I’m reluctant to admit that I have an addiction to my phone. 

However well-intended my deletion of TikTok was, Instagram reels quickly became an easy replacement. 

While social media has not stopped me from getting the grades I want, graduating from UO and being a student worker, there is something it distracts me from: my passions. 

In my free time in middle and high school, I used to paint for hours. At night, I either got on my computer and typed away at a novel that would never see the light of day, got so deeply invested in a book that I fell asleep with my light on or ended up crying about a protagonist I clearly got too attached to. 

I did these things not for anyone but myself. These passions of mine made my concept of time fade away, as I fell into a world of my own creation. 

When I got to college, I realized the passions I once dedicated myself to, I no longer had time for. Or so I thought. 

But when I look back on the hours I spent each day on my phone, whether that be five minutes every hour, or three hours straight on social media, they added up. I realized all along, I had the time. 

At this point, if you’re anything like my parents, you are probably shaking your head saying “Duh.” 

It is that damn phone. 

But let me be clear, I blame myself equally if not more than I blame my phone. 

However, when you get so caught up in academic validation, clubs, work, friendships, relationships, planning your next meal and making sure you have enough rent this week, sometimes you just want no thoughts at all…and social media becomes that escape. 

Being on our phones, whether it be a YouTube video while we eat, or scrolling while we wait between classes removes us from our lives and places us in a virtual world.

Painting, writing and reading were never hard, but it took slightly more forethought, and social media takes none. It just takes about one second to open your phone and get to the nearest mind-numbing, but entertaining, video or image. 

I asked around for what passion or hobby students wish they could do more of if they had time. Then I asked if they felt social media ever distracted them from doing so. 

Ellie Hughes, a 2024 UO graduate, said she wished she had more time for writing and “100%” believes that her phone is what distracted her from this. 

UO senior Lauren Williams wished she had time for “a creative outlet, like writing, crafting or DIY activities” but said she “1000%” thinks her phone plays a role in distracting her. 

“I’ve noticed that I look to social media for inspiration now a lot more than I did when I was younger. When I was little, I would just create whenever I wanted to. Now I feel like I need to find something that someone else has done and mimic their work. I’m seeking perfection in my passions which takes the passion part out of it and causes more frustration,” Williams said.

Williams added, “Another thing is that whenever I’m stressed out or want to relax, I no longer turn to my creative outlooks but to my phone because I don’t have to think ––  it’s a mindless form of entertainment. My phone/social media use has definitely become a crutch.” 

Our passions, hobbies and free time are often taken over by our devices.

While social media outlets can serve as a creative space, we consume more than we create. 

While technology has its perks, at the same time, social media distracts us from a multitude of things we could be doing instead, and I for one, am sick of letting Reels take precedence over my passions. 

The post Nowicki: Social media distracts us from our passions appeared first on Daily Emerald.

When a pope is elected, they choose a papal name. When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope, he chose Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi — a saint most known for serving the poor, humility and devotion to protecting nature. 

The saint’s name would be symbolic of who Pope Francis was: a pope for the poor, defender of migrants’ rights, a climate activist and a voice for the voiceless.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne stated, “Pope Francis became one of the most consequential popes in history, and not just because he was in many ways a radical and a hero to liberals (without himself being a liberal).” 

“Francis fiercely rebuked the ‘globalization of indifference’ and the ‘idolatry’ of money.” 

Dionne adds that Francis “condemned a focus on ‘personal, community or national identity’ when it failed to affirm the ‘infinite dignity of all.’” 

Pope Francis appealed to so many because he believed the Catholic Church to be an institution to serve the people, not command them. He sought to return to the roots of Catholic teachings, not the attire flair or bureaucratic side of it all. 

I spoke with a pastor from the St. Thomas More Newman Center, Fr. Jordan Bradshaw, on Pope Francis’ legacy. 

“A significant part of his papacy is that he would go to prisons, or he would wash the feet of people who felt displaced, such as the poor. And that left a deep impression on people. In fact, before he died, one of the things he said was that he was sad he was not going to be able to do that this year due to his health,” Bradshaw said. 

Bradshaw noted that he had the opportunity to meet Francis and shake his hand. He said that “when you were with him, even in my very own brief time, you were the center of his attention. At this moment, this was who he was looking at, and this is who he was addressing. He was present.” 

In 2013, when asked about gay priests, Pope Francis said, “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?”

For some, this may seem far from “revolutionary,” and no one — especially a public figure — is ever found perfect, but Francis changed people’s perceptions of what the Catholic Church is for. 

He appointed numerous new cardinals and bishops who share the idea that the pope should be like a pastor, not a politician, and many of them will play a role in electing the next pope. 

He set a new tone for the church, even if it did not directly change doctrine or policy.

Some liberal Catholics may argue that’s the least he can do, but if you take a look at 2000 years of the Catholic Church’s history, I argue that’s the most any pope has done. 

I do not dismiss the actions of the church and its problematic scandals of the 2000s, but Francis, as representative for 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, made the papacy not just a symbol, but an agent of defending human rights, serving the world and respecting all people. 

The post Nowicki: Even if you don’t like the church, you can appreciate Pope Francis appeared first on Daily Emerald.

I did not know what Unified Sports was when I first came to University of Oregon four years ago, but I knew of it. I had a friend encourage me to play last year, but during the craziness of my schedule, I decided against it, and I wish I had chosen otherwise. 

Special Olympics defines Unified Sports as a program that “joins people with and without intellectual disabilities on the same team. It was inspired by a simple principle: training together and playing together is a quick path to friendship and understanding.” 

Special Olympics led the way for Unified Sports, and now there are more than 10,800 Unified Champion Schools across the country.

Here at UO, students, faculty and staff compete on intramural teams with Special Olympic athletes from the Eugene and Springfield communities for flag football, basketball and soccer. 

In the program, individuals with intellectual disabilities are known as the athletes, and students without, are called partners. 

I participated in Unified basketball this winter and loved the experience so much that I decided to play Unified soccer this spring term, despite not playing organized soccer since I was eight. 

I spoke with Sean Graninger, assistant director for intramural sports and youth camps who forged the path for Unified Sports here at UO. 

“Across the country, there are approximately 100 schools that are running some kind of unified programming on their campus, but it can look different on different campuses. A lot of them are doing what we’re doing, where it’s run through the intramural program,” Graninger said. “Some are running them as a student-run organization, more like a club. Some are doing one-day tournaments, one-day events, partnering with local special Olympic programs, so it is different across the country.” 

Graninger went to graduate school at Central Michigan University, which also happened to be where the Special Olympics Michigan office was located and which had its own Unified Champion Schools program.   

Then, Graninger came to work at UO in 2016, and it only took him two years to begin a Unified program in 2018. 

Graninger wants to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities know they can still play sports and stay active through programs such as these. UO has a program for them, even if they aren’t students. 

“Give it a try at least once while you’re here at the U of O,” Graninger said. “It is a fun, encouraging environment. No one is going to belittle you, and everyone is out there to have a good time. It is competitive, but we welcome all skill levels. Not only do you get to meet a lot of Special Olympic athletes, but you also get to meet other students. You get on a team, and you build connections.”

He also added that if people want to work in social work or special education, this is an ideal opportunity to get real-world experience with those populations. 

When I eventually decided to play Unified Sports, I was on a team with strangers, but we soon became fast friends. 

Everyone I met was so welcoming; the athletes were eager to meet us and the students were equally excited as well. It was a balance of making connections, meeting each other’s needs and supporting a competitive atmosphere while also ensuring people had equal playing time, an opportunity to score and got to experience those buzzer-beater moments. 

I bonded quickly with my teammates, and we eventually went on to win the Unified IM championship. 

Recently, our Unified basketball team took on nationals in Madison, Wisconsin to defend their championship title from the 2024 season. They fell short this year, but we’re proud of them and eager to see them come back next year. 

I will be playing unified soccer this term, and I urge anyone who is interested to play. If you have doubts, just try it once. The only regret I have is not doing it sooner. 

The post Nowicki: Unified Sports deserve more attention  appeared first on Daily Emerald.

The transfer portal has been the place to be after the National Collegiate Athletic Association passed its Name, Image and Likeness policy on July 1, 2021.

No one should be judged for entering the portal, just as no one should be judged for deciding to take a new job in another company or state, even if they made prior commitments. 

We need to value student athletes’ well-being, ambitions and autonomy, especially when it comes to their choice of school.

In 2018, the transfer portal emerged, which changed college sports forever. 247Sports defines the transfer portal as “an NCAA database in which players who have opted to transfer are listed. Those with access to the portal include coaches, athletic administrators and compliance officials.” 

Then, from 2021 to 2022 multiple changes were made, such as “All NCAA players given one-time transfer exemption,” meaning “once the only players who could transfer freely were grad transfers, in April 2021 the NCAA voted to allow athletes in all sports to transfer once without sitting out a year of eligibility.” 

During this chaos, in 2022, AzCentral reported on Jayden Daniels, a then Louisiana State University student-athlete, being scrutinized by his former teammates at Arizona State University for leaving. 

Yet he thrived when he left and is a current quarterback for the Washington Commanders and Heisman Winner, so why should people act so outwardly offended by something that simply is not about them?

I understand why a team would take it to heart, but we respect peers and friends for moving schools for a better education and colleagues for taking a higher-paying job or moving to a city they love. That should stand for student-athletes, too. 

At times, transfers get a bad rap, and people assume money is the only factor in why someone chooses to go to a new university. Transfer students are definitely not one of a kind. 

“I decided that I wanted to try something new,” Kylee Manser, a senior women’s lacrosse player at University of Oregon, said.

Manser is graduating in spring 2025 but is eligible for another year on the team. She spoke about her experience transferring her sophomore year from the University of Indianapolis to UO. 

She was told her coaches were no longer part of the program in late August of her sophomore year, despite a close-knit team and just having won a national championship.  

“The whole summer of my freshman to sophomore year, I had planned on going back to UIndy, and then the coaching change happened, so I had a really short amount of time to decide what I wanted to do,” Manser said. “It was definitely a difficult transition but my teammates were very supportive of it, and there were a lot of girls leaving as well, in the same situation.” 

From a mix of internal and external pressures, she had a limited amount of time to decide where to transfer. 

She stated, “everything was very rushed” and noted that although she was lucky to come to Oregon and loves her team and coaches, she still speaks to her two best friends from her previous team every day. 

Some transfers like Manser come to a university early and are able to set their sights on the next 3-4 years of eligibility there, while others are looking for a short-term team with their last 1-2 years of eligibility, wanting to make an impact. 

When you put yourself in a student-athlete’s shoes, you can imagine how difficult making a life-changing decision within a few weeks may be. 

Just as Oregon fans appreciate our transfers, we can also respect them when they decide to leave. 

Likely, everyone can relate to being put in a situation that requires deciding where their future career will take them, so with the additional pressure of being watched on a national stage and having fan bases that follow athletes’ every move, it’s a reminder that student-athletes are special but not superhuman. 

The post Nowicki: Leave judgment out of leaving for a better place  appeared first on Daily Emerald.

It pains me to have to write about this in the 21st century, but I have heard slurs and hate speech used in Eugene, by random people, in random scenarios, none of whom were friends of mine. Hearing those words spoken in public was shocking and disturbing. It’s often used as a joke or as a playful insult with friends, but that does not excuse its use. 

I know this is not a rare experience. 

I’ve heard slurs a few times in public. One time I heard it across the bar. A second was at a party. Another time, very specifically, was after an intramural basketball game; I heard someone call the other team a slur to his teammates. I am sure I have had more moments like this, but part of me doesn’t want to believe it when it happens. 

I’ve reacted differently in these scenarios. In one scenario, I have spoken up, in another, my friend has, but in one, I stood in awe and silence, dumbfounded at this being accepted as “normal” and waiting for anyone to say something. That image of me staring blankly, too shocked and not strong enough to push through those emotions to say something, anything, haunts me.

That’s not the person I want to be. 

I know most people on campus deem this language unacceptable, and if it was written, recorded or found in a tweet, it would surely be used against them, but that’s not the issue I’m observing. 

The problem is everyone else’s reaction — or lack thereof. 

I’m not sure why we still permit strangers to use words that have been widely criticized for historically being used to degrade people of a certain race, sexual orientation or disability. 

At every occurrence, there is a deafening silence often followed by laughs —usually very awkward and uncomfortable ones — or just an uncomfortable nodding of heads. Hardly anyone, especially their friends or who they are with, make a statement, suggestion or correction recommending they no longer use that word. 

I found through talking with friends and research of my own that a pattern arises. Our society accepts two things to avoid confronting someone. 

Sometimes, it is just not “worth it.” Many feel it’s just not worth it to speak to someone who is using that language because it’s so stupid they’re using the word in the first place. Why even entertain a conversation with someone like that? Some think it’s not worth arguing in public when everyone is just trying to enjoy themselves.

People assume someone else will say something. Maybe people assume that it’s not their place to say something, which is often why it keps happening.

Are we forgetting the pivotal anti-bullying campaigns we were all taught in middle and elementary school? Do those values just stop when it becomes socially uncomfortable to confront someone across a room because they just playfully called someone a slur? 

I don’t care if they are friends and throwing around those words; it’s outdated, immature and ignorant. 

But we all know that, so why do we shy away when it happens in real life? 

“I had not heard someone use that type of language in a long long while and was shocked to hear it thrown around so casually. In the moment I just felt complete and utter disbelief.” 

Lauren Williams, a senior psychology student at UO told me about a recent experience she had when someone used hate speech in public. 

“My friends and I became speechless. I did say something but I wish I said more. I couldn’t stop thinking about what I’d heard for a couple days.”

Williams added, “People want to say something, but it’s hard to take the time and put yourself in a confrontational position to say something. I think people want to avoid a potentially harmful situation.”  

I understand fears for safety, public scrutiny, and awkwardness and it being scary to walk up to a random person, let alone tell them to stop using a slur. But it’s that refusal to speak up that permits such words to continue to be used. 

At the end of the day it’s a choice many of us decide isn’t worth it. But using hate speech as a means of humor is unappealing, inappropriate and just not funny. 

Next time you hear something, second guess your first instinct to remain silent. Don’t shy away from telling others to remove certain words from their vocabulary, even if it’s a futile attempt. You won’t know unless you try. 

The post Nowicki: Hate speech has no place here; stop ignoring it appeared first on Daily Emerald.

“Nepotism” is most commonly used for celebrity headlines of “nepo babies” and big names like the Kardashians, but it’s found everywhere. 

The line between nepotism being labeled as “good” or “bad” is blurry. Some industries produce stars with incredible talents all thanks to the expertise they learned from their parents, but when people are given certain job privileges just because of their last name instead of their credentials, it can feel like an injustice.

Nepotism remains a stark reality, and you may benefit from it without realizing it. 

Where do we draw the line? 

Cambridge Dictionary defines nepotism as “the act of using your power or influence to get good jobs or unfair advantages for members of your own family.” 

To me, “unfair advantages” could mean knowledge.

For example, being part of a military family made me acutely aware of how military benefits work and how our government functions. My dad always pushed me to look into federal work because there are many positions with robust benefits. As a political science student with this background, I know that would be a career path worth exploring.  

For me, this is common knowledge, but for most people, federal work may not ever occur to them without it.  

I’m not saying being a military kid didn’t have its struggles, my dad had long deployments and we had to move every 2-3 years. However, because of this experience, I have information in my back pocket that I can use to my advantage. 

Is this nepotism? 

The idea of “making connections” with people in the workforce is so prioritized because the more people who know your name, the more likely you are to be thought of for a position.

StandOut CV reported that “70.2% of people we surveyed said they had been given a contact, interview or immediate job via a personal connection.”  

These highly sought-after “personal connections” are what recipients of nepotism already have by birthright, yet we seek out organic connections unashamedly to advance our careers. 

I asked our students what they think about nepotism. 

Faolan Adams, a senior at UO, voiced that she witnessed nepotism when a superior hired a family member at her workplace. She said, “It felt like it was serving several people’s personal gain and wasn’t necessarily the best solution for the organization as a whole.”

However, Adams noted that as a political science student interested in working in policy, her dad has worked in several government positions and has given her advice on where to explore careers. 

“It’s not that I’ve necessarily been given opportunities because of that relationship, but it does feel like I have an informational advantage,” Adams said. 

Ugonna George Silva, a first-generation student-athlete and also a senior, shared that many student-athletes have parents or relatives who are also athletes (either currently or in the past). 

When it comes to the athletic industry, Silva said, “It would have been easier if I had someone to tell me what to prepare for. I had to do it through trial and error; it’s harder than somebody whose dad played and can tell them what to do.” 

Silva added, “I don’t feel like it’s bad at all, but it’s for sure an advantage.” 

It’s also an inevitability. 

Nepotism can show itself in many ways, and its more subtle forms are not talked about as much. 

Families preparing their children for their future — with the knowledge they’ve accumulated about an opportunity their child is interested in — exist everywhere and at every level, professional or otherwise. 

So, before you go on a rampage about how Bronny James and Lily-Rose Depp are nepo babies, just remember you probably have smaller-scale privileges of your own that you may dismiss because they benefit you. 

Adams put it perfectly. She said, “Nepotism is perhaps appropriate if your kid is the most qualified in the room and goes through the proper channels, but if they’re not and they still get the job, that’s when you need to think if it was right or not.”

Don’t waste time wishing you had an advantage someone else was born into. It’s not fair, but that’s just life. 

The post Nowicki: Nepotism is nothing new appeared first on Daily Emerald.

Political burnout is an inevitability in politics. Just as presidential approval falls after an election as the hype and bulk of media coverage fades with every passing month, burnout is a common feeling and I sure feel it already. 

Burnout stems from “us vs. them” media and fear-based news, which probably rings a bell, regardless of your political affiliation. 

Psychology Today reports, “Fear drives us to consume political news, but too much fear leads to exhaustion and learned helplessness.” 

Those words have never felt more true. 

Part of this exhaustion comes from being in “information bubbles” where “it can feel like Fox News and MSNBC commentators are talking about Americas from two different planets.”  

A 2022 Pew survey highlights how partisan animosity now clearly extends to judgments about character with 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats saying they believe members of the opposing party are more “immoral” than other Americans.

People are frustrated by social media and the hostile environment created by partisan divides is wearing us down. 

Riley Lynch, University of Oregon class of 2025, said, “Given the current state of the country I am truly so burnt out.” 

She noted that in the day following the inauguration “the amount of devastating, scary and outright insane news that I have seen has been enough for a lifetime.” 

“It’s hard to keep up on the news when it all just makes me feel so disheartened and like I don’t have a future. That combined with the constant political content around the election has me so tired of reading the news,” Lynch said. 

Alex Freeman, a student at St. John’s University New York in the class of 2026, said, “I have political burnout since I was able to understand politics. Continuously watching and seeing misinformation, improper reporting and overall repetition of the same information for weeks on end can leave one feeling as if they have no bright side or future in sight.” 

Freeman said that, “Whether Democrat or Republican, our nation is built on a system that tells us to work together, but is set up to divide us.” 

Grace Bambabate, a student at the University of Utah, class of 2027 said, “It wasn’t until my sophomore year of high school that I really got into politics and educated myself on the ins and outs of politics. So it hasn’t been that long that I’ve been into politics but I already feel burnt out.” 

“It just feels like unless you are a part of the 1% your opinion doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t feel like the government has our best interest (in mind),” Bambabte said.

This is a common thread among students all over America. Elections are tiring and draining, and this is coming from a political science student. 

Whether you are happy about the election or not, a weariness about politics will set in for most Americans after this wild, chaotic and emotion-fueled election comes to a close. 

We can cope with and handle politics to the best of our ability, but ignoring it is not a remedy. 

I’m not saying you must be hyperactive and constantly check the news. I don’t. However, being aware of the systematic changes happening in our democracy is still important. 

Whether you agree or disagree with the changes to our democracy is not my point. Regardless of how you feel, it is undeniable that norms are being broken. 

Even though we’re all tired of politics, politics will continue to affect you whether or not you pay attention. 

The post Nowicki: Political burnout is coming soon to people near you appeared first on Daily Emerald.

It is well-known that devaluing elders is more common in western culture. However, in eastern cultures, most people view elders as valued members of society and devote time to caring for them, often welcoming older family members into their homes when they reach a point in which they cannot support themselves. 

According to the Columbine Health Systems Center for Healthy Aging, “Western cultures have traditionally been labeled as ageist societies that undervalue their older adult populations.” 

America is a predominantly westernized culture and as a student at the University of Oregon, I have often heard comments from peers about fears of aging. Students have said things such as “I never want to be old because of how I will look” or they express the fear of losing part of themselves and mental capacity to illnesses or physical strains. 

Ironically, even in a classroom of college students actively studying under people older than themselves, I still hear comments about older people “grossing them out” — which deeply disturbs me. 

As someone with a very close relationship with my grandparents, who I profoundly admire and attribute to much of who I am today, I can not help but feel personally defensive against the blatant, ageist comments people make. With my grandma’s recent passing and my grandpa still in the workforce, I feel afflicted by certain comments from my peers. 

I don’t think these fears of aging or the future are irrational, but projecting them onto other human beings at later stages in their lives is foolish, cruel and illogical. 

I asked a few students if they had witnessed any forms of “ageism” on campus or in other settings such as work, internships or events. The pair I interviewed were human physiology students, Jeremiah Bogaard and Joe Lairson. 

Bogaard responded, “Yeah, there is one older guy in one of my anatomy labs, and people aren’t necessarily mean to him, but they’ll make comments like ‘the older guy is in my class.’” 

He added that although he’s a great classmate and “always got a smile on his face,” many people don’t talk to him. Bogaard shared that he has spoken with him several times, exchanging stories and talking about why the classmate returned to school. 

Lairson added “he’s a super nice guy” and remarked he had more energy and enthusiasm for the class than many of his other classmates. 

Ageism and stigmas surrounding our older classmates exist here at UO, even on a ‘progressive’ campus. But these students demonstrate the simplest way to combat them: just be kind. 

When I hear discussions about “ageism,” it’s frequently by younger generations voicing concerns about entering the workforce or feeling overlooked because they are too young. 

But, according to Merriam-Webster, ageism is “prejudice or discrimination against a particular age group and especially the elderly.” 

Past a certain age, many discriminate against our older generations’ ability to work. I had a classmate say that they wanted the age for presidents to be capped at 60 years old. This caught my attention as a preposterous notion — seeing as 60 is not old in the grand scheme of things and most 60-year-olds work — but it seems to be more popular than I expected. 

They argued that since there is an age minimum for running for president, there should be a maximum. And, in a surprisingly bipartisan study from the Pew Research Center’s poll, “most Americans favor maximum age limits for federal elected officials, Supreme Court justices.” 

Peyton Taylor, in “A Presidential Age Limit Is Not the Solution,” wrote that while she does believe we need more young people in government and “mental fitness is vital for the presidency … forcing an age limit on politicians would indicate a mistrust in the American people’s ability to make their own decisions. This applies to the age minimum, as well.” 

Aging is one, if not the most, natural part of being a human, and every single person on this planet will age differently, physically and mentally. 

My grandpa, in his mid-70s, works as a personal trainer, and not only does he work every day but he trains clients decades older than himself. And he loves his job. 

To say that our older generations just need to stop working after a specific age is so small-minded and generalizing of an entire population. Especially if this is applied to politicians, it would set a precedent for the entire working world to force people into retirement, and take away a right to choose when and how they retire. 

Politics has always been a topic of conversation in my household. My parents did not shy away from opening conversations about social and political issues. I was lucky that they never told me what to think but taught me how to think critically. 

My dad, who loves playing devil’s advocate, always pushed back on issues I thought I had all figured out. My mom told me to always approach a conversation curiously, instead of judgmentally. 

Did this lead to some heated arguments? Sure. But did it also lead to growing my political perspective and an appreciation for discourse? Undoubtedly.  

The root of our American democratic republic is two primary parties, both of which want a stable democracy, but the methods in which to do so differ. But now, it appears our parties have more notable ideological, moral and ethical distinctions. 

Our parties seem so divided that the idea of establishing common ground has become foreign. Compromise, especially in our legislative branch, looks unimaginable because of the more stubborn, uncompromising views some of our elected representatives hold. 

Many political scientists claim that America has become more polarized in its political beliefs, however, there is much research that shows individual Americans — not political parties — are not as polarized as we think. 

In a peer-reviewed study called “Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States: Party Identity Strength and Attitude Extremity Exacerbate the Perceived Partisan Divide,” the authors find “several reasons why Americans might overestimate political polarization.” Those reasons include when “people strongly identify with their partisan group, whether Democrat or Republican,” and “when people hold relatively extreme partisan attitudes” an “average person” will overestimate how polarized the entire population is. 

We’re not quite as polarized as the media or our politicians and media outlets lead us to believe. They, the media and politicians, make it appear as though there is absolutely no room for common ground, just right from wrong, us vs. them. 

Suppose we are unable to put assumptions, biases and preconceived ideas of people aside when the topic of politics arises with family, friends or strangers. In that case, we are working against what our democracy has given us: freedom of speech and ideas that have allowed for our differences. This makes our democracy stronger, but only if we’re able to have open discourse and when necessary, compromise. 

You not doing politics does not stop politics from doing you.

And what better way to be involved in politics than just being okay with discussing them?

It starts with simply being open to having a conversation, but here are some pointers:

Shift your perspective before it even starts

NPR suggests not viewing the conversation as an “I win, you lose” debate. Consider it an opportunity to understand the other person and the reasons behind that person’s position. They add, “While you may be well educated on a topic, you don’t necessarily have all the answers.”

Don’t make make snap judgments about someone 

Once you’re talking, be conscious of how you are asking a question and how it comes off. NPR presents the example, instead of saying, “How can you possibly overlook all the evidence on climate change?” you might ask, “What experiences have shaped your thinking on this issue?”

Since the line between personal and political beliefs is blurry and intertwined, we’re inclined to have emotional attachments to our personal beliefs which often dictate our political ones. 

Having conversations you are uncomfortable with pushes us to explore ourselves, other people, new ideas, perspectives and experiences, and that’s enough to challenge our little ideological bubble. 

Your goal isn’t to agree; it’s to disagree and keep talking.

The post Nowicki: Politics: a perfect conversation for the dinner table  appeared first on Daily Emerald.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2021, “76% of female murders were perpetrated by someone known to the victim.” 

My point may already present itself with the following question: who did it? The person responsible for murdering these women is usually men.  

The issue of femicide and gender-based violence against women is not just a gender-based issue. It is a world issue, only solvable by the involvement of every person, regardless of gender, to stop the normalization of the murder of women (and people) by men. 

This is not to say that women are the only victims of murder. In 2021, a striking 17,970 men were murdered and 56% of those were by someone known to them. Yet only 6% of those men were victims of intimate partner homicide, and in 2011 the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program of the FBI published a comprehensive homicide study found 89.3% of murders were by men.

Women are statistically more likely to be killed by a man. Men are more likely to be killed by a man. People of any preferred gender identity are more likely to be killed by someone who identifies as a man.

I know this is a lot of frightening, blunt information, but I am so tired of seeing the media refuse to directly highlight what we know to be facts, which is that men are murdering people at a much higher rate than women. 

In September 2024, following the Paris Olympics, Olympic runner Rebecca Cheptegei was murdered by her former partner, a man named Dickson Ndiema. I was shocked that he killed her by burning her, and then from the attack, she unintentionally died. 

Because of the Olympics’ popularity, this story caused an outcry against the global murders of women and femicide in various countries, and more news sources started talking about gender-based violence. 

However, the media coverage of female murder victims is not easy to read. I think it is obvious that the news media may shy away from covering something so frequent and disturbing as murder for the sake of positivity, but these stories keep happening, and the stories of many female victims are ignored. 

In the headlines, it should be clear who committed the murder and who is the victim. Even though we want to pay homage to the victim of a crime, knowing who is behind the crime will help Americans recognize this pattern of male-perpetuated crime against women and men. 

Cathy Krauseneck was killed by her husband, who wasn’t convinced until 40 years after her death. 

Breonna Taylor was killed by a male police officer. 

Not to mention the thousands of Native American women whose murders are barely reported on despite “the murder rate [being] ten times higher than the national average for women living on reservations” and murder being the “third leading cause of death for Native women,” according to Native Hope, an organization which addresses the injustices done to Native Americans and provides resources.   

We cannot shy away from this pattern and must ask ourselves what we can do. What should we educate ourselves on? How do we work together to stop this issue without making it a gender-divided topic? 

UN Women suggests that murders of women, “can and must be prevented through primary prevention initiatives focused on transforming harmful social norms and engaging whole communities and societies to create zero tolerance for violence against women. Early intervention and risk assessment, access to survivor-centered support and protection as well as gender-responsive policing and justice services are key to ending gender-related killings of women and girls.” 

Murder is not an inevitability, nor is it a partisan issue. The murder of women can and should be addressed because it is preventable.