen on any celebrity blog, like perezhilton.com.

The fact of the matter is, I do not need to know what you are eating for breakfast or that you are doing your laundry because I have my own life in which I am probably doing many of the same, mundane things. For a celebrity or company, however, Twitter serves a legitimate marketing purpose because they are not updating me on everyday activities but on upcoming events, product launches, and other “exiting” things.

In the end, I do not judge someone for his or her personal choice to join Twitter, but I will not be joining any time soon. Sorry, but I guess you all will have to do without knowing that I just ate dinner and am now petting my cat. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think you’ll survive.

Lindsay Huggins’ column runs bi-weekly Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at l.huggins@cavalierdaily.com.

I just read “The Dumbest Generation.” Cover to cover, author Mark Bauerlein posits that we digital kids are dumb because we no longer read books. At first, it was a very difficult read — but once I realized there is no scroll bar in real books, I was just fine.

I’d have to disagree that we’re dumb — I know some kids who do real good at math and science and English and stuff. I would say, however, that we’re the Distractedest Generation (and, for that matter, the Likeliest Generation to Add Words to the Dictionary — doh!)
The problem is plain and simple — we’re spoiled with a never-ending array of sensational distractions online, and we’re prone to succumb to them, even when we shouldn’t. Think about it. You’re reading an e-mail from your mom telling you that Great Aunt GiGi has finally passed away. And you possess the deepest sympathy — you really do — but it isn’t your fault if G-mail scans your conversation and formulates an ad for you: “OMG, GG! Download entire Gossip Girl season here!” And so what if you click on it, right? Poor Aunt GiGi was so old. And Nate Archibald is so young. So young and so vulnerable.

It wouldn’t be such a huge problem if the constant interruption didn’t also intrude into real life. But it does, and in our digital world, I’d argue that it does so now more than ever. We are so used to turning our back on a trusty Collab page for the sake of a flashy pop-up or to thumbs-up a song on Pandora. That same distraction mentality also carries over into our everyday interactions.

Suppose, for example, that I am talking to you. I have your full attention for the time being — and then, out of nowhere, someone else speaking at a higher, more distracting frequency just interrupts. You can’t help but put me on pause while you wait and hear what the more distracting thing has to say this time. But I am not your iPod. I cannot handle being paused very well and just like your iPod, after being paused for 10 straight seconds, I automatically shut off (a.k.a. I go to my room and cry).

We’re easily distracted because we have shorter attention spans than ever. Instead of bright, shining faces, professors are greeted each morning with the dull backs of laptops. And professors, we aren’t using our laptops to google the major cultural effects of the Cold War — ­unless, of course, we’re in the middle of an open-book exam on the subject. We zone out when something is boring and spend our time trying to find something more interesting.

The problem is, zoning out on your friends is just kind of rude. I don’t know how many times this year I’ve tried to tell someone exciting news (“So today, I went to the vending machine and only bought one coke, but it gave me two!”) only to be greeted by a misleadingly surprised look (“Victoria’s Secret is having a thong sale this weekend! Sorry, did you say something?”). I always want to respond, “No. Nothing. Forget it. No call-backs.” But this isn’t second grade, and we unfortunately don’t play telephone anymore.

I always die a little inside in groups of people when someone is obviously trying to put in their two cents, and no one is letting them. I’ve watched in pure agony as another person says the first word of his or her funny story five different times, after increasing intervals of waiting it out, only to find he or she can’t get a word in edgewise. It’s painful to watch but also rather humorous. Until the story re-starter is you.

What I’m trying to say is that maybe we should all try to be a little more patient and courteous. Just smile and nod at each other’s boring stories — it will be over before you know it. Attempt to focus a little bit more; the undiagnosed A.D.D. Epidemic is giving people our age a bad rap.

In the end, I’d say we aren’t The Dumbest Generation or Generation X at all. In my opinion, we should dub ourselves Generation — ohhh! Check out how shiny that flagpole is!

Marissa is a guest columnist this week. She can be reached a m.dorazio@cavalierdaily.com.

If you have heard Flo Rida’s ubiquitous hit, “Right Round,” then you know just about everything there is to know about the rapper’s sophomore album, R.O.O.T.S. That’s not necessarily a bad thing: “Right Round” and its unexpected sampling of Dead or Alive’s 1980s classic, “You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)”, is the perfect song for any party or treadmill, and you can’t blame a guy for trying to recreate the formula in as many ways as possible. In fact, the songs on which Flo and his army of producers try to match the dizzying heights of “Round” are the most successful, while the others are tedious, repetitive and sometimes downright boring.

The sheer amount of people who were roped into constructing the album is a wonder unto itself. Between the mass of producers, the group involved in R.O.O.T.S. has helped create an impressive collection of pop hits — including Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl,” Britney Spears’ “Circus,” T.I.’s “Whatever You Like,” Estelle and Kanye’s “American Boy” and Lil Wayne’s “Lollipop.” That’s only the beginning though. Throughout the course of the album, Flo is joined by Ne-Yo, Nelly Furtado, Wyclef Jean, and Akon, while sampling everyone from Eiffel 65, Benny Benassi, Tina Turner and the previously mentioned Dead or Alive. To say the least, it makes for a high-budget affair.

It might not be such a big revelation then to say that the album is never so much about the album itself as it is about the collection of giant singles that are sure to be derived from it. About seven songs are sure to find their way to pop radio, following the lead of the massive, unavoidable first single. The second single, “Sugar,” which features the young, upcoming Wynter Gordon — don’t worry if you haven’t heard of her, you will — has already shot to the top of the iTunes chart. It features the typical Flo formula of rapid-fire rapping verses followed by a bouncy, infectious bubblegum chorus.

“Jump,” featuring Nelly Furtado, is sure to be a future staple of stadiums across the country, despite Furtado unfortunately being assigned nothing but a phoned-in chorus that wastes her unique vocals. “Be On You” — this time with Ne-Yo — finds Flo attempting a little bit of romance — sorry ladies, but usually all he has to offer is a random hookup — but Ne-Yo dominates the song so much that you’d think it was his new single. The Latin-influenced “Available,” anchored by huge synthesizers and clever verses, rises above expectations, even if the chorus — this time by Akon — is a slight letdown.

Where the album falls apart is every time Flo tries to reach for more than a party anthem, with only the title track proving there might be more to this rapper than girls, money and glossy chains. Backed by unexpected choir hymning, Flo details where he came from and his reluctance to leave everything behind considering all that he has achieved. It is a terribly small glimpse into the soul of a man who has risen above his beginnings in the projects. The two halves of the album, the one in which Flo details his hard-knock life, and the other — where the pop is poured on so hard you half expect Britney to show up — make for a less than continuous listening experience. But those that get the party going are worth the 99 cents on iTunes, and because it’s hard to believe Flo and Co. were aiming for much more than that, maybe it’s a win-win after all.