Illustration by Christine Hipp.

A small group of parents in Idaho made complaints to the Idaho State Department of Education. They were about tenth-grade biology teacher Tim McDaniel’s use of the word “vagina” while teaching human anatomy. This is not a joke.

McDaniel was teaching sex education in biology because the school’s health teacher would not teach information on sexual health.

Statistics show that many states where sex education is not mandated have higher teenage pregnancy rates. While it may seem obvious, talking about vaginas is necessary in  education, as is talking about human anatomy, sexual intercourse, STIs, pregnancy and other important aspects of sexual health that teens need to be aware of to better understand the consequences of their potential decisions.

A teacher who is brave enough to stand in front of a group of judgmental high schoolers and use the word “vagina” — in the context of a lecture on sexual intercourse and human anatomy — deserves a huge pat on the back for providing these students with valuable resources and facts. He also displayed noteworthy sensitivity, giving students the option to opt out of the lectures on sex education if it made them uncomfortable.

Sex education and HIV education are both requirements a state can mandate for school districts. Idaho — among other states such as Arkansas, Arizona and Texas — does not require that schools offer sex education or HIV education. Oddly enough, these same states have some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the nation, which has its own consequences. Only about half of teen moms have a high school diploma, as opposed to the 90 percent of women who did not have a teen pregnancy.

How are high schoolers supposed to be aware of the possible choices one can make, including having sex, safe sex, safe sex when he or she feels at least a little ready for the interaction or abstaining from the sexual interaction altogether, if no one teaches them about it? Leaving high schoolers only with the vague and disappointing instruction to abstain from embarking on a new frontier, sex, intrigues them to engage in risky behavior.

We need educators who are willing to explain honestly and professionally how sexual intercourse works and how individuals can engage in it in a healthy way that does not damage bodily health or risk the individual’s future.

We are all constantly surrounded by technology and in today’s world high school students can easily go on their computers at home and look up information about sexual intercourse and human anatomy. They may not find information that will help them form a healthy and honest perspective of sex. Teachers like Tim McDaniel are resources who can help high school students form their own perspectives on sex and make informed decisions on how and if they will engage in sex.

Illustration by Caetano Santos.

“I am tired, just as many of you are tired, of seeing our parents being oppressed and denied work opportunities,” said Katherine Tabares, a speaker and youth activist at the “Rally for Citizenship” demonstration at the nation’s capital this past Wednesday. “Not because of their skills — because they are very talented — but because of a nine-digit number that supposedly defines a person in the United States, when it should not.”

Like others who were brought to this country by their parents, Tabares and many Americans are calling for comprehensive immigration reform that is inclusive to all members of our community.

A draft of a comprehensive immigration reform bill was poised to be released this Tuesday but has been set back out of respect for the recent tragedy in Boston. However, leaked information from several anonymous sources suggests a significant component of the bill will focus on border security.

This bill — agreed upon by a bipartisan group of eight senators — will mark the first overhaul of immigration law since 1986. While it claims to create a pathway to citizenship for the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, the bill only makes citizenship available to those who arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 2011.

Other qualifications include a clean criminal record and sufficient proof of financial stability or employment.

Only when applicants meet these qualifications will they be eligible for a 10-year probationary period for citizenship. This prospective pathway needs to be more effective, realistic and expedient.

This 10-year waiting period comes with a startling provision — the federal government must secure 90 percent border security before those eligible can apply for a green card and then eventually, citizenship.

While the legislation is written by a bipartisan group, efforts should be directed toward meeting a fair balance for contentious parts of the bill rather than rushing in a flawed draft to appease Republicans. The Democrats have exchanged a later cut-off date and a strict border security plan to create a long road to citizenship that in no way resembles their original plan for an easy, accessible path to citizenship.

In fact, this is the perfect moment for Republicans to appeal to Latina/o voters — who have remained an untapped and growing demographic — by softening their hardline stance on immigration. While comprehensive immigration reform is not the cure-all to appeal to Latina/o voters, it’s an important issue for many who vote — a fact that is slowly dawning on some Republican legislators.

The bigger picture does not point the finger at one party. We must all realize that a serious comprehensive reform bill involves presenting fair opportunities for undocumented immigrants who have proven their allegiance and good faith to this country. We need to rethink the measures of this bill which require 90 percent border security — an immense task immigrants would need to wait for the US to pull off before they gain citizenship.

The moment is now to pull down unfair obstacles on the path to citizenship.

Illustration by Caetano Santos.

A world of ever-growing media conglomerates has created a situation in which media ownership and influence has been concentrated into the hands of an elite group. “The Big Six,” — GE, Viacom, CBS, News Corp., Disney and TimeWarner — now own nearly 90 percent of the media Americans consume. In 1983, 50 companies shared this amount.

Though there was a considerable amount of journalistic disapproval of the Nov. 15, 2011 police raid on Occupy Wall Street, the ensuing abandonment of the issue by media was far too swift. This mass disregard for a violation of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly is a subtle, eerie reminder that the nation is rapidly losing avenues for expressing dissent. It’s not surprising that a September 2012 Gallup poll revealed 60 percent of Americans have little to no trust in the mass media, an all-time low. We didn’t succeed at occupying Wall Street, but the next step should be obvious: occupy the media.

The media landscape must be a forum for putting pressure on corrupt and underperforming representatives, not a shield or weapon for the 1 percent. When such a small group of people controls what the news covers, it can become impossible and/or dangerous to report on things that could negatively affect their image. A diversity of perspectives is needed, a redistribution of publishing power to a wider group of people from all walks of life could greatly increase media accountability.

The current state of the media industry is looking a lot like what made Wall Street so repulsive to the protesters in Zuccotti Park. Just as the capitalists on Wall Street became “the 1 percent” by accruing money at the expense of those who had less, the moguls at the top of the media world are accumulating corporate mergers with equal ferocity.

The Occupy Wall Street movement and its countless offspring protests illustrate how the American people are not afraid of expressing the sentiment that Wall Street is reifying capitalism’s highest stage, imperialism. This activistic energy should be shifted to the new 1 percent that is forming in the media business.

The Occupy Movement may no longer be active in the news, but the spirit of protest that occupiers renewed will never be destroyed. Occupying the media means more than an occupation of Times Square Studios or Rockefeller Center (though this could be a good start due to the increased visibility it would provide). This occupation will require a widespread change in consciousness and a rise in individual and group initiative.

The first thing activists can do is get involved in the media. Here at UCSC, students can choose from 16 different student media organizations with many varying focuses and approaches. Determined activists can also write letters to editors or pen their own investigative features and share them with other concerned students.

The free market’s potential hasn’t yet been completely monopolized, so another avenue is to be a media entrepreneur. A group of friends with unique perspectives and a lot to say can make their own commentary and/or news site together. Now publication can be as simple as clicking the ‘submit’ button on Twitter or a blog, or as risky as initiating a startup. In either case, we have the potential to take journalism back to its roots by recording the events of our lives and communities and how those in power affect them.

It’s clear there is no correct way of seeing things. True objectivity — the mainstay of most journalism — would require that all subjective perspectives be represented and shared. If we all make journalism a way of life and share our individual stories, we can prevent these perspectives from being lost or obstructed from the record of history. Occupying the media cannot be a revolution that takes place overnight, it will need to be a determined, painstaking evolution in thought and practice.

For our diverse country to be free, our information must be free and diverse as well.

Illustration by Caetano Santos.

Every website you’ve ever visited, every email you’ve ever sent or received and everything you’ve shared through social media is recorded and memorized. California Assembly Bill AB 1291, also called the “Right to Know” Act, will provide technology and internet users a glimpse into what the companies who collect this data know about them as well as the right to know who else this information has been sold or handed over to.

Here at City on a Hill Press we understand how important it is for individuals to have access to their visible public profile in our ubiquitously digital age. We support the passage of California’s AB 1291 and the ideology of internet freedom and the safety it represents. This ideology extends beyond the necessity of manageable privacy and easy access to info sold to purveyors of targeted ads. The utility and locus of control over this information must be shifted into the hands of its creators and patrons.

Companies will inevitably point to obscure fine print in their terms and conditions asserting ownership over all submitted content. Aside from giving websites the right to sell stats on the products you like and your personal inclinations, these contracts often act as renouncements of ownership over anything uploaded and shared. Accessibility must be the right to know what one is agreeing to share.

With the great number of new websites people let into their lives on a daily basis, the amount of time required to read and interpret even one of these policies is unsustainable. A word count on every section of Facebook’s data use policy and privacy instructions clocks in at 9,365 words. The real issue here is the manageability of one’s personal portrait.

The average citizen can’t be expected to have the time to keep track of everything they write or post and who it could possibly belong to. With the knowledge of what’s already recorded about their lives, users can make more informed decisions about what they publish, what websites they open up to and how they conduct themselves online.

Greater freedom of information is not something that should be subjected to the sluggishness of state politics. The United Kingdom’s 15-year old Data Protection Act gives the nation’s tech users the ability to control one’s public personal data — surely an issue so immediately invested in social safety and human security could and should be implemented federally in the United States.

CHP advocates a call for greater freedom of digital information. California’s Right to Know Act is more than a step in the right direction — it has the ability to usher in a more informed and aware digital public. The right to know is an inherent prerequisite to a functioning democratic system.

Illustration by Maren Slobody.

Strapped to a restraint chair and force-fed through a tube inserted into the stomach through the nose, hunger-striking detainees of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are not given the chance to protest their detention.

Hunger strikes among Guantanamo Bay detainees have been numerous and ongoing since it opened in 2002. However, the current hunger strike is growing steadily in size and according to the detainee lawyers, as many as 130 prisoners of the 166 at Guantanamo are taking part. These dire conditions prompted a visit from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) this week. After its visit, the ICRC renewed pressure to shut the facility down.

Among those also urging closure is Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights. This past week, she called on the United States to shutter the facility, calling the indefinite imprisonment of detainees without charge or trial in a civilian court a clear breach of international law.

In the past the Bush administration justified ignoring the Geneva Convention and the U.N. Convention Against Torture on the grounds that detainees were not “prisoners of war” or “criminal suspects.” Inmates at Guantanamo Bay were held as “enemy combatants,” a definition that accorded them little to no protection under international law.

Similarly, the Obama administration has ignored criticism and has broken its promise to close the facility four years ago.

About half of the current 166 detainees are cleared for transfer to their home country or another foreign country willing to give them another start. However, for many of these detainees there is no end in sight for their captivity and they will continue to face excessive violence and torture.

Detainees already cleared for release must either be transferred to their home country or foreign country. At the moment there is not enough evidence to hold detainees who are cleared of charges. Detainees who are accused or convicted of crimes should be tried in a civilian court rather than a military tribunal to ensure they are processed and protected under international law.

While Congress has expressed concern with the potential danger of abruptly closing the facility and transferring detainees to host countries, this in no way justifies the continued abuse of detainees by US forces.

The recent condemnation by human rights commissioner Navi Pillay is only the latest reminder of the injustices being carried out at Guantanamo Bay. The United States must uphold its international commitments and find a workable plan to finally close Guantanamo Bay.

The Obama administration must not let its promises go unkept.

Illustration by Maren Slobody.

In a collegiate world swirling with competitive academics, jobs, athletics and student associations, who has time for romantic relationships? There are those college students who do and who are very happy and deserve commendation for fitting their respective significant others into their busy lives.

According to various studies, however, many college students are just left with “hookup culture,” and according to various authors, it’s ruining any future prospect of romance in our lives. This perspective of “hookup culture” is ridiculous. It presents a narrow view of the different types of sexual encounters one can engage in, and it is problematic to think the only kind of sex a person can have is the kind with emotional attachments.

The book “The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy” by Donna Freitas considers the hookup culture many studies say is so pervasive and how this culture is destroying our generation’s chance of future romantic relationships. Although I am by no means advocating that all college students should engage in “hookup culture,” Freitas bases her argument on assumptions that are based on offensive stereotypes about men and women.

Freitas’ argument completely negates the possibility that women enjoy sex by implying that women are the ones who provide pleasure and men are always on the receiving end. Freitas, and many others, also make the assumption that women feel the need for all their sexual encounters to lead to a relationship and that when they don’t, the woman feels unfulfilled.

Elizabeth Armstrong, a sociologist at the University of Michigan, did a study four years ago that found 89 percent of men and 85 percent of women said they enjoyed the sexual activity of their last hookup “very much” or “somewhat.” The same study found less than half wanted a relationship to come of their last hookup.

I can only imagine that men are equally offended by the implication that they are the only ones who enjoy sex with no strings attached. Or by the stereotype that they only “take” from sexual encounters, especially ones that supposedly lack emotional investment.

Hookup culture can certainly be risky. In some cases, individuals enter into sexual activity with no agency, no direction in what they hope to gain  or knowledge of what interests them about a particular sexual encounter. This can be destructive to their self-esteem.

However, this does not have to be the case. Hookup culture in many ways is our generation’s — especially for the women of this generation — way of experimenting sexually and experiencing sexual satisfaction while  navigating the complex life of an ambitious college student. There are women in today’s colleges who are less interested in being tied to a partner and more interested in being tied to a future that they have invested tens of thousands of dollars in.

A sexual encounter can come in many forms, from long term relationships to casual encounters – or something in between. As long as both parties involved have agency in the sexual encounter and as long as both parties practice safe sex, there is no reason to condemn any of these acts.

Hookup culture should not be a fallback in the case that dating does not work. Just as there are many different kinds of people who each have their own objectives when it comes to romance and sex, there are many different ways of engaging in sexual activities. Hookup culture is less the monster some would make it out to be and more just another way for those who are interested to engage in sexual activity.

Illustration by Maren Slobody.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently started hearing arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 — debates which have brought forth a strong response among anyone listening.

City on a Hill Press strongly supports overturning DOMA and Prop 8. However, lawmakers must continue to push for marriage equality, no matter the outcome.

Pres. Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law on Sept. 21 1996. Since then, he has decided to advocate for marriage equality by renouncing his support of DOMA and instead is urging the Supreme Court to overturn the law.

The law denies same-sex couples federal marriage benefits, including Social Security and hospital visitation rights. It also denies interstate same-sex marriage.

Clinton is one of many American politicians — including conservatives and Republicans — who have recently voiced support for legalizing same-sex marriage, reflecting a sea change in public opinion on marriage equality.

The day before the examination of DOMA, the Supreme Court held a debate about Prop 8. Passed in 2008, the California proposition effectively outlawed same-sex marraige by only recognizing the legality of heterosexual marriage. A large number of advocates and opponents were drawn to the grounds outside the Supreme Court on March 26 to protest Prop 8.

In 2008, Prop 8 passed due to the support of 52 percent of California’s population, but many have argued the proposition would not pass in an election today.

The ruling on Prop 8 could yield dramatically different consequences for gay marriage. The justices could make a sweeping decision that all 50 states and the federal government must recognize same-sex marriage, they could declare same-sex marriage unconstitutional or they may choose to not take a stance and leave the decision to a lower court in California.
Overturning DOMA, on the other hand, would not legally mandate that the 50 states and federal government recognize same-sex marriage. But it would entitle same-sex couples to benefits from over 1,000 federal programs in the nine states that currently recognize same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court may decide it is unconstitutional to overturn both DOMA and Prop 8, leaving the battle for marriage equality in the rut it has been in since Prop 8 passed. This would create a longer waiting period for people who are denied the opportunity to legally marry those they love — a disappointing reality for those whose legal rights have been oppressed by DOMA and Prop 8. However, the battle would not end there.

No matter what the Supreme Court rules on DOMA and Prop 8 in June, lawmakers pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage can ride the wave of support created by the Supreme Court’s debates to continue pushing for marriage equality.

It’s time to acknowledge that our outlook on marriage is changing. Traditional marriage values will inevitably be replaced by an expanded, more humane definition of marriage.
Supreme Court justices must match their ruling with the morals of equality: allow same-sex couples to have the opportunity and benefits of marriage. If they do not, people’s convictions within the battle for equal rights should only grow stronger from there.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

On March 17 the Jefferson County Court of Steubenville, Ohio found Ma’lik Richmond and Trent Mays guilty of raping a 16-year-old girl and dispersing child pornography. It sentenced them to one and two years, respectively, in a juvenile detention facility. They were also ordered to register as sex offenders.

CNN anchor Poppy Harlow lamented how “incredibly emotional and incredibly difficult” it was to watch the convictions of the young men. Another anchor asked about the “lasting effect” of the sex offender label. CNN shortly thereafter experienced a biting response from a public insulted by the network’s perceived sympathy with a pair of rapists.

Regardless, the Steubenville rape case has hit its media denouemont — this is not acceptable.

Far too many Americans believe “justice” was served on Sunday. The pending appeal, as well as grand jury trials of dozens of other teenagers involved with the crime will be surveyed with superficial disgust — then forgotten.

The victim pieced together what had happened to her over Twitter, Instagram and YouTube, as posted by the perpetrators. Along with the rest of the world, this young woman saw herself carried away, raped, and mocked by teenage boys thoroughly aware of their actions.

After months of conspiring to keep the star football players out of court, residents of Steubenville also woke up to find themselves surrounded by a media circus. But their indignation — expressed in rampant slander and threats to the victim — only highlighted the town’s deeper prejudice.

Yes, the American populace has a heinously short attention span. Yes, many courtrooms have dwindled to little more than “he said/she said” arenas of misogyny. And yes, the mainstream media abandoned “fringe” ethics long ago.

But far too many of us know a person like Michael Nodianos, who can gleefully chortle for 12 minutes over dehumanization. Far too many of us have only to look in the mirror (or our Facebook and Twitter feeds) to find him.

We need to rethink rape culture. We need to rethink how we educate ourselves on what rape is (by the way, that chivalrous defense “what if she was your daughter/mother/sister?” misses the point).

Poppy Harlow and Candy Crowley’s indignation over criticism for their sympathy with the rapists speaks to a larger injustice still being perpetrated against the victim. After all — who’s to say the thousands of comments telling CNN no really mean no?

The public now pieces together the forensic evidence of media — social media included — that unjustly covered this rape. It is time the mainstream media stop drifting in the rip tide of hatred found on social media and take anchor in justice.

Illustration by Caetano Santos.

Cable television led me to believe sex is an act reserved for ridiculously attractive people, one that involves the perfect man and the perfect moment. Your perfectly tousled curls and sheer white gown stay perfectly in place as a 200-year-old vampire makes love to you on a sheepskin rug in front of a roaring fireplace — “True Blood,” anyone?

Unfortunately, for most of us 20-somethings our sexual experiences resemble nothing like that description and instead can be described as impetuous, awkward or even non-existent.
HBO’s “Girls” wrapping up its second season reminds us that our sexual experiences — and life, for that matter — are sometimes nothing short of awkward, complicated and downright cringe-inducing.

“Girls” is centered around four 20-somethings who are in or just out of college trying to survive New York City. The show gives us a look into the lives, experiences and struggles of these four characters, namely Hannah (played by actress Lena Dunham).

The show has received its fair share of praise and criticism, but the controversy surrounding the show attests to the fact “Girls” is groundbreaking and one of the most truthful shows of our time.

Many critics point out the fact that the cast is not diverse enough. However, as Dunham points out, she is not the “voice of a generation,” she’s just a voice of a generation. Dunham acknowledges that she’s representing a small demographic and therefore a small slice of culture. I believe, while her demographic can represent a relatively privileged perspective, the girls’ experiences are still insightful and relatable to on some level.
While I do have my issues with the series (for instance, how does she have the disposable income to furnish an apartment that looks straight out of an Urban Outfitters catalog?), “Girls” continues to raise previously unaddressed issues some members of our generation face. Many of the characters’ experiences may be strikingly similar to ours or someone we know — and this is refreshing and empowering to see on the screen.

One of my favorite moments from the second season is Hannah’s struggle with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). As a way to cope with her current anxieties, Hannah’s character returns to her compulsions to do things in multiples of eight. It was refreshing to see OCD portrayed in a new way — one that is neither its most extreme form nor a cute odd habit of organizing your sock drawer. OCD is not always a crippling, 24/7 disorder characterized through incessant hand-washing — it comes in many forms and many degrees. Having dealt with OCD personally, it’s exciting to see OCD portrayed in this new light. This portrayal of a mental health condition is just one of several issues this show has brought to our awareness.

Another important aspect of the show is Hannah’s struggles with her body image that consequently affect her confidence and relationships. The show has multiple sex scenes that often involve nudity. What is groundbreaking is not nudity airing on cable television but the conversation it provokes. Hannah’s nude body has been called too “fat for cable television”, as Emily Nussbaum of The New Yorker points out. Criticism surrounding her body brings attention to the narrow range of bodies our eyes are used to seeing on TV. Watching the multiple sex scenes in the show, I found myself a bit uncomfortable. This level of discomfort is a criticism for many, but instead we should be asking why does it make us so uncomfortable? The show provides important commentary on our society’s body-policing and the media’s role in it — intentional or not.

I believe this show is groundbreaking for our generation. “Girls” introduces us to a set of characters that are fresh and original to TV viewers. Whether or not you like them, it’s possible to see ourselves in these characters — or atleast recognize someone we know in them.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

After a few weeks of making a diplomatic circus with Dennis Rodman serving as North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s personal jester, North Korea’s nullifying of the 1953 Korean War armistice last Monday must be their cruelest joke yet. Only this time, no country’s leaders will be laughing.

North Korea’s response is a reaction to joint military drills by U.S. and South Korean troops. These drills are routine between the two armies and not truly a provocation.

However, Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea’s regime, reported that Mr. Kim severed a hotline to South Korea’s president that was intended to stop war while boldly proclaiming that “the time for final showdown has arrived,” according to Monday’s L.A. Times.

These are not the type of comments any leader should make, much less one with a nuclear arsenal at their disposal. City on a Hill Press urges Kim to remember that only he can change the course of North Korea from provoking international ire to a path of pacifism and prosperity.

For the new Kim Jong-un regime, a war with South Korea may be viewed as a way to prove himself to North Korea’s powerful elite, who oppose the 30-year-old leader’s inexperience.

Kim Jong-un inherited a mess of problems that could be fixed via diplomacy. His people are hungry because of his actions to seek nuclear arms when they could receive outside food aid via non-governmental organizations waiting day in and day out to help North Korea’s helpless civilians. North Korea does not possess enough doctors or medicine for their ailing population and their economy is stagnant.

A little connection to the United States and South Korea, two states with vast resources and a deep interest in disarmament, could at least patch over some of these problems on the list above. Instead, Mr. Kim chooses to continue his father’s policy of uranium enrichment when he could enrich the lives of his people.

In truth, Mr. Kim looks much like the images of the capitalists his grandfather Kim Il-sung described when he fought for an independent North Korea. While Mr. Kim enjoys basketball performances by the Harlem Globetrotters or an expensive appetite for jewels, his people continue to be obedient in the wake of his dominance with little to show for it.

These actions only show the tip of the corrupt iceberg Mr. Kim commands. Instead of making Dennis Rodman an unofficial spokesman for more peaceful interests, Mr. Kim must open a discussion with United States’ and South Korea’s diplomats if he ever intends to make North Korea a better place.

For Mr. Kim, now is the time to get serious about making the lives of North Korean’s better. That desire should not be considered a laughing matter by your regime — even if Dennis Rodman is involved.

Infographic by Daniel Green

The UC Santa Cruz campus was buzzing on Feb. 28 when students received an email notifying us that the alleged rape victim had admitted to fabricating the entire attack. It was the email heard ‘round the world, or at least ‘round the campus.

A sense of anxiety overwhelmed most of the campus community when they received the email and CruzAlert on Feb. 17 informing them that a visitor had been beaten and sexually assaulted by the Quarry Amphitheater. The UCSC Police Department conducted an investigation and had offered a reward for tips leading to the arrest of the perpetrator.

In reaction to the reported sexual assault, Santa Cruz police introduced several safety measures like the Night Safety Escort Service. A group of UCSC students also organized a candlelight vigil and members of the community took on greater responsibility for each others’ safety.

Despite having been fabricated from the beginning, the assault helped spread safety and solidarity among the UCSC campus and also shed light on the issue of rape present in our nation. The UCSC community launched a full-fledged attack on the fabricated assailant and refused to give up until he was caught. It might have been for this reason that many were disappointed when they were told the attack didn’t actually occur.

Upon receiving the news, the first thing that came to my mind was how fast the detectives from Law and Order: SVU would be able to come to California and solve the mystery. I questioned how the attack could have been staged. How does one even go about staging a rape or a sexual assault? I also questioned why this woman would go through the trouble of staging a sexual assault, while others suffer from the effects each and every day. I felt both discontented and happy when I heard the news — my happiness stemming from the simple fact that she was not raped and my discontent coming from the feeling that we had all taken action for no reason. Then I stopped and thought about the rapes that do occur on campus, many of which go unnoticed or unreported. My feelings rapidly changed and I suddenly felt glad that the campus community had done everything we could to bring light to this issue.

According to a study done by the National Institute of Justice, 81 percent of on-campus sexual assaults are not reported to the police and fewer than 5 percent of attempted and completed rapes are actually reported to law enforcement. With statistics like these, I think it is necessary to bring the issue of sexual assault to light.

As the saying goes, knowledge is never wasted. The efforts students and members of this community have made have not been wasted either. They have shown us something that we might not have known about otherwise. I also do not want the community’s love and support to weaken due to the fact that the assault turned out to be false.

If there had been no candlelight vigil, no community safety meeting, no self-defense training, the campus community might have gone uninformed about real issues that affect college students and more importantly, the resources that are available to them in case said crimes do take place. Although a great amount of students were upset that the assault turned out to be false, it is important for them to remember that events like these do occur and should not be undermined by one false report.

Illustration by Caetano Santos

Many held a moment of silence in towns and cities across Japan this week. Those in remembrance thought back to the moment of 2:46 p.m. on March 11, 2011, when a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck Japan, generating a large tsunami.

Too often important stories are forgotten in news after they first emerge. Follow-up articles are scarce, especially today with the advent of the internet where the 24-hour news cycle has become stale in a manner of seconds.

That moment of silence marked the second year since an incredibly damaging earthquake and tsunami in Japan, where nearly 19,000 were dead or missing afterwards. What’s more is that over 300,000 people are still displaced, living in temporary housing and looking to rebuild their lives. Now is a good opportunity to revisit that story.

Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, spoke on March 11 in a Tokyo memorial service, promising to speed up repair and reconstruction efforts.

“Our ancestors have overcome many difficulties and each time emerged stronger,” Abe said. “We pledge anew to learn from them and move forward, holding each other’s hands.”

Rebuilding is slow however, especially in the northeast of Japan where local industries are struggling and a large portion of the population is aging fast.

In the two years since the quake hit, Japan has struggled to rebuild. In Fukushima prefecture, the same region as the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant that experienced meltdowns in three reactors after the tsunami disabled its cooling systems, about half of the displaced — roughly 160,000 — are unsure whether they can ever return to homes around the plant because of concerns over potential exposure to radiation. Many of them have filed a lawsuit for compensation for losses against the government and the former plant’s operator.

Since Japan was struck, U.S. citizens have given $712.6 million to Japan to help with relief efforts. According to an article City on a Hill Press published soon after the disasters, Santa Cruz sent $5,250 to its Japanese sister city, Shingū by March 28, 2011. While the southern Japanese city was not immediately affected by the tsunami and earthquake, Shingu’s domestic sister city Natori was and the funds donated went there. Donations were used to buy food and water, and even emergency teams of firefighters and volunteers to help with the relief efforts.

With the cost from the tsunami’s damages still mounting, this support must continue. Cracks remain in pavement, buildings and railways have gone unrepaired and people are waiting for help. In 2011, Santa Cruz helped Shingū send support to those who need it. We must continue to do so.

Illustration by Maren Slobody.

You’ve probably heard about the Keystone XL pipeline by now, but you might be a little bit fuzzy on the details.

Maybe you’ve heard that environmentalists have repeatedly called on Pres. Obama to can the 1,700 mile-long pipeline, which would pump roughly 510,000 barrels of oil a day from the tar-sand oil fields in northwestern Canada to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, due to concerns over oil leaks and the fact that the tar-sands are one of the dirtiest sources of petroleum on the planet.

But maybe you haven’t heard that the only reason Obama even has a say in the matter is because the project would cross the U.S./Canada border, or that the XL’s sister pipeline, which is even longer and runs from Alberta to Illinois, already exists and has had oil flowing through it for three years.

There are plenty of other details I could bore you with, but here’s the thing: the details don’t matter.

What does matter is what the pipeline — and Obama’s decision to either approve or deny it — represents.

Which brings me to another thing you may not have heard about. On Feb. 18, protests were held around the nation denouncing the Keystone XL, in cities from Chicago to San Francisco. Although it didn’t receive much in the way of national media attention, the main event was in Washington D.C., where 40,000 protesters rallied at what’s now being called the “largest ever climate protest in U.S. history.”

The way this protest was covered by conservative media outlets helps to highlight just why the decision over the pipeline is so important. With headlines like “Idiots Converge on Freezing D.C. to Protest Global Warming” and “Bitter Cold Greets Global Warming Protesters,” most of these articles played up the supposed irony inherent in protesting global warming during cold weather.

And they’re far from the only ones using day-to-day weather patterns as the basis of their belief, or lack thereof, in global warming.

A study released earlier this month found American’s attitudes towards global warming change with the weather — with more people identifying as believers and more media outlets publishing stories on global warming in months with very hot or cold weather, and less in gentler months.

But this just helps to illustrate a key fact about climate change and one major reason why it’s so hard to make believers out of skeptics: “Climate change is not a breaking story,” said Simon Donner, a climate scientist and the study’s author.

In fact, global temperatures haven’t increased at all in the last 10 years, a fact that has led many skeptics of global warming to claim that there’s nothing to worry about.

But in doing so they completely miss the point: Climate change and global warming are only understandable in the context of the long term.

They take place over decades and their effects are an intricate and interlocking series of events that at times can seem outright contradictory — like the Midwest experiencing one of the most severe droughts on record followed immediately by one of the most extreme snowstorms on record, as is happening right now.

Plus, if you go back a hundred years there has in fact been a clear and relatively steady rise in global temperature. It’s only when you zoom in and look at it in terms of days, months or handfuls of years that the picture seems haphazard or open to interpretation.

And this is exactly why Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL is so important. If he denies the pipeline it will send the most tangible and unequivocal message to date that the United States is taking climate change seriously and not changing its mind on a day-to-day basis.

It will send the message that, in the long-term, even projects as large and expensive as this one are not worth sacrificing the well-being of our planet.

Obama has been talking a lot about climate change in the last few months. By moving from rhetoric to action he’ll be demonstrating to Americans and to the rest of the world that the thousands upon thousands of reports and statistics released thus far on global warming demand solutions as well as our undivided attention — both now and in the future.

And before I go any further, a quick word about some of those statistics.

While it’s true that global temperatures haven’t increased since 2000, it’s also true that last May marked “the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10^99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe,” said Bill McKibben, a prominent climate change spokesman, journalist and environmentalist, in a Rolling Stone article.

It’s also true that last July was the hottest month ever recorded in the United States, that last summer saw the lowest level of ice ever recorded in the Arctic and that superstorm Sandy was the largest hurricane ever recorded to form over the Atlantic.

Which is why it’s besides the point that it still got cold this winter, or that global temperatures haven’t risen in 10 years, or that we’ll most likely have some pretty mild months in between the extreme ones.

The point is climate change is happening, humans are causing it and unless we can learn to engage with it on a long-term basis and factor it into our short-term decisions, by the time we’re ready to act it will be too late.

The specifics of the Keystone XL Pipeline don’t matter much in the grand scheme of things, but the message Obama’s decision will send absolutely does.

By saying no, Obama will be taking the all-important first step towards putting the big picture into perspective and finally acknowledging that climate change trumps any narrow, short-term understanding of what’s best for ourselves, our nation and our planet.

Illustration by Caetano Santos.

Early Thursday morning, 200 vehicles from various Santa Cruz County law enforcement agencies departed on the 33-mile journey across Highway 17 to San Jose. There they joined a crowd of thousands to grieve for the loss of two fellow officers. The police department had to go to San Jose because Santa Cruz couldn’t accommodate all the mourners — there just wasn’t a venue in town with enough seats.

For 150 years the city of Santa Cruz has never had to consider the funeral arrangement for officers killed in the line of duty. For 150 years the city of Santa Cruz has never had that truly dark day.

It arrived on Feb. 26, when detective Elizabeth Butler and Sgt. Loran “Butch” Baker were ambushed and murdered during a routine investigation. Their assailant, Jeremy Goulet, shot officers Butler and Baker to death with a handgun — one of three firearms later found registered in his name.

City on a Hill Press staff would like to take this opportunity to share our sorrow over this incredible loss. Santa Cruz police officers protect our city and our university every day. As recently as two weeks ago, officer Butler was assisting in the investigation of an alleged sexual assault on campus. We want to thank SCPD for always being there for students and residents of the city, especially in a week fraught with so much fear and uncertainty. We also want to extend our deepest sympathies to the loved ones of Butler and Baker. This is the ultimate nightmare for families of law enforcement officers — we cannot imagine your anguish.

We also want to express our outrage and astonishment that a clearly dangerous individual like Goulet had no trouble legally purchasing firearms in California.

While serving in the Army in Hawaii, Goulet was accused of rape on two separate occasions in 2006. Given the military’s notoriously negligent attitude toward sexual assault in the ranks, it’s not altogether surprising that the charges against Goulet were eventually dropped. It is however astonishing that Goulet received an other than honorable discharge in light of his alleged crimes. Had he been given a dishonorable discharge, Goulet would have been prohibited from purchasing firearms in the United States and would be registered on an FBI database.

Authorities were presented with a second chance to disarm this violent man in 2008, when Goulet was charged with four felonies — including attempted murder — after peeping on a woman in her home in Oregon and fighting with her boyfriend. Instead he served two consecutive years for separate misdemeanors after resisting terms that would have given him probation. If either of his misdemeanors had carried sentences of more than a year, Goulet would have been denied ownership of a gun under federal law.

It’s also ludicrous that Goulet’s history did not raise red flags when he was arrested in Berkeley in 2012 for peeping on a woman in her home. The court allowed him to take a plea deal that put him in jail for 20 days and receive three years of probation — a hollow punishment for a man who once chose prison over probation to show his contempt for the justice system.

Just weeks ago California legislators proposed new legislation to restrict gun ownership — including background checks for buying ammunition and tighter firearm lending laws — boasting they would make California the national leader in gun control. If politicos in the Capitol really want to make good on their promise, they should pass a bill forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance. This is not a foolish fantasy — where state and federal law fall short, insurance companies could actually close the loopholes. If a statute like this was on the books, Goulet would have likely lost insurance coverage after his Oregon convictions. Without insurance, it would have been nearly impossible for him to legally purchase a firearm in California.

This is the first time CHP has ever had to write an editorial to honor fallen officers. Let it be the last.

A hard-fought victory, civil rights leaders struggled for decades in the face of racial discrimination. These efforts reached a fever pitch in the 1960’s, culminating in a triad of legislation — the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 — which substantially improved the living conditions in the United States.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case from Shelby County, Alabama which challenges Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires certain states and counties with a history of voter disenfranchisement to have any changes to voting procedures approved by the U.S. Attorney General before they are implemented. Though a final decision on the case could be months away, the justices appear to be leaning 5–4 against Section 5.

States currently covered by Section 5 include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Counties in a few other states are also covered, including Monterey County in California. Shelby County asserts that black Alabamians no longer face voting discrimination such as poll taxes and literacy tests and that Section 5 therefore constitutes an unfair intrusion of the federal government into state responsibilities.

The idea of “states’ rights,” cherished by many Republicans both modern and in the past, has sadly become a code word for racism.

The kick-off of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign of 1980 was held in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 with the cooperation of members of Neshoba County’s Sheriff’s Office.

Reagan did not acknowledge the tortured history of this town but instead told the white audience he was a champion of “states’ rights.” Considering that “states’ rights” had formerly allowed the state of Mississippi to disenfranchise almost all black voters, Reagan’s statement can be viewed as thinly veiled race-baiting.

Opponents of Section 5 who argue voter discrimination no longer exists are either naive or making a purposeful attempt at deception.

Voter ID laws — which largely affect people of color, poorer Americans, students and the elderly — exist in 30 states, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. Each of these states have a history of voter disenfranchisement, according to the Section 5 provisions. Each of these states have made their voter ID laws more stringent in the last 10 years.

Arizona, a state covered by Section 5, printed 50 Spanish-language voter registration cards with the wrong election date in Maricopa County — a county that has a long history of issues existing between Hispanic residents and white officials. Officials said the misprint was a mistake.

Five counties in Florida are covered by Section 5. Each of those counties attempted to cut early voting hours in the 2012 election.

In Cleveland, Clear Channel Communications put up 30 billboards reading “Voter fraud is a felony!” These billboards were placed in predominantly Hispanic and black neighborhoods.

Gerrymandering, the process of redrawing district lines to ensure that a particular party has a majority of support in that district, is also a continuing issue.

After the 2010 elections, in which Republicans gained a large measure of power in state legislatures, Republicans led redistricting in seven states. As a result, in 2012, it took over three votes to elect a Democratic House member compared to one for a Republican House member in North Carolina. In Ohio, it took over two and a half votes to elect a Democratic member as compared to one to elect a Republican member.

A major impetus for the passage of the Voting Rights Act was “Bloody Sunday” in 1965, when dozens of young people protesting voter discrimination were beaten by police while attempting to march from Selma, Ala. to Montgomery. March 7 marked the 48-year anniversary of Selma. And yet the Supreme Court is threatening to invalidate these struggles by reversing the legislation they devoted their lives to winning.

If the Supreme Court eliminates one of the most significant provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the civil rights movement will have suffered a major blow. It has been almost half a century since those battles were won. Let’s not allow Shelby County to force us to fight them again.

Illustration by Caetano Santos

A couple weeks ago Santa Cruzans — students, faculty and staff of the UC Santa Cruz campus — turned out in force to protest vigorously against the recent $57 million discrepancy found in the UC Student Health Insurance Plan (UC SHIP) budget. UC SHIP is projecting this $57 million deficit, a mistake of enormous magnitude, due to lack of oversight and overall negligence.

UC SHIP originally hired Aon Hewitt, a consultant company and insurance broker, to help set the premium rates for those who opted into the insurance plan. In the end, these pre- mium rates were set too low to cover the costs of health care at the UC. On Jan. 11, Alliant Insurance Services, an actuarial firm hired by UC SHIP, released a report finding that the $57 million deficit was accrued over the 2010–13 plan years.

The UC chancellors will soon hear from an advisory committee and steering committee on their recommendations for the now glum future. The chancellors hope to have their future plans known and decided upon by June 1 of this year.

What we know now is that the UC has replaced Aon Hewitt, which is a good start. But now, the financial deficit problem is set in the laps of the UC administration. And what do they plan to do with it? You guessed it: increase premiums for students opting into UC SHIP — possibly by 20 percent year after year until the deficit is closed, or longer.

UC Santa Cruz, and indeed most if not all UC campuses, are speaking out against this ridiculous proposed solution. Whoever in the UC administration thinks it’s okay to fix Aon Hewitt and the administration’s problems on the backs of already financially-stunted stu- dents deserves to bear the brunt of the deficit themselves.

What is apparent is that health care should be affordable, regardless. The UCSC website states that the health insurance plan they offer is “affordable,” “convenient,” and “accessible.” But the numbers don’t add up.

The UC SHIP plan costs $501 per quarter, according to the UCSC Health Center website. Whether that is affordable or not is debatable, but increase that by 20 percent and you’re look- ing at paying $601.20 a quarter — and it only gets less and less affordable from there.

And as for quality, we are not getting what we deserve.

UC SHIP is self-funded, meaning they are exempt from laws like Pres. Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act that state that you cannot place a limit on the amount of money a patient costs the insurance company as of September 2010. This means UC SHIP may place limits on certain “liability” areas, or things the university insurance is responsible for covering financially and medically. Everybody who is opted into UC SHIP pays insurance, but some people

take out more than they pay for. UC SHIP caps those people — people with expensive treat- ments who may need insurance the most.

Also, there is a large list of “exclusions” that will not be covered by the insurance, including intercollegiate sports injuries. The Anthem In- surance Companies, Inc. policy states that they will not cover, “Treatment of Injury sustained while participating in, practicing or condition- ing for, or traveling in conjunction with, any intercollegiate sport, contest or competition, or any University-sponsored (including intra- mural) program in the martial arts, except as specifically allowed in plan description.”

Setting quality aside, the UC should not be allowed to move forward on increasing health insurance premiums to such a large extent in order to cover their own accumulated deficit.

Instead of turning to students’ pockets for the money to close the gap, why doesn’t the UC take legal action against Aon Hewitt, make health care affordable and leave students out of the equation?

We already struggle to pay off the premiums we are given now and the administration needs to see that. The protest a couple weeks ago was only the beginning of a long dialogue we need to have with the administration to let them know we are here, and that we will not be taken advantage of anymore.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

Illustration by Maren Slobody

UC Santa Cruz will now begin offering classes online for free through Coursera’s online education platform.

Coursera began in April of 2012 with Stanford, Michigan, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania as its initial partners, according to an announcement from the University newsletter.

Coursera currently makes over 200 college level classes available to the public for free online. City on a Hill Press believes that this is admirable and supports universal access to education.

The mission of Coursera is to provide a free education to all and to eliminate the impediment that high tuition often imposes on individuals seeking an education. While Coursera does not offer a degree to those who complete its online courses, it runs on the idea of education for education’s sake.

Now more than ever universities need innovative ideas for making cheap education a reality. We believe that UCSC’s new partnership with Coursera is going to help achieve that ideal.

However, we would also like to raise some concerns about what the Coursera partnership means for the future of education.

First of all, students pay for their degrees. Increasing the number of available free classes potentially means diminishing the prestige of a degree. With more online students obtaining the same education and skills as degree-holders, there’s also the possibility that this will diminish the value of a college degree on the job market.

If this is where the future of education is headed, universities may one day have to radically reassess how they attract thinkers and innovators without the lure of a degree.

A college degree, however, may now be seen as something separate from an education. Practically speaking, it is still the major prerequisite for attending graduate schools, which in turn opens up numerous employment opportunities. Although online education may be gaining more legitimacy, employers still put faith in degrees.

There are also less tangible advantages in a traditional college education. Interacting with peers in the classroom, talking to professors at office hours and living in a university environment all offer benefits to students that can’t be found in a monitor screen.

Education ought to be accessible to all. Not having the resources to obtain an education should never stop anyone from becoming educated. Coursera stays in step with this ideal and we at City on a Hill Press are grateful for what it offers to students. But we do not believe online education has reached a point where it can supplant the benefits of a degree.

With this goal of equal access to education in mind, whatever change it brings to education, is a change that we welcome.

Illustration by Maren Slobody

The Gang of Eight, a bipartisan group of eight senators, is currently negotiating on new immigration legislation to introduce to Congress. Obama gave his word that if these senators acted in a timely manner, he would not submit his own legislation. Despite claiming to be open to these bipartisan efforts at an immigration plan, the Obama administration has leaked a draft of an immigration bill anyway. City on a Hill Press would like Obama to set a good precedent for the rest of his second term by being more open to, and patient with, efforts toward bipartisan agreement.

The Obama Administration is adamant that this recently leaked draft of the immigration bill was not purposely released. Whether or not this slip-up was intentional, it doesn’t reflect a willingness on Obama’s part to stick to his promises and work peacefully with bipartisan efforts. Republicans in the senate, and particularly Marco Rubio, R-Florida, have expressed feelings that this draft blatantly ignores their desires and seems like Obama’s way of pressuring the committee currently negotiating immigration legislation.

The White House’s proposed draft of the bill would have offered an eight-year pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants as well as required employers to be aware of their employees’ immigration status and possible violation of immigration law. While a streamlined eight-year pathway to citizenship may seem like a reasonable solution to the question of illegal immigration, the legislation ignores issues that arose with previous laws — such as the advantages created for those who illegally immigrated that aren’t provided to law-abiders.

Republicans are outraged by the bill’s ignorance of their demands to tighten down on border security and prevent further violation of immigration law before jumping into loosening the restrictions on acquiring citizenship. Assuming that Obama really never meant for this proposal to see the light of day, it was irresponsible to let it become widely disseminated throughout the White House when it blatantly turns a blind eye to a workable and agreeable solution.

Marco Rubio has asserted that the Obama administration knew full well that this legislation would be dead on arrival in Congress given the GOP’s interests in the issue. If the Republicans have expressed their concerns and desires to Obama regarding an immigration plan, there is no excusable reason to be hostile toward the efforts at a bipartisan resolution.

The future for progress in social issues such as immigration seems brighter every year, and at the outset of his second term, Obama has been very vocal about improving the state of social justice in the country in many ways. We at City on a Hill Press look forward to this and applaud Obama for committing his second term to increasing equality for all — however a push for equality will need to start with equal and fair proceedings in government.

Obama should have been more impeccable with his word, exercised greater responsibility and given the bipartisan committee an opportunity to draft immigration legislation. The next four years will be long and eventful, and the president must take every chance he is given to litigate and try to come to satisfactory compromises. Here’s to hoping the rest of Obama’s time as president won’t be marred by deadlocked negotiations and disagreements that only stall progress even more.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

On Feb. 9, a 32-year-old man was shot and killed in front of the Red restaurant and bar. Two days later, a UC Santa Cruz student was robbed and shot at the Natural Bridges bus stop. Two days afterward, masked men aggressively robbed the Food Bin on the Westside using a firearm and injuring a woman. And on Feb. 17, a 21-year-old woman was beaten and sexually assaulted on campus in broad daylight.

We at City on a Hill Press stand with the community in expressing our sympathies to the victims of these crimes and encourage solidarity and mutual support in the wake of these tragedies. As a community we believe it is important to remember that we are all in this together — students, citizens, faculty and staff. Santa Cruz is home. And we want that home to be safe.

It is absolutely essential we address these incidents and any feelings of uncertainty, fear or uneasiness together, ever-conscious of one another. As a community we can help ensure a discontinuance of violent acts and end the apprehensiveness many of us feel through helping and supporting each other.

We encourage walking to class together, especially at night and in isolated areas. We strongly endorse traveling within groups, and ask that students make themselves available to ensure no student walks alone or feels unsafe.

We as students are not alone in this effort. Officials from both the city and the campus have expressed their concerns and raised awareness about safety resources available to students. Chancellor George Blumenthal and Santa Cruz Mayor Hilary Bryant spoke this past Tuesday about these recent events. Blumenthal discussed for a night-time escort program available to students and employees that will provide safe passage anywhere on campus.

Please seek out these resources and talk with your friends and community members. Ensure that no one will stand alone.

Students can call the Community Safety Dispatch at 831-459-2100 for a night-time escort. The university police department is also available as a resource and can be contacted for emergencies at 911 and for non-emergencies at 831-459-2231. For counseling services, students may call Counseling and Psychological Services at (831) 459 2628.

Photo by Jessica Tran.

“I am not confident at all, that’s why I’m going to grad school after I graduate college.”

Angela Sevilla

Fourth-year, Porter

Literature, creative writing

Photo by Jessica Tran.

“I have two majors — I guess I have a little more background versatility than other people. My plan is also not to enter the job market directly. I plan to join the Peace Corps after college and then enter the job market.”

Jason Fitzcutlet

Fourth-year, Cowell

Environmental science and psychology

Photo by Jessica Tran.

“I plan on staying in school forever. My plans after college are grad school, professional school and then being a professor. I am confident we will always need teachers. As long as I stay smart and motivated I’m not worried about jobs.”

Leigh Douglas

Second-year, College Eight

Philosophy and cognitive science

Photo by Jessica Tran.

“Very confident. At the job fair I was at last week, the second I would say I’m an electrical engineering major they would say, ‘Oh! How are you? Let me give you my email.’ But I think opportunities are a little unfair between the majors.”

Ethan Pinsker

Second-year, Stevenson

Electrical engineering

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

For Gov. Patrick McCrory, you might as well hang up your guitar, burn your dog-eared copy of “The Republic” and forget about whatever Freud thinks.

On Jan. 29, the governor of North Carolina announced his plans to restructure the state’s public university system in order to prize majors that supposedly have a better chance of yielding post-graduate jobs. McCrory’s proposed legislation will reevaluate how funding is being allocated in North Carolina’s public universities.

During the conversation, which was held on a national public radio show, Gov. McCrory announced legislation that would actively discourage students from pursuing liberal arts degrees.

“[This legislation] would change the basic formula in how education money is given out to our universities and our community colleges,” McCrory said. “It’s not based on butts in seats but on how many of those butts can get jobs.”

If passed, McCrory’s legislation will narrow the field for students who are interested in these many topics but don’t have the financial resources to pursue their passion. Rather than encourage students to follow their varied aspirations, this legislation will restrict the choices available at a public institute of higher education.

McCrory’s overt disdain of the liberal arts field echoes statements made by Florida Gov. Rick Scott back in late 2011. Scott deliberately attacked anthropology majors, saying their degrees were unnecessary.

McCrory and Scott inaccurately suppose that the knowledge gained from liberal arts majors is essentially useless in a post-graduate world. As McCrory stated during his announcement, “If you want to take gender studies that’s fine, go to a private school and take it. But I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job.”

While the post-graduate job economy is a serious issue that needs to be evaluated in our nation, these governors are misguided in their beliefs that slashing a liberal arts education will solve the problem. The critical tools offered by majors like philosophy and anthropology are what help establish well-rounded and inquisitive thinkers. In restricting access to these subjects, the governors are merely inhibiting the development of powerful minds willing to tackle the dilemmas of the world.

Contrary to Gov. McCrory’s beliefs, liberal arts degrees do prepare students for the outside world. They help build strong backgrounds in teamwork, problem solving, critical analysis and writing skills, to name just a few of the benefits. Gov. McCrory’s blind assessment of the liberal arts ignores these many advantages.

Perhaps more infuriating is the fact that these governors consider a college education merely a vehicle for the job market. The governors’ obsession with structuring public education around the goal of finding a job is a regressive mentality that suffocates the very pillars of diversity and critical thinking that define higher education.

In response to McCrory’s proposed legislation, Joanne Hershfield, the chair of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s women’s and gender studies department, called his comments “frightening.”

We at City on a Hill Press stand with this response and consider the legislation a violation of the rights promised to all who enter an institution of higher education. As a space wherein people are promoted for their diverse interests and passions, college must remain equal and open-minded to all degrees.

Illustration by Caetano Santos.

“My brother, Din Mohammed’s father, arrived at the scene of the strike shortly following the attack. He saw death all around him, and then he found his own son. My brother had to bring his son back home in pieces. That was all that remained of Din Mohammed.”

Drone strikes can seem abstract and far away to Americans numbed by the slow but steady trickle of reports about their use over the past decade. Eighteen suspected terrorists killed here, 37 there — for some it can all blend together after awhile.

As the above account, given by the survivor of an American drone strike in Pakistan to the British human rights group Reprieve, reminds us however, drone strikes are only abstract to those living on the side of the world where the computers that control them are housed. On the other side they are a brutal and visceral fact of life that, in addition to suspected terrorists, leave innocent men, women and children dead in their wake.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that over 300 drone strikes have been carried out thus far, killing a minimum of 2,640 people, over 450 of which were civilians.

The issue of drone warfare has received renewed attention recently after NBC News obtained a copy of a previously classified memo which outlines the Obama administration’s legal justifications for the execution of American citizens suspected of being affiliated with al-Qaida.

The memo “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” according to its own language. It requires only that a suspect has “recently” been involved in threatening “activities.”

NBC News reports that neither “recently” nor “activities” are further defined.

So far, three American citizens have been executed by drone strikes. Samir Khan and Anwar al-Awlaki, both allegedly influential al-Qaida members, were killed in September 2011 without being charged of any crimes. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Anwar’s 16-year-old son, was killed two weeks later. He had no known links to al-Qaida.

The memo underscores the drone program’s disturbing lack of transparency and oversight, and the far-reaching powers that have been given to the office of the president since the war on terror began. The US’s use of drones sets a dangerous precedent not only for future U.S. presidents, but for the leaders of other countries as well.

The memo was released just days before John Brennan, Obama’s appointee for CIA director, appeared before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for his confirmation hearing. Brennan, who has been Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser for the past four years, withdrew himself from consideration for the post in 2008 amid criticisms of his support for CIA torture techniques and black site prisons.

He is credited with being a “key architect” of the drone program, according to NBC News.

When asked by democratic Sen. Ron Wyden exactly how much evidence the government requires before ordering a strike on an American citizen, and if they would ever do so on American soil, Brennan’s response was as unclear and unsettling as the memo.

“I have been a strong proponent of trying to be as open as possible with these programs as far as explaining what we’re doing,” Brennan said. “What we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues but at the same time optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. I don’t think that it’s one or the other.”

Osama bin Laden has already been executed, without being tried or even charged. American forces are set to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan next year. Last summer, U.S. officials declared that al-Qaida as a whole has been hugely weakened.

It’s time to stop accepting and even accelerating the dangerous shift that’s been in motion since the war on terror began, toward unconventional and unaccountable methods of warfare. The drone program is perhaps the best example of this shift, but it’s still only one of many. It’s time for Obama to stop  and really think about the effects that secretive U.S. counterterrorism programs have on this nation and around the world. These programs must be brought into the light and the Obama administration must establish a transparent, accountable and constitutional framework for using such powerful weapons.

Obama and White House press secretary Jay Carney freely admit that these are issues that demand to be addressed. It’s time for them to stop talking and start acting.

Their failure to do so threatens to haunt us for many years to come.As Carney said last week, “These are questions that will be with us long after he is president and long after the people who are in the seats that they’re in now have left the scene.”

In its 47 years of existence, the Super Bowl has expanded beyond the reaches of the goalposts and is now in a league of its own as a cultural powerhouse that appeals to virtually everyone. What sets it apart from every other annual pop culture event is the wide range of its appeal, hooking viewers that may know nothing about football, will watch none of the game, but simply want to be entertained. The easiest way into the stadium for this crowd is a flashy halftime show.

Beyoncé took the stage — which was shaped like her face — in the New Orleans Superdome on Sunday during halftime, clad in a black leather leotard with her former Destiny’s Child bandmates in tow. B-town was fierce before she even stepped out on stage, with a giant silhouette of her body made out of fire announcing her arrival. And if people weren’t over her alleged inauguration lip-sync debacle already, I’m pretty sure she put them in their place. Nobody can stand in those heels, let alone lead an army of women in an extended version of the iconic “Single Ladies” dance.

The Super Bowl has taken to booking A-list pop stars to entertain during game breaks when most of the fans would normally be waiting in line for the bathrooms. Beyoncé, a strong female figure respected by men and women alike, represents something significantly different from the rough and primal tone of the game. Her performance attracted a whole following of people that might never pick up a pigskin by emphasizing the entertainment, the spectacle and the lighter side of things.

The Super Bowl figured out a long time ago that pop music gets that job done. Animal Planet more recently realized that puppies do the same thing.

Though significantly younger than Super Bowl proper, the Puppy Bowl probably earns Animal Planet some of its highest ratings of the year, even though the show is only two hours long and they play it at least five times in a row. It takes place on the same day as the Super Bowl on a mini football field with a football (and a bunch of other toys) but aside from that, it’s practically the opposite of the sport. The Puppy Bowl takes the brutal competition and violence of football and flips it completely upside down, valuing play, adorability and squeals of spectator delight above all else. All of the puppies are up for adoption, there’s a kitten halftime show, hedgehog cheerleaders and hamsters in a mini blimp. And, of course, cuteness always wins.

Obviously the two events are geared toward different audiences. But I have actually been to Super Bowl parties where the human game is shown downstairs, while the Puppy Bowl captivates at least half the crowd upstairs. The only thing keeping an event like this from being two entirely separate festivities is the food.

The closest thing to the Super Bowl in the entertainment world would probably be the Academy Awards, even though the sports universe already has its own awards show (the ESPYS, nobody cares). But even film’s coveted golden statuette hasn’t managed to appeal to as wide of an audience as the culmination of 16 weeks of football — the Super Bowl consistently overpowers the Oscars by millions of viewers for the top spot in ratings. People who haven’t set foot in a movie theater all year won’t bother watching the awards show. People who have never seen a game of football just might throw their own Super Bowl party.

Apart from all of the touchdowns and tackles, the Super Bowl has inspired a cultural wildfire that is unlike anything else. With sports alone, the universal appeal is questionable, but throw some Beyoncé, puppies, hot wings and funny commercials in the mix and you’re a whole lot closer to America’s pop culture-loving heart, clogged arteries and all.

Soon enough football fever will subside. It will be time for Spring Training, and Northern California’s athletic spotlight will pivot back to its beloved San Francisco Giants, leaving the darkness of a Niners loss behind. And yes the Ravens will return to Baltimore with a little more bling, but I don’t know if their performance was the most momentous on that field on Sunday. That honor belongs to Beyoncé.

Illustration by Maren Slobody

UC Santa Cruz psychology graduate student Rachael Robnett and professor Campbell Leaper recently conducted a survey about gender roles in marriage entitled “Girls Don’t Propose! Ew.” Questions on this survey included, “If you were to get engaged, who would you want to propose?” and “To what extent would you be willing to take your partner’s name?”

The possible responses consist of such answers as “I would definitely want to propose,” “It doesn’t matter who proposes” and “I would definitely want my partner to propose.” The answers were then categorized based on the gender of participants.

The survey found, surprisingly, that not one woman would definitely want to propose, and not one man would definitely want their partner to propose.

The results of the survey were published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on Jan. 21. The headline of the article said the psychology study “reveals [UCSC] students have traditional marriage preferences.”

While it’s interesting (and disappointing) that the students surveyed for this study believe in outdated gender roles, City on a Hill Press finds this study oversimplified student views on marriage. The title “Girls Don’t Propose! Ew,” while apparently reflected in the results of the survey, is just downright tacky, and only serves to paint an image of the subjects of this study as immature and childish.

In addition, the survey’s focus on heterosexual students presents another quandary. The conditions of the survey may have aimed to provide perspective on traditional gender roles specifically as they apply to men and women, however the wording of the questions and answers was misleading.

Given its focus on male-female relationships, it’s confusing that the survey included language like “I would definitely want my partner to propose” and “Would you be willing to take your partner’s name?” The gender-neutral term “partner” implies that the survey did not have to be specific to the purely heterosexual populace the survey chose to pursue. It was disingenous of the survey to use a gender-neutral term but then only survey heterosexuals.

We at City on a Hill Press take issue with the way this survey generalized the views of the undergraduate student body when lesbian, gay, bisexual and other non-heterosexual students are not represented in the findings. The questions of the survey are also neutral enough that students of any and all sexual orientations could and should have been included in the sampling.

We commend the surveyors for contributing to the body of research that has come out of UCSC. However, we are discontented with the way the data was presented, which made it seem as though the survey could speak for the views of the entire undergraduate student body.

We would be hard pressed to accept that a survey excluding non-heterosexual students can be said to represent all student views. The results are certainly telling, surprising and unexpected, and could serve to illustrate that we really do latch onto gender roles and traditions more than one might guess. However, it must be questioned whether this survey can really be an indicator of the views of the entire student body given the unfair generalization of the survey and the exclusive focus on heterosexual students.

Photo by Sal Ingram

It has been almost 53 years since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the most widely used form of birth control, the pill — it’s rate of prevention was nearly 100 percent. Sadly, there is still no equivalent or even comparable option for men.

Currently there are at least nine practical forms of birth control available: condoms, cervical barriers, contraceptive rings, sponges, patches, pills, emergency “morning-after” pills, intrauterine devices and sterilization. From this list, only two forms of birth control are useful to the discretion of males: condoms and sterilization. Unfortunately, one is permanent, and the other presents the constant risk of breakage.

As a male, I feel just a little left out by the lack of choices available to me to make the individual decision to temporarily suppress my virility — the male equivalent of fertility. However, this is not just an issue for men. The lack of variety in the male birth control market puts a lot of undue responsibility on modern women as well.

The burden of birth control has been unilaterally assigned to one gender. For 52 years, society has been putting all of the impetus on women to take hormone-scrambling pills and install uncomfortable devices and barriers to prevent unintended pregnancies. This creates a disparity in the degree of blame placed on women when unintended pregnancies do occur.

If there were a comparable FDA approved male hormonal contraceptive on the market I certainly wouldn’t mind taking some of the burden of physical and emotional side effects of these options off the shoulders of women, especially if it meant I could more effectively take personal responsibility for any products of love.

So far there have been few testings of new male contraceptive pills because of market pressure on pharmaceutical companies to work on creating drugs with a higher chance of FDA approval. Most of the promising possibilities for a male contraceptive have presented complicated adverse effects that would need to be worked out first. Consequently, testings of possible male contraceptives have not been a priority, due to the uphill battle their development currently faces.

The efforts of some to subsidize existing forms of birth control, make them more easily and widely available and eliminate hindrances to obtaining them have been thwarted by right-wing politicians and religious leaders for decades. The male half of the population could provide a huge amount of political clout and end this war on access to contraceptives. While we definitely already should be doing this, and many of us are, increasing individual demand for birth control among men by introducing a new form of male brith control could easily put an end to this issue of human rights and freedoms.

Not only could a doubling up of birth control regimens put another very necessary damper on population growth, it could make relying on the choices of someone else a thing of the past for men, and being the sole party responsible for contraception a thing of the past for women. The overall benefit to society and the demographic of such an invention could be enormous. I hope pharmaceutical manufacturers soon realize the positive impact a better male contraceptive would have and prioritize making this medical innovation a reality.

Maybe we’ll have to think outside the box and away from a pill, or maybe it will be harder than we think to make a male contraceptive ever come to fruition. Either way, I would like to see a popular push from the male populace that could influence the market so that pharmaceutical companies may become encouraged to take the time and risk to work out the kinks.

When all the responsibility for birth control is put on the shoulders of women, it requires men to make sometimes risky decisions to trust that his partner knows how to use the birth control and/or has been administering it. In addition, feeling like one has to oversee someone else’s medication regimen has a gross-tasting patriarchal tint to it.

In the end, no matter how long it takes, making the male contraceptive a reality will rely on demand. We must demand this to come closer to a world with equality in sexual situations. Since it takes two to tango, both partners consenting to dance should be afforded the ability to go onto the ballroom floor ensured they are safe from unintended consequences.

Illustration by Caetano Santos

President Obama’s support of queer rights has improved in the past couple of years. Obama has recently focused on efforts to reform the Boy Scouts of America to be more considerate of queer scout masters. Beyond the symbolic gesture, the president had Sen. John Kerry’s Senate Bill 48, which proposes a quicker path for same-sex couples to receive permanent resident status, be considered by the recently formed bipartisan immigration reform commitee. The move should cement Obama’s commitment to not just talking about queer rights, but voting on them too.

Obama has not always been this vocal on the issue. Infamously, Obama only admitted that same-sex couples deserve the right to marry last year, while taking three years to finish a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. For much of his first term, Obama was behind his party in championing queer rights, now he’s ahead.

In making our immigration policy friendlier toward same-sex couples, the United States may not only serve as a pinnacle for queer rights, but also attract people who wish to relocate in the face of discrimination and oppression in their home countries. Currently 11 countries feature nationwide queer-rights marriages, while 78 countries find sex between those of the same sex to still be a crime according to the Economist. Though strong, Obama’s actions only hint at how the administration will treat queer rights these next four years.

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law,” said Obama in his Inaugural Address. “For if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

Obama’s moves and Sen. Kerry’s proposed bill have roots in the Uniting American Families Act, a continually tabled piece of legislation first proposed in 2000. The act has been proposed and tabled 6 times.

Up to 40,000 U.S. nationals will be affected by a policy that grants them and their permanent partner a legal path to citizenship, according to the Washington Post. Family repatriation has been a central part of U.S. immigration policy since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and has since reunited thousands of families starting new lives. Granting same-sex immigrant couples the same rights is the right way to move forward.

Opponents of queer rights have been curiously silent as Obama continues fighting for reform. With recent immigrants becoming an important group in our economy, pushing any marginalized group away can be the difference between building an economy of innovators, and merely a satisfactory one.

Beyond immigration, Obama’s recent gesture to push forward allowing queer individuals to officially join the Boy Scouts shows how much the president has changed in his willingness to tackle injustice.

Obama’s role as the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America allowed him to push forward reform quickly, and get it voted on by the Boy Scouts board of administration, even if that vote was to delay action. Obama’s change of heart and activist role is a welcome addition to his policy.

As the son of a Kenyan immigrant himself, a former community organizer and a member of various church youth groups, Obama knows the toll that these forms of discrimination have on communities. The Boy Scouts have somewhere in the area of 4 million members, according to their official website, while the United States sees millions of immigrants come across its shores each year.

Fighting for reform on behalf of permanent same-sex couples and the Boy Scouts is the type of president we need. These gestures should resonate loudly for all Americans, new and old, queer and straight — no discrimination will be tolerated.

Illustration by Caetano Santos.

Last week, hearing that the Department of Defense (DOD) was about to rescind a 19-year-old rule barring women from serving in military units that engage in direct combat, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin did what any Galahad would do: he typed up a press release warning women that if they serve in combat units, they may have to pee in public. And people say chivalry is dead.

Less amusing was Boykin’s underlying criticism of the DOD’s policy reversal, which accused the department of engaging in another dangerous “social experiment.”

We at CHP ask, when did gender equality become a social experiment?

It’s not as though the department is diluting its standards to accommodate women. Military physical testing requirements are gender-normed, but the prerequisites for nearly 240,000 “combat” jobs about to open up for women will remain the same. For example, if you want to join a tank crew, you have to be able to lug 50 pound shells while in a squatting position — regardless of whether you pee sitting down or standing up.

And it’s not as though women serving overseas are sitting safe on the sidelines. Despite officially being barred from combat for the last decade, more than 150 women have died in the line of duty and over 800 have been wounded. According to the National Center for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, female veterans experience similar levels of post-deployment mental trauma as men.

Women already share equal risk with men in warfare, just as they have for years. But it’s because of gallant knights like Jerry Boykin that recognition of this fact comes so late and with such a heavy price.

As New York Times columnist Gail Collins points out, fear of putting women on the front lines in a military conflict played a major role in suffocating the 1970s movement for the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have created an important constitutional safeguard for women.

Barring women from combat roles has also blocked talented female soldiers from many of the military’s plum promotions and high salaries. This has contributed to an enormous gender gap in the upper echelons of command, with only 69 women serving among the nation’s 976 generals.

The perception of women as unequal soldiers has also undoubtedly contributed to the pervasive culture of sexual abuse in the military. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs, approximately half of all female soldiers who served overseas experienced sexual harassment from fellow soldiers, and nearly one-quarter were sexually assaulted.

The good news is aside from Boykin and a handful of other ancient knights rallying around the standards of tradition, public opinion is vastly in support of the DOD’s “social experiment”. City on a Hill Press is too.

Illustration by Maren Slobody

The only abortion clinic in Mississippi is an unassuming white building located on the north side of Jackson. Its function would probably remain unknown to passersby were it not for the frequent sight of protestors, with signs whose messages range from “Let Us Help You Love Your Baby” to “Never Again” with the image of a coat hanger.

Jan. 22 marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (1973) — a Supreme Court case that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the very existence of the Jackson abortion clinic is precarious in a state whose governor, Phil Bryant, has publicly stated that he would shut the clinic down if it were in his power.

In 2012, Gov. Bryant signed a law that requires any person performing abortions to be an obstetrics/gynecology doctor (OB-GYN) with privileges to admit patients to a hospital. Local hospitals fear being associated with abortion in a state that narrowly failed to pass a “personhood amendment” — prohibiting abortion from the moment of fertilization in 2011. Now, because none of the doctors working at the Jackson clinic are certified by a local hospital, the clinic has received notice that the state Health Department intends to shut it down.

Mississippi has the highest teenage pregnancy rate of any state in the nation, with 55 births per 1,000 teens in 2010 — 60 percent higher than the national average. Eighty-one districts in the state offer abstinence-only sex education in public high schools, while the other 71 districts teach abstinence with minor instruction in how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

In this puritanical environment in which sex is something to be repressed and feared, many young women find themselves pregnant with an unwanted child. Yet they are forced to become parents because they are unlucky enough to live in a state where legislators refuse to uphold a woman’s right to an abortion, despite it being mandated by the Supreme Court nearly half a century ago.

It is unclear whether Mississippi is directly violating Roe v. Wade by making it nearly impossible to obtain an abortion in the state, because the court case didn’t specify whether states were required to provide any abortion services. However, Gov. Bryant and his fellow lawmakers are clearly violating the spirit of the law, if not the letter of it.

Mississippi has a “trigger law” which would make abortion automatically illegal if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, clearly demonstrating that Mississippi government officials view laws on abortion as unworthy of respect. In the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, the governor swears to “see that the laws are faithfully executed.” By attempting to subvert a Supreme Court ruling and denying the women of Mississippi their right to make decisions about their own bodies and personal health, Gov. Bryant is violating his oath of office.

To assume that anti-abortion measures will prevent abortion is naive. It merely drives women to unauthorized and dangerous sources to obtain abortions. Planned Parenthood gathered data that estimated anywhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegal abortions annually in the 1950s and ‘60s, before Roe v. Wade was passed.

Those who assert that abortion should be illegal are denying half the human population autonomy over their bodies. And regardless of a lawmaker’s personal opinion on abortion, if he or she has sworn to uphold the law of the land, to subvert the law without breaking it is underhanded and indicative of an inability to hold office.

We support efforts to keep the Jackson abortion clinic open to ensure that women in Mississippi still have at least this one resource for their reproductive health. Every woman in America, including those of Mississippi, has a right to choose an abortion if she feels it is the best course of action for her. To deny her this right is to imply that a woman is unfit to make major life decisions for herself. Luckily, this archaic mindset was removed from American law in 1973, though the governor of Mississippi has failed to get the message in the intervening 40 years.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

Jan. 18 marked the end of an era. After nearly five turbulent years on the job, Mark Yudof announced he’ll be stepping down as UC President this August. With the regents currently in the midst of a nationwide talent search to find his successor, it’s high time that we as students reflect on what direction the UC system should be moving in.

The last five years have not been kind to higher education, and UC is no exception. Yudof began his term in 2008 at a time of unprecedented cuts to UC’s state funding and general financial turmoil. Since then tuition has nearly tripled while faculty and program budgets have been slashed.

Yudof undeniably faced an uphill battle from the moment he took office, and the responses of the UC system to its fiscal woes cannot be attributed solely to him. Some of those responses are commendable and should be continued in the future. The Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan, which extends grants to students of families making less than $80,000 a year, is perhaps the best such example.

In other ways however, the direction that the UC system has taken in the last five years is less hopeful. For the first time since its creation, we now receive more money from student tuition than from state funding. Yudof also launched “Project You Can”, which seeks to raise a billion dollars in private donations to supplement losses in state funding.

Over the last 10 years, the UC has also become increasingly reliant on construction bonds backed by student tuition as a way to continue expansion despite falling state funding. At the same time, the hiring of administrative staff has skyrocketed relative to the hiring of instructors and other staff.

This increasing privatization of the UC system must be examined closely and critically by the next president.

When the Master Plan that created the UCs was enacted in 1960, it envisioned a system of universities and community colleges that would function as a public good, not as an enterprise that exists solely to turn a profit. Furthermore, the increasing privatization of the UC system has also paralleled what many students and faculty see as an increasing lack of transparency.

If the UC is ever going to achieve its full potential as public center of higher education, it is imperative that students, faculty and the public at large have a voice in the UC’s decision making process.

California’s recent passage of Prop 30, which avoided a $250 million cut to the UC system and prevented a potential mid-year tuition hike of 20 percent, can be taken as a sign that the public is beginning to appreciate how important our university system is to a healthy state. That sentiment, however, will be squandered if the UC system continues to transform itself into a private institution.

No one will deny that the UC system must continue making changes in the years to come. Although California’s budget crisis looks like it has almost abated, alleviating one major source of concern, the UCs and higher education as a whole are in a transitional period.

The next president of the UC system will be responsible for bringing us into the era of online education, and must do so in a way that embraces these new technological opportunities, but not at the expense of the quality of a UC education. Doubtless the input of students and teachers will be instrumental in achieving that goal.

As the UCs move past the worst of their financial woes, it will be more important than ever for their next president to remember the values of the Master Plan, which stressed quality, affordability, accessibility and innovation, but not profit for profit’s sake. During this time of uncertainty, the UC’s next president would do well to remember that a public education means just that.