Ski season starts earlier than most people think, and one writer gives tips on how you can make the most out of it. By Mitchell Milbauer

The post Opinion: Ski season has begun appeared first on CU Independent.

The president’s actions aren’t guided by policy, but rather one key personality trait: his narcissism. By Grayson Slover

The post Opinion: The president’s narcissism transcends everything appeared first on CU Independent.

It’s devastating to realize I am no longer a debater, but it’s more devastating to understand why. I never wanted to write an op-ed or talk publicly about my experiences in debate, but the unfortunate truth is we are obligated to defend our right to fair treatment. I don’t know how to put into words what a painful and life-changing choice it is to leave something I had been so passionate about, but I know that nothing short of daily micro-aggressions, discrimination, harassment, perpetually feeling unsafe and in some cases sexual violence could get me to the desperate point I reached this semester. Nothing else could get me to risk retaliation from the team, retaliation I and others have already faced, in order to tell my story in public.

Both Kevin Kuswa’s letter and a recent op-ed about debate made several factually inaccurate claims about debate culture that have tokenized me as a woman in debate, implying that because I’ve had success, there can’t possibly be a problem. There has been a consistent theme of tossing around women’s wins as a sign that there’s no discrimination and that sexism is solved. Two pieces published in The Pioneer reference the Sacramento State tournament in which Emma Newmark and I, the only woman-woman partnership on the squad, advanced into finals following a discussion with the other two Whitman debaters present. I have never been so ashamed as when I watched people betray me by placing my success on a tokenized pedestal.

Emma and I became partners following her decision to quit the Parliamentary Team after a tournament in which she was not only ignored by her teammates but by her coach. Throughout our time as partners, we were the only team members who were expected to qualify our worth to the team. We made different arguments that were “useless” to everyone else, and while these same arguments have been previously cited as evidence of the team’s willingness to embrace inclusive debate, they were in no way accepted.

This season we were never traveled with the entire team, were consistently told we were not good enough regardless of the fact that we’ve competed for the duration of our time at Whitman, and were the only people who had to explicitly ask for drills and assignments. To put it into perspective, this is the equivalent of having to ask your professor to assign you homework and tests while they simultaneously fail you for everything you don’t turn in. Unlike the other debaters, neither Emma nor I had our own workspace in the Whitman prep rooms, while everyone else had their own desk and dual-monitor computer set-up. Kevin Kuswa has directly cited the “inclusivity” of this environment in his recently published letter, but none of these practices seem particularly inclusive to me.

Never once in my career as a debater have I felt equal to other members of the team. First they said I was new, then that I didn’t have a good enough record, and then that I just wasn’t committed enough. I don’t know why I stayed through tournaments where I was barely spoken to, had a judge from another school stick his hand up my shirt, and never felt like I had any preparation, but I did because I didn’t want to wash out. The worst part is that it’s hard to put my finger on why I’m so miserable in debate. I constantly wondered if I just couldn’t hack it. Every time I did come forward and say something, I was treated as an entitled brat or dismissed completely.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, feelings and experiences surrounding the suspension of the team, but no one is entitled to speak for mine. Neither this college nor anyone else should condone the discrimination I have experienced on this team and in the debate world, and it’s sad to watch a community so concerned about sexism defend Whitman Debate. I loved certain aspects of debate, and I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t learned from it, but the biggest lesson I learned was how pervasive discrimination can be.

Sexism is alive and well. It’s not as overt as it’s been in the past, which makes it even more difficult to prove. I’m tired of having to prove that I have been discriminated against and made to feel horrible, but I’d rather be labeled a bitch than a liar.

-Lauren Hauck

As a true example of antiquity in conversation with modernity, the upperclassmen I knew as a first-year still called Encounters “Core.” Over the past four years at Whitman, the Encounters program has changed dramatically. Now the name itself seems to reflect a distinct guiding ethic or ideal that the first-year course attempts to fulfill.

I appreciate that Encounters is not a “core” canon, mostly because it seems impossible to reduce what is most valuable to an essence of some 20 texts. Variety and circulation keeps the program alive and open to a greater wealth of texts that each year’s students can incorporate into discussions on campus. I also know that the decisions to remove the Quran, the “Gospel of Luke” and “The Book of the City of Ladies” was more complicated in context than a declaration that the individual texts are not valuable for the course. That said, I hope to see the Quran’s re-inclusion soon. It seems like an apt moment to engage with this text, for broader social reasons and pragmatic ones.

When I think of a “core,” I think of something essential, unchanging and canonical. A first-year “core” would suggest to me that the texts included in such a class form a statement about the fundamental sources of a Whitman education. On the other hand, when I think of “encounters,” I think of movement and contact. I think of a changing body of texts, where voices surface or reemerge and hopefully engage one another in surprising ways.

I sustained this impression of movement and change after talking with a few professors and meeting with Professor Timothy Doyle, a member of the Encounters committee, who generously agreed to discuss the process of altering Encounters curricula. He explained that Encounters is constantly changing in order to explore new material or evoke fresh dialogue between texts.

For a truly frustrating and frightening 15 minutes of your life, Google FOX News’ interview with religious scholar Reza Aslan. This interview is a striking example, and far from the only one, of the way misinformation on Islam and the use of minority extremist groups to represent the entire religion have precipitated Islamophobia. Obviously Encounters cannot address every pressing social issue. However, in addition to the social relevance of being familiar with the Quran, Whitman is also in a position to freshly approach the text and explore new possibilities for its contributions to the course.

This year, the Religion Department has the additional resource of Assistant Professor Lauren Osborne, who specializes in Islamic studies. She wrote a proposal on presenting the Quran in ways that would open its potential in a micro setting like Encounters, such as rearranging the order of the assigned suras. Currently they are assigned from the front towards the back, which is actually roughly in reverse-chronological order; the earliest suras are in the back of the Quran while the newest ones are in the front. A move from front to back begins with more law-oriented suras before reaching the conceptual tenets that inform them. Rearranging the suras has the potential to open new possibilities in discussion. Also, Encounters makes an effort to include different media of “text,” but right now the texts are almost exclusively visual. The oral tradition of the Quran is another dimension that could enrich its conversation with other sources.

Rather than a canon, Encounters has become a vehicle to explore the possibilities within changing arrangements of voices. To me, the Quran seems a strong candidate for re-inclusion in this arrangement. Both ideally and pragmatically, we’re in a prime position to explore the possibilities for dialogue that the Quran presents.

-Mary Christensen

As a debater who is genderqueer, I found the suspension of the Debate Team devastating. Debate offered me a safe space where I could explore my identity. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the suspension is that the administration never bothered to learn about debate; they never came to a tournament, practice or our presentation at the Undergraduate Conference. If they had, I cannot imagine how they could indict the entirety of the team’s culture, especially since they did not meet with all the members of the policy team, or anyone on the parliamentary team.

The best thing about debate is that it is, by its nature, immensely self-reflective. Debate is a unique activity because it invites challenges to the typical norms of the activity, particularly surrounding accessibility for debaters of underprivileged identities, and constantly searches for methods to end exclusion. For example, the Whitman team has made arguments about how solely discussing issues along the public/private divide can lead to debates that focus only on macro effects of policy, which can reinforce sexist ideas about who counts as important. Through these self-reflective debates, the Whitman team gained skills and knowledge that we used during the Title IX process we went through last year, and then applied the Title IX training we received to workshops at the summer debate camp, the high school tournament and the team prep session. Both the administration and independent reviewers praised our progress.

This year we hired a coach who specialized in debating about how to make debate more inclusive for women. During her college career, Kendra read arguments about gendered language and how to combat sexism and sexual violence. Kevin (the debate director) hired Kendra largely because he knew there were members of our team who wanted to read similar arguments. Indeed, one debater spent the season making arguments about how to make debate a home for women. She had the whole team behind her — she was paired with the most experienced debater on the team and consistently received extra coaching to ensure she had the support she needed. One of my fondest memories of this year was the first time she and her partner made it to an elimination round. The whole team was in the room, doing last-minute research, helping them prepare for the debate and cheering them along.

Two more women debaters joined the policy team in October and immediately traveled to the UPS tournament. They decided to take some time off from debate and came back again shortly before the Texas tournament. Because Texas does not offer a JV section and is known for being a challenging tournament, the coaches and Kevin decided to only send varsity debaters. However, both the coaches and Kevin wanted to make sure the two of them, as well as the two other JV debaters, got enough chances to debate, so they decided to send the four of them to the JV Championships at Sacramento State as an additional unscheduled tournament. In a further effort to support the three women on the team, the coaches started offering additional drills specifically for women. While the JV teams were at Sacramento State, the rest of the team was excitedly following their success, sending a barrage of emails offering help in research. Ultimately, the other JV team let the two newer women advance ahead of them despite being higher in the bracket, citing their support for the arguments the women were reading about disrupting phallocentrism.

I do not know what the specific allegations against the team are, but I find the administration’s assertion of a blanket sexist culture against every experience I have had in debate. I cannot help but conclude that the administration, in suspending the entire team, has thrown the baby out with the bath water and suspended participation in one of the most useful activities for challenging discrimination.

Emma Thompson ’16

Correction: This printing originally said Emma Thompson was in the class of 2015. They are graduating in 2016.

This story was originally published in The Collegian of Willamette University on April 15, 2015. It was written by Kellie Standish. Find the original here.

Forget the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World; can you name the Seven Wonders of Oregon?

Oregon’s seven wonders were developed  by Travel Oregon for  a  campaign  designed to better market destinations throughout the state to those who hail from inside and outside of Oregon.

They  claim  that  whoever  named the Seven Wonders of the World must’ve never set foot in Oregon. The project demonstrates the beauty and diversity of this state’s prized possession—the outdoors.

I’ve had my eye on these seven places ever since I learned about them a few years back, but as someone who continues to spend most of her time in just central Oregon, there is one month until graduation and I have yet to see them all.

This led me to my project: imagining a way in which someone could see all seven wonders in the shortest amount of time.

Regardless  of the  actual  amount  of time  you take  to  explore  them,  here  is  the road map  of  a seven­-part adventure sure to make your love for Oregon continue to grow.

Mt. Hood

Most popular activity: Skiing
Winter: snowshoeing, snowmobiling, cross­country skiing
Summer: horseback riding, kayaking, hiking, mountain biking
Trails to check out: Elk Meadows, Ramona Falls, Timberline Trail (Very Challenging)
Drive time to next wonder: 1 hour

Painted Hills

Most popular activity: Sightseeing
Other activities: Camping, hiking, biking, fossil viewing
Trails to check out: Overlook, Red Hill, Blue Basin
Drive time to next wonder: 1.5 Hours

Columbia River Gorge

Most popular activity: Hiking
Other activities: Backpacking, biking, fishing, camping
Trails to check out: Angel’s Rest, Munra Point, Tunnel Falls
Drive time to next wonder: 4 hours

The Wallowas

Most popular activity: Hiking
Other activities: Backpacking, camping, horseback riding, gondola rides
Trails to check out: Aneroid Lake, Hurricane Creek, Mount Howard
Drive time to next wonder: 6 hours

Smith Rock

Most popular activity: Rock climbing
Other activities: Hiking, camping, biking
Trails to check out: Misery Ridge
Drive time to next wonder: 2 hours

Crater Lake

Most popular activity: Hiking
Other activities: Biking, snowshoeing, camping, backpacking, boating
Trails to check out: Watchman Peak, Wizard Island, Mount Scott
Drive time to next wonder: 3 hours

The Coast

Most popular activity: Sightseeing
Towns to visit: Coos Bay, Newport, Lincoln City, Pacific City, Seaside
Other activities: Sandboarding and dune­buggying near Coos Bay, hiking, swimming, surfing, whale watching, sea kayaking
Food & drink destinations: Fish and chips at Mo’s, beer tasting at Rogue Brewery

Trails to check out: Cascade Head, Cape Lookout

In the words of Travel Oregon’s ad, “Our wonders aren’t just for looking at, you have to explore them, to feel them beneath your feet. Just remember, this is Oregon. How you go about doing that is entirely up to you.”

As a freshman, I entered school this fall in the usual chaotic haze of new people, no parents and unlimited meal swipes. I never drank in high school, and entering college gave me access to a world I had only glimpsed in movies. One night I lost my friends and ended up drinking too much at a party. Instead of walking home as usual, a guy I never met before suggested we go back to his room to watch a movie, which seemed normal to me at the time. Instead, he lay down on top of me on his bed, pressing his erection into my stomach.

When I showed reluctance, he gave me a long speech explaining how sex wasn’t a big deal in college and “everyone does it.” I was drunk and alone in a frat with an upperclassman I had never seen before that night. When I tried to express how uncomfortable I was, he tried harder to persuade me. He told me this was just a small thing that would make us happy, that this is something everyone does, just something that happens at college. Words could never capture my fear and self-loathing in that moment. He was older, bigger and stronger. I felt I had no choice but to let him do what he wanted. For months after I believed it was all my fault. I was the one who went back with him, I was the one who couldn’t push him off me, who couldn’t run away, who couldn’t just sink into the floor and disappear.

It shouldn’t have taken two months to acknowledge that what transpired wasn’t consensual drunken sex; it was rape. But I was confused by what happened. I did not want to have sex that night, period, yet I still felt shame and responsibility. I thought since I hadn’t been able to stop him, I MUST have wanted it. But none of that is true. I had never wanted it. I didn’t ask for it. I didn’t deserve it. He coerced and manipulated me, using my own weaknesses and insecurities against me. I should not be afraid to acknowledge the incident, yet writing this is one of the most difficult things I have ever done.

I didn’t write this article to share the private details of my life with the entire campus, but rather to address this growing problem. The Whitman bubble is a real thing, and the prevalence of sexual assault on our campus is due in part to our continuing ignorance. This is a difficult topic to think about and even more difficult to discuss. But silence is teaching victims that this is normal and that allowing perpetrators to believe what they are doing is O.K. Rape and sexual assault can come in many forms, but one thing they all have in common is a lack of consent. As a campus, we can do much more to change this.

On a campus our size, sexual assault will always be to close to home. I guarantee you are close friends with a victim or perpetrator and have interacted with many more. Sex is awkward, and trying to stop two people from leaving a party together is never going to be fun or easy. Watching two people stumble out of a party has gotten too familiar, and as a campus we have become far too comfortable with the concept of drunken hook-ups.

I am not suggesting hooking up after drinking is always terrible because it’s not. But the state of familiarity and normality our campus has associated with drunken hook-ups is extremely disturbing. As the new school year — with new freshmen — comes closer, I worry what happened to me will happen to others as well. The transition to college is scary and overwhelming at best; to be raped in your first months is a heartbreak I would never wish upon anyone.

I spent months going through a Title IX investigation, having to relive the worst night of my life and share intimate details with investigators I had never met before. The process was anything but easy; however, the support I received from my friends, sorority and even the administration was incredible. But the legal process of an investigation will always be unbelievably difficult, and there is never a guarantee of finding the offender responsible. Despite my best efforts, this experience has defined my freshman year.

Whitman is still my dream school, but there is plenty of room for improvement. Greek organizations should continue to find ways to make their parties safer for everyone. As a campus we need to face this head on because silence is allowing these patterns to continue. Being silent will not accomplish our goals; we need to remove the shame placed on victims and start meaningful conversations about this continuing problem. Parties can be fun. Hooking-up can be fun. But sexual assault is never fun and our campus is supporting an atmosphere that makes it too easy.

-Molly Unsworth ’18

These stories were originally published in The Collegian of Willamette University in March of 2015 (dates and authors attached to each story.) They are printed here through the Northwest News Network, a collaborative project between northwest collegiate newspapers.

We suggest you begin by reading some background information here.

In defense of fraternities

Problem-solving potential
By Andrés Oswill, March 18, 2015

This article is not about defending Sigma Chi and Beta’s return to on-campus housing.

It is definitely not about sweeping under the rug the genuinely terrible acts that have been committed by fraternities, or invalidating the experiences of those who have been harmed by members of fraternities.

This article is about the experiences I’ve had as a member of a Phi Delta Theta, and why I have come to believe that fraternities are capable of creating positive social change.

The most genuine conversations I’ve had about mental health have been during chapter meetings.

I’ve driven brothers to donuts at midnight and listened to them have nuanced conversations about the harms of catcalling.

The best discussions on masculinity and power-based violence I’ve experienced during my time at Willamette have been with my brothers.

As groups of self-identified men, fraternities can easily foster a toxic kind of masculinity. They can amplify the effects of a culture that teaches men not to cry, to reject any form of effeminacy and to not treat women equally.

However, fraternities also offer an opportunity for men to cultivate a better, healthier ideal of what it means to be a man. The camaraderie found in fraternities offers men close friendships that can be difficult for them to find elsewhere.

As brothers, fraternity men allow themselves to be vulnerable in a way that’s an exception to the stone-faced stoicism taught by dominant masculinity in our society. They listen to each other, and are willing to open up and have conversations with each other that they never would have outside their chapter.

The men in your fraternity are your brothers. Sometimes this language creates a harmful sense of loyalty that is used to defend misogynistic and otherwise problematic thought and behavior. However, the strength of fraternal relationships can be used to help correct these problems.

By taking seriously the promise to act as our brother’s keeper, fraternity members can help guide each other to act ethically and responsibly.

As a group of men who meet regularly and form tight-knit connections, fraternities are in a unique position to address problems with masculinity. Take a group of men—who could easily go through life perpetuating those problems—and instead consider what could be accomplished by educating them.

The problems of masculinity are not exclusive to fraternities. Without fraternities, it will manifest itself through something else. Misogyny and power-based violence are endemic to our culture, and will continue to exist within formal and informal organizations until they are thoroughly eradicated.

Fraternities have an opportunity to be sites for great social change. But eliminating them will not erase the root of the problem. Instead, we should recognize their potential and work to make them starting points for positive social change.

Fraternities are not the solution to misogyny and rape culture, but they can definitely be (and often are) a part of it.

We can’t solve any of our problems alone

EDITORIAL, March 18, 2015

This editorial is the composition opinion of the Collegian editorial board:
Zane Sparling – Editor-in-Chief        zsparlin@willamette.edu
Elize Manoukian – Managing Editor       emanouki@willamette.edu
Maggie Boucher – Opinions Editor      mboucher@willamette.edu

We’re fed up, frustrated and angry; more importantly, we’re wasting our time.

The Greek Housing Board’s ruling to approve on-campus residency for fraternities Sigma Chi and Beta Theta Pi has sparked more contention and controversy than any other topic in recent memory.

When the closed-door decision wasn’t publicly announced, the Collegian broke the story for unaffiliated students (“2 fraternities approved for housing on campus,” issue 19). Since then, we’ve published columns, letters to the editor and now two editorials on the subject.

But the fight between Greek Life and independent students has distracted us from the real issue—ending gender-based violence, rape and sexual assault on campus.

Sexual violence is persistent, pernicious and pervasive. It occurs in Greek Life houses, dorm rooms and private residences. It’s a problem everywhere.

Independent students surely have the best intentions, but by focusing their energies on the 33 percent of Greek-affiliated students at Willamette, they obscure the prevalence of the issue.

Moreover, they act like a Greek-free campus will magically cure Willamette of its ills; in reality, every woman can attest to the multitudes of creepy men who never pledge.

Fraternity members certainly aren’t blameless—but neither are independent men. Vociferous and vituperative attacks create needless division along arbitrary lines. If sex offenders can be found in any demographic at Willamette, then so can the survivors, advocates and allies who tirelessly combat this grave wrongdoing.

So let’s be clear: Willamette needs a united campus to stop sex without consent, assault and other gender-based crimes.

We can start by acknowledging the special responsibility all men have to stop sex crimes.

Because the overwhelming majority of cases of sexual violence are perpetrated by men—though not necessarily with women as their targets—all those who identify as male need to continue to engage in frank discussion and self-reflection of their actions, habits and words.

Real men understand that sex isn’t a contest with winners and losers. They don’t employ derogatory language with gendered connotations. If they drink or use other controlled substances, they do so for their own enjoyment, not to lower inhibitions or defenses.

Some independent students say fraternities incubate these polluted attitudes, but the sad reality is toxic masculinity and machismo can spring from anywhere. Meanwhile, if implemented properly, fraternal organizations can provide the ideal forum for introspective examination of male values and mores.

Secondly, students need to give administrators the benefit of the doubt. Our campus leaders may not be perfect—but they aren’t evil.

Stereotypes of administrators as heartless, venal and indifferent to sexual assault deny the sincere work of many University employees.

So let’s say it one more time. United, Willamette can end sexual assault, rape and gender-based violence. Divided, we shall surely fall to it.

These stories were originally published in The Collegian of Willamette University in February and March of 2015 (dates and authors attached to each story.) They are printed here through the Northwest News Network, a collaborative project between northwest collegiate newspapers.

2 fraternities approved for housing on campus

By Bronte Dod, February 25, 2015

Two fraternities will have designated residential space on campus this fall.

The Greek Housing Board recommended the newly reestablished fraternity Beta Theta Pi for on-campus residency last semester. After rewriting their application and giving another presentation this semester, Sigma Chi was also approved.

The approval was given to two fraternities who have both lost their housing not due to low enrollment numbers—which is a common way fraternities could lose their residential space on campus—but because of behavior.

The University removed Sigma Chi from campus in the spring of 2013, when their private Facebook page was leaked and revealed misogynistic content, hazing and threats to University administrators.

Beta Theta Pi’s national organization revoked their charter in summer of 2011 after evidence of drug- and alcohol-abuse was discovered.

The Greek Housing Board consists of three students—the current Panhellenic Council and Interfraternity Council presidents and a non-affiliated student recommended by ASWU—and six other administrators from the departments of Campus Life and Residential Life.

Senior Brad Russell was a member of the housing board in the fall when he was IFC president. Russell said that allowing fraternities to have housing on campus provides an opportunity for bonding that can’t otherwise be achieved.

Emily Schlack, who was also on the Greek Housing Board last semester as the PHC president, said that residential space for fraternities will not be organized as it previously was.

In the past, fraternities have occupied dorms on the eastside of campus, but that will not be an option for Sigma Chi and Beta Theta Pi, according to Schlack.

Other options for the fraternities could include a designated floor on the westside of campus or the wing of a residential hall.

Both Russell and Schlack cited these options as a way to better integrate the fraternities with the rest of students who live on campus.

Schlack said that the housing board members discussed how residential space on campus could be beneficial for fraternities. But Schlack said that she brought a different opinion to the table.

“Maybe we should be asking not whether it’s good for [fraternities] to be on campus, but whether it’s good for the campus for [fraternities] to be on campus,” Schlack said.

President of Beta Theta Pi Herschel Mapes said that having housing on campus would be good for both the student living on-campus and for the newly-reorganized fraternity, which already has over 30 new members.

“Many people, including myself, thought that it would be probably a more positive way to come back on campus, and it would also probably ensure that they would be able to communicate with people on campus and I guess get along with people on campus better,” Mapes said.

Mapes said that keeping the living area drug- and alcohol-free—which the national Beta Theta Pi organization requires them to do—is much harder to regulate off campus.

Dean of Campus Life David Douglass said in a email that after Beta Theta Pi and Sigma Chi submit an updated list of members, “an appropriately-sized and located space can be found.”

The Board will continue meeting throughout the semester to finalize the housing situation for both fraternities.

Russell said that the new Greek Housing Board will make a decision on the location of the fraternities by the time the all-campus housing lottery occurs at the end of the semester.

Oh, brother

By Evann Zuckerman, March 4, 2015

It’s been whispered in classrooms and on Bistro couches, mentioned in frustrated ventings and sarcastic conversations, but I never thought that the day would come; the day when fraternities would be welcomed to live on campus.

A quick refresher: In spring of 2013, screenshots of the Sigma Chi Facebook page were leaked, revealing threats of “cunt-punting” a female administrator and evidence of domestic violence.

Student protests abounded and national media outlets paid attention— but the boys were merely kicked out of campus housing and suspended from recruiting activities for one semester.

Beta Theta Pi on the other hand, was essentially disbanded in 2011 for drug and alcohol policy violations.

While a Facebook page may seem inconsequential, these posts were deeply disturbing for more than just their content, (which should have been enough to cause dismay).

Many Sigma Chi members held prominent campus leadership positions, and it was alleged that their on-campus housing was a site for policy breaking.

Though policy is broken all over campus, it is important to note that an established institution behaved this way and, in turn, received little backlash from University administrators.

In fact, it is interesting how much support is shown to our Greek organizations in general, when they are exclusive groups not accessible to “just anyone.”

Unlike clubs, membership is earned; dues range from $300–$900 with limited access to scholarships and social demands that are often described as “exhausting.”

What is to be gained from entering a Greek organization as opposed to other campus groups? To an outsider, the benefits seem small: a good set of biology notes, a promise of love from people you don’t know and maybe a resume booster.

Perhaps it is not what Greek life does for our student body, but what it does for Willamette.

Currently, the sorority houses on campus are required to fill a housing quota. Failure to do so augurs the loss of housing privileges.

Because they are required to fill a quota, they keep members on campus who could otherwise live elsewhere, filling space at the University so that it does not lose money.

While the current housing proposal does not directly implicate this process, it indicates that the administration does not take seriously the actions taken by students to remove Sigma Chi from campus.

Though it is proposed that certain blocks of campus housing will be devoted to fraternities, it would be easy to transition fraternity housing into a money-making machine.

I argue that it is not in the interest of the general student body to house any fraternity on campus, but in the economic interest of the University to keep students dependent upon on-campus housing.

Further, if the protests of the students who pay for their education and work to improve their campus are unimportant, then what is important to this University?

If we are keeping organizations on campus that endanger our student body—as I suggest fraternities do—to attract donors, why are we not marketing ourselves to different donors?

Housing fraternities on campus will only reinforce their presence on campus, and as we have seen in the not-so-distant past, that presence is not needed.

For more opinion pieces from Willamette students, continue reading here.

This story was originally published in The Mooring Mast of Pacific Lutheran University on March 6, 2015. It was written by News Editor Samantha Lund.

A new building will be added to campus this summer, just in time to hold the flowers that bloom in spring.

A greenhouse is joining Rieke and Morken on the southwest side of campus. The project will be completed over summer and presented to campus Aug. 5.

Plant biology will be the focus of the building, but other sciences can make good use of it, too.

The state-of-the-art greenhouse will offer students the opportunity to carry out experiments on genetics, cell processes, gene expression and evolutionary adaptations.

There are gene courses required for biology majors and now those students will be able to use the greenhouse for their experiments.

The building will also be a showcase for a botanical collection to showcase biodiversity.

The greenhouse will be 1,700 square feet and cost approximately $880,000.

The firm AustinCina Architects helped design the building along with PLU.

The new building will use a closed-loop, geothermal energy system, meaning no greenhouse-gas-producing emissions will be used in the heating and cooling systems.

Professor and Dean of Students Matt Smith is heading the project with help from the Office of Advancement.

Rieke was built with a sunroof-style greenhouse inside, but that was not up to par, Smith said.

The project has been in the works since December 2010 when a consultant came to campus to take a look at the existing structure.

The consultant decided that it was not worth the cost to update the “greenhouse” in Rieke and recommended PLU put its money into a new structure.

The biology department came up with the concept and vision for the structure and met with PLU supporter Carol Sheffels Quigg to get her involved in the project.

“How can you study biology without plants?” Smith said. “We need to be able to showcast how important they are to students.”
The greenhouse will be built with donations from retired faculty members, the Murdock Charitable Trust, the Norcliffe Foundation and individual donors. The Murdock Trust in Vancouver, Wash. and the Northcliffe Foundation in Seattle also donated to the project.

Quigg is the main individual donor responsible for the greenhouse.

“It’s very exciting to know that work has started on the greenhouse site,” Quigg said. “It will be a wonderful, and sorely needed, addition to campus.”

Quigg’s family has strong ties to PLU, even to this day. Plant life and PLU are both very important to Quigg.

“I come from a farm background, and am very mindful of the extreme importance of plants in our lives,” Quigg said. “In short, they are essential to our lives.”

The new greenhouse will be a very welcome asset to the PLU campus, Quigg said.

The biology department in particular will make good use of the greenhouse.

“One of the common sayings in the Division of Natural Sciences is that students learn by doing science,” biology professor Neva Laurie-Berry said. “The new greenhouse will allow students to be engaged in plant biology hands-on in a modern, professional setting.”
All biology majors are required to take a course in plant biology at PLU. The greenhouse will more accurately reflect the current state of the field, Laurie-Berry said.
Laurie-Berry is a biology professor whose research focuses on bacterial pathogens that infect tomato plants. For her, the greenhouse means she can study the infection in a natural tomato host rather than being limited to smaller model plants.
Laurie-Berry said the greenhouse will make an immeasurable difference.

“The biggest problem I faced in my Plant Physiology lab this past fall was a lack of suitable growing space,” Laurie-Berry said. “Most of our experiments failed because the plants could not thrive on lighted shelves in an equipment room.”

The new growing space will provide the proper light, temperature and humidity levels for plant growth. 

Current biology students see the addition as a much needed step for their department.

Senior Lucas Sontra took the mandatory botany class and said the addition will make learning much easier for future students. 

“Currently, the class has to travel to University of Washington to do [research] and being able to get the same experience on campus without needing to plan a field trip would be very beneficial,” Sontra said. “I think it will also attract students who want to focus on botanical studies to PLU.” 

Sontra is excited at the prospect of the new facility opening the doors to new research opportunities, he said. 

For Mary Ellard-Ivey, a biology professor, the greenhouse will be an asset to both of her classes. 

“The ability to grow large populations of model genetic plants will allow students to do crosses and demonstrate principles of genetics,” Ellard-Ivey said. “I am particularly excited about the opportunity I will soon have to bring some of my work to PLU and involve students.”

For now, the greenhouse is a plot of land sectioned off between Morken and Rieke. 

Students should not experience any difference in their day-to-day lives because of the construction, other than the path leading to Olson being blocked off. 

Next year, students will likely see new classes, new projects and new flowers blooming on campus and in the greenhouse.