This piece reflects the views of the UO Student Labor Action Project (SLAP), and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

In collaboration with other students working out of the Radical Organizing Activist Resource (ROAR) Center, this term the University of Oregon Student Labor Action Project (SLAP) launched a campaign to bring awareness to the university’s profits off of prison labor.

SLAP is a group of students at UO that builds campaigns involving students and the labor movement. This has included supporting the GTFF in strike for a fair contract, working with the statewide fight for a $15 minimum wage and pressuring administration to reinstate shift meals for student workers in the dining halls.

This most recent project started after ROAR and SLAP students noticed the underside of their classroom desks were labeled with tags from Oregon Correctional Enterprises (OCE). OCE, a semi-independent agency, sells furniture made by inmates in Oregon prisons. Incarcerated people working for OCE are paid only an estimated $70-80 per month and are subjected to inhumane working conditions under unethical circumstances.

Student Labor Action Project protesters hang a banner in the EMU (Hannah Kanik/Emerald)

ROAR obtained public records that exposed a disturbing $2,041,834 in purchases University Housing has made with OCE from February 2015 to October 2017. Between February 2006 to February 2018, transactions between University Housing and OCE totalled  $7,285,094. According to SLAP’s research, contracts mostly involved new dorm furniture, but EMU and classroom furniture purchases were also substantial.

SLAP hand-delivered a letter to President Schill asking for a meeting with administration to negotiate better ways the university could go about making future furniture purchases, which has received no reply. SLAP has now gone forward with a campaign organizing community opposition to the Prison Industrial Complex and UO’s investment in an agency that profits off the exploitation of prison laborers.

Thus far, SLAP has organized several demonstrations that have been effective in bringing awareness to these issues. On the afternoon of Tuesday, Feb. 27, SLAP members hung large banners at locations on and around campus. The students used the banners to peacefully convey their message of abhorrence to the university’s use of prison labor, while handing out informational material to interested passerbys.

Within minutes, building managers alerted police, who aggressively confronted the peaceful demonstrators, threatening them at several locations with trespassing charges and jail. It was not made clear to the demonstrators holding the banners what university policies they were breaking, as they were harassed and poached out of public student access spaces.

Following this action, SLAP held a week-long boycott of furniture purchased through OCE. Students across campus refused to sit in their classroom chairs and EMU furniture while ROAR hosted floor brunches with folks able to sit with them in boycott of university spaces using OCE furniture.

As students at this university, it should be our priority to hold the admin signing off on these transactions accountable for the ethics of the purchasing decisions they make with our tuition money. Purchasing records with OCE show UO has a dense history of engaging with a system that disproportionately jails communities of color and other marginalized groups. This makes UO an active participant in perpetuating this country’s culture of enslaving marginalized peoples. UO administration has made it clear they have zero regard for human rights by collecting unpaid wages of incarcerated folks via the purchase of OCE furniture.

Furthermore, the UO has made it apparent it has no interest in using its position as a state leader and place of higher learning to contribute positively toward a more humane and just future for the state of Oregon. UO has no place advertising or branding themselves as a catalyst of the human good, or as more specifically published, an institution “enriching the human condition.” Rather, until administration begins to listen to their students and consider the lives and working conditions of the people they are exploiting, the UO should be ashamed, and we as students funding this school should be angry.

The campaign has just begun, and SLAP welcomes any students seeking justice for incarcerated workers to reach out and become involved. To learn more you can attend weekly meetings on Wednesdays at 5 p.m. in the ROAR Center (room 006 of the EMU). Additionally, people wanting to get involved can message SLAP on their various social media accounts or like the University of Oregon Student Labor Action Project Facebook page for updates.

The post Guest: UO profiting off prison labor is a human rights issue appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the authors, Amy Schenk, Tess Mor and Vickie Gimm, and not those of Emerald Media Group. They are the ASUO president, internal vice president and external vice president respectively. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

Last week, University President Michael Schill announced his support of the 2018-19 tuition and fee recommendation from the Tuition and Fee Advisory Board (TFAB).

TFAB’s recommendations include a 2.84 percent increase for resident undergraduate students and a 2.49 percent increase for nonresident undergraduate students. For resident students, this represents an increase of $6 per credit hour or $270 per year. Nonresident undergraduate students would see tuition rise by $18 per credit hour or $810 annually. In addition, students taking courses in the Lundquist College of Business will be charged an additional $20 per credit hour.

Student representatives opposed the potential increase and the prospect of differential tuition. Throughout the tuition process, students had opportunities to share concerns about the potential tuition increases, but their voices had little real impact on the administrative discussions about tuition. The administration has allowed opportunities for student input, but seemingly only as a performative act with no intention of considering the students’ worries. For example, the provost only allowed three days for students to comment before he would notify the Board of Trustees about the tuition proposal.

The night before the campus was notified about the increase and the potential approval of differential tuition, the provost hosted a student forum where students were able to give input and share stories about the effect of past tuition increases. The intention was to share these concerns with the provost before he finalized his proposal. The day after, the campus was notified of President Schill’s support of the proposal, even though the forum supposedly allowed time for the Provost to comprehensively hear students’ thoughts before bringing a recommendation to the President. It seems as if the final decision was made before the forum, and the event was just for show.

In addition, the effect of differential tuition on business students was not adequately researched. Only 35 students of the current 4,687 were asked about differential tuition, and the sample size consisted of student leaders, not a complete representation of the diverse students in the College of Business. Leaders of business clubs are not a representative sample of business students, and neglecting to survey a diverse group of students might not capture the opinions of marginalized students, who will be greatly affected by this policy. Student representatives on TFAB pointed this issue out early on in the process so there was time to fix it, but TFAB members still chose not to conduct more research. Vickie Gimm, our ASUO external vice president, committed her personal time and resources to conduct a more inclusive survey, the results of which were ignored by the administration.

When we were under the Oregon University System (OUS), it was required for universities to seek discussions with student representatives: under OUS differential tuition policy Section 1(e)((i)), “All differential tuition plans must show evidence of extensive and thorough consultation with students who will be affected, both via student representative groups and via organized opinion gathering among the students that would be charged the differential” (OUS). While these bylaws were created for a system we no longer have, it is vital for us to gain insight from old policies to understand potential avenues for solutions in the present. We realize that differential tuition may be inevitable. However, we urge the administration to develop a well-researched policy and try again. We need a policy before implementing decisions that will greatly affect the students at one of our highest-ranking colleges.

Lack of solid policy on differential tuition at the university will create future problems. If other colleges want to implement differential tuition, we should first create fair and clear guidelines that establish a process for how to do so. We want a proper survey of how this will affect students, including the effects on student access to services, financial impact and admissibility into the college. The current financial aid plan is unacceptable. Differential tuition will have an outsize effect on marginalized students.

We cannot allow the administration to ignore the effects of tuition hikes on students. Continuing to make decisions that directly affect students at this university without acknowledging how it will affect them is not an acceptable way to run an institution of higher education. To students who want to participate in the fight, attend the Board of Trustees meeting on Friday, March 2. Come speak directly to the decision makers that will be voting on the tuition increases proposed, including differential tuition.

The post ASUO: Students should have a voice in deciding tuition increases appeared first on Emerald Media.

Today, January 26, 2018 marks the 318th anniversary of the most recent monster earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ).  In the past 6,000 years or so, these quakes of magnitude 8 or 9 have occurred every 202 years on average.  Only once in that period of time has the interval between quakes exceeded 250 years, so the pressure in the CSZ fault has been growing for a very long time.

In a way, we’ve been lucky to have avoided this devastating quake and its accompanying tsunami for so long.  We’ve had the opportunity to strengthen our lifelines (roads, bridges, electrical grids, water and wastewater systems, fuel storage depots, etc.) against the damage the quake can cause.  But in another way, we’ve been unlucky.  We didn’t realize until about 30 years ago that the CSZ was even an active fault, let alone one capable of producing the worst natural disaster to hit North America in modern times.  As a result, our building standards were not strong enough to withstand it.  

That means we expect that roads will be blocked by thousands of bridge failures and landslides. Many critical public buildings, businesses, houses and the other lifeline systems will likely fail.  Especially vulnerable are the hundreds of unreinforced masonry buildings that contain both businesses and multifamily apartments.

We can hope it’s not too late to avoid the worst of this impending catastrophe.  But survival as a society and prosperous economy will require rapid expansion of effort from residents, businesses and government agencies.  That’s why we formed Cascadia Prepared as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization about a year ago: as a private-sector force to encourage and assist effective resilience-building efforts from all corners throughout our region – from British Columbia all the way to Northern California.  We’re working with the Seattle-Based Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup, the Oregon Emergency Management Association and many others to develop resilience programs and increase public awareness of this existential threat.

Please don’t assume that first responders have the situation under control.  In 2016, the “Cascadia Rising” exercise, designed to simulate and test regional response to a 9.0 earthquake, showed that the federal, state and local agencies we trust to handle emergencies will be overwhelmed by the huge number of people who are injured or stranded by the CSZ event.  

What can you do?  It’s critically important that all organizations and private homes have survival plans that include enough emergency food and water to keep everyone on site alive for 14 days.  We should all have “go bags” in our vehicles and homes containing other emergency gear.  Cascadia Prepared’s website will give you many ideas about how to get ready, including what kinds of items to put into your go bags: https://www.cprep.org/resources/how-to-build-a-go-bag-on-your-budget/.  We should also all live and work in buildings that won’t fall down when the quake hits.  If your building was constructed before 2000 and you’re not positive it is seismically sound, it may be worth having an inspection to determine whether retrofitting is needed to ensure your very survival.

We can do this!  The steps we need to take individually and collectively are well-documented and easy to understand.  It will just take a bit of planning, a modest investment of time and money and a willingness to prepare for uncertain threats.  Join friends and neighbors in asking a bit more of ourselves, our employers and our public agencies as we get ready to preserve our way of life.

Steve Robinson is President of Cascadia Prepared (www.cprep.org), a tax-exempt charity helping our region get ready for the next big earthquake.  He can be reached at steve@cprep.org.

The post Guest: Happy Anniversary, Cascadia! appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Anneliese Wahlman, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

Unlike people, numbers don’t lie. With the rapid decline in weekend attendance, the truth is out — apparently, church sucks. That was quite literally the writing on the wall, or sign that was outside the EMU on Thursday afternoon.

When something sucks and you want to know why, you talk about it. So 31 students from a local Bible school called ARISE decided to do just that. Holding a big sign that read, “Tell Us Why ‘Church Sucks,’” the group set up a three-sided plywood wall. As people passed, they invited them to write on the wall and share their honest feelings about church. 

Zeerick Hussain (right), an ARISE student, discusses the project with passersby. (Anneliese Wahlman)

As passersby realized what the project was about, eyes grew big, eyebrows furrowed in skepticism and some wore smiles of relief. By 5 p.m., there was no space left to write on the wall. I walked around with my Sony, snapping photos of the heartbreaking messages. Someone’s uncle was molested by a priest. Someone didn’t know how to have emotional boundaries anymore. Most felt judged or rejected. A wound had been opened up and was bleeding out in sharpie ink. 

The real irony, as many passersby discovered, is that ARISE itself is a Christian organization and part of the UO’s Religious Directors Association. All of the students attend Storyline, a church startup in Eugene, as part of the program. Reise, a project leader, explained their inspiration: “[We] really wanted to do something for people who’ve been hurt by the church,” and show that, “God despises the evils committed against [them].” The idea was to acknowledge people’s pain and to “just listen,” as Michael, another project leader, said. The students also passed out cards that said phrases like, “We’re sorry for hurting you.”

If you were to talk with Reise or Michael, as well as other project leaders like Sharon or Arlana, you’d quickly realize this project had deep roots in their own personal stories. In fact, each one wrote on the wall themselves because each has felt the sting of rejection from people who claimed the name of Christ; people who supposedly knew God’s love. Sharon — who left the church for eight years because of hurtful experiences with other Christians — explained to me, “some of those things that are on the wall — they happened to me.”

As we talked, I saw the gratitude they felt for every person who shared their pain, and yet, they told me they wished they talked less and listened even more. They clearly didn’t want to set themselves up as special or better than anyone. “We wanted to show we’re sorry. We’re listening. We’re trying. We’re you.”

They were also clear that they weren’t trying to invite people back into a place where no one ever gets hurt. In fact, the ARISE group wasn’t intending to invite anyone to church at all. But, perhaps, by simply acknowledging and apologizing, they could start the healing process and be a little more like the Man they claim to follow.

The wall was only up for a couple hours, but in those hours, a few people tried to create a space for empathy and compassion, and no matter what you believe, I think that’s something we can all agree is beautiful.

Anneliese Wahlman—Contributes to the blog over at http://lightbearers.org/blog. Manages social media for the ARISE program. Loves writing poetry while simultaneously burning grilled cheese sandwiches.

The post Guest Column: Church Sucks: The writing on the wall appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Chayne Thomas, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

“Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being “pushed to an extreme,” not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.” — John Stuart Mill

University of Oregon President Michael Schill was quick to dismiss the protesters of his Oct. 6 State of the University Address on the grounds that “they don’t understand the value of free speech.” While I believe he may be well-meaning in his desire to “teach all of our students and members of the community the value of free speech and tolerance,” Schill fails to acknowledge the defect in his fundamental misunderstanding regarding freedom of speech. Namely, he ignores the fact that speech is tied to access. It is strange that Schill, who has the loudest voice on campus and multiple platforms at his disposal, can claim that his rights and freedoms are being infringed upon, while other’s voices are being silenced.

Marginalized students don’t have a voice on campus, but Schill was able to post a statement on the school website, release a video and directly email all students regarding his speech. He also swung private conversations where $50 million suddenly appeared out of mid-air — conversations that didn’t include student voices. Students don’t typically have access to platforms and forums for speech sanctioned by the university, and this needs to change.

This newspaper is one exception, of course, but the Daily Emerald also gives a fairly large and consistent voice to Schill. The insidiousness of his statements regarding free speech, particularly his remark that protesters “don’t want to listen,” actually undermines constructive dialogue on this campus by stifling any further discussion. I am not one of the protesters, but I support them.

Demeaning the Oct. 6 protesters by comparing them to the Black Student Task Force is frankly ahistorical. The university didn’t listen to Black students until they protested. Protest is a fundamental expression of free speech and needs to be protected as a student right on campus — especially when the administration disagrees with it.

In addition, as I understand it, the primary reason students are frustrated is because the university administration, the Board of Trustees and the budget and resource planning officials don’t want to include students in discussions and decisions regarding the allocation of university funds, nor effectively tackle the rising cost of tuition. This is in addition to other issues which directly affect students.

Hopefully Schill recognizes his mistake and gives a greater voice to students, in keeping with his respect for speech and debate. This would be better, in my opinion, than trying to pacify us with magic money that is mostly allocated towards science and technology, accompanying Schill’s interests like the Knight campus project. Many students want to be involved in our school’s decisions, but don’t have access to create dialogue about it. If the university receives a mysterious $50 million donation, we want to be involved in the conversation.

One way Schill can give students a greater voice is to include us in decision-making processes that are about us. Including student voices in conversations about the budget will prove enlightening all-around, as we have a lot to talk about. There is a lack of financial transparency at the university. For example, most students don’t know how the increase in tuition is related to Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans and Federal Pell Grants. Seems to me, this money goes straight into the university’s coffers before being allocated and disbursed to students and rises directly proportionate to the cost of tuition. Schill’s comment that students can “borrow money” to pay for the increase suggests that tuition increases might be being used to increase lending money, rather than to directly tackle costs. Why can’t we create a balanced budget and reduce our costs? There are plenty of brilliant students here just itching to help in that endeavor.

I look forward to learning about our freedoms, and I hope that the student voice is integral to Schill’s upcoming lectures.

The post Guest Viewpoint: A critical response to Schill appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Rachel Benner, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

Even the air seemed to glitter on the second Sunday in July. Rainbow-clad supporters danced with signs, children scrambled for candy and drag queens burst into spontaneous lip-sync. Fifty years after Parliament decriminalized gay relationships, queer people gathered in London to celebrate their identities and victories for one campy, jubilant afternoon.

And then, the day ended. Men, women and those in-between wiped off their face paint and went to bed. The next morning, street cleaners brushed the residual glitter into the gutters of Regent Street. Another Pride festival had come and gone.

But on Marchmont Street in Bloomsbury, Gay’s The Word bookshop opened at 10 a.m., as it does every day. The shop is an enduring symbol of queer pride and community in London, and one that won’t be going away anytime soon.

Store manager Jim MacSweeney sits across from me in the back room of Gay’s The Word on a cloudy summer afternoon, surrounded by unshelved novels and post-it notes. Moments earlier, he rang up a customer for fifteen minutes, chatting enthusiastically between each tap on the register.

As we speak, customers wander under rainbow flags hung from the ceiling, flipping through books and talking with each other. The color and clutter give a feeling of buried-treasure suspense, as if you might happen upon your next life-changing read if you look long enough.

Though he wasn’t sitting behind the desk when Gay’s The Word opened in 1979, MacSweeney remembers the novelty of this “serious bookshop” in Bloomsbury. In a time when LGBT spaces and stores were generally limited to men’s magazines and hole-in-the-wall sex shops, Gay’s The Word’s wide variety of fiction and nonfiction offered something new.

The shop’s original owner and his friends owned Gay’s The Word collectively, buzzing with the radical political energy of the late 1970s. In the spirit of the women’s liberation movement and lesbian bookshops of the time, they created “a different sort of space” — one that included women and people of color, and today embraces anyone who falls on the queer identity spectrum.

Gay’s The Word Bookshop (Benner)

It was once almost impossible to find and purchase LGBT books, but in the 1990s, mainstream booksellers began to see the queer community as a promising market. The advent of Amazon and other online retailers also threatened small, niche booksellers like Gay’s The Word. Today it is the last standing LGBT bookstore in the UK.

So why, then, has this shop endured? Though I don’t know the answer, looking around the shop I am certainly grateful that it has. As someone who makes a beeline for the “Gay and Lesbian” shelf in any typical bookstore, and who combs the shelves of shops for validation through poetry and fiction, this space is a revelation.

MacSweeney sees wide-eyed, queer bibliophiles like me nearly every day. “People come from all over the world to visit the bookshop,” he says. “Often from countries where [LGBTQ relationships are] illegal. And are often surprised at the amount of books that are out there.”

So despite the advent of online ordering and mainstream representation, Gay’s The Word prevails. There is something remarkable in the experience of browsing, something that goes beyond the merchandise itself.

Working in the shop is about more than the inventory for its employees, as well. “For me, working here, I think it’s important that it’s a safe, welcoming space. I never know when people come in, where they are in their lives,” MacSweeney says. “You can have people come in and coming out, at any age.”

Though originally founded to cater to gay men and lesbians, Gay’s The Word has evolved with the community — perhaps another reason for its enduring presence. The shop’s section on trans issues and identity, for example, has expanded over the last several years. What was once a single shelf is now an entire bay.

MacSweeney smiles as he recalls one example of the evolving queer community. “In the old days, people would come in and say ‘I’ve just come out to my mother and she’s having a break down, do you have a book for her?’” he says. “And these days, you see parents come in and say, ‘my son or daughter has just come out and they’re 14, do you have a book for them?’ And that’s very touching. It’s less of a threat.”

“I’m loving the new generation,” he adds. “The way language changes, the way they claim this space, their confidence in who they are, their excitement when they come in.” New people are coming out and joining the LGBTQ+ community all the time, and as they do, they discover Gay’s The Word.

Queer expression may be in something of a vogue, with shows like RuPaul’s drag race commanding cult followings and Twitter fame. Yet when the shows conclude and performances end, queer lives go on. Gay’s The Word celebrates the beauty in that persistent ordinary, and in all the facets of queer experience that may never make it on a screen or into a parade.

“Most lesbian and gay people are so ordinary and dull like anybody else,” MacSweeney says. “And fabulous within that, of course. But it’s the sheer ordinariness that matters. And you get that at Pride– the volume of people who are just people.”

Pride is, of course, a beautiful celebration. It’s a symbol of community and allyship. Stores plaster their display windows with rainbow flags. Bookshops move their LGBTQ+ shelf out of the corner and into the front of the store.

But while each year Pride must end, Gay’s The Word continues. It is a meeting space, a community hub and, for me and many others, a site of discovery and validation.

Despite a history of oppression and the challenges facing independent bookshops, Gay’s The Word remains beloved and important. Its tables are scattered with community announcements and pamphlets. Its cluttered shelves are full and ever-evolving. Like the LGBTQ+ community, it persists with pride.

Rachel Benner spent the summer studying abroad through the GEO Journalism in London program. She explored British sports, arts and culture through writing, which led her to sites like Gay’s The Word.

The post Guest Column: Gay’s The Word: Celebrating LGBTQ identity and history all year long appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Lois Yoshishige, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

No employee should have to face racism, sexism, nepotism or discrimination of any kind on the job. Isolation and alienation of individuals for their differences leads to an atmosphere of tension, fear and hostility. As an institution of higher education, the University of Oregon should be a leader in providing a safe and welcoming culture.

Harassment can take many forms. Shifting workloads to burden specific employees over another, demanding unreasonable hours, systematically preventing advancement for a subset of long-term employees. When this kind of behavior is taking place on our campus, the result isn’t simply tension between employees and supervisors; it’s putting the lives of students at risk.

In a recent anonymous survey of SEIU 503 members working at the UO Health Center (UHC) – including licensed and non-licensed staff – 83 percent of respondents reported having seen specific coworkers being targeted and held to a different standard than their colleagues. 70 percent have seen disciplinary actions disproportionately impacting isolated members of their department. The vast majority of respondents believe that favoritism runs rampant at UHC in everything from disciplinary action to hiring and retention practices.

“Out of the last five people hired as medical aides, all but one are personal friends of the supervisor,” said one respondent. In many instances, long-time UHC staff members are passed over or prevented outright from applying for management roles. Experienced classified staff members at UHC often feel as though their knowledge and expertise both in the field and at UO is being undermined and belittled. The nursing department suffers from chronic low morale – witnessing staff members in tears after meetings with managers and directors is not uncommon at UHC.

Supervisory positions are being created with lower and lower qualifications. In many instances, supervisors are simply not qualified enough to cover for staff with extensive medical training and experience. “If staff members had confidence that their manager could fill in for them if necessary, then staff would have more confidence in management decisions,” concluded one respondent.

82 percent of survey respondents fear being the subject of retaliation if they were to speak up about the ongoing issues at UHC, and for good reason. The narrative at UHC is that staff “is expendable.” More than a few registered nurses at UHC report being told outright that, “Anyone can do your job.” Additionally, management has repeatedly ignored complaints of harassment, sexual harassment and racial discrimination. A non-classified member of the medical staff at UHC expressed concerns to UHC Executive Director LeAnn Gutierrez about discrimination they were witnessing toward classified staff. It was made clear by the Executive Director that no actions would be taken to address these issues unless forced upon the department by the University.

Short-staffed medical departments struggle while the insurance department continues to grow. In fact, 90 percent of survey respondents believe that management is working to build a workplace not dedicated to patient care, but rather to minimize costs and maximize profits. Management prides itself on efficiency, not care.

To complicate matters, Behavioral Health Services (BHS) – which assists people with mental health services from depression to homicidal ideation – has recently been downsized and relocated. Its new location does not provide adequate space for treatment, confidentiality and safety of both patients and staff.  When staff, the people who work directly with patients, try to question management regarding the changes they want to implement, management does not take their concerns into account.

It’s important to remember that UHC isn’t an average clinic or your local hospital: it’s a student health center. When we talk about the patients of UHC, we are also talking about the students of the University of Oregon. The consequences of UHC’s actions on the UHC staff affect patient health and overall well-being. The chaotic environment created by discrimination, nepotism and favoritism is an unnecessary weight on a workforce already burdened by incredible pressure.

These types of stories are likely just the tip of an iceberg. UO’s Department of Housing & Food Services has continuously struggled with racial, sexual and gender discrimination. Classified staff members at UHC are joining with House & Food Service workers and calling on the University to provide a safe and trusting work environment, where it is safe to report issues of inequality in the workplace without the threat of retaliation that could put the student body at risk.

Signed,

Lois Yoshishige, SEIU Local 085 (University of Oregon) Chief Contact
Theodora Ko-Thompson, SEIU Local 085 President
And
Local 085 Executive Committee

The post Guest Viewpoint: All University of Oregon employees deserve a discrimination free workplace appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, senior instructor Randy Sullivan, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

I have been reading in President Michael Schill’s “Open Mike” emails and in communications from United Academics about a disagreement concerning the role of non-tenure track faculty here at the UO. I think that the positions of both of these parties are outdated and in need of revision.  The president is of the opinion that students benefit greatly from having meaningful interactions with researchers.  That is certainly true.  The union counters that our students benefit greatly from the pedagogical expertise of our non-tenure track instructors.  That is also certainly true.  The dilemma is that both of these parties present these options as a dichotomy; that we must have either one or the other.  Like most dichotomies, this one is not only false, but also oppressive.  It is based on a “one class/one instructor” model of instruction that is outmoded and will not result in creative approaches to providing effective instruction.  This is particularly true in “bottleneck” courses, those large-enrollment, lower-division courses that serve students in many different majors.

Teaching in the 21st century, particularly teaching large introductory courses, is very different than what it was even 20 years ago.  There have been many advances in cognitive science and learning theory that inform responsible and effective instructional practice. These insights should be guiding us as we plan our learning activities. They frequently prescribe methods of instruction that require active and expert management.  There have also been tremendous advances in instructional technology that require users to be trained to use fairly complex computer programs and to keep abreast of program changes and updates.

In short, the days of a researcher hanging up her lab coat, dusting off her notes and walking into the lecture hall to teach are long gone.  If we are going to effectively deploy our research faculty to teach introductory courses, they are going to need support.  And our non-tenure track instructors are uniquely equipped to provide that support.

If we want our students to excel in our “bottleneck” courses, we need to start thinking outside of the box.  What would it look like to have a non-tenure track instructor in charge of the instructional technology and classroom management of several sections of a large introductory course and rotate in several different researchers at various times during the term to present instructional units or research reports appropriate to the level of the learners?  The researchers could narrate real-life research dilemmas that could be resolved using the skills that the students are learning at that time.  Problems and study questions could be embedded within this meaningful context.  The instructor can then follow this up with related support material, assignments, activities and evaluations.  Students would gain the benefit of both the researcher’s experience and the instructor’s pedagogical and management expertise.

If we are going to decrease the number of non-tenure track instructors at our university, we are going to have to deploy those that remain more creatively and not get caught up in, and bound by, the “one class/one instructor” dichotomy.

Go Ducks!

Randy Sullivan
Senior Instructor
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

The post Guest viewpoint: The dichotomy of tenure and non-tenure faculty appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Kevin Stevens, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

Dear Hillary Clinton supporters,

I am not ideologically conservative, but my peers often label me as a conservative.

For context: I oppose abortion and the funding for abortion, I sincerely believe in the First Amendment guarantee for the free exercise of religion and I am opposed to euthanasia. I believe that Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch is well-qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

However, I say that I am not ideologically conservative because I also support government funding for women’s reproductive health and crisis pregnancy centers, I sincerely believe in the First Amendment guarantee against an establishment of religion, and I am opposed to capital punishment. I have described my stance on a few issues not because I wish to sway your own stance; I merely want to introduce myself.

I suppose, based upon the views that I listed above, some would label me a moderate conservative. I would not assign that label to myself, but, hey — it’s a free country. In fact, let’s take a moment to talk about labels. Labels can be quite useful when trying to categorize something, such as shoes (high-top basketball sneakers versus wingtip Oxfords). Labels are a fantastic tool for placing like things with other like things.

But labels can be damaging if used inappropriately. Another label some would apply to me (one that I happily accept) is Catholic. Now, I could end this letter without saying another word, and a multitude of assumptions would be made about me simply because I announced that I am a Catholic. I say this not to mean that we should not use labels at all but simply to advise caution when using labels. As nuanced as shoes can be, people are infinitely more nuanced. While a person may be given a label, we should try to understand a person and their views in the context of their lives.

I oppose abortion because I am truly anti-abortion: I believe in the sanctity of life from beginning to end. I believe life is infinitely valuable, and that a dear price was paid for us to keep ours. My belief in the value of life is why I oppose euthanasia and capital punishment and why I support funding for women’s health issues, especially unwanted pregnancies.

I believe in the free exercise of religion because I want all people of faith (not just those who practice Abrahamic religions) to be free to live according to the dictates of their consciences. By the same token, I believe in the prohibition of the establishment of religion so that America may truly be a secular society and not a theocracy.

Lastly, I believe that Supreme Court Nominee Gorsuch would serve well as a justice due to his track record of following precedent, his textual approach to statutory interpretation and his advocacy of judicial constraint.

For the record, I did not vote for Donald Trump, so one would not be able to label me a Trump supporter. By using the label “Trump supporter,” however, certain connotations come to mind (fairly or not) — some connotations which may come to mind include “misogynistic, sexist, racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic.”

I do not believe it to be necessarily true that most, or even a majority, of people who voted for President Trump are appropriately characterized by those traits, regardless of what one thinks of Trump himself. How many times have you heard the term “Trump supporter” or heard someone say “I voted for Trump,” and made assumptions about the person, their views and their character without inquiring further?

Perhaps the person is a Trump supporter because they believe in his promise to increase the number of manufacturing jobs for semi-skilled American workers. Perhaps the person voted for Trump because the person thinks of the size of the federal government as unconstitutional. Or maybe the person is, in fact, simply a racist bigot who believes that paid maternity leave is frivolous and should be abolished. My point is, a person does not know why another person supports President Trump (or any politician or cause) until one engages in a dialogue with another and tries to listen and understand the person’s perspective.

Labels are misused and abused by people across the political spectrum. Sadly, such misuse and abuse do not serve to unite our country. Rather, our nation simply becomes ever more polarized, divided and splintered due to the baseless assumptions that are made. I am asking you — nay, I am pleading with you: the next time you meet a “conservative” or a “Republican” or even (gasp!) a “Trump supporter,” instead of assuming the person’s views, why not just talk with them? Not just waiting your turn to speak, but truly listening to the person and responding to their thoughts. I promise, engaging with someone with different views won’t hurt.

Sincerely,

Kevin Stevens

The post Guest Viewpoint: An open letter to Hillary Clinton supporters appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Karina Michelle, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

I almost dropped out of college my senior year. I was a few credits away from officially graduating, actually.  

I was frustrated with being in school for the fifth year, in debt and uncertain of my chosen career path. I was lost and thought giving up was probably the most viable option. (Didn’t Bill Gates drop out of college to pursue his calling?)

I had walked at my graduation ceremony but I still had 20 credits left — which meant summer school and putting off what I considered starting my “adult” life by getting a job and generating income by pursuing a career in entertainment in L.A. (Didn’t Brad Pitt drop out one semester before graduating?)

There I was, at a crossroads. Do I pay $3,000 of tuition and forfeit my summer to finishing my education or do I buy a one-way ticket to L.A. and jump into the abyss of entertainment and adulthood? Thank god for fear. Because of it, I chose to finish what I started nearly five years and three educational institutions ago.

SOJC professor Alex Tizon died in his sleep last Thursday night. He was 58. (Courtesy of AroundtheO.)

That was the summer I met Alex Tizon.

There were nine of us in his journalistic interview class, something you would call a “boutique” setting. We were very lucky. There are a few professors in the School of Journalism with a reputation which precedes them, and Alex Tizon was one of those professors. Having won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism in 1997, there was a kind of unsaid understanding that because he was a part of the faculty, he was one of the contributing factors (of which there are many) that give the School of Journalism the credibility it’s known for. That summer his introduction to class was, “Welcome to journalistic interview! Who here has read any of my work?”

We all bowed our head in embarrassment. Of course, there was the one student whose hand shot in the air. Internally I was rolling my eyes, but mostly, I felt insecure that I hadn’t even bothered to read his Wikipedia profile before coming to class knowing he was a big-shot professor. Clearly, this was a sign I should be in L.A. and not in this classroom.

“I’m not surprised most of you haven’t,” he said with humble disappointment. “It was a long time ago. Besides, most of you are probably here to finish up your credits. It is summer school after all … But you should probably read my book anyway. Just a tip to one journalist to another, you should always come as possibly prepared to an interview as you can be.”

The class started off tremulously for me. It was hard to hide my anxieties of being there in the first place. On the one hand, I wanted to do well and show up with a good attitude, but on the other, I wanted to give up entirely and move on with my life. Alex knew this was the case for many of us trying to get through our last semester of college. He didn’t take it personally when he asked me what my interest in journalism was and I responded with, “I’m actually more interested in cinema and entertainment … I just, um … yeah … I need to graduate and I um, I do love journalism, but, umm … ” I could have rambled on forever. Could I be any more unprepared? Was I really trying to claim a journalism major right now?

“Well then, let’s get you out of here so you can start your life!”

There was something about professor Tizon where you just knew he got it; life, if you will. He was wise and surprisingly laid back for a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist. He let us call him Alex. He seemed genuinely interested in our lives and pursuits and less interested in grades and bureaucracy, although he did grade us accordingly and was a fierce editor. I felt like he showed up to every class ready to pull out the potential in us. He really saw us for who we were and who we wanted to be — the sorority girl with dreams of being on the Food Network. The star running back with his eyes focused on the NFL. The former model with a deep interest and understanding in astronomy and physics. The former Beaver with a vision for sustainable agriculture. The fellow Filipino with the internship at the local news station.  The overachiever with her own anxieties of an uncertain future. The frat guy with an inclination for ESPN. And me — the transfer student with a giant question mark hovering over her and an “interest” in entertainment … whatever that even means.

It was four weeks of intensive journalistic interviewing, borderline uncomfortable at times. He asked us hard questions and made us ask hard questions, such as, why does anything matter? He taught us how to show up prepared, how to find the angle of a story, how to determine if a story is worth covering in the first place, how to use spell check. He made us think. I still use these tools in my everyday life.

The last day of class he very coolly suggested meeting at the campus bar for beers and tots. I was nervous because I’d never been casual with a professor before (was being drunk in front of my professor going to affect my grade?). I’d always been formal and put on a kind of mask of professionalism, but he really wanted to get to know us outside the classroom. We were there for nearly five hours sharing personal stories, laughing at past career mishaps, failed relationships and family. He was the only professor who ever asked about how my father died the previous summer and how I was managing grieving and school. It meant a lot to me. He was genuinely curious about our lives. He was equally open and showed us photos of his two beautiful daughters, gushing at their talent and beauty of which they both had plenty of. His youngest is my age. I remember him showing us a photo of her somewhere in the Mediterranean; she looked so free and beautiful. I remember thinking they had the same smile.  

Now I live in New York and am an apprentice at one of the top acting studios in the city. I got my wish of starting my “adult” life, and man … be careful what you wish for, right? There are days where I would love nothing more than to be sitting back in the classroom, before I had bills and real responsibilities. If I could do it all over again, I would be more present and less whiney. Getting a college degree is a privilege and sometimes I had the worst attitude about it. In my pursuit of higher education, I’ve been to three universities and one community college. I’ve taken over 250 credits, sat in hundreds of classrooms and listened to dozens of professors. I’m several thousands of dollars in debt and used to questions if I was the type of person college is “right” for. There are only a few professors who I can genuinely admit made the college experience worth all the work, the stress, the debt. That sitting in their classroom and learning from their minds changed my thinking process and helped me grow not only as a student but as a human being. Alex Tizon was one of those professors.

When I think of what a mentor typically looks like, I always think “Good Will Hunting” (go ahead and blame my “interest” in entertainment), and feel inadequate that a professor never showed interest in me the way Robin Williams showed interest in Matt Damon — that I wasn’t a genius, or special, or that I wasn’t the next Pulitzer-prize winning journalist. In fact, I got a B- in his class. But that’s exactly what Alex Tizon was to me and to all of us that summer. He was a guiding light.

The post Guest Viewpoint: Thank you, Alex Tizon appeared first on Emerald Media.