“Together we can make change happen,” reads OSPIRG’s slogan. No truer words could be said about this inspirational and hardworking organization.

OSPIRG (short for Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group) is a completely student run organization. It devotes itself to social change through researching issues and advocating for solutions. It was originally created by UO students in 1971 and has now expanded to chapters at Lane Community College and Southern Oregon University. The organization also partners with similar groups from across the United States to create nationwide change.

But what makes OSPIRG different from other nonprofit advocacy groups?

“OSPIRG is a legitimate organization in the sense that it has a large budget that allows us to hire staff that will then work with the students to help shape their campaign,” says Casey Scofield, the UO Chapter Chair and head coordinator of the Protect Antibiotics campaign. “These staff members are also located in places such as Salem and Portland, allowing strong networks for change.”

According to Jacob Wyant, the UO chapter campus organizer, the organization has a budget of approximately $120,000. This allows OSPIRG to handle campaigns in a professional way that catches the attention of legislators.

OSPIRG has deep roots and connections both statewide and nationwide. This organization is for students that want to make a difference at both the school and state level. It is clear that it is an organization for students that want to see real change from their hard work.

For instance, Scofield explains that OSPIRG has recently had great success with their renewable energy campaign. Volunteers and interns were able to gain major support for their cause among Oregon communities. Moreover, they were able to take the campaign to legislators and ended up busing about 30 students to Salem to advocate for an anti-coal bill that was passed. Partly due to the work done by OSPIRG, Oregon pledges to be off of coal by 2030 and be fully utilizing renewable energy by 2040.

OSPIRG currently has six campaigns running, many of which are fighting to get bills through the legislation. The issues the organizations are focusing on for this term are: restricting the use of antibiotics by meat farms, renewable energy, cheaper/free textbooks, save the bees and hunger and homelessness. More information on each of these campaigns can be found on the UO OSPIRG webpage.

OSPIRG not only provides amazing campaigns to work in but the organization also provides different ways of getting involved. For those with a busy schedule, OSPIRG has many events in which volunteers are needed. You, the student, can attend meetings for more information and simply volunteer when you have time.

However, if you want a position that requires more responsibility, consider applying for an internship. This position requires you to coordinate specific components of a designated campaign.

If you are interested in becoming involved with OSPIRG, there are informational meetings this Monday and Tuesday at 4 p.m. in Pacific Hall, room 123. Also, OSPIRG has their Kickoff Meeting this Tuesday at 7 p.m. in Straub Hall, room 145.

You don’t need to have a long list of experience to become an intern for OSPIRG. “The great thing about OSPIRG is we take in anyone who wants to get involved and we give them the skills and experience that can then be put on a resume and into future careers,” Scofield explains.

The skills that can be gained from participating with OSPIRG ranges from leadership to planning events to public speaking, and this organization will provide a learning curve that can apply to any occupation.

Not only do volunteers and interns gain valuable skills, but OSPIRG also provides opportunities that the classroom never could. Examples given by Scofield include meeting high positioned government officials, communicating to the community and participating in important social change.

2016 seems to have filled the atmosphere with gloom and despair about the prospects of politics. Many people have gotten lost in the confusion about those in the White House causing local communities to have become forgotten. Social issues still exist that concern our fellow community members at the UO — and beyond — that need our attention. The students of OSPIRG are committed to bettering the community for all, one campaign at a time.

The post Souza: OSPIRG campaigns for local change appeared first on Emerald Media.

Tuition and school fees are steadily towering over college students. Moreover, these debt inducing prices are often intangible and without direct information from the administration.

Luckily, the Associated Students of the University of Oregon will be holding a Tuition and Fees Advisory Board (TFAB) meeting this Tuesday from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the EMU Ballroom. The meeting will provide students an opportunity to interact directly with the administration in order to gain information about their tuition. They will also discuss the effects the new state budget will have on tuition in the near future.

The TFAB meeting is quite valuable as it gives students the chance to take an active role in a monetary matter that directly affects them (and their wallets) for the whole time they spend in higher education.

It is unfortunate that our society puts a monetary amount on our education, a piece of life that is becoming a requirement to have an occupation.

The ASUO is providing an opportunity for students to become informed about a matter they will have to deal with in the form of debt even after they have a degree in hand.

According to Saving for College, an online organization that provides tools to handle college costs, it is assumed that tuition will increase an average of 5 percent each year. This statistic proves true for UO’s tuition. In a letter regarding the budget released by Governor Kate Brown late in 2016, Michael H. Schill, UO President and Professor of Law, with Scott Coltrane, Provost and Senior Vice President, informed students that it will be impossible to keep tuition rise under 5 percent for next year because of the insufficient budget.

Despite this warning of rising tuition, many students just put up with the heavy burden of high tuition and limited scholarships because it has become normalized — high debt has become an expectation as well as a reality. But with the chance to connect with administration, students are able to advocate against the developing norms of raising tuition with well informed arguments.

Universities encounter multiple challenges when weighing students’ well being and the reality of state regulations. Despite the administration’s requirements to fulfill, they are not deaf to the voices of their student populations. Thus, the TFAB meeting highlights the impact students can have on the issues plaguing their university. What’s more, this meeting, taking place this Tuesday, provides students a place to practice student advocacy through the opportunity to gain crucial information and input about tuition.

The post Souza: Tuition meeting provides important opportunity appeared first on Emerald Media.

On Dec. 1, Oregon Governor Kate Brown released the FY 2017-19 budget proposal for Oregon’s seven public universities. The proposal is made for flat funding among the seven Oregon public universities.

Boring? So what, who cares?

Well, if you are any part of the UO community, whether past, present or future, you should care. This proposed budget indicates that there will be more rises in tuition costs, limits in departments’ budgets and causes difficulty among the UO programs.

On Dec. 12, UO President Michael Schill and Senior Vice President Scott Coltrane sent an email outlining the effects of this proposed budget.

First, the email addresses the letter in which all the Oregon public universities crafted and signed for government consideration. The 47 page letter outlines that “For universities to keep tuition increases below five percent and also preserve current financial aid and student support services, state investment in the Public University Support Fund (PUSF) would need to increase by roughly 15 percent—or $100 million—in the 2017-19 biennium to $765 million.”

Moreover, the letter also illustrates the universities are aware that without a sufficient budget, students and staff will lack “adequate benefits, wage and protections,” and students will face higher tuition rates.

But with the proposed budget, Schill and Coltrane express that it will be impossible to keep rises of tuition rates under five percent. Thus present and future students must be prepared to fall into deeper debt if this proposed budget becomes a reality. What a fearful, anxiety inducing thought that is.

According to Lendedu, a student loan refinancing program, the average debt per borrower is $28,400. This number is obviously on the rise and we can see one of the main factors for the increase: the government is unable to provide enough funding to keep universities affordable to the public.

Furthermore, the UO email claims that  during the past 20 years budget cuts have evolved to putting “the burden of paying for a college degree to students and families.”

Moving on from the impending doom of tuition debt, the email explains that the UO was initially predicting that the UO expenses would “…increase approximately $25 million next year largely due to salary increases contained in our faculty and staff labor contracts, rising health-care costs, and the extraordinary increase in our required contribution to the state’s unfunded pension (PERS) liability.” With the insufficient projected budget, UO will be $27.5 million short to cover increased costs, forcing the university to find other areas to bring in the extra money — that is, through raised tuitions and fees, and by seeking expense reductions.

Nonetheless, the email reminds the readers that people are continuously working to balance the budget and that such is ongoing work. This signifies that the university has not accepted their financially incompetent future, signaling that neither should the UO community.

The email informs that “The Tuition and Fees Advisory Board began meeting last month to consider the budget situation and potential tuition and fee increases.”

The email further reads:

Within the next few weeks, the president will appoint an ad hoc budget advisory task force to provide advice and ideas for raising additional revenues and reducing expenses. The task force will include members of the Senate Budget Committee as well as administrators, faculty and staff members, and students. It will begin meeting in early January.

What’s more, the UO administration urges that hiring of new personnel is to be done only if the position/person in question is “absolutely essential”, or if it can be “delayed until July 2017.” Furthermore, the email claims that UO will address the budget issue with the idea that “…it will be better to handle these expense reductions through attrition rather than through layoffs or contract nonrenewals.”

Therefore, these precautions that the university is taking illustrates the university’s integrity in keeping higher education accessible. They are doing much more than just raising tuition or laying off important staff in order to compensate for the possible budget.

Lastly, the email expresses that the proposed budget not only depends on an agreement of a revenue plan by lawmakers, but also on the voices of the community.

The email stresses that this is a proposal and thus all members of the UO, past, present and future, are encouraged to speak up and make the government understand the debilitating position the proposed budget has, and will continue, to put the UO and other public universities in if those who are affected are not considered.

The post Souza: New budget increase hits everyone appeared first on Emerald Media.

“The water protectors have done it. This is a monumental victory in the fight to protect indigenous rights and sovereignty,” said Lilian Molina, a Greenpeace spokeswoman, after the Army called off the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) construction through the Missouri river on Sunday.

According to CNN, the DAPL is “ … a $3.7 billion project that would cross four states and change the landscape of the US crude oil supply.” Moreover, the same source explains the pipeline would transfer, “An estimated 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered oil … believed to be in its U.S. portion.”

This raised the question: would the DAPL lead to an economic boom, or the destruction of nature and cultural respect?

Up until Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016, the “water protectors,” as the activists had been calling themselves, were protesting the 1,172 mile oil pipeline that runs through four different states and the Missouri River, but specifically the section that ran through sacred burial ground of a Native American tribe located in North Dakota.

According to Business Insider, the DAPL was initially planned to pass near the capital of Bismarck, North Dakota; however, it’s course has been routed through the sacred land of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe instead.

However, as the New York Times reports, as of Sunday, “the Department of the Army announced that it would not allow the pipeline to be drilled under a dammed section of the Missouri River.” Alternative routes will be considered instead for the DAPL.

But the fight is not over for the protestors.

Donald Trump, who owns a share in the company that is constructing the pipeline, is claiming to be in support of finishing the pipeline by the original plan.

It is the Obama Administration that called for the halt of the construction, yet the Trump Administration will be taking over in 47 days. Thus, the victorious protesters can only count down the days until a new president will step up and possibly undo all that the protests and Obama Administration have done to preserve the sacred land of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

If Trump restores the DAPL route through the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s land and the Missouri river, not only would the pipeline destroy sacred burial land of a Native American tribe, but it would also put the health of those inhabiting the land in grave danger. If the pipe were to break, many citizens would be at risk of health problems due to the contamination of water sources.

Likewise, the contamination of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water source is not unlikely, as the DAPL passes through the Missouri River, the tribe’s only water source.

That being said, it is important to note that no matter where the pipeline is constructed there will be the environment, wildlife and citizens who could suffer from health problems if something were to happen with the oil carrying pipe.

For example, health issues linked to contaminated water could occur not only through directly drinking the toxic water but also by consuming produce or livestock that ingest the water, as well as bathing and washing clothes with it.

However, one may argue that the pipeline has passed many safety reviews so it is not likely that the pipeline will cause any harm.

Yet, the Business Insider points out, “Since 1995, more than 2,000 significant accidents involving oil and petroleum pipelines have occurred, adding up to roughly $3 billion in property damage … ” This may seem insignificant to some, but to those affected or potentially affected, the risk of oil contamination is a serious fear and it should be more scrupulously considered by those that support the DAPL.

What’s more, the DAPL protests also exemplified the overbearing power and force the police hold over innocent citizens practicing their American and human rights.

For instance, as a part of the protests, activists blocked traffic on Highway 1806 for several hours on Oct. 23, 2016. This resulted in the arrest of more than 127 activists, which CNN describes as “ … the latest examples of an escalating pattern of abuse of power on the part of law enforcement … ”

The latter also shows how Trump could use his own power, as well as that of local police, to mute the DAPL protesters’ cries for cultural and environmental justice, if he so chooses to reinstate the original pathway of the pipeline.

Therefore, “several campers said they were not going anywhere.” They are committed to fighting for what is right no matter the forces against them, including those Trump may impose once he becomes president.

All in all, the DAPL protesters have been fighting for human and environmental safety. What is also rooted in the protests is a continuation of the struggle among the Native American community for the respect of their culture and history. The land that they have saved but Trump still threatens to destroy holds the bodies and traditions of their ancestors.

These activists have been standing up for our dying earth and the fading, overlooked cultures of America. Shame on those that refuse to hear their cries.

The post Souza: DAPL protests victorious, but for how long? appeared first on Emerald Media.

The three R’s (reduce, reuse, recycle) is a concept taught from elementary age of how to save our planet.

Recycling is a simple way of living an eco-friendly lifestyle. Anyone who visits the UO campus can easily see that it is an institution committed to the green way.

However, ironically, there exists a UO building whose inhabitants do not recycle anything at all. The building is called the Thompson’s University Center and it hosts various UO departments, such as Student Billing Affairs.

When asked about the recycling problem, an employee of the Student Billing Affairs claimed that the lack of recycling is due to the fact the Thompson’s University Center is technically off campus and thus gets overlooked in regards to UO recycling programs.

However the building is reaching out to get Zero Waste in hopes of becoming involved with the UO’s recycling program.

Though it is not good that the center has not been recycling, at least they are trying to expand their access to the UO recycling program.

Yet this situation shows that it is still important to remember why recycling is beneficial and how humans are negatively impacting the environment.

With a realization that even in eco-friendly communities there exists a lack of recycling, it is important to address how recycling is defined. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Recycling is the process of collecting and processing materials that would otherwise be thrown away as trash and turning them into new products.”

The EPA also explains the three steps of recycling. The first step consists of collecting, sorting the items at a facility and then sold like any other raw material. The recycled materials can then go on to be manufactured and sold as products.

Thus recycling is an important step in conserving the Earth (what we have left that isn’t covered in our trash) because it keeps materials that can be reused out of landfills and oceans.

Green Living Ideas, an organization that provides information and tips of the eco-friendly lifestyle, point out that the spreading of waste out of landfills can be accidental by natural disasters such as hurricanes. Nevertheless the spreading of waste scatters materials that were not designed to be environmentally friendly (through chemicals, decomposability, etc.) into sensitive ecosystems. The human-made materials are unable to decompose and ultimately hurt the earth and its inhabitants.

Likewise the oceans are being severely impacted by the amount of trash that litters the world. National Geographic reported in January 2015 that, “There are 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic debris in the ocean.” Just imagine how suffocated the earth is now that it is cover in even more human trash.

Overall, this incident with the Thompson’s University Center is an example that there is a lack of recycling even in communities perceived as eco-friendly,

Moreover, it becomes scary to look beyond UO and view the country as a whole: Our future president claims that climate change is not a real human-made catastrophe but instead a lie created by the Chinese to stump manufacturing competition.

The non-recycling Thompson’s University Center and the next President-elect Trump are big reminders that the fight for the environment’s well-being is unfortunately far from being won, whether it be from a lack of access to green resources or from pure ignorance.

The post Souza: Dying earth: UO Thompson’s University Center doesn’t recycle appeared first on Emerald Media.

“I would defund [Planned Parenthood] because I’m pro-life, but millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood,” said Donald Trump during a GOP debate in February, 2016, in Houston.

Trump’s threats to defund Planned Parenthood are very confusing. He acknowledges that the health center helps “millions and millions of women,” and yet he degrades it as an “abortion factory.”

Threatening to defund Planned Parenthood is despicable because, according to NPR, abortions are only “three percent of the services” Planned Parenthood performs.

What a small fraction to cause such a fuss over and possibly block access to all the other benefits provided by the health center.

Pence’s anti-abortion agenda is just the start of his anti-women stance. Throughout his time as governor of Indiana, Pence has proven to be against women, both as citizens and in regards to their sexual health.

First, Pence tried to bring the United States back to the sexist philosophy of women’s role as mother in the home. In 1997, Pence wrote to The Indianapolis Star reporting that it is indeed impossible to “…have it all, career, kids and a two car garage,” claiming that research proves a child who is put into day care is “…less affectionate towards his mother.”

Likewise, in the piece for The Indianapolis Star, Pence suggests American society has accepted “…the big lie that ‘Mom doesn’t matter.’” This implies that being an independent woman who is both a mother and job holder completely excludes her from the child’s life thus no longer mattering as a parent.

The wife, the mother, the woman must either be an employee or a mother, not both, according to Pence.

Pence goes on to claim that this lack of family, which in context of his writing implies the full-time presence of a woman in the home, leads to “another generation of adults with good language skills and cognitive skills but stunted emotional growth.”

From this source, we can unveil Pence’s out-dated views of women’s roles in the home and family; with misogynistic Pence in office, American women can look forward to being placed back into the 1950s, restricted from individual freedom, education and occupation.

Pence not only strives for the domestication of women but also for the control over women’s uteruses.

On March 24, 2016, Pence signed an abortion law that added to the already restrictive abortion laws of Indiana. Though many play up the reason for Pence signing the anti-abortion laws as moral because it protects unborn fetuses from discrimination, it limits the mother’s choice over what happens to her body, a seemingly basic human right.

In 2007, Pence “…was the first to introduce legislation aimed at ‘defunding’ Planned Parenthood…” which provides many pro-women services.

With Pence and Trump in office, women of America must prepare to lose their right over their bodies and what develops inside them. And to deepen that wound, these anti-abortion laws will be created by men who will never personally experience what it is like to consider, let alone go through with, an abortion for any reason.

Thus, it is deadly to Planned Parenthood that Trump and Pence focus solely on the abortion practices available at the health center.

The country’s future leaders appear content with ignoring the variety of services the center provides that are crucial for sexual wellness of all genders, orientations and identities.

According to their “Learn” page, Planned Parenthood provides information on categories such as abortion, birth control, body image, general health care, men’s sexual health, morning-after pill (emergency contraception), pregnancy, relationships, sex and sexuality, sexual orientation and gender, STDs and women’s health.

Planned Parenthood describes themselves as a health center that provides “…up-to-date, clear, medically accurate information…” And with inconsistent sex education standards in America, “medically accurate information” is not so easy to come by.

Health centers like Planned Parenthood are essential to a well-educated and taken care of population in regards to sexual health. Is it not a human right to govern our own sexual wellness?

The post Souza: Trump against human rights: Pence and pro-life means death of women’s humanity appeared first on Emerald Media.

In civil rights activist Ta-Nehisi Coates’s memoir, he states, “What we must never do is willingly hand over our own bodies or the bodies of our friends.”

The cries of women for their human right to govern their body has intensified throughout America as they refuse to hand themselves over to the next President-elect, Donald Trump.

Trump has made precarious claims that he will rid America of the Affordable Care Act, originally implemented by President Obama.

The ACA helped many women financially, as Planned Parenthood illustrates: “With the ACA’s birth control benefit, more than 55 million women now have birth control without a co-pay, saving women an estimated $1.4 billion on the pill in the ACA’s first year alone.” Note that the act has been in place since 2010.

Therefore, the absence of the ACA means that birth control will once again require a potentially pricey co-payment.

In response, according to NPR, women are “… concerned that the Trump administration might end Obamacare provisions that require insurers to cover intrauterine devices and other contraception…”

It’s not only through abolishing the ACA that Trump can make it more difficult to attain birth control. Trump’s intention of having birth control no longer be co-pay free will make it more difficult, even impossible, for women to get birth control due to financial situation.

As a result, there has been an influx in women seeking to get IUDs while insurance still covers the co-pay. An IUD (intrauterine device) is defined by Medlineplus as a “a small plastic T-shaped device used for birth control … inserted into the uterus.”

Consequently, fearful women pursuing IUDs are not taking the time to consider whether it is the type of birth control that would work best for them or to take in consideration the potential side effects.

For instance, side effects of an IUD may include infection (risk increased with younger age), perforation of the uterine wall, expulsion of the IUD and excessive pain and bleeding.

Therefore the rush to get IUDs caused by Trump’s threats of limiting the access of birth control may lead to ill-informed decisions and the possibility of future serious health risks.

Moreover, preventing pregnancy is a crucial role of birth control for many women; according to a 2013 National Health Statistics Report stated by CNN, “Virtually all sexually active women of reproductive age —  about 99% — have used at least one contraceptive method in their lifetimes from 2006 to 2010.” It is also important to note that the prevention of pregnancy through birth control usage is just as important to sexually active men who engage in consensual relations with women.

That being said, not all women use birth control to prevent pregnancy.

The Center for Young Women’s Health listed numerous other reasons why women use birth control, stating, “Adolescent girls and young women are often prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, Primary Ovarian Insufficiency and for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.”

To make matters worse, Trump eliminating the ACA will not only affect the co-pay of birth control but also the equality for women when it comes to medical insurance.

Planned Parenthood explicitly refers to the ACA as “… a game changer for women.” The article goes further to explain what the situation for women looked like before the ACA:

• “Millions of women were denied coverage because of so-called ‘pre-existing conditions’ like breast cancer or pregnancy;
• Some women were forced to pay more for insurance just because they were women; and
• Many women had to pay out-of-pocket for basic preventive health care, like cancer screenings, Pap tests and birth control— costing them hundreds of dollars a year or more…”

The removal of the ACA will allow women to be subjected to inequality and injustice regarding medical insurance, procedures and prescriptions.

Women’s health (whether because of discrimination and/or financial situation) will be put in jeopardy if Trump does not replace the ACA with a pro-woman’s right act.

Thus, it is essential that we all stand up for the basic human rights of health and security.

Trump’s promise to eliminate an act that protects women from discrimination, as well as provides co-pay free birth controls (which are often essential to a female’s health), is an utmost injustice toward women.

Trump is positioning himself against women’s health and, frankly, that will not do in today’s America.

The post Souza: Trump against human rights: Limiting access to birth control appeared first on Emerald Media.

Sexual abuse incidents can be seen throughout the world, haunting the past of victims and looming in the future of today’s children.

Furthermore despite the United States having a strong hold on women’s rights and strict laws against sexual abuse, such abuse still exists. According to The National Domestic Violence Hotline, “On average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States.”

Such a high number of sexual abuse victims are able to persist in today’s society due to the naivety among the public of what constitutes as sexual abuse and the warning signs as well as resources to turn to. The lack of knowledge regarding sexual abuse, as a whole, is a consequence of the lack of education from a young age about body advocacy and respectful relationship conduct.

The absence of proper discussions about healthy relationships conveys the idea that it is improper to “stick one’s nose” into other’s relationships and, moreover, to burden others with one’s fear about their own relationship.

Of course, there is no such thing as a correct relationship; however, there is a way to have a safe and respectful one.

On the other hand, media and pornography are some examples in society that display unrealistic expectations of sexual relationships. Therefore, proper education on healthy relationships and the signs of sexual abuse is mandatory in order to counter the negative ideas projected by pornography and the media.

Furthermore, the actual definition of sexual abuse is muddy. As a result, many simplify it to just rape incidents. However, what constitutes as sexual abuse is not that simple.

According to a pamphlet given to freshman entering UO in a program called “Get Explicit,” sexual assault is defined as, “…a nonconsensual act inflicted upon a person…,” the victim being someone “Who is unable to grant consent…” and is often “…compelled through unwanted: physical force, manipulation, coercion, threats, [and] intimidation.”

The definition seems pretty obvious: Assault and abuse mean unwanted violence and misuse. But many people never receive proper information about what constitutes as sexual abuse until they enter college. Therefore due to the lack of education on sexual abuse, many boys and girls have already become victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse. Thus education about sexual abuse and healthy relationships should be implemented into children’s schooling starting in sixth grade, the age when interest in dating often arises.

Moreover, children should be made aware throughout their schooling what the warning signs are of possible dangerous relationships as well as what exactly sexual assault is. Sexual abuse is not only heterosexual penetration but can include all genders, races, sexual orientations and can be any kind of non-consensual sexual act. Resources should be made apparent in case the child finds themselves in a sexually abusive situation in the future.

Also, the power of language should be addressed when teaching children about sexual abuse. Language used in sexual abuse cases are often generalizing, demeaning or contain a nature of “blowing over” the situation.

A prime example that exemplifies how language can degrade the true negative effect of sexual abuse happened just this year, thanks to Donald Trump. A video surfaced in early October presenting audio in which Donald Trump speaks behind the scenes of Access Hollywood of actions that constitute as sexual assault.

Trump defends himself during the second presidential debate by claiming he did not “brag” about sexually assaulting women, and then on multiple occasions Trump refers to his comments as just casual “locker room talk.”

Unfortunately, many people overlooked our next president’s comments because they were unable to identify that Trump’s words were alluding to sexual assault.

Lastly in a study investigating the effect of “Bystander Education Training” in regards to sexual abuse on college campuses, there was a correlation of education and increase in sexual abuse reporting as well as a reduce in abuse-supporting attitudes and actions. The abstract of the study explicitly states, “These results provide initial support for the effectiveness of in-person bystander education training.”

Therefore it can be theorized that education taught from sixth grade on about sexual assault warnings, resources, language and the effects of demeaning language will lay the foundation of healthy knowledgeable relationships, eliminating the ignorance of what sexual assault is and what to do in such situations.  

The post Souza: Why kids should be taught about sexual assault appeared first on Emerald Media.