My brother often calls me when he’s on long road trips. Given that he lives about three hours from the nearest city, I get these calls more often than you might expect. On a trip to the big city last week, he called me and described something that made him question his hearing and the assumption of evolutionary progress. A Public Service Announcement (PSA) had aired multiple times on his drive informing listeners not to park their cars on railroad tracks.

The fact that air time was purchased, a voice actor hired, and a committee convened to disseminate such a reminder means a lot of things, but a few stood out:

1. Enough people have been injured or died from getting hit by a train because they had parked their car on the tracks that it was considered a priority message to get out to the public.
2. The message was framed as a reminder as if the information in it was not self-evident and vehicle operators are in real danger of forgetting the fact that train tracks are not a safe place to park their car.
3. Somebody, or somebodies, decided that the ad budget for this region would best be spent on reminding people of the danger of parking one’s car on train tracks. As if this they could think of no graver dangers facing our public and society.

While the danger of getting hit by trains is real, it should come as a surprise to no one. Consider this video from Operation Lifesaver, an organization dedicated to preventing injuries and fatalities caused by trains, and try and keep in mind this is not a parody but an actual ad paid for by an organization that gets more than a million dollars a year in grants.

The examples used in this video prove the point that this PSA is sharing knowledge that could hardly be less obvious. The assumption that people don’t understand that standing or parking on railroad tracks sure seems like a damning sign that Mike Judd’s “Idiocracy” is already upon us.

I mean, this guy is our president. 

Did you know Donald Trump went on WWE?

Personally, I don’t have that ugly a view of our society. I assume that most people who get hit by trains probably knew they were doing something dangerous and were either suicidal or made bad split seconds decisions to try and risk a last minute crossing. However, I do think there are a lot of public service announcements we could be making.

Maybe we could start by keeping it in the train industry. Here’s a script idea for a different train related PSA:

“Hello, this is a soothing generic voice alerting you to the danger of living, working or just plain being near train tracks. Rail cars traveling through your community and are often carrying extremely explosive crude oil. In the case of a derailment of one of these trains, you are considered to be in immediate danger if you are within one mile of the tracks. Another common side-effect associated with these trains is the pollution of local water supplies when they spill.”

Here’s another PSA campaign for one of the most serious public health epidemics facing our nation:

“Regularly consuming fast food may be hazardous to your health. Common side effects include diabetes, heart disease, obesity and in more cases than we are comfortable admitting death. You will also likely experience bloating, gas or diarrhea. Fast foods are also primarily sourced from factory farms that rely on poisonous pesticides and should be avoided if at all possible.

Also, sorry about all those ads targeting children in low-income and minority communities. All the little plastic toys in our meals will never make up for health risks they take when eating our food.

We regret to inform you that these unhealthy options are also the cheapest calories available because of federal subsidies to producers and the labor practices of the industry, which ensure most of their employees remain in a constant state of poverty.”

And finally, here’s one about very expensive free speech:

“We interrupt you from your regularly scheduled programming to let you know that corporations have the same rights as individuals. There should be no limit to their ability to freely speak by pouring boatloads of cash into political campaigns.

Also, this is a friendly reminder that we don’t want to see our corporations fail. That’s why we subsidize their businesses with low tax rates and offer them bailouts of taxpayer money in case they decide to gamble with our life savings. Because after all when a few corporate executives amass great wealth the general population may someday enjoy the golden showers of trickle down economics.”

All of these PSA’s are about important issues where rather than warn or protect us the government enables the corporations behind these industries to put us in danger.

According to a 2016 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government spends nearly a billion dollars a year on advertisements and public relations, with the Department of Defense accounting for about 60 percent.

So, please remember, don’t linger on train tracks and don’t expect the government to be on your side. Their loyalty is too expensive for most of us.

The post Segerstrom: Stop for trains and other good ideas appeared first on Emerald Media.

Dr. Christopher Ali is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia. He holds a Ph.D. from the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Ali is a former Federal Communications Commission intern and the author of the book “Media Localism: The Policies of Place,” which was published last month.

Dr. Ali will be talking about the future of local newspapers as part of the Demystifying Media lecture series on Friday in Allen Hall.

Prior to his visit to UO, Dr. Ali talked to the Emerald about the re-emerging issue of net neutrality and its potential effects on UO students.

Emerald: How do you define net neutrality?

Dr. Christopher Ali: Basically net neutrality is the idea that an internet service provider cannot discriminate against the type of content that flows through its wires. In other words they can speed up or slow down certain content because a company has paid them more or because they are charging access to different services at different rates. The idea is that the internet and the way we access the internet should be neutral.

Dr. Christopher Ali is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and a former intern for the FCC.

E: How has the new Federal Communications Chairman, Ajit Pai, proposed to change net neutrality rules?

Dr. Ali: Pai hasn’t actually come out and said what he wants to do with net neutrality. He has said that he is against it. He has said it is costing people jobs, which doesn’t make sense.

What he has done is chip away at an idea called zero-rating. Zero-rating is the idea that a company can pay a mobile provider, like T-Mobile, so that the company’s data count won’t count against your data count. For example, Netflix could pay T-Mobile and then you could stream Netflix on your cell phone without it counting against your data, which is huge. Think about how much data video streaming takes. If you’ve ever falling asleep watching Netflix you know how much data that takes.

This idea of zero rating is against the spirit of net neutrality and what Pai has done is dropped all investigations into zero rating. So basically he has allowed zero-rating to happen where before it was in this sort of gray area. That’s one way that he has chipped away at net neutrality, but he hasn’t come out and said ‘this is how I’m going to pick apart net neutrality.’

E: What are the broad political trends in net neutrality?

Dr. Ali: The funny thing about net neutrality is that net neutrality really should not be a partisan issue. It really shouldn’t.

Republicans can look at it and say it promotes small business, because if you are a small business operator and you would suddenly have to start paying a lot more money to reach consumers, that really hampers small business.

Democrats like it because it is about freedom of speech, freedom of access and freedom to innovate.

In the last three years it has become a partisan issue, ever since President Obama came out in favor of net neutrality regulation, then suddenly it entered the Republican platform. Suddenly, Republicans were against net neutrality.

The Republican line is against regulation, against big government and against in any way the government intervening in private space.

E: So basically there have been statements in opposition to net neutrality from the Republicans but no concrete proposals?

Dr. Ali: Right, it’s going to be really hard to pull back on net neutrality because the courts have ruled on it as well. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has said twice that the FCC has authority over this and only a year ago ruled that the FCC’s net neutrality rules are constitutional.

It’s going to take a lot of work for net neutrality rules to change.

E: Who stands to benefit the most from change in the current net neutrality rules?

Dr. Ali: Internet service providers 100 percent. Especially the big ones: Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, New Charter.

These are the companies that will be benefitting from it because it means that they can start discriminating. What internet companies want the most is to be able to treat the internet like a cable subscription package. They would be able to provide a basic package with say email and access to google, but if you want social media you have to pay another $5 a month, if you want international news with BBC and Al-Jazeera that’s going to cost you an extra $10 a month and then there would be a premium package where you get Netflix and all the video streaming. But say if you are on Comcast you might get the Xfinity for free.

What they want to do is treat the internet like a cable subscription, because that is going to be hugely profitable for them, and without net neutrality rules they can do that.

Without net neutrality rules Comcast can charge you for access to Facebook. They can also charge Facebook access to you.

E: Who are some of the biggest proponents of net neutrality?

Dr. Ali: President Obama and Tom Wheeler the previous chairman of the FCC. You have public interest groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge, Common Cause, all these public interest groups are really in favor of net neutrality.

Small business is generally in favor of net neutrality. Any internet start up, but also the big internet companies.

Google is an interesting case because they initially led the charge for net neutrality and in the past few years they have backed off. My hypothesis, is that they are so big they can afford to pay the ransom if net neutrality goes away

Who really led the charge was Etsy and EBay. Can you imagine if you are an Etsy person and all of a sudden you have to pay more just to get to Etsy just so you can sell the goods you are selling anyways?Etsy became a big net neutrality advocate kind of out of the blue.

Netflix is also a big champion of net neutrality, but they too, I think, have become so rich in the past few years that if it turns out that if net neutrality was done away with they could afford to pay whatever Comcast wants.

In fact, they did.

We had a net neutrality gray area between 2014 and 2015 and in that time Comcast actually slowed down Netflix’s speed in order for Netflix to have to pay Comcast this paid prioritization fee.

While it is certainly in Google’s and Netflix’s favor to have net neutrality on the books, they can afford to live in a world without net neutrality. A lot of these other internet based businesses can’t.

E: What impact does net neutrality have on the internet experience of the average college student?

Dr. Ali: At the very basic it keeps your Netflix subscription fee from going up. Imagine if Netflix had to pay every single internet service provider a hefty fee to reach you fast. They would be able to afford that only by passing the fee on to the consumers. So then your Netflix subscription goes from $8.99 to $10.99.

But then, say you as a college student you get internet for free in your dorm, but maybe your university says, ‘you know what you get your basic internet for free but if you want to top it up you have to pay more.’

At the very least for college students they should be worried about this because they consume a huge amount of video: YouTube, Hulu, Amazon Prime.

College students don’t watch TV anymore. Most of their screens are broadband based.

Without net neutrality it is going to cost you more.

E: What else do you think college students should understand?

Dr. Ali: When I teach my classes on media policy and law one of the things I try to teach them is the idea that, as boring as it sounds, media policy matters. It matters on the same policy level as health care, as education policy, as foreign affairs policy, because without media policy you can’t get any other of your policies done. This is something I learned from former FCC commissioners like Nicholas Johnson and Michael Copps who preached this belief.

I get frustrated that a lot of times these issues don’t make it into the news. At times they get so bogged down in jargon that it is hard to understand, but this stuff really does matter. It matters from Netflix to Facebook.

We thought we won this fight but it turns out that we didn’t. We need to keep awareness up and keep the conversation going.

The post Segerstrom: Q&A with Dr. Christopher Ali on net neutrality and internet accessibility appeared first on Emerald Media.

Chapter 3:  Delegitimize the other institutions

Good news! If you completed chapter one adequately, then this process is already underway. In fact, by convincing the people that the press is nothing but a bunch of lying liars who have it out for you and the truth, you’ve laid the foundation for chapter three: making the people lose all faith in all other institutions of civil service and positioning yourself to fill the void as the sole broker of truth and power.

Step 1: I’ll be the judge of that.

One of the peskiest obstacles for an autocrat to contend with is the rule of law. It’s inconvenient. Authoritarians don’t seek power just so they can listen to some person wearing a robe tell them how to do their job. Obedience is for the weak, and authoritarians refuse to be characterized as weak.

As a strong leader who knows what’s best for your people, it is up to you to make sure that these tattle-tales don’t ruin your ascent to power or trample on the seeds of division you have sewn. You know your rights to power and anyone who stands to question you is your enemy, and by extension, the enemy of the people. This is a good time to attack an appointed official who serves on behalf of one of those annoying other parts of government:

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

What a great example of how to delegitimize your opposition! You questioned the judge’s authority and placed him as an opponent of the men and women tasked with protecting the people. Never mind that you may have put off some of your other judge friends. The world needs to know that you are strong and will not accept weakness or opposition even from a so-called “expert.” After all, you’re an expert. You’re the best expert out there — heck, you’re the only real expert out there.

Step 2: Congress who?

Say you have the misfortune to live in a country in which the power of law lies in the hands of many rather than in the hands of one person. What to do about those self-righteous legislators?

The key is rapid, direct action. Assert your authority early and often. Pass as many orders, decrees, pronouncements, declarations — whatever your preferred nomenclature — as quickly as you can. By overwhelming the system you create a game of catch me if you can. You may not get everything you want accomplished, but you can be sure that they will only slow your momentum rather than extinguish your fire.

Also, cast aspersions on some of the leading members of the legislative body. Cry babies and whiners be damned. The people shouldn’t listen to those whiners. They should give their full attention and adulation to you.

Step 3: I’ll take one order of executive power.

As you may remember in chapter one, in which we talked about the evils of the so-called free press, it is important to have a message of strength and project power and stability. No matter how an authoritarian comes to power, whether it be a bloody coup or a democratic election, what’s most important is consolidating power once you’re there.

Consolidating power in any regime is about surrounding yourself with people who are willing to do or say most anything. If you have bad ideas they will own them for you. If you make up stuff or repeat a lie you heard irresponsibly, they will take the fall.

Whoa! That guy is good. He doesn’t back down. He’s full red pill. He spreads lies and refuses to provide evidence, and attacks judges and asserts your regime’s total and absolute power to do almost anything you want. He’s just the kind of person you want to surround yourself with: a rising star unfettered by the chains of tradition, democracy or constitutional law.

Associates like this are crucial to the expansion of your power. They back your growing sense of executive authority and at times even make you seem like the reasonable one. They are your frame and they are your crutch. With associates like these, you are on the right track to wanton expansion of your authority.

As an authoritarian you want to foment disruption — it’s good for business. The more chaos and fear you can sew the less resistance there is to you expanding your powers. While this is helpful to your cause, you can’t be directly connected to it. You don’t want people to get crazy ideas. You aren’t responsible for their struggles. You are the antidote to fear and insecurity. You are strength and aggression. It is the outsiders and your opponents who are to blame for any problems that may occur.

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

Follow Carl on Twitter @Carlschirps.

The post Segerstrom: The Authoritarian Handbook, institutions appeared first on Emerald Media.

Chapter Two: Pick a Target, any Target

Step 1: Define the others and tell people how bad they are.

There’s something in the air, you can almost feel it. It’s anger, fear or some combination of both. People have lost jobs that might not be coming back. Reports of violence in cities and abroad are dominating the news. This is a great time to find someone to blame.

Scapegoating is one of the all-time classics and is a linchpin of any authoritarian regime. As despotic leaders, we are only at our strongest when we have something to push against. It always helps to pick on marginalized people. People fleeing oppression and wars are always good targets because, well, let’s face it: they’re too poor and beleaguered to fight back.

Whichever people you choose, tell your people that they (the others) are coming for us and are hell bent on destroying us and our way of life. After all, It’s only natural to kill before being killed.

“They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and their sending those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some I assume are good people.”

Good work, you picked identifiable targets who can be found throughout the country. No need to shut off certain groups from potential future demonization.

Step 2: Keep the others out.

In step two, you should start excluding certain groups of people. Pick easy targets like poor people and those fleeing oppression. You can even include some sort of religious element; dividing people by religion almost always works! If you’re feeling ambitious you can even take on two different groups.

“I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

Whoa, that’s a little ambitious, but it’s good to see that kind of enthusiasm. It’s great messaging to give people a tangible object. Giving people a construction project to cast their insecurities, fears and doubts on is excellent messaging. (Not quite sure about the how they’ll pay for it part, but why split hairs.)

After you’ve set up this scene of strife and conflict on the frontier, you can always set your sights abroad. It helps to start small here. You don’t want to alienate potential allies and you can’t set your sights too high. Pick some countries and people with little political capital, declare them enemies and stop them from coming to your country. Consider banning people from destabilized countries that have little in common culturally with you, especially countries that you don’t have any financial interest in.

Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 1, 2017

This is a great example of proving your claims by making statements that don’t rely on evidence but still evoke emotion. Forget the fact that the people you are keeping out are incredibly unlikely to pursue violence; instead, focus on an unprovable assertion based on emotion. Remember, what you lack in facts you can make up in fear.

Step 3: Promote destabilization and radicalization.

An important aspect of creating and maintaining an atmosphere of fear is cultivating your enemies. A two-fold strategy works best here: continue with any conflicts you have abroad and make sure your enemies know that you oppose them.

Use absolute language to convey your message, but make sure not to be too specific or offer any evidence.

We must keep "evil" out of our country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017

If you say something like this (on the heels of a ban of a certain set of people) you send a clear message to your enemies. They know that we are against them, we think they are medieval and barbaric, and that we agree with them that we are enemies.

The best way to maintain fear is by creating the circumstances that enliven your opposition. By making overtly religious statements that feed the propaganda machines of your radicalized foes, you have ensured that the enemy you desperately need to justify your concentration of power will persist.

Step 4: Normalize violence.

Since your regime has established that other people are out to get us, we need to separate specific groups of people to ensure we have a real and absolutely evil enemy. One of the final and most essential means to achieving an authoritarian regime is normalizing the use of violence. Let’s close ranks with other despotic leaders and agree that war and civilian deaths are understandable and necessary.

If someone criticizes a fellow authoritarian leader, here’s one way you can respond to them about the inevitability of violence: “There are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent? Do you think our country is so innocent?”

While war and violence are not unique to authoritarian regimes, they serve them well. Fear and violence cause society to seek a strong, war ready figure, and the authoritarian never backs down from a fight.

The post Segerstrom: The Authoritarian Handbook, chapter two appeared first on Emerald Media.

The following text was recovered from under a burning pile of books and U.S. constitutions. It is a partial copy and a team of forensic scientists are working to piece together the remaining sections. They are real moments taken from the ascendency of an apparent demagogue. As they work to piece together the fundamentals of this ideology, we should all be fighting to resist the deterioration of our democracy at the hands of this terrifying regime. Freedom of religion and information are a couple of early victims, let us not allow this treachery to define or shape us. Resist.

The Authoritarian Handbook

Chapter 1: Incite mistrust in the media

Step 1: The media is your enemy, and they are liars.

We need to make sure that our supporters know that the media is against us and that they are dishonest. There are some important foolproof steps we can take to help the public understand that the media are elitists. They are lying when they oppose us and are out of touch with our people. A good place to start is by declaring the media to be an opposing party that only stands to discredit our stupendous movement and truly great and wonderful people.

Here’s an excellent example (remember, people love conflict):

We have a “running war” with the media.

“The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.”— Steve Bannon, in a recent interview with the New York Times.

Great job, Darth, we are really impressed with your clarity about your feelings on the crumbling fourth estate. Those idiots would be well-served to follow your advice. Let’s move on to public speaking.

If you are in public get the audience involved, here’s a great example of how to talk about the media:

“They are terrible. They are honestly, and I don’t mean all, I mean like 75-80 percent. And they know it, they know it, they know (repetition helps). These are not stupid people, but they’re very dishonest people in many cases.”

Now that you have the crowd on your side, let’s do some call and response.

“Do we like the media?” (Expect a chorus of no’s!)

“Do we hate the media?” (Raise arms to punctuate the loud yes from your adoring fan base.)

Excellent, we have our people on our side and they know who the enemy is. Now let’s tackle some of those nasty methods they use to try and tell us we’re wrong.

Step 2: Redefine critics and criticism.

Now that you have sown the seeds of discontent with the media, it’s time to show your people that the media are dishonest spin-doctors. This is a great opportunity to guide the conversation about who gets to say what, and how they get to say it. Public shaming will be an invaluable tool in this part of your program.

Here’s a great way to deal with a pesky reporter at a news conference:

“No, not you. Your organization is terrible. Quiet, quiet, she’s asking a question don’t be rude… I’m not going to give you a question, you are fake news.”

Congratulations! By characterizing an entire media organization as “fake news” after they aired an unverified story about you, you have positioned yourself excellently to discredit anything they say against you in the future. So far you are doing great, let’s keep it up and eventually we can get to dismantling that pesky constitution everyone always gripes about.

Before we move on, let’s redefine some of our prior actions and place the blame for that type of behavior on the crooked media:

“[Reporters] calling the President names, going on Twitter and saying snarky things about him, the President of the United States, that would never pass editorial muster on a network or in the papers really should be re-thought.”

Great job! We managed to turn one of our leader’s favorite pastimes, making snarky remarks on Twitter, into something the media shouldn’t be doing. Now that we have redefined fake news and prescribed how it is acceptable for members of the media to behave on Twitter, let’s tackle that annoying objective reality thing.

Step 3: Offer an alternate reality.

After waging war on the media and undermining their credibility and right to share their opinions and analysis, we have positioned ourselves excellently to bring forward some of our own wonderful ideas. Let’s try some of the all-time hits — these ones never fail to impress.

Brag about your popularity; if everyone loves you why would they even bother to hold you accountable. You are their trustworthy and good leader. Tell them about how historically amazing your victory was — heck, even claim that God stopped the rain so you could give your inauguration in the sunshine.

In the case that people threaten to undermine you and your movement, perhaps by saying you didn’t win the most votes, let’s go ahead and question the fundamental validity and mandate of the voting system.

A great way to do this is by saying that some nefarious plot by millions of people to vote illegally, and only against you, is the only explanation for your popular deficit. People love intrigue and mystery, so make sure you don’t have any substantial evidence of this. It’s always better to keep them guessing.

Step 4: Repeat steps 1-3, until everyone believes it or all dissent is silenced.

The post Segerstrom: The Authoritarian Handbook, chapter one appeared first on Emerald Media.

Since President-Elect Trump nominated Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, serious fears have risen about Sessions’ stated policies and history of questionable judgment.

These concerns led to direct non-violent action by protestors at Sessions’ Alabama office, which resulted in six arrests, including the arrest of the National President of the NAACP, Cornell William Brooks.

In a statement posted on the NAACP website, Brooks summed up the reasons his organization is opposing Sessions: “A record on voting rights that is unreliable at best and hostile at worst; a failing record on other civil rights; a record of racially offensive remarks and behavior; and dismal record on criminal justice reform issues.”

During the ongoing confirmation hearings for Sessions, congressmen, including civil rights leader John Lewis and Senator Cory Booker, have spoken up against the Alabama senator.

Both acknowledged working with Sessions before, but questioned his judgment and commitment to serving all the people of our country.

In an impassioned speech, during which he appeared to be on the brink of tears, Booker said, “Senator Sessions has not demonstrated the commitment to a central requisite of the job: to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights and justice for all of our citizens.”

During Lewis’ testimony, the civil rights icon said, “We need someone as Attorney General who will stand up for all of us and not just some of us.”

Despite damning testimony and a previous rejection of Sessions for a federal judgeship in 1986 over claims of racism, Sessions and his colleagues have consistently maintained that he is not a racist and has been a champion of civil rights.

Over 1,400 law faculty nationwide, including 14 UO Law faculty members, have sided with Lewis, Booker and the other civil rights groups to call on the U.S. Senate to reject his nomination.

In the petition, which appeared in the Washington Post, legal faculty nationwide called on the Senate to reject Sessions because of his history of racist statements, hardline stances on immigration, misleading statements on voter fraud, history of supporting voter suppression, unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud, support for prosecuting minor drug offenders and connections with fossil fuel industry interests.

The petition “primarily used social media, and the word spread very rapidly. More than 1000 law professors signed on within the first 72 hours,” according to petition organizer and UC Berkeley Law faculty Ty Alper.

The law professors’ petition concluded with this statement, “As law faculty who work every day to better understand the law and teach it to our students, we are convinced that Jeff Sessions will not fairly enforce our nation’s laws and promote justice and equality in the United States. We urge you to reject his nomination.”

Despite the widespread outcry over Sessions’ questionable record and the signing of the petition by some UO Law faculty, the outrage over Sessions has paled in comparison to the fervor and passion with which Nancy Shurtz was met for her tasteless and offensive Halloween use of blackface.

While I am in no way condoning her behavior, which she claims was actually part of an awfully executed anti-racism message, it is troubling that her misguided Halloween costume was cause for such campus wide outrage while the nomination of Sessions has been met with a handful of signatures and not much else.

Defending our campus community and ultimately our country from the spread of racism, anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric, hateful proposals targeted at Muslims and immigrants, and policies that negatively affect women needs to move beyond flashpoint issues like Shurtz.

Fighting these messages of hate and division should be a priority of all community members who value inclusion and diversity, but so far we have fallen flat on the issue of the Sessions nomination.

How can we square our commitment to these principles with our reluctance to speak out publicly when these civil rights issues arise?

Why does a professor’s offensive costume warrant a campus wide response and a public call for resignation from 23 law faculty members and the appointment of Sessions to the highest law enforcement position in the land only gain 14 signatures?

These questions do not have easy answers but they must become part of our dialogue. I was surprised in the development of this article that none of the law professors I spoke to or emailed with were willing to comment for this story.

With the ascendancy of Trump, who has sailed a rising tide of white nationalism in social media and popular culture, the time is now to go beyond addressing local problems and engage with these larger institutional manifestations of racism and intolerance.

We can’t only get excited about the headline grabbing stories like the Shurtz story. The time is now to stand our ground and continue the fight for equality for all people and push back the waves of injustice, even when it doesn’t mean grabbing headlines and supporting popular causes.

As Booker said in his Senate testimony, “The arc of the moral universe does not just naturally curve toward justice; we must bend it.”

The post Segerstrom: Resisting racism, lessons from Sessions to Shurtz appeared first on Emerald Media.

Sometimes it’s overwhelming. You find yourself turning off the air conditioner when you’re behind a diesel truck or worrying about the Windex being sprayed on a table at a restaurant. The more you know about toxins that surround you, the more there is to worry about, but this knowledge can be a catalyst for action and change.

University of Oregon graduate Joel Iboa understands how a toxic environment can affect people and he is taking the necessary steps to protect the people of Oregon. At age 25, Iboa is the youngest member of Governor Kate Brown’s statewide environmental justice task force by more than 20 years.

“In the last two years, I went from playing video games at 12 o’clock at night [to] sitting on the Governor’s environmental justice task force,” Iboa said. “That’s a big responsibility.”

Iboa went to UO interested in criminal justice reform and advocacy but left with a passion for environmental justice. Iboa described this shift as a change from focusing on crimes committed by individuals to crimes committed by corporations.

Now, merely two years after graduating, Iboa returns to campus to give lectures on environmental justice in West Eugene.

The concept of environmental justice, which Iboa described to a class of UO freshman Chemistry students, is based on seeking justice for low-income and minority communities that historically have been disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution. Bill Clinton codified Environmental Justice into law by Executive Order 12898 in 1994.

Iboa, a large man with a gentle handshake and laid-back demeanor, is the Environmental Justice and Community Outreach Manager for Beyond Toxics — a statewide advocacy group that tracks pollution and educates communities about environmental health issues.

Beyond Toxics is “not your typical conservation group that cares about wolves or National Parks or something like that,” Iboa said. “Our concern is primarily with people and their exposure and vulnerability to chemicals.”

Locally, Iboa focuses on environmental justice concerns in the Bethel and Trainsong neighborhoods of West Eugene.

“For me, it’s deeply personal,” Iboa said, “I have two cousins right now who have homes in Trainsong with little kids.”

Iboa’s work involves meeting with community members to understand the problems they face, doing educational outreach in schools and trying to organize and empower the citizens of West Eugene.

In stark contrast to the infrastructure that provides access to fresh food, transportation and medical services in most of Eugene, West Eugene has only three supermarkets, no primary care hospitals and essentially all of the heavy industry in the city.

According to the city of Eugene’s website, the disproportionate exposure to pollution and lack of access to health promoting services has led the city to recognize there are environmental justice problems in West Eugene.

Iboa and Beyond Toxics organize to promote awareness of pollution threats to families in the Bethel School District. The district is separated from the larger 4-J school district by the industrial corridor of the city. According to urban planning work group Envision Eugene’s 2014 Environmental Justice Issue Briefing, the 97402 zip code, where the Bethel school district is located, has the most diverse and low-income populations and is home to all but one of the 31 industries monitored for toxic emissions in Eugene.  

The negative effects of pollution in West Eugene are exemplified in the Bethel School District, according to a 2012 study produced for the EPA by Beyond Toxics and the Centro Latino Americano. Students in the Bethel school district had reported an asthma rate of 14.5 percent while students in the 4-J district only reported 8.08 percent of students having asthma — below the national average of 10 percent.

While the cumulative impacts on the families in the West Eugene community are clear, it is no easy task to mitigate the pollution they are exposed to.

The Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, which is responsible for monitoring pollution in Lane County, issues permits to industries that allow them to pollute at certain levels.

But Iboa sees this as a problem. “They monitor individual businesses,” he said, “but they don’t do enough to mitigate cumulative impacts.”

The concentration of polluting industries and lack of access to services that promote healthy living is especially burdensome because of the political and socio-economic conditions that prevent residents of West Eugene from lobbying for change with the local government.

“Politically, they’re disenfranchised,” Iboa says.  “The Bethel community is eight square miles and the biggest neighborhood in Eugene — last time I went to one of their meetings, maybe three or four people showed up. They’re a really big community and no one is engaged.”

Members of the West Eugene community, which is about one-third Latino according to school enrollment figures, face obstacles such as working multiple jobs, immigration status and language barriers.

“Unfortunately the things people experience in different parts of our city are different,” Iboa said. “Once you cross Chambers Road, it’s a whole other ball game … so much of the built environment has such an impact on our life.”

Iboa was raised in the Whiteaker neighborhood, across Chambers Road from West Eugene, and attended Sheldon High School. He graduated from UO in 2014 as a sociology major and served as the External Director of the Movimiento Estudantil Chicano de Aztlan and Co-Director of the Center Against Environmental Racism during his time at UO.

Iboa has taken his education and student group involvement and parlayed it into a career of advocacy work that serves the community.

The lobbying efforts of Iboa and Beyond Toxics have contributed to the City of Eugene recognizing and addressing environmental justice issues in West Eugene.

“We put [environmental Justice] on the map,”  Iboa said. “Now if you go to the city council meetings, they will say without a doubt that West Eugene is an environmental justice community.”

Acknowledgement of environmental justice issues by city authorities has created space for Iboa and the city government to work on solutions to improve the city for the future.

Currently, Beyond Toxics is working with Envision Eugene to create living-wages and lasting jobs in Northwest Eugene, specifically in the Clear Lake Overlay Zone, rather than add additional heavy industry.

Iboa said sometimes it’s depressing trying to figure out solutions with industries that can be unwilling to cooperate and don’t want their businesses to suffer from additional regulations.

Iboa is hopeful that his hard work on the Clear Lake Overlay Zone will pay off.

“If this passes, it will be the first of its kind in Oregon. This could be a model for the rest of the state.”

The gains in recognition of environmental justice and potential for concrete action on the Clear Lake Overlay Zone are examples of the gains Iboa and Beyond Toxics have made in West Eugene; however, the need to keep working on behalf of the community persists for Iboa who said the scope and persistence of the challenges facing West Eugene residents can be disheartening.  

“If you are taking a deep breath and it’s killing you, then something is wrong.”

The post Joel Iboa: The solution to pollution in Eugene appeared first on Emerald Media.

In a democracy there is a principle that governments rule by the consent of the governed, so what are we to do with a president who doesn’t respect the concept of consent?

Donald Trump, who ran a campaign that closely resembled an insult comic tour — ‘Tired Jeb’, ‘Little Marco’, ‘Lyin Ted’ and ‘Crooked Hillary’ — is unavoidably our next president.

While we must accept the results of the electoral college, we need not acquiesce to the buffoonery and bigotry that Trump has spewed. Simply accepting the results and “coming together as Americans” is an insult to the sexual assault survivors and minorities who have been targeted by the chauvinist, racist and xenophobic language of Trump.

While president-elect Trump may be a diluted version of his acerbic campaign persona, we need to be vigilant against the policies he has embraced and make sure his regime does not undermine democracy and lead us down the path to fascism.

Trump’s campaign statements and 100 day plan has specific policies that we the people simply cannot accept.

We cannot accept federal policies that discriminate against people based on their religion. Trump’s proposed immigration policies explicitly and unabashedly dismiss the ideals of our country, which was founded by people escaping religious persecution and guarantees freedom of religion as a constitutional right.

Mr. President, we won’t let you discriminate against people based on their religion. 

We cannot let you fulfill your promise to bomb alleged terrorists without regard for civilian casualties and reinstate torture as American policy. The American people and U.S. military cannot adopt Trump’s flippant approach towards international law and the Geneva Conventions. Refusing to obey international law will only reinforce the narratives of terrorist radicalization and undermine the security of our armed forces, our country and the world.

Mr. President, we won’t let you commit war crimes.

We cannot allow Trump’s treatment of women to go unanswered. The willingness of the American electorate to elect a man who boasts of watching teenage girls changing clothes at beauty pageants, kissing women without permission and grabbing them “by the pussy” is utterly reprehensible. Forgiving these crimes or writing them off as “locker room talk” is an insult to Trump’s victims and all victims of sexual assault.

Mr. President, we won’t let you continue to harass, abuse, demean and objectify women.

We cannot allow Trump and his industry allies to roll back climate change agreements and open up a free-for-all for fossil fuel extraction in the United States. Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Change agreement and pushing forward the Keystone XL pipeline are but a few early indications of the potentially disastrous environmental policies of Trump. We cannot mortgage off the inheritance of our youth and future generations for the chance at short-term profit.

Mr. President, we won’t let you ruin our environment.

We can not accept Trump’s unprecedented denial of access and threats to sue journalists critical of his campaign, which are direct attacks on the freedom of press that is the lifeblood of any democracy.

Mr. President, we won’t let you deny the freedom of press.

While this list of unacceptable behaviors is not comprehensive it is representative of the threats to the fundamental tenets of democracy and our nation that Trump’s presidency poses. Responding to these threats to freedom and democracy, thousands of people nationwide have taken to the streets to express their opposition to Trump. This is a good start but it is just that, a start.

Moving forward we need to stand in solidarity with those who have been targeted by Trump, as we work to understand and respond to the legitimate concerns of people who voted for him. We can reject racism, misogyny and xenophobia while working to improve the lives of working class Americans in the rust belt and struggling industrial communities around the country.

We can no longer assume that the future we deserve is inevitable. We can no longer take for granted a forward march toward greater inclusion, equality and decency. We can no longer assume that everything will be ok. We must make it so.

We must decide what kind of a country we want to live in, envision the future we want for ourselves and future generations and then act to make sure that it comes true. We are a nation of dreamers and must remain so. We can no longer sleep through our destiny, it is time we awake to our own agency and demand the world we deserve.

The post Segerstrom: No Mr. President, we won’t let you appeared first on Emerald Media.

On any given day you are bound to find some sort of table outside the EMU imploring you to vote “Yes On 97”, sign a petition to save bees or join the libertarian party. These tables are run by students who believe in a cause and spend their time and energy rallying support for their issue.

If you are like me you usually pass them by without much thought, consumed with the next assignment due or in a rush to get to class. It’s not always easy to be engaged and stay informed as you try to balance the responsibilities of student life. Amidst the rat race you can easily lose sight of the role we can play in our democracy and the power we have as members of the university community.

This lack of engagement and political action at UO is troublesome to someone who knows a thing or two about getting people’s attention, Art Pearl.

At age 94, Pearl has a long history of bucking the trends and creating spaces for the unheard to make themselves known. Over his more than half a century long career in academia, Pearl has taught on university campuses from coast to coast and always worked to empower the powerless.

I recently met with Pearl, his son Danny Pearl and UO Ph.D. Kevin Bourgault, and talked with them about the issues they feel undermine civic engagement and political activism on campus.

Pearl longs for the political activism and protests of the ‘60s and ‘70s that propelled the civil rights movement and ended the Vietnam War. Back then campus was more “alive”, Pearl said. It worries him that the spirit of engagement and spaces for political debate no longer define the campus experience.

“There has to be some places on campus where students meet, where they discuss, where there’s debate going on,” Pearl said. He lamented, “where are the people campaigning? You don’t see tables outside on campus and it’s right before a presidential election.”

Pearl traces this lack of civic engagement to primary education that trains students to pass tests and meet standards, rather than become an active and engaged citizen. “Students themselves have had no opportunity to ever develop their citizen responsibility, they’ve gone through 12 years where the only thing they did was take tests,” Pearl said. “There’s no discussion, there’s no opportunity for them.

“That’s the whole goal of the educational process,” Pearl said. “You do what you’re told, as compared to being prepared to take on a leadership role.”

The academic paradigm of students as test takers, rather than critical thinkers and citizens, must be subverted in order for our generation to recapture the political process and begin building a future that works.

If and when we are ready to engage in the political process, there is good news for us members of the so-called “millennial generation”: As of this presidential election we are the largest living generation in the United States, according to Pew Research Center’s David Fry.

With our electoral power and unprecedented access to information, our generation has the potential to create new outcomes and in Pearl’s words, “invent the future.”

But we are not without obstacles of our own. We have to find jobs in a world of automation where we lose work to machines by design. We are confronted with an economic system setup for and controlled by corporations that presides over the highest income inequality levels since the 1920s. We have access to an unlimited amount of media and a constant online audience to share even our most mundane moments with. We have to imagine peace in a time when many undergraduates can hardly remember not being at war.

The challenge of creating a world that works for all of us amidst the uncertainty of changing technologies and a changing climate is a tall-order, but we have to engage like our lives depend on it — they do.

Crafting a future we can live with means we have to talk to each other, create space for debate and challenge structures and narratives of power. The more time we spend each day asking people how they are and caring about what they are doing, the stronger our bonds become and the more vibrant our community will be.

Our time spent on campus is an opportunity not just to figure out where and how we fit into a puzzle, but to create a puzzle of our own by piecing together solutions that create better futures.

The post Segerstrom: What are you talking about? appeared first on Emerald Media.

On any given day you are bound to find some sort of table outside the EMU imploring you to vote “Yes On 97,” sign a petition to save bees or join the libertarian party. These tables are run by students who believe in a cause and spend their time and energy rallying support for their issue.

If you are like me you usually pass them by without much thought, consumed with the next assignment due or in a rush to get to class. It’s not always easy to be engaged and stay informed as you try to balance the responsibilities of student life. Amidst the rat race you can easily lose sight of the role we can play in our democracy and the power we have as members of the university community.

This lack of engagement and political action at UO is troublesome to someone who knows a thing or two about getting people’s attention, Art Pearl.

At age 94, Pearl has a long history of bucking the trends and creating spaces for the unheard to make themselves known. Over his more than half a century long career in academia, Pearl has taught on university campuses from coast to coast and always worked to empower the powerless.

I recently met with Pearl, his son Danny Pearl and UO Ph.D. Kevin Bourgault, and talked with them about the issues they feel undermine civic engagement and political activism on campus.

Pearl longs for the political activism and protests of the ‘60s and ‘70s that propelled the civil rights movement and ended the Vietnam War. Back then campus was more “alive,” Pearl said. It worries him that the spirit of engagement and spaces for political debate no longer define the campus experience.

“There has to be some places on campus where students meet, where they discuss, where there’s debate going on,” Pearl said. He lamented, “where are the people campaigning? You don’t see tables outside on campus and it’s right before a presidential election.”

Pearl traces this lack of civic engagement to primary education that trains students to pass tests and meet standards, rather than become an active and engaged citizen. “Students themselves have had no opportunity to ever develop their citizen responsibility, they’ve gone through 12 years where the only thing they did was take tests,” Pearl said. “There’s no discussion, there’s no opportunity for them.

“That’s the whole goal of the educational process,” Pearl said. “You do what you’re told, as compared to being prepared to take on a leadership role.”

The academic paradigm of students as test takers, rather than critical thinkers and citizens, must be subverted in order for our generation to recapture the political process and begin building a future that works.

If and when we are ready to engage in the political process, there is good news for us members of the so-called “millennial generation”: As of this presidential election we are the largest living generation in the United States, according to Pew Research Center’s David Fry.

With our electoral power and unprecedented access to information, our generation has the potential to create new outcomes and in Pearl’s words, “invent the future.”

But we are not without obstacles of our own. We have to find jobs in a world of automation where we lose work to machines by design. We are confronted with an economic system setup for and controlled by corporations that presides over the highest income inequality levels since the 1920s. We have access to an unlimited amount of media and a constant online audience to share even our most mundane moments with. We have to imagine peace in a time when many undergraduates can hardly remember not being at war.

The challenge of creating a world that works for all of us amidst the uncertainty of changing technologies and a changing climate is a tall-order, but we have to engage like our lives depend on it — they do.

Crafting a future we can live with means we have to talk to each other, create space for debate and challenge structures and narratives of power. The more time we spend each day asking people how they are and caring about what they are doing, the stronger our bonds become and the more vibrant our community will be.

Our time spent on campus is an opportunity not just to figure out where and how we fit into a puzzle, but to create a puzzle of our own by piecing together solutions that create better futures.

The post Segerstrom: What are you talking about? appeared first on Emerald Media.