“I just don’t get how you can support ideas like this,” a University of Oregon undergraduate said at a politically conservative event — and then marched off in her brand new Nike tennis shoes. The irony of the situation wasn’t lost on me.

Nike has been accused of producing the vast majority of its products using sweatshops, and that probably doesn’t come as much of a shock to any of us. Back in the ‘90s, students across the country, including at UO, rallied against Nike’s terrible working conditions overseas.

This caused a huge problem at UO, as Phil Knight pulled $30 million from the Autzen stadium project. The pulled funds came in retaliation against school officials who supported the students’ protests by signing a Workers Rights Consortium agreement, which mandated better working conditions overseas. One year later, after heavy pressure from Phil Knight, the president of UO withdrew the university’s support from the WRC, and Uncle Phil’s funding came trickling back in.

Over time, people forgot or stopped caring, but the university, amid all of its talk of human rights and activism, showed its integrity would crumble to the power of the almighty dollar. Nike was once again on top of the world with little resistance from the mainstream media or its consumers.

Since the ‘90s, the standards overseas have gone up for things like safety and emissions, but wages have risen very little. According to the Portland Business Journal, Nike identified wages as one of the main issues they are facing overseas. When they released their overseas corporate responsibility report, however, they left the wages table blank; I have a sneaking suspicion it’s not because they were shockingly high. Vietnam, one of Nike’s main manufacturers, has a minimum wage of about 73¢ an hour.

It’s not uncommon to see women’s rights, Black Lives Matter or immigration rights rallies on campus, with staunch supporters of equal human rights. But what are many of these activists wearing on their feet as they march? You guessed it: Nikes.

The hypocrisy and irony of this situation is astounding. Even those fighting for human rights are actively supporting a company who has a long history of accusations of human rights violations.

A huge part of the problem is that we just don’t think about it. We live in a society where we’re never conditioned to think about the impacts our purchases could have on others. In most people’s minds, the only negative impact to buying a pair of shoes is the $60 they spent on them.

This problem is only furthered by a lack of exposure; we’re simply not around those affected by Nike’s human rights violations. In all honesty, if it doesn’t affect us or anyone we know, we usually don’t think about the moral implications or consequences of our consumerism. Out of sight, out of mind.

What made me decide to never buy a Nike product again came in the form of a quote from Thomas Wheatley, a University of Wisconsin student who said, “It really is quite sick; 14-year-old girls are working 100-hour weeks and earning poverty-level wages to make my college T-shirts. That’s unconscionable.”

Let me ask you a question: How many of you could look a living, breathing 14-year-old girl straight in the eyes and tell her that your new Vapormaxes or Jordans are more important than her getting a fair wage and not having to work in a sweatshop? My guess is not too many. If we can’t face those who are hurt by our decisions and own up to the impacts of our actions in good conscience, aren’t we doing something wrong?

More is expected when it comes to being a good human being than just being nice to those directly around us. While we’re going to college, partying and spending absurd amounts of money on shoes, clothes and video games, there are people our age around the world who were simply born in the wrong place and are forced to work 60-hour weeks to try to feed their little brothers and sisters. We have the power to change all of that and help those people, but we don’t.

It’s ridiculous that in today’s world, a university like the UO, which supposedly supports human rights, not only endorses a company like Nike but sells apparel that may have been made by people making below a living wage. With so much money involved, it would be naive to believe that it will change on its own. The responsibility then falls to us, the consumers, to make a change.

There are plenty of alternatives that don’t use sweatshops, or that at least pay their employees a living wage. Just a few minutes of research and a willingness to lose the Nike logo can turn supporting poor working conditions into something you can feel proud of buying.

Trust me, I get it; it’s hard to make a change from something you’ve become comfortable with after so long. But I also know that I want to look back at my life and be proud of the decisions I have made, rather than realizing I contributed to the things that I hate most about our world.

It’s not that we don’t know that these things are happening, because we do. But it’s also not a lack of empathy, as I think most of us really do care about people around the world. It’s that we’ve forgotten how to care about people or issues that don’t affect us, and in a world that constantly pushes us to ignore it, it’s hard to remember. We don’t know how to make a difference or where to start. So we “just keep doing it.”

The post Anthony: Nike – Just don’t think about it appeared first on Emerald Media.

We live in a country with problems. School shootings, global warming, political polarization and human rights violations are only a handful of the issues that we face. The news is littered with stories of violence and tragedy every day. As they say, if it bleeds it leads. With all of this tragedy being shown to us 24 hours a day, it’s easy to start to see the world as a horrible place.

But I believe this world isn’t as horrible as it seems, and we must not forget all of the good we do as a society. I want to give a respite to the endless cycle of stories on what’s wrong with the world, and instead, acknowledge what we do to make it better.

In 2017 alone, the U.S. spent over $45 billion in foreign aid. Almost $10 billion was spent on improving healthcare in foreign countries for those in poverty, providing services such as vaccines and life-saving medical operations. An additional $8 billion went to helping with humanitarian problems, such as a lack of clean drinking water, food and shelter. Along with that, over $4.5 billion was spent to better the education and economic development of foreign countries so that the children there might have a better future.

In addition to the tax dollars we provide to make this assistance possible, many people also dedicate their time and labor to help foreign citizens lead better and happier lives. Nonprofit foundations provide safe living environments for many of those in poverty around the world, such as the 800,000 homes Habitat for Humanity has built. Others, such as Doctors Without Borders, help to ensure that in over 70 other countries, people who don’t have access to healthcare are able to get the treatments they need to survive.

Money speaks, and people in the U.S. donated over $400 billion to charity in 2017. Of that, $80 billion went to human services and societal charities to help those in need, $59 billion went to support education and $23 billion went to help those in poverty in foreign countries.

What makes me believe this world is great isn’t just the large single contributions; few have the ability to donate huge sums of money on their own. It’s the combination of all the little things each person does on a daily basis that creates a wave of generosity that makes a real impact. Most of us probably remember those 2000s commercials in which they give an example of a random act of kindness and say, “Pass it on.” It’s that mentality — one of selflessness and passing on kindness to random strangers — that makes a real impact on the world through each individual in a never-ending cycle.

Working as a cashier, I saw and dealt with a lot of bad situations and difficult people over the summer, but those aren’t the interactions that stuck with me. The memories that stand out most are random acts of kindness like people paying for random strangers’ groceries in line who came up short, buying homeless people lunch and donating hundreds of dollars to local food banks to help feed those who are in need.

On any given day, we see people holding doors open for other people, inviting those who are sitting alone to join them or picking up litter on the side of the road. While none of these are particularly large acts by themselves, each and every one makes a measurable difference that, when combined with others, makes a substantial difference in our world.

Changing the world is like voting — while each individual vote doesn’t seem like it makes an impact, if everyone votes, we get the real outcome we’re hoping for. If each person in the world donated one penny, we could raise over $76 million for charity. If each person in the U.S. volunteered an hour a week, we would have over 16 billion hours of volunteer labor a year. While we each may not be able to donate millions of dollars, we can all make a difference by just doing what we can and passing on kindness.

The reason I believe this world isn’t all that bad is that when it comes down to it, most people really do care and want to help. While the news usually doesn’t show this side of humanity, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

The post Anthony: Our world isn’t as horrible as it seems appeared first on Emerald Media.

Of the new measures Oregon has up for vote, Measure 106 involves a topic that is likely the most emotional and controversial: abortion. Measure 106 would prevent the use of government money, more specifically Medicaid and the Oregon Health Plan, from being used to pay for abortions.

Much of the rhetoric from those supporting 106 has been on emphasizing the cost to the taxpayers, with statements such as, “The Oregon Health Authority reports $24.4 million in taxpayer money was spent on more than 57,000 abortions covered under the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) since 2002.” While that may be true, if fiscal responsibility is the argument that those in support are using, then we must change our approach to this extremely emotional measure and look at it from a calculated perspective.

When calculated out, 24.4 million dollars on 57,000 abortions comes out to be $428.07 per procedure. While that doesn’t seem like that much money to pay out of pocket for most of us, this measure isn’t designed to prevent abortion for most of us – only for those who are too poor to afford healthcare for themselves or the procedure itself.

Those who are unable to afford the $428.07 are almost certainly on other government welfare programs, meaning that the long term cost of raising a baby will likely be much more expensive to taxpayers.

According to Parenting.com, the hospital fees for a birth alone cost $9,700 dollars – already 22.6 times more expensive than the procedure would have been. The government insurances, which are taxpayer funded, are the ones footing the hospital bills.

In addition, the government also gives welfare using the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. For a single mother and only one child, the government provides $228.00 a month in cash. In addition, they may receive up to $350 a month through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

These programs are great, and I believe they’re an essential part of any society. However, they are costly over the long term. If a family is receiving $578.00 a month, not including insurance and medical costs that a baby might have, that adds up to over $6,800 a year. Families can receive TANF for up to five years, and can receive SNAP until their children are over 18. This means that in total, a single mother and her one child could receive up to $89,000 in welfare payments from taxpayers.

Between the welfare payments and the hospital bills, taxpayers are looking at a cost of almost $100,000. This estimate also doesn’t include insurance or childcare subsidies for the child, both of which can be extremely expensive.

If a financial argument and cost to taxpayers is the premise of those who support 106, it is a very weak premise. The cost of raising a child is far greater than paying for an abortion, and can sometimes even be upwards of 200 times the cost.

The other major argument of those in support of the measure is that it isn’t fair to force those who don’t believe in abortion to pay for it with their tax dollars.

While this may be true, life isn’t always perfectly fair. It’s not fair to pacifists that their tax dollars fund wars. It’s not fair to those that don’t have children whose tax dollars go to schools. It isn’t fair that people have to fund a police department, even if they don’t commit crimes. And yet, we do it because it’s what’s best for society.

Preventing low income citizens from terminating unwanted pregnancies is unfair to everyone. Those who couldn’t afford the abortion might become permanently stuck in poverty because they were forced into raising a child, and taxpayers would have to pay 200 times the original amount they would have had to originally in order to support those people.

When calculated out, measure 106 simply does not make sense from a financial standpoint. But the problem with measure 106 is that it isn’t actually about what’s best for Oregon or what makes the most sense for taxpayers; it’s an attempt, at the cost of both low income residents and taxpayers, to veto abortions in a state that has already decided they should be legal. Measure 106 isn’t a solution; it’s an expense our state can’t afford.

The post Anthony: The real cost of Measure 106 appeared first on Emerald Media.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s the golden rule, and from my experience, the Oregonian way. Or at least, it’s supposed to be. A new measure up for vote, Measure 105, is threatening to take away Oregon’s status as a sanctuary state. This new measure will put that golden rule to the test.

On July 7, 1987, the bill making Oregon a sanctuary state was signed into law. The bill passed with wide support, making it through the senate and house with votes of 29-1 and 58-1, respectively.

This bill was designed to keep Oregon’s state tax money from being used for the purpose of investigating those who are suspected of being here without papers.

However, the bill also doubled as a way to prevent racial profiling, as before the bill, local police could stop or interrogate someone under “suspicion” that they may be here illegally.

Measure 105 would reverse this bill and allow for state tax money to be spent on investigating and arresting those who may be our neighbors, coworkers or even friends. In addition, it would also allow for profiling by police, which would bring worry and intimidation to those who are here legally.

According to orunited.org, the main supporters of the bill are Oregonians for Immigration Reform and Federation of Immigration Reform. Both are labeled as extremist hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

While many frame Oregon’s sanctuary state status as a “free pass” to those who are here without legal permission, this isn’t the case. Oregon’s sanctuary laws don’t protect those who are here illegally from being deported. If someone commits a crime and is found to be here illegally, they will most likely be deported.

What Oregon’s sanctuary laws do is prevent police from investigating someone purely based off suspicions. This means they are not allowed to ask random citizens to show their papers based off their skin color, as we’ve seen in other states without these sanctuary laws. The purpose of the original bill was to prevent police from stopping or interrogating people solely under the suspicion they had immigrated illegally.

The police shouldn’t act as both law enforcement and immigration and customs agents. Their main job should be tracking down and stopping crimes that have a real and direct impact on citizens safety and livelihoods, like violent crime and theft.

Even in our own capitol, Salem, crimes rates are continuing to rise. Rather than using the finite resources at their disposal to track down people who commit no other crimes than that of being undocumented, they should be using those resources to stop dangerous crimes that make our cities unsafe.  

Along with reducing the amount of tax money spent on fighting these kinds of crimes, Measure 105 would also have a serious effect on the ability of police to investigate and prosecute these crimes, as many undocumented immigrants would be afraid to report crimes, call or talk to the police, and testify against criminals for fear that they themselves would be deported because of it.

In addition to the impacts it could have on our ability to fight crime, measure 105 could have significant consequences when it comes to Oregon’s economy as well.

A large portion of Oregon’s revenue and taxes comes from agriculture, and according to wweek.com, we rely heavily on immigrant labor, both legal and illegal, for farming. Fifty-six percent of the agricultural workers in Oregon are immigrants, and without them, one of Oregon’s biggest sources of revenue would likely collapse. We also rely on them heavily for our packaging and industrial operations, which again bring in huge amounts of revenue for Oregon.

With revenue comes taxes, and many of the statements that are made about undocumented workers not paying taxes are myths. According to occp.com, undocumented workers pay $81 million dollars a year in Oregon taxes, which goes to fund things such as schools and roads. In addition, theatlantic.com estimates that undocumented workers nationwide pay an estimated $13 billion a year to social security— most of which they will never see for themselves.

Whether or not you agree with undocumented immigrants being allowed to stay in Oregon, the effects of voting yes on measure 105 have a negative impact on everyone. It allows for racial profiling of those who are here legally, it diverts funds from stopping dangerous crimes, and it could have a major impact on industries and taxes both state and nation wide. A vote for 105 is a vote against Oregon.

The post Anthony: Measuring the impact of 105 appeared first on Emerald Media.

Band kids are often the most overlooked part of any sporting event, but they’re still always there, supporting the teams and giving the fans and players that much needed boost to morale. But what happens when those same people that they support game in and game out not only don’t support them back, but make fun of them? A twitter beef, of course.

Rob Moseley, Editor-in-Chief of GoDucks.com recently sent out a tweet that many UO band kids didn’t take too kindly.

The tweet read, “Halftime show coming up. This better be the greatest performance ever by the OMB, because we’ve had to listen to them practice outside our office all… week…. Long………..”

This is a disrespectful tweet coming from his personal Twitter account, @DuckFootball, which is followed by over 40,000 people. Even if it was just a joke, it’s in poor taste. Some random person’s twitter is one thing, and it could easily just be seen as a joke or trolling, but from a staff member of The University of Oregon, this seems like a bit much, and many of the UO students agree.

One student responded with frustration, “Band practices to support your athletes. Without the band, there wouldn’t be hype. Instead of complaining about them, you should be glad that they’re making an effort to be the backbone of your athletic teams.”

In response, Rob Moseley tweeted back that, “I could quibble with some of your points, but I won’t. I understand some feelings were hurt here, and that to some eyes, an attempt at humor fell flat.”

That tweet sounds far from an apology. This seems much more like the kind of apology where the person says, “I’m sorry that you feel that way,” and we all know how insincere those apologies truly are.

In addition, I’m curious what points he thinks he could quibble with? That the band practices to support the athletes? That there wouldn’t be hype without the band? That they make an effort to be the backbone of the team? All of those seem like pretty reasonable statements to make; why else would the band kids be out there, sometimes practicing as much as 12 hours a day?

In response to his tweet, the original responder said that the band kids, “Weren’t happy they couldn’t practice on the rec fields either,” as they were kicked off of the rec fields by the UO athletic department and forced to practice over at Autzen, where his office was. Many of the kids had to commute every day, and the tweeter said he should thank them for, “practicing so that they were good, especially with all of the incoming freshman,” as opposed to complaining about it.

Unbelievably, Rob Moseley once again tweeted back the exact same, “I could quibble with some of your points, but I won’t. I understand some feelings were hurt here, and that to some eyes, an attempt at humor fell flat.” Word for word.

In response to this second tweet, another Twitter user tweeted, “Dude, is it really that hard to apologize? You made an insensitive comment which clearly made people feel shitty and unappreciated. Swallow your pride and say sorry, not, “Sorry you misinterpreted my comment,” but, “Sorry I shouldn’t have made the comment.” This is unprofessional.

Moseley then accused both tweeters, who are students at UO, saying that, “This is the second account opened in Sept. 2018 whose first tweet is regarding this issue. Strange. Or is it…”

To me, it’s crazy that a University of Oregon staff member would tweet something out like that, and then not only not apologize when confronted, but instead attack the students on their credibility. This seems more like a twitter troll and less like a full time employee of the University of Oregon.

Obviously the second tweeter felt the same way, as he responded by saying “This is pathetic. You don’t know how to respond to criticism, so you attack the fact that I made this account to call you out. You’ve basically resorted to name calling. @Uoregon it terrifies me that the Editor in Chief of GoDucks.com doesn’t care about the impact of his words.”

Honestly, I don’t think I could possibly phrase it better or in a way that truly gets to the heart more so than those 279 characters. As a student, I’m infuriated by the lack of respect Moseley showed; the original tweet is one thing, as anyone can make a bad joke or accidentally offend someone. It’s the responses that truly get to me. And it only gets worse.

Replying to the second tweeter’s tweet, Moseley once again tweeted out the exact same robotic, unapologetic response of “I understand some feelings were hurt here, and that to some eyes, an attempt at humor fell flat.” For the third time. In a row.

The roll of UO staff members, and especially so those in the communications department, should be to communicate openly and honestly with their students, not to troll them on twitter. While the original comment was insensitive, it by itself wasn’t that bad; just a joke gone wrong. It’s the inability to admit that it may have been a mistake and apologize to those it may have disrespected.

If we can’t count on UO staff members to show respect and appreciation to student band members, who can we count on? What kind of example does that set for other students? The trope of band kids being bullied by jocks has become a reality in this instance, and by none other than a salaried editor-in-chief of the University of Oregon itself.

A correction was made on 10/10/2018 to change Rob Moseley’s title from “Editor-in-Chief of UO Athletics” to “Editor-in-Chief of GoDucks.com.” We also changed how his twitter account was referenced to reflect that he used his personal Twitter account as opposed to an official UO account. 

The post Anthony: This one time, at band camp appeared first on Emerald Media.

It was a term I first heard while cashiering during the summer after my senior year of high school— U.C. Eugene. A current University of Oregon student came through my line, and I asked him if he liked it there because I was planning on attending in the fall. His response, “Yeah, I love it!” but then added, “Well, except for the whole ‘U.C. Eugene’ part.” I had no idea what that meant back then, but in the following year I quickly found out that it stands for “The University of California in Eugene,” and it’s a term many Californians use with glee and Oregonians take with a grimace and an eye roll.

California is one of the most high demand places to live in the world, meaning it can easily pull in out-of-state students, and with them out-of-state tuition rates. In an attempt to make more money through out-of-state tuition, California has been making it harder and harder for in-state students to get in to their own state colleges in recent years.

Insert: The University of Oregon. The admission requirements are much lower than many Californian four year colleges, making it a realistic option for many graduating seniors who didn’t quite make the extremely high cut off. It’s also a perfect distance for most Californians. Add onto that the liberal atmosphere and weather that most people enjoy, and you’ve got a dream school for many Californians.

With the massive amount of Californian students that only continue to increase at UO, the phrase “U.C. Eugene” is a way to say that the University of Oregon now belongs to California as much as it does to Oregon. Many Oregonians aren’t too fond of the phrase, but why do they hate it so much, and what kind of impact does it have on their lives?

Because UO out-of-state tuition rates are $35,000, a rate many in-state kids couldn’t even imagine paying, this naturally leads to many of the out-of-state students coming from wealthier backgrounds. Because of the higher average incomes and the student’s ability to pay, UO can charge a higher rate for things such as fees, parking permits, and dorms when compared to other state colleges like OSU. Many Oregonians see Californian students as the main reason why they have to pay more for these things.

Compared to Oregon State, which has a higher percentage of in-state students, UO’s mandatory fees are $120 dollars higher a term. Overnight parking passes are also $910 for a 10 month period, as opposed to OSU’s parking passes being anywhere from $372-$522. In addition, goods around or related to campus such as dorms, off campus housing, or even food also often see an increase.

In addition to the monetary differences, there is also often a culture gap, which can manifest itself in many different ways. One of these ways is through stereotypes, like in the case of one friend of mine, who says she “hates how like, the Oregonians here stereotype me as basic for being from SoCal and make fun of my valley girl accent.” On the flip side, another friend of mine said that he hates how “all the Californians here label me as country, even though I’m from Salem.”

A lot of these issues may stem from a place of classism rather than actual geography or state citizenship. I’ve overheard more than one middle class Oregonian mumble about the spoiled or entitled “Chad-y” Californians. Along with this, I’ve also heard my fair share of Californians make fun of Oregonians for being “hippies,”“hickish” or “redneck.”

While these stereotypes may hold true in some cases, for the majority of both Californians and Oregonians it doesn’t accurately represent them, and they both resent being labeled as “basic” or “country” purely based off of their looks, wealth, or state citizenship.

Nonetheless, many Oregonians still see Californians as the privileged who are trying to take over and change Oregon into California, which is why the term U.C. Eugene strikes such a huge nerve with so many Oregonians.

Oregonians are used to other Oregonians, and like any group that feels threatened by outsiders coming into its territory, it doesn’t take long to find reasons to resent or dislike those from that outside group. You don’t need to look far online to find articles like Why do so many Oregonians hate Californians? Here’s why, on thatoregonlife.com, ‘They do not like Californians’: How the Pacific Northwest is treating transplants, on sfgate.com, or Warning to Californians on city-data.com. The last article warns Californians to “leave the elitism and materialism in Santa Monica, as Oregonians are not high on the showy flash, and the dislike of Southern Californians is one of the few things that will unite the left wing hippies and conservative ranchers in Oregon.”

These problems can be seen in places such as the Portland area, where many Oregonians are upset about Californians moving in and gentrifying areas, causing prices in the housing market to raise significantly. Because of this, some Oregonians stereotype wealthy or Southern Californians as superficial, elitist, or consumerist. This is especially apparent in one story the Mercury News reported, where Oregonians spray painted “Go back to California” on someone’s car.

In the end though, the Californian students who are here are here to stay, and like it or not, the flow of Californian students will likely only increase in the future. When it comes down to it, Californian students have as much right to Eugene and the University of Oregon as anyone. Their tuition dollars are a huge reason why Oregonians are able to have such a great school at such a low cost. While there may sometimes be cultural or class differences, we’re all just college students. The sooner we realize that we’re not Oregonians or Californians, but University of Oregon students, the sooner we’ll be able to get along with one another.

The post Anthony: The Willamette (Valley)Girls appeared first on Emerald Media.

Homeless rates in cities along the West Coast have skyrocketed in recent years. People who live in these cities have seen the impacts firsthand and want something done about it. Those in charge of government programs are looking for a quick fix, and what quicker fix is there than to make it someone else’s problem?

In America, millions of dollars are spent on the relocation of thousands of homeless people every year. These people are given a one-way ticket out of town and are often told to never return. KALW, a radio station in San Francisco, even said that in the last 12 years, 10,000 people have been bussed out of San Francisco alone.

While these programs are promoted as ways to help homeless people by sending them to cities where they have family or jobs lined up, many believe that there may be an ulterior motive. The Guardian found that of those relocated, 88 percent were relocated to cities with a lower median income than the one they left.

Many believe wealthier cities are using their money to send away homeless people with little regard as to what happens to them afterward. The Guardian reported that the executive director of a program designed to help homeless people admitted pitching to wealthy citizens the idea of giving homeless people a one-way ticket out of the area in an attempt to raise funds. What’s more, he confessed to emphasizing the point that they would not be allowed to ever return.

Some cities offer one-way tickets out of town while ramping up laws that make it difficult for homeless people to live there, such as loitering laws, in an attempt to compel them to accept the offer. The Seattle Times wrote about one such instance in Atlanta, where the city was trying to drive homeless people out before the 1996 Olympics.

Along with these tactics, those who take the tickets must also sign a legally binding agreement saying they will never come back to the city again. While this program may be designed to help homeless people, this certainly doesn’t seem like a benevolent way of going about it. If those in charge of the programs truly believed they were doing a good job in sending people to places where they would be well-supported, they wouldn’t need to have them sign an agreement to never return.

According to KGW, only three months after they were bussed out, over half of those who were sent to places that were supposed to have stable homes or jobs waiting were back on the streets or unable to be contacted. Using the money spent on transportation to instead build cheap and affordable housing would almost certainly be a more permanent and effective solution.

New York City has spent as much as $6,300 on tickets for one family in the past. The city budgets half a million dollars a year for the relocation of homeless people — money that could instead be invested in a permanent solution, such as the tiny house projects that many cities are choosing to adopt.

Portland, Oregon, has an area called Dignity Village, which has small homes made from recycled material and assembled by volunteers. The village costs $28,000 a year to maintain and operate and houses over 60 people. If New York City were to replicate this program with the $500,000 of funding it already has, the city could house over a thousand people, which would make a significant dent in the homeless population.

Instead of trying to create real change through permanent solutions, many cities instead choose to try to send homeless people away in an attempt to create superficial change within their own city. This does little to actually reduce the homeless population. In addition, it puts a burden on other cities to take care of the homeless population themselves.

While there certainly isn’t an easy fix to a problem as big as homelessness, giving a homeless person a one-way bus ticket and telling them to never return simply isn’t the humane approach. Instead of trying to create a temporary fix or making it someone else’s problem, cities should take responsibility for their citizens and do their best to create a solution. Who knows, if everyone does their equal share, maybe we will create real and permanent change.

The post Samuel Anthony: Bussing homeless people, a cheap solution or a waste of money? appeared first on Emerald Media.

College athletes are the most prominent figures on campuses everywhere; however, is it fair that these figures make less money than the kid selling their jerseys at the student store? As someone who has three roommates and has eaten four bowls of top ramen and five PB&Js in the last three days to try to make it through college, athletes are paid plenty in the long run through their tuition and living expenses being paid for.

College is expensive. Current and former college students know this well. Along with college tuition and housing, food and books are also major expenses. According to Abigail Hess from cnbc.com, the average student has over $37,000 of debt when they graduate.

According to the University of Oregon’s cost of attendance webpage, out-of-state students’ tuition with fees is usually over $35,000. For in-state students, tuition and fees can be upwards of $12,000. Add on to that the $12,000 estimated living cost by U of O, and students are usually paying a minimum of $24,000 a year to go to college, and for many, it can be over $47,000 a year.

According to their website, the NCAA sets the maximum limit of hours of “countable athletically related activities” to 20 hours per week during the season, and during the off-season, the limit is lowered to eight hours per week. Generally, a sports season is no longer than six months, meaning the maximum average time an athlete can be forced to practice or play with the team is 14 hours per week.

If you take the minimum amount of money a college player would be spending on school, and calculate how much that player is making per hour year round, with an average of 14 hours per week, it comes out to over $32 an hour completely untaxed. In addition, $32 an hour is also the bare minimum for an athlete, as those from out of state are making over $64 an hour toward their tuition and living costs. These are huge figures when compared to the $10 an hour other students usually make with work studies or part time jobs.

Along with the money athletes receive for tuition and room and board, they can also be awarded stipends to help pay for other expenses. These stipends can be anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 dollars a year. Furthermore, athletes also receive benefits that are hard to put a price tag on, such as professional medical staff, personal tutors and personal trainers that could help them go pro.

Many people believe the misconception that colleges are making massive amounts of money off of student athletes. While the school generally makes a profit off of men’s football and basketball, every other sport usually takes a loss. Instead of using the profit to pay football and basketball players beyond what they are already receiving, the school uses the money to fund scholarships for athletes in other sports that don’t make a profit, such as women’s basketball, baseball and soccer.

One major issue that still needs to be addressed in regards to compensation for college athletes, however, is their image. Popular players like Marcus Mariota often help the school sell thousands of jerseys with their names and numbers printed across the back, but they receive zero compensation for the use of their image. Players should be able to negotiate and receive a royalty for their image, as the scholarships they receive are for their talents and hard work, not their image or likeness.

With all of this taken into consideration, it seems that college athletes are paid fairly for their talents, especially when compared with other college jobs that students take. While the college athletes may not see their hard work in cold hard cash like the kids selling their jerseys at the student store, they undoubtedly see more value in the long run. Through having both their living and tuition costs completely paid for, athletes are given a debt-free college degree, which is something many students who are tens of thousands of dollars in debt can only dream of.

The post Samuel Anthony: College athletes — unpaid workers or highly paid college students? appeared first on Emerald Media.