This piece reflects the views of the author, Survivor Autonomy, an anonymous UO graduate student, 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.

As a victim of rape, discrimination and mandatory reporting, the potential for UO to adopt a required reporting policy scares me. With a policy like this, any information regarding sexual violence or discrimination, like racism, I disclosed to a university employee, such as a mentor, would be relayed to an official university source. Without my consent.

This possibility frightened me so much that as a graduate student I wrote an open letter to the UO Senate, detailing how such a policy would likely silence reports, rupture academic relationships between students and faculty/staff, diminish academic freedom and oppress minority students.

Since being shared on April 28, the open letter has received over 580 views. With so much circulation, I am relieved that I chose to be anonymous in this process. While I am grateful for the support I have received, I have been pained by the retaliation, dismissal, disrespect and silencing that has been directed to me as Survivor Autonomy from some faculty and staff of the university.

Most damaging to the campus community, the aforementioned issues I raised in the open letter have yet to be substantively addressed by proponents of the policy, despite two Senate meetings (May 11, May 18) and a Senate blog, in which university members are encouraged to provide feedback.

I am so strongly opposed to this policy because prior to my time at UO, I was forced to report sexual violence to the police. The police response was very harmful: I was blamed for the rape, and I was told that I was responsible for the rapes this person I loved would commit in the future because I refused to give the police his name.

In addition to that punishing response, being forced to report and share something that was so private, so hurtful and so confusing with a professional stranger was a violating betrayal. It was almost as if I was being raped again: I said no; I said please stop; I cried; I said this is hurting me. And yet, all of my protests were ignored, and I was forced against my will.

I never want that to happen again to me or to anyone else.

If I were a victim of sexual violence or discrimination at UO, my options under the required reporting policy are to not have the support of the faculty I trust because I do not tell them in order to retain my privacy and autonomy. Or, I disclose, and I put those trusted faculty in a position of having to either betray me by reporting on me, or violating university policy, thus potentially jeopardizing their job.

At this point, I believe there is no denying that UO has problems with sexual violence, discrimination and their responses to such matters. Unfortunately, adopting a policy that privileges a stance of risk management, while ignoring the rights of adults, is not a way to foster trust in a university that has numerous high profile examples of betraying that trust.

There are alternatives.

Why not institute a policy that required that a university employee must follow the wishes of the adult who disclosed?

If the person wants their experience reported, the faculty or staff member must oblige. If the adult wants their personal information to remain confidential, the employee must respect that. The campus resources could be so well advertised, while being improved and corrected when harmful mistakes are made, that members of the campus community could make informed decisions on if/when to utilize those services.

The bottom line is adults, which includes undergraduates, graduate students, staff and faculty, should have the right to decide what is and is not done with their personal information. In my opinion, the conversation around required reporting should begin here:

How do we as a campus address sexual violence and discrimination while protecting individuals’ rights for privacy and autonomy?

A university that attempts to remove the rights of adults—after they have already been violated, no less—is unethical, harmful, and in deep contrast to creating a safe, equitable, respectful, trustworthy environment for all.

Survivor Autonomy is a graduate student at UO, who has chosen to write anonymously for fear of retaliation.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Jean Ramirez, 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.

On April 20th two student organizations, UO Beyond War and Global Zero University of Oregon, held their first panel discussion from their Breaking the Silence Series: The U.S. + Nuclear Warfare. An overlooked topic, but nonetheless an emerging problem we can’t ignore.

Especially when a certain presidential candidate argues “that U.S. allies should build their own nuclear weapons so they no longer have to rely on an impoverished America’s atomic umbrella.”

Not only are there solid counterarguments agains this claim, it also proves that the lack of knowledge about nuclear weapons is concerning. And with upcoming elections, its difficult to understand why there wasn’t a lot of potential voters eager to learn why nuclear weapons is a problem, and what can be done.

Interestingly enough there is something we can do, and it has to do with banning nuclear weapons testing.

On January 6th, the UN Security Council held “urgent consultations to address the serious situation arising from the nuclear test conducted by the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea]” at 1:30:00 (UTC) the same day. Within 24 hours the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), an organization created to promote the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), published an addendum on their 45th session of the Preparatory Commission.

It stated that delegations “[expressed] universal concern about the effect of any such test on international peace and security and [rejected] any and all nuclear explosive tests.” Then on March 2nd the Security Council imposed new sanctions on the DPRK, as well condemning the state for launching a ballistic missile on February 6th.

Politically, condemning the DPRK only legitimizes sanction’s against rogue nuclear states. The problem is this strategy strays away from three keys facts about nuclear weapons testing, which the CTBTO has made public and easily to verify.

1. There are 13 states that have not signed the CTBT, and 32 states have not yet ratified it.
2. The CTBT is not an international law because the treaty was signed, but never ratified by all necessary signatories.
3. Two out of the 8 states whose signature and ratification is needed for the CTBT to become an international law are permanent members of the Security Council.

In the preamble of the CTBT, it stresses “the need for continued systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally” while “recognizing that the cessation of all nuclear weapon test explosions and all other nuclear explosions, by constraining the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons… constitutes an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation in all its aspects.”

Without reading the rest of the CTBT, it is clear there is a consensus how testing, developing and improving nuclear weapons is counterproductive to the goal set by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A treaty where signatory states agreed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. If the same states acted rational, they would sign and ratify the CTBT allowing a verification regime to hold accountable violating states under international law, and strengthening the consensus nuclear weapons proliferation can stopped at the testing stage.

The confounding part of this assumption is that the United States is a key promoter of the NPT and one of the two permanent security Council members who has not yet ratified the CTBT, the other being China. The additional states whose signature and ratification are also needed for the CTBT to become and international law include Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the DPRK

Without these key signatures and ratification, it makes it difficult to understand how the Security Council can condemn the DPRK, while two of their permanent members have not taken the step to end nuclear proliferation at the testing stage. If the ratification is not soon up for a vote, the United States rationale for current and future sanctions against violating states becomes harder to justify.

Not only would the ratification make it clear that nuclear weapons testing is universally condemned, it would also set a clear precedent with a strong unanimous support.

Perhaps nuclear weapons are not in everyone’s agenda, but the Senate failed to ratify the CTBT in 1999. Whether the failure is due to domestic politic its up to debate, but informed voters can influence their state elected officials in Washington. Learning the facts it important, collectively voicing the problem is key.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Patrick Westerberg, 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.

Okay, let me see if I understand this issue. Conservative Republicans, concerned parents and proponents of a Christian caliphate in North Carolina have barred transgender people from using the public bathroom of their choice in order to prevent possible sexual assault, correct?

On its face, it seems almost reasonable—but only when applied to a man who falsely claims to identify as a woman but is, in fact, sexually attracted to women and intends to use the women’s bathroom in order to find a victim and perpetrate a sexual assault. I doubt anyone would bat an eye if a woman used the men’s bathroom, except to slut shame or victim blame.

If this is correct, such a law criminalizes an otherwise legal act (using a public bathroom) because it might lead to an illegal act (sexual assault). Last I checked, it is illegal for anyone to commit a sexual assault in all fifty states, regardless if committed in a bathroom or not.

You know what else is illegal in all fifty states? Gun-crime. Just like sexual assault, gun-crime is an umbrella term that includes many acts that are illegal. So, how can the logic behind the anti-transgender restroom laws be used against gun-crime? Simple, make it illegal for anyone to go into a business that sells guns.

Wait! Hear me out.

The 2nd Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but it says nothing about people not being allowed to enter a business establishment. And let’s face it, there have been more real-life examples of individuals committing gun-crime after visiting a business that sells firearms than there have been of individuals committing sexual assault when visiting the bathroom.

“But that’s after the person leaves the gun store,” you argue? Yes, but even if we only count the number of gun-crime incidents where the criminal entered a firearms merchant with no weapon or ammo on them in the first place, the number is still infinitely more than sexual assaults by transgendered people in bathrooms (as any number divided by zero is infinity).

As any Walmart or Cabela’s employee can confirm, currently, without such laws, gun dealers are forced to train their employees to never bring out ammo and a weapon at the same time when showing them to customers, as the customer might quickly load the weapon and use it in a crime right inside the store.

I’m really beginning to like the idea of laws that criminalize the use of public facilities because it might potentially lead to already criminalized actions. We might even be able to address rampant theft. Simply outlaw anyone from entering any business. Problem solved! But I digress.

North Carolina has already solved the (not so) major threat of men—who falsely claim to be transgendered—sexually assaulting females in public restrooms. Let’s deal with gun-crime next, then we can move on to all the other crimes. I urge all fifty states to follow North Carolina’s bold leadership by enacting this simple and effective anti-gun-crime legislation without delay!

Patrick Westerberg

Patrick Westerberg is an undergraduate at the University of Oregon pursuing a BS in General Social Sciences. You can read more from him at thetokensquare.wordpress.com or follow him on twitter @TheTokenSquare.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Shawn Olfman, 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.

Every type of discrimination weakens and divides society. Those who are unfairly excluded feel cheated and betrayed by the society that wrongly excluded them. They feel cheated and betrayed because they were cheated and betrayed.

They may be afraid to speak out, but that fear does not change what they know happened to them and how they feel about it. Each year, thousands of students, who worked harder to earn higher grades and obtain higher scores on relevant pre-entry tests like the MCAT and LSAT, are being denied admission into certain faculties, in violation of their constitutional rights.

Students of certain religions, color, ethnic backgrounds and socio-economic backgrounds, and students who express their own valid social opinions and scientific opinions, are being discriminated against.

The United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which The United States and Canada helped to write, clearly states that academic merit must be the deciding factor in determining which students are admitted into faculties that have limited enrollment. However, the same North American universities that tell other countries to follow the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” are themselves breaching it by not using academic merit to determine admission.

The Constitutions of The United States and of Canada give students the right to an equal opportunity for admission into any faculty of a publicly funded university, based on objective, equal, fair and relevant criteria. Many North American publicly funded universities are violating the Constitution by using an essay, interviews or similar means to deny admission to students.

To know why using an essay, interviews or similar means to deny admission to students is a clear violation of the Constitution you have to know the relevant portions of the Constitution. There is not enough room in a “Letter to The Editor” to provide that information. The website constitutionbreaches.com provides all of the information and supporting documents. The “Olfman Freedom Quiz” on the site allows you to test your constitutional knowledge regarding equal rights to admission.

Have you ever wondered why a university would subordinate the grades a student received from that very same university, over a three or four year period, and place more admissions emphasis on an essay or a few interviews? Have you ever wondered why there is no way to find out if the essay score or the interview scores were relevant, or were determined in an objective, fair, honest, non-discriminatory and constitutional way?

The answer to both questions, is that the essay and interview scores allow that university to hide its discrimination behind an unverifiable score. Why the score cannot be verified is explained on constitutionbreaches.com. The only reason to set up a system that cannot be checked for fairness, honesty, objectivity, relevance or constitutionality is to allow for discrimination.

The facts and documents on constitutionbreaches.com let you see for yourself why essays, interviews and similar systems are a violation of the Constitution and are resulting in thousands of students being discriminated against each year.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Patrick Westerbeg, 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.

November 4th, 2008 – We have elected the first African-American to the highest office in the land. Not since the election of John F. Kennedy had such a wave of energy and youthful optimism swept across the nation. Not since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s seminal “I have a dream” speech had the hope of a post-racist nation been so strong. It propelled Barack Obama into the Presidency and sparked a new political revolution.

After more than a year of fighting with intransigent Republicans in congress—despite reaching across the aisle—Obama had spent virtually all of his political capital ensuring the passage of Obamacare, giving the new political revolution all the energy it needed to become a powerful national movement.

This new political revolution, called the Tea Party, firmly seated far-right wing ideologues into both houses of congress, giving the Republicans a majority in the House and a filibuster representation in the Senate. This political revolution continues to reverberate through sustained efforts to defund and repeal Obamacare, blocking even moderately progressive legislation, and the filibuster of more judicial nominations to federal courts than any other administration in the history of our country. As the President said himself, the mid-term elections of 2010 gave Democrats a “shellacking.”

What happened? The answer is quite simple, those who voted for Obama thought they had won the day on November 4th, 2008 and simply sat down. The progressive momentum of the election was gone.

Will we make the same mistake in 2016? The energy of the Bernie Sander’s campaign is truly inspirational. We are feeling a renewed sense of energy, hope, and optimism, especially from the youth vote. But Bernie warns us that this isn’t about electing one man, it’s about a political revolution. More than anything, we need to understand, embrace and own this.

Much has been said recently about the “Bernie or Bust” movement. The idea that, should Bernie not receive the Democratic nomination, we should write in his name (splitting the Democratic vote), abstain, or vote for the Republican candidate (likely Donald Trump) sends shivers down the spine of any progressive. However, if Clinton clinches the nomination, should we support her? Perhaps not—and here’s why. If we know anything, it’s that either Democrat in the White House will reinvigorate the Tea Party. But the enthusiasm and energy of Bernie progressives will evaporate during a Clinton administration. Progressives, again, will sit down. This is a recipe for disaster.

But wouldn’t a Clinton administration be better than a Republican one? We have good reason to think not. Bernie is the only viable candidate running who hasn’t already been bought by big campaign contributors. Wall Street, the anti-environmental Oil Industry, and other non-progressive interests will want their usual, disproportionate seat at the table. How can a Clinton administration deny them such access after they paid her so much for it? It isn’t an unreasonable or unfair question.

Should Sanders become the 45th President of the United States he will lead a progressive political revolution, encouraging and empowering grass roots movements to fight the inevitable backlash from conservatives. This is imperative to succeed with any progressive agenda in the face of moderate congressional Democrats and dug-in, right-wing Republicans. This is ideal.

However, should a proponent of a Christian Caliphate like Cruise or a neo-authoritarian racist like Trump win the general election, which political revolution will be energized? The answer is clear—progressives will STAND UP! We’d be energized, if not desperate, to organize and act in order to take our country back. Enough would be ENOUGH! We only need to see the passion of Bernie supporters to know it isn’t a fantasy. A major progressive movement, perhaps led by Bernie, could arguably sweep Congress in the mid-terms of 2018.

If Bernie loses, progressives can—and should—feel completely justified in standing up for what is right by rejecting another four to eight years of politics-as-usual, go-nowhere, gridlock in Washington.

Patrick Westerberg

Patrick Westerberg is an undergraduate at the University of Oregon pursuing a BS in General Social Sciences. You can read more from him at thetokensquare.wordpress.com or follow him on twitter @TheTokenSquare.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Jean Ramirez, 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.

On April 10th, columnist Zachary Moss wrote an article how the Republican candidate Donald Trump “demonized various minority groups in the U.S in order to create fear and insecurity against anyone who isn’t a white male.” He showed facts and numbers, but he failed to introduce historic rhetoric to explain why Mr. Trump pursuits this strategy and how it has been done before.

Elite members of the Republican party are in no position of endorsing Mr. Trump . Why would they? Mr. Trump has insulted members of congress, including those in the party he claims to represent. His bullish tactics, instead of hurting his image, has in fact increased his popularity among Americans who view it as bold and necessary.

Strategic politicians craft their language very carefully while Mr. Trump “tells it like is,” as many of his supporters claim. The only problem is his approach has divided the republican party. How? After losing the 2008 election, the latino vote became really significant to the Republican party.

Instead of embracing this electorate change, the party became anti-immigrant. Once Mr. Trump insulted Mexican immigrants when he announced his candidacy, no longer did the party have a chance to undo the anti-immigrant sentiment they needed to avoid to win future elections.

On the other hand, the same tactic has become popular among Americans who feel like they are no longer represented by their party. Here is where it becomes historical:

During the New Deal era Southern Democrats supported the safety nets created by FDR, but with one condition: that it only benefited white Americans. The Jim Crow south made it impossible for Black Americans to receive the benefits they needed to survive the great depression. Not until the Johnson’s administration did civil rights demands became laws.

By then, this huge coalition began to look the other way, and in 1964 a party realignment transformed U.S politics. Southern Democrats and other Democratic conservatives felt like their party no longer represented them, in part because the Democratic party had embraced civil rights movement (which many white Americans were not in favor of).

These disfranchised voters instead embraced a new Republican conservative platform based on law and order that labeled White Americans as law-abiding citizens, pinning minorities as agitators. A prime example is George Wallace, whose campaign like Mr. Trump’s, is based on racist connotation to alliance minorities and present himself as a savior for the political disfranchised.

During the 70’s and 80’s institutionalized racism replaced Jim Crow, arguably maintaining a racial hierarchy that placed white Americans at a significant advantage.

So what does this have to do with Trump supporters? Well after the great recession of late 2008, the unemployment level increased leaving middle class families financially unstable. No longer did a financial crisis affect only minorities, but this time it took a toll on all Americans.

During this period anti-immigrant sentiment began to grow, further creating the notion that the government no longer represented everyone equally. Poor White americans felt no longer represented by their representatives in congress. More profoundly, they no longer felt like their status as White America would provide a safety net for them.

That is until Mr. Trump blamed the government, immigrants and other factors for this disparity. The message spread and resonated among others who felt the same way but couldn’t say out loud because it had a racist connotation.

The problem is that the Republican party accepted the fact that they needed the Latino vote. Except the anti-immigrant and xenophobic language Mr. Trump echoes at his rallies further alienates these necessary voters, but attracts many who feel otherwise. Mr. Trumps popularity hurts the Republican party, but alienating him also alienates his supporters; a key demographic to Republicans.

So what to do? not even Republican elites know.

Jean Ramirez is University of Oregon student working towards a bachelors degree in economics and political science.

This piece reflects the views of the authors 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.

Elections always serve as a time for new ideas to form and take hold to help our student body grow. This year, one of those ideas is to combine the Safe Ride and Designated Driver Shuttle services into one program, rather than two separate programs.

DDS and Safe Ride are two similar programs that provide a great deal of service to the student body. Many students often confuse the two services, and frequently call one service by the other name, yet they do provide different services. Both programs provide free rides home to students around the Eugene area, and both work to promote safer transportation at night. When it comes to purpose and operations, they stand apart.

Safe Ride’s mission is to prevent assault on students in the Eugene area by providing rides for students who are at risk at night if they were to walk. DDS exists to keep roads safe by providing free rides home to students so that they have an alternative to driving while intoxicated.

These services have different hours of operation, different types of vehicles, different maintenance and leadership needs and different policies based on ridership, employee function and general daily operations. These differences have arisen due to the needs of these two programs to provide the best services to the student body as they can, with their different missions and functionality.

The idea that these two programs should be combined is fed through the notion that this will ultimately save students money and will still provide the same level of service. When you take a deeper look, this just isn’t the case.

The budgets of both programs cover basic operating expenses such as fuel, maintenance, personnel and advertising costs. The expense of fuel, maintenance and operational staff for the total of nine vans that DDS and Safe Ride operate will not decrease under a merger. The only savings that can be listed within the proposal is that in the stipends of the leadership of the programs.

Each program has two co-directors, and one proposal for merging the programs is that there would only be three co-directors for the combined program. This would incur a savings of only a few thousand dollars per year. And what is the result?

A combination of two programs that have different methods for operation, under one set of leadership that would have to be more focused on how to manage two separate entities under one budget, and less focused on making sure that the programs work as hard as they possibly can for you.

The argument that combining these two programs can increase efficiency in their ability to serve students also does not make sense. Both programs have already begun taking steps to increase efficiency in the amount of rides they can give. Combining Safe Ride and DDS into one program gives neither program any new tools to work with that would increase ride capacity they do not already have.

We, as the leadership and employees of Safe Ride and the Designated Driver Shuttle, do not believe that merging our two programs will better serve the student body, or that any potential savings in the budgeting process would come close to outweighing the cost to services that the merger would create.

Signed,

Kristen Craig, Designated Driver Shuttle Director of Scheduling and Communications

Rilee Dockins, Safe Ride Director of Scheduling

Zoë Wong, Safe Ride Director of Finance

Lydia Frazer, Safe Ride

Laura Stentz, Safe Ride

Josie Imrie, Safe Ride

Monica Nunan, Safe Ride

Annalee Nock, DDS

Francis Howitt, DDS

Tori Hyham, DDS

Miles Sisk, DDS

Mariah Victor, DDS

Rachel Parker, DDS

Allie Sweeney, DDS

Cindy Ocampo, DDS

Sam Malenosky, DDS

This piece reflects the views of the author, Alexander Reasoner, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It was originally submitted to members of the Emerald staff on April 10. 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.

As a member of the Departments Finance Committee this year, I was present for the budget hearings that decided this year’s ASUO budget. I had never before been involved in the process before and was excited to see how the different committees would come together. Unfortunately, the experience convinced me that changes need to be made.

Decisions made by the majority of Senate and the other committees were shocking. Most shocking was the casual nature in which bus access for students living along Kinsrow by Autzen Stadium was ignored to make room for politically expedient increases in other areas of the budget. As the budget hearing progressed, it became apparent that the goals of the ASUO this year were to increase funding for certain programming at the expense of seemingly everything else.

The argument that a few students would be unable to access vital transportation was brushed off, including the suggestion that they become reliant on the already strained services provided by SafeRide and DDS. Additionally, the passionate argument of another student was brushed aside to push a political agenda.

In full disclosure, Zach Rentschler was the reason I first ran for ASUO a year ago, and I consider him a friend, but it was his stance on this issue that cemented my respect for him—not just as a friend but as a leader on this campus. Zach’s decision to bring the entire process crashing to a halt was made from the principle of not denying a service that students rely upon.

The pettiness of the anger from certain members of Senate and the Executive showed the massive discount between them and Zach. They viewed his decision as a political move, a gimmick to get his name out there for his impending campaign. To me, it was someone taking a stand against actively harmful policy.

What my experience taught me was that the ASUO needs an overhaul. It needs people who aren’t insiders, who aren’t tied to the petty politics. When I look at the candidates running alongside me, I see leaders from across campus who are motivated to fight for students. I find the chance to work with students from diverse backgrounds, with members of Greek Life, student association leaders, and club leaders. I see the kind of leaders who can make a real change on this campus.

The biggest disservice we made in the first week of campaigning was focusing too much on the idea of bringing Uber back and not spending enough time talking about the other bedrocks of our campaign: bringing free, open-source, and accessible textbooks to campus as Oregon State and Portland State have already initiated, and to increase LTD funding to bring the 79x route back to full service.

These were the issues that made me passionate about running with One Oregon. In the coming week, I hope I and my fellow candidates with One Oregon can better bring the issues to the fore.

Alexander Reasoner

This piece reflects the views of the authors, Helena Schlegel and Claire Johnson, 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.

Fellow Ducks,

As the president and vice president of the ASUO, we have engaged with students across campus on many issues throughout the year. We have worked toward the mission of empowering students and creating a more inclusive student body. During this election cycle, there is one team that we feel upholds this mission by continually advocating for students and working to improve the UO community. When voting this week on DuckWeb, please vote for the campaign that is for the students: Duck Squad.

Samara, Abel and Sophie, the executive ticket, are students who have all been actively involved in the movement for student power and social justice. They have entered the election not to build a resume, but to continue their work. Members of Duck Squad have spent their time at the UO advocating in Salem for funding for higher education, organizing rallies to bring attention to campus injustices, testifying at the Board of Trustees and Tuition & Fees Advisory Board meetings on behalf of students, pursuing racial justice in coordination with the Black Student Task Force and so much more.

Duck Squad’s slate is made up of students from a diverse array of student groups and identities that accurately represent this campus. The team has members from student unions, fraternity and sorority life, and many ASUO programs. They know what it means to be a student on campus and how to make student experiences better in the future.

The students running with Duck Squad are working to continue their progress in making tangible changes on campus. They fight for fair tuition, create racial justice on campus, educate on sex positivity and sexual violence prevention and genuinely care about each and every one of us.

Go on DuckWeb this week before Friday at 4 p.m. and cast your vote for Duck Squad. Every vote counts, and every student should be represented by a team that advocates and cares the way Duck Squad does.

Sincerely,
Helena Schlegel, 2015-2016 ASUO President
Claire Johnson, 2015-2016 ASUO Internal Vice President

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

To my fellow students of the University of Oregon,

When the beginning of spring term comes around, the campus as a whole prepares for the usual shenanigans of the ASUO elections. Usually it involves local or state laws being broken. But this year, our student government elections have a new and unique twist. On March 28, I learned some very disappointing information. Zachary Rentschler, presidential candidate of the ASUO campaign One Oregon, admitted to me that the One Oregon campaign had received substantially large campaign contributions from sources who are not affiliated with the university in any way.

I had heard rumors over the last three or four weeks that the One Oregon campaign would be receiving considerable financial backing by a community member or organization outside of the campus community. I had heard estimates in the tens of thousands of dollars. I did not believe it. Some speculated that the finances would come from local businesses that have ties with students on the campaign or that were helping the campaign. Others speculated that it may come from an organization known as “Turning Point USA,” a nationwide political organization with a focus on teaching students about “fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government.”

Regardless of the organization’s mission and whether the rumors are true, Zach’s admission that One Oregon is receiving significant amounts of financial support from outside of our campus community is upsetting to me and frankly appalling. At the core of this is a problem our entire country is currently discussing. While I will not take an official stance on my personal views of campaign spending at the local, state or federal government level in our country, I can firmly say I do not believe One Oregon should be buying this election. This all becomes extremely upsetting because of a personal statement Zach made to me after the conclusion of last year’s election.

In our meeting last April, we discussed the campaign cycle and the future of the ASUO — we both were about to become members of senate and the Departmental Finance Committee. Zach openly stated that he supported a limit to campaign spending in student government elections.

A policy like a spending limit can be found at Portland State University, Zach said, and that type of policy should be considered here at the UO. A limit helps increase access for all students interested in becoming members of student government and will ensure no campaign can buy an election. If a limit is a policy Zach supported a year ago, then why is One Oregon buying $2,866 worth of advertisements in the Emerald? And why did Zach allow for his campaign to take such large amounts of money from outside sources? I call on One Oregon to release all current financial statements and the origin of their campaign contributions for transparency. If they are attempting to buy this election cycle, then the entire student body should know. I have not heard of any other campaign receiving large financial support from outside sources like the One Oregon campaign has. If affordability is truly an issue One Oregon cares about, then it should demonstrate that by not attempting to outspend the competition.

If Zach is truly the leader our student body needs next year, then why is his message and platform not enough? Why do Zachary and One Oregon need to buy this election? What is ethical and moral about a sellout? This election should come down to principles, experience and leadership. Not a pocket book.

Thank you,

Max Burns
ASUO Senator, Seat 10, Senate Ombudsperson
University Student Senator