The weather getting warmer brings a lot of joy to the students of the University of Oregon. Suddenly, the quads are full of people, the river is packed and everyone seems happier in general. 

There is, of course, the flip side of the weather getting warmer and clothing becoming less layered. The sudden flooding of social media with gym content, and the ‘how to get your dream summer body’ videos. 

The gym culture that inhabits social media has become so extreme it almost feels like society has forgotten that the goal is health. Unfortunately, our perception of what it actually looks like to be healthy is skewed nowadays. 

In my mind, being healthy means a few things. It means eating the amount of food needed to fuel your body and make you feel full, living a life that makes you feel at peace, eating food that your body can convert into fuel instead of waste and being fit.

The last one is the thing I think we have warped. 

People’s relationship with food can sometimes be a huge problem, but I think that’s a symptom of our definition of looking fit.

We can see that in a variety of different ways, one of which is the way the “ideal” body type in women has changed over time. 

In women, the body types are vastly different from decade to decade. During the 60s and the emergence of Twiggy, thin was in. However, having no curves was a sharp 180 from the decade before, where Marilyn Monroe and her Hollywood counterparts led curves to the top. From the ‘70s and ‘80s, the supermodel physique began to creep onto the scene. People like Cindy Crawford set the standard as tall and slender, but then it went even further, and Kate Moss reintroduced the “heroin chic” that had been left in the ‘60s. 

Now, curves are in. But not all curves.

Now, it seems like the expectation is for women to have washboard abs and large glutes but also still look petite. While also being strong. But not too strong. But also toned all over. 

I put out a survey on my Instagram story asking, “How has social media altered what you view as a healthy body?”

The responses were overwhelming, but I kept seeing a few running themes. 

“For a long time, it made me think a healthy body was an extremely skinny one,” Ava Tsouo, a recent grad, said. Her response perfectly aligned with McKenna Murray, a freshman at UO, who said, “Influencers always use Facetune/edit/use filters to make themselves look skinnier.”

“That healthy is either ‘model skinny’ or hitting the gym every day,” Vivian Rush, a graduating senior, said. Rush talked about how the “body positivity” posts also often come off as counterproductive, saying, “I don’t see that every body type is acceptable, I just see that sometimes it’s okay.” And those are just a few.

With all of these standards being placed on us from our phones and the media we consume, how could we not feel uncomfortable at times?

I would like to take a moment to explain what being fit should mean in my opinion: to me, it means being able to feel comfortable and strong in your body and mind. 

I understand that it is a privilege to be able-bodied and of sound mind, and I think that utilizing that is important. I don’t think, however, that we all need to look like we’re chiseled from marble. 

If that’s what you want, I commend your dedication, but it should not be the standard.

The post Gamlen: We have forgotten what healthy body goals should be appeared first on Daily Emerald.

I was never someone who particularly liked being outside. I know that sounds bad, but I just didn’t. There were bugs, and I have allergies, so I just decided it wasn’t for me. I am happy to say that’s changed recently.

This term, I had the chance to take the Urban Farm course, the University of Oregon course within the Landscape Architecture school where students grow crops and learn about agriculture. I’m happy to say that it has changed the way I view the world. It has shown me the importance of knowing how to grow food, regardless of whether or not you choose to do it. 

It also made me angry that it took me being in my last term of college and actively seeking this information  out to learn something that is so fundamental to being a human. It seems like something that children in elementary school should be learning — something that should be so interwoven into education that by the time kids go off into the world, it is second nature. 

But, is that realistic?

In the Willamette Valley, it is extremely realistic. The valley is home to incredibly fertile soil which makes Eugene a perfect place to learn how to grow food. It makes sense that we would want to teach kids — or anyone who doesn’t know how to grow food — here because the soil being fertile means that their crops are more likely to grow, helping them stay engaged and hopefully stay motivated to keep learning.

There are  other reasons to learn how to grow food, one of them being that Oregon is part of a country where we import a lot of our food. In 2022, the US imported almost 200 billion dollars worth of food. According to Harper Keeler, the Director of the Urban Farm program, “We have about four days of food in our local community.” That means that if we were to have an earthquake, or some natural disaster where nothing could get into Eugene, we would run out of food within one business week.

Another reason to have a deeper understanding of food knowledge is to understand the harm that the industrialized agriculture industry has on the environment. 

“The industrialized food system is probably the biggest contributor to global climate change that there is,” Keeler said. Whether it be fuel usage, emissions, soil erosion or deforestation, the impacts of the agriculture industry are far-reaching and large in their devastation. 

I am happy to say that there are initiatives in our local community focused on teaching children how to grow food like the School Garden Project, but it is not a statewide movement as of yet. 

That’s what doesn’t make sense to me. Why is this not so normalized that it is a national subject in schools? At the very least why is it not statewide

We are in a uniquely good spot to do it. The soil is good; Oregon is a very agriculture-focused state; there’s plenty of rainfall and it could encourage students to eat their fruit and vegetables considering they helped grow them. 

And for those of you reading who don’t know anything about how to grow food, you should grab a book or watch some videos because I promise it’s really not that hard. 

Take it from someone who grew up in a city and only just began learning about it; you’ll wish you started earlier. 

The post Gamlen: Everyone should know how to grow their own food appeared first on Daily Emerald.

President Trump has made a lot of changes and ruffled a lot of feathers in just the first few weeks of his second term in office. One of his recent actions that sparked outcry was his executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, claiming that he wants to make America a country that is solely “merit-based.”

So, let’s look at what DEI is and why you should care.

While it has become a sort of token term, it’s important to establish a definition of what DEI is meant to demonstrate. Diversity, meaning that there should be a diverse spectrum of viewpoints in a workplace or school. Equity, meaning that there are certain obstacles that people may need help overcoming in order to get those jobs or school opportunities. Lastly, inclusion, meaning that there needs to be an environment to ensure that once these people land these positions, they feel safe there. 

So, why is DEI being vilified by our president?

First, many people feel that these programs foster an environment of reverse racism or sexism. The argument here is that the use of quotas for certain groups of people, even with something as simple as the hiring process, hurts the chances of other groups, like white men. Many people opposed to DEI initiatives feel that they are less likely to get certain opportunities because they are not “diverse” enough. 

On the other hand, because certain groups of people have historically been oppressed and discriminated against, they deserve a shot at these opportunities, introducing the need for a system that ensures that people who have historically been ostracized from opportunities have a chance to interview for these positions as well. 

“It (DEI) has become something to many Republican politicians, including Trump, that is tantamount to reverse discrimination,” Chandler James, assistant professor of political science at University of Oregon, said.

One side argues that the people who have certain privileges (being a white rich man) are discriminated against by having to put in the work only to get passed over for someone who seems less qualified; while the other side believes that people who belong to different minority groups are just getting a shot at opportunities they have historically been shut out of, and that if they receive the job or scholarship, it is because they are the best fit with DEI policies giving them the chance they deserve. The flaw with the first idea, is that DEI policies do not mean that people who aren’t qualified are being hired, they mean that everyone gets a shot at the job regardless of background. In other words… based on merit.

“There’s different connotations of this term,” James said.

Trump has launched an executive order dismantling DEI programs. This will be an order that revokes actions taken by President Lyndon B. Johnson. These orders come after a previous order claimed that President Biden had forced “discrimination” programs into many aspects of the federal government. 

I find President Trump’s remarks during his inauguration about the need to “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based” ironic considering his daughter and son-in-law work in the White House and two of his sons work internationally on behalf of the Trump Organization.

If Donald Trump is so laser-focused on making America merit-based, then his efforts to erase DEI techniques from the federal government is not only misguided, but just blatantly wrong. He should be questioning instead whether his children are the most qualified people for such positions of power over millions of other applicants. 

The post Gamlen: A merit-based America? Or one of nepotism and bias? appeared first on Daily Emerald.

We are undeniably living in a historical time, partially due to the actions of President Trump. I often hear people say that they like Trump because he runs America like a business, but if that’s true, what happens to the people who disagree with his business practices?

The United States has made a lot of waves recently with its arrests and detentions of people who are in the country legally. A key name in these articles is Mahmoud Kalil. 

His arrest for his pro-Palestine opinions and activism alerted a lot of people to the lack of security that green card holders have, especially given the current stances of our administration. 

The idea that ICE can come into your home, acting on orders from the State Department, tell you that they are taking away your student visa and then when they find out you are a permanent resident, having the possibility of your visa being taken away is not only shocking, it is terrifying. 

I would like to clarify, there are reasons that a green card can be taken away such as committing fraud or being a member of a terrorist organization. But that is not what happened in this case. This threat of deportation happened because of Khalil’s identity as a Palestinian and his desire to use his voice to speak up for his people. 

Khalil has been on record stating his desire to help liberate people and how he thinks that “the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand and you cannot achieve one without the other.” 

These are not the words of someone who is a threat to national security. This is someone who seeks change.

The Trump administration claims that he gave out fliers that aligned with Hamas and that made him “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States,” according to Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. 

But if that were true, the Trump administration would not now be using a whole different reason for his arrest after their original reason for his deportation was blocked by a judge. 

The idea that someone could be deported over something that thousands of citizens were doing is scary. It should be something we are all paying attention to.

What we are seeing is not someone who is a threat to national security, we are seeing a college student who is openly disagreeing with not only what our government is doing but also one of their allies. That is what our administration doesn’t like. This is a clear message that the current government will bend the law to align with their opinions and feelings about things. The president tweeting that this arrest will be “the first of many,” is objectively scary. The idea of ICE coming onto our campuses and detaining your classmates is objectively scary. This is meant to be a place where we learn about policy and question those in power, not somewhere that silences students out of fear.

This is a weaponization of immigration services, and as a green card holder myself, I’m scared. This is not the America I signed up for.

The post Gamlen: Is this even legal? appeared first on Daily Emerald.

Headphones are a constant part of our lives. Whether it’s in the form of airpods or noise cancelling over-ear ones, they can be seen everywhere. 

We all have excuses for wearing them too often.

Maybe you feel proud because you only wear them when you’re walking around. Maybe it’s a safety thing. Maybe you have one activity you do without listening to any music and that’s an achievement. Or, maybe you listen to podcasts instead of music so it’s “academic.”

Whatever your argument for what you specifically do, the point remains the same: we spend too much time plugged in through audio. 

This isn’t a new concept. Headphones have been popular since the ‘80s and the mainstream use of the Walkman. Since then, it has been a norm for people to walk the streets listening to their music without others being subjected to it.

The difference is that now we have the ability to listen to every song and video on the internet. And we have bluetooth, which makes it much easier to be constantly plugged in. 

I often notice that people have earbuds in even during lectures. Not only do I find it rude, but I think it makes learning harder because there’s multiple streams of information coming at you at once. 

Gen Z also deals with something other generations have not: many of us are not comfortable with face-to-face communication. 

In fact, since the 1970s the number of teens who spend time with their friends in person daily has been declining, and currently U.S. teens spend an average of four and a half hours a day on social media.

I challenge you to walk around after reading this and count how many people you see wearing headphones, and then count how many people you see who are alone and are not. I challenge you to question if those numbers should be more balanced. 

But why should you care? Well, I think there are many reasons to care. 

First of all, wearing headphones all the time makes the chance of meeting new people a lot lower in most situations. The chances of someone striking up a conversation decrease when someone might not want to risk not being heard or having to ask you to unplug.

LaMar Davis, a University of Oregon senior, said, “If I see someone I know and they have headphones in, I won’t say ‘hi.’” 

When I asked about the concept of meet cutes and whether or not he feels it’s harder to meet people these days, he said, “it feels like now we need dating apps to get the feeling of locking eyes and starting up a conversation with someone now.”

Headphones are a huge part of our lives. They are incredibly useful in a lot of different situations and can make people’s lives significantly easier. However, it is also important to take a step back and examine how they may impact our lives in a non-positive way once in a while.

The post Gamlen: ‘I said ‘hi’ but you didn’t hear me’ appeared first on Daily Emerald.

Winters suck for a lot of people, especially Oregonians. They can get sad, cold or simply lose motivation. The phrase I seem to hear most is “My seasonal depression is starting to hit,” but what does that mean?

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), or its more commonly used name, seasonal depression, is something that impacts 10 million people in the United States each year. It occurs when the weather gets colder as a response to the shorter days and less sunlight. It also has links to melatonin, the hormone the body creates to regulate sleep cycles. Our bodies produce more during colder months, creating tired feelings more than in the summer. 

It also impacts people in colder climates more intensely. So, it makes sense that students in Oregon would be more impacted than in places like Southern California or Florida. At the University of Oregon, roughly 57% of students are out-of-state and, if you’ve met many of them, a large percentage are from California. 

Keeping all that in mind, it isn’t a jump to say that many of the students at UO may not have ever experienced SAD to the extent they do while studying here. So, what does the university do to help them?

The University Health Services website has an entire page dedicated to mental health resources. It has links to counseling services and numbers to call along with opening hours.

What isn’t clearly displayed, however, is information about where to go for specific disorders. 

But, if one were to search “University of Oregon Seasonal Affective Disorder” something does pop up. It is a calendar with an event about coping with SAD. However, there is one problem. The event is on Jan. 22, 2018. 

There is up-to-date information on depression on the website, but the two disorders are not the same.

In a university where thousands of students come from out-of-state, where the annual tuition is just over $16,000 for in-state and over $44,000 for out-of-state, why are these students not getting access to resources that could seriously help them in the winter months? 

I’m not saying that there needs to be an entire team created for SAD, but annual workshops instead of one nearly seven years ago might help. 

Mental health is something that studies show as many as 70%% of college students struggle with. Even if not all of those students are impacted by SAD, that is still over half that might benefit from some help understanding how to better cope with it. 

It is time UO started looking at more workshops to help with the transition from beautiful Eugene summers to the cold winter months. 

If you or someone you know is struggling with SAD there are resources to help, even something as simple as talking to a friend might be helpful to you. There is treatment that can help.

Private health insurance is something that people spend thousands on. It’s also something many of us cannot live without. But, is it really necessary? If we’re paying that much, is there a better way of going about it?

Before I answer that, I first need to look into how effective U.S. healthcare is. From what I’ve read, there’s a lot of room for improvement. In fact, in a study of eleven countries all with relatively similar economic and social climates, the U.S. ranked last in overall quality of healthcare. 

The study cites various factors, but the two that jumped out at me were the lack of universal healthcare and that the U.S. spends less on social programs, like paid time off and child care, than its counterparts. 

The U.S. seems almost exclusively to associate healthcare with physical well-being. This isn’t the norm for wealthy countries. Even something like paid time off, and getting a genuine break from work, is appalling in the U.S. compared to other countries. While the U.S. averages at about 10 days per year, Iran makes that number look miniscule compared to the average of 53 days. The U.S. actually has the third lowest number of annual PTO in the entire study.

In other words, even if you do get sick in America, a lot of the time you have to figure out the cost of healthcare as well as try to not be sick too many days, as the time off often won’t be covered, leaving you losing more money each day you’re bedridden. 

So, if we spend nearly twice as much money for a lower life expectancy compared to other wealthy nations, perhaps it’s time for a new system. But what would that look like?

A good idea is to begin implementing value-based care, where you pay for the quality of care you receive. It is based on life expectancy, meaning that living a long life based on the care received is the doctor’s number one concern. 

While this isn’t a perfect solution, it would be a better way of ensuring that the money we spend on healthcare would be better utilized. By creating this kind of system, people would receive higher quality care while spending the same amount. 

This would also drastically decrease the amount of discrimination that surrounds healthcare because people would be paying for the quality of care they receive and that implies that they would be listened to and treated with respect regardless of identity. So, by paying for quality care, we would limit the racial and gender based judgements that accompany healthcare too often. 

There is no easy fix to America’s health insurance problem, but there are improvements that can be made that may lead to a better system; a system where everyone feels safe and listened to in a doctor’s office is something that everyone should want. 

If you have been discriminated against in a healthcare setting, help is available:

Complaint Process | HHS.gov

Whether or not the legal drinking age in the U.S. should be 21 or 18 is a divisive question. On one hand, there are people who think adding alcohol to an 18 year old’s developing brain is a bad idea. The opposition to the 21 drinking age references the fact that 18 year olds are going to drink regardless of whether or not it’s legal. Both arguments have validity but one side strikes me as half baked and slightly misguided. 

While the statistics for alcohol-involved car accidents decreased when the minimum legal drinking age was moved from 18 to 21, I still can’t help but think that the wrong change was made. 

The rates of drunk driving may have decreased in this country, but compared to others, the U.S. rates are still higher than most other countries. Let’s look at the U.K. as an example. While 18% of driving casualties in the UK involve drunk driving, the US rate is 32%. The MLDA is 18, but you also can’t drive until 17, so most young people have to find other ways to get around. The UK government spends sixty one billion pounds annually on public transportation, making it a common mode of transport.

Due to this, it is more of a cultural norm to get a taxi or bus while under the influence. The norm that you either walk or taxi home from the bar is what lowers the number of accidents, not the accessibility of alcohol. 

It is also more normalized to drink around family while still living at home, as most 18 year olds live at home for a time. By beginning to drink in a safe environment where one does not need to hide their intoxication from the adults in their life, drinking becomes normalized and not something that is done in an act of rebellion, taking away the novelty of it. It also showcases how to safely drink in a safe environment much earlier in someone’s life. 

In the U.S., one in ten parents reported that they have caught their children stealing alcohol from them, suggesting that teenagers are drinking despite the illegality. In fact, some are probably drinking because of it. Not to mention that one in five parents believe the legal drinking age should be lowered.

I put out a poll to see what college students felt about the drinking age being 21. The results overwhelmingly supported (70%)that 18 should be the legal drinking age. The voters mostly referenced how this is a country where 18 year olds can vote, buy guns, join the military and start a family yet they can’t buy a drink and how that seems illogical. The pro-21 MLDA side argued that lowering the age just makes the problem worse and that the brain needs more time to develop. I always end up with one question with this line of reasoning: why would we not wait until we’re 24 if brain development is the reason for having a higher drinking age?

There are nuances to this country that make the question difficult to answer. A lack of public transportation is a big one but also cultural issues like the normalization of binge drinking especially in college. I understand all of this, but my stance boils down to one key principle. 

Eighteen is the year recognized as the year you become an adult. Typically it is the year people move out, it is the year people can vote, the year people can work full time and the year that you are viewed as an adult by the legal system. If all of that is true, if that is the year the world opens up, the year people view you as responsible enough to live your own life separate from parents and guardians, why are people not trustworthy enough to drink at 18?