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.

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

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.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

Check your party affiliation at the door. Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30 asks taxpayers to choose between an automatic cut of $250 million to the University of California and California State Universities or higher taxes.

Brown’s proposition will raise the state sales tax by one-fourth of a cent for a maximum of four years, and will raise taxes on constituents who earn $250,000 or more a year, by 1–3 percent for a maximum of seven years.

In return, the state will not slash $250 million from the UC and CSU, will give the UC a $125 million tuition increase buyout and will increase the base budget of the UC and CSU by 6 percent every year, starting in 2013 and ending in 2017.

The initiative itself will not give any of its revenue directly to the UC or CSU. K-12 will receive 89 percent of all revenue generated from the new taxes, and the remaining 11 percent will go to community colleges. Prop. 30 will pour new revenue into the blistering wound that is education’s budget while drawing on previously allotted money from the same department to  balance the overall budget. Despite the rearrangement of the budget, K-12 and higher education will end up with more money than they have had in the past.

If Prop. 30 fails, tuition could go up as much as 20 percent midway through the school year. That would increase tuition by about $2,500, for a total of about $14,600 (not including fees) per year. However, should Prop. 30 pass, the UC Regents passed a resolution at the July 18 meeting that promised a tuition freeze for the 2012–13 school year.

Proposition 30 isn’t the only ballot measure with taxes and education in mind.

Molly Munger’s Proposition 38 provides new revenue only for K-12 education. In addition, Prop. 38 will tax nearly everyone, on a scale from a .4 percent rise on those who make $7,317 a year to a 2.2 percent rise on those making over $2.5 million a year. It promises to create a trust fund separate from legislative control that will ensure that all revenue generated from the proposition goes directly to K-12 education and early childhood care and education.

Prop. 38 will only further convolute our bloated bureaucracy and budget. An analysis by the California Budget Project found additional issues with the proposition, concluding that the initiative “may not increase total school spending by as much as some estimate because the Legislature could reduce other state education spending.”

We must vote, regardless of our choices and stances in this election. It’s our duty as citizens and constituents of the United States. If we want to change our endless budget troubles, we need to participate in the process and let our voices be heard. This starts with students registering by Oct. 22, and voting on Nov. 6.

While not a permanent solution, Proposition 30 will protect education for the next few years. As the San Francisco Chronicle put it, “Yes on Prop. 30,” and “No on Prop. 38.”

The future of higher education is uncertain. In the past, the state has not been kind to the budget of higher education. State funding to the UC alone has decreased by $1.1 billion since 2007.

The current tuition of $13,416 (which includes student fees) can be paid with this $1.1 billion for the entire undergraduate population of 16,000 at UCSC for the next five years.

Let’s make these billions a bit more personal. Let’s make a vote for education.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

Our system of higher education has asked much of students lately, mostly in the form of frequent fee hikes and budget cuts. Many have come out against these hikes and cuts through participation in protests across the state, in which riot batons, pepper spray and multiple arrests have fallen on them.

It becomes questionable, then, when University of California president Mark Yudof requests help in lobbying money for the UC. In an email sent May 9, Yudof requested help from “UC Santa Cruz friend[s]” to push Gov. Jerry Brown to include additional funding to the UC in his coming tax plan up for vote in November. Brown’s plan, released Monday, shows that he is facing a near $16 billion gap in the California state budget to fix.

“We need to send a strong message to the state’s political leaders to spare UC from cuts in the 2012–13 budget and to recommit to making higher education a state priority,” Yudof said.

Asking students for help can be difficult when those asking have cut students’ resources and raising fees so often. In fall 2009, the UC Board of Regents approved a 32 percent increase in fees. A subsequent 8 percent hike passed that November. Another 9.6 percent fee increase passed July 14, 2011. Now, the board is considering an additional 6 percent increase this coming fall, if Brown does not increase funding by $125 million.

The regents have suggested the budget crisis was caused by lessened state support for the UC. While lessening support undoubtedly plays a major role in our budgetary deficit, leaders of the UC have continued plunging forward with larger construction projects and larger still administrator salaries. This is why the regents must continue looking for alternative solutions to our budgetary crisis. Raising student fees, cutting worker’s benefits and admitting more students alone cannot solve our budget crisis.

The regents should take into serious consideration the Fix UC plan, a student investment proposal developed by the editorial board of UC Riverside’s newspaper, The Highlander. Fix UC proposes that students pay fees through a percentage of their yearly income after graduation instead of a yearly tuition-based system.

If the budget crisis is dire enough that regents must ask for assistance, we are left to wonder why administrators are not cutting their own salaries. According to an article in the daily web magazine Slate, UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi makes $400,000, as base salary.

In November of last year, 10 university administrators and lawyers saw salaries raised by as much as 21.9 percent, according to an article by The Bay Citizen. The UC president himself brings in a salary of $540,000 a year — a good deal more than President Obama earns from his seat in the Oval Office.

While asking students to get involved in their own university’s issues is great, the regents must find solutions other than state support. They also cannot continue raising tuition, a detriment not only to students of low-income families but to the UC Master Plan, which by design allows students of all backgrounds access to higher education.

Illustration by Leigh Douglas.

Apparently, all it takes for ESPN to lose their standards of professionalism is for Jeremy Lin to lose a game.

For those who haven’t followed the story, ESPN recently ran a headline on NBA player Lin’s recent loss titled “A Chink in the Armor.” True, ESPN apologized and is conducting a review of its editorial process, which involved firing the editor who chose the headline. But no amount of review can mask the fact that Asian Americans are subjected to levels of casual derision that, applied to any other underrepresented group, would come off as callous and bigoted. It’s this blasé application of racial slurs that is the most troubling in this case.

The New York Times recently ran a piece on the
apparent lack of sensitivity in sports journalism. Its writer, David Carr, elegantly outlined Lin’s career and lamented the fanboy-ism endemic among sports reporters which, unfortunately, manifests itself in racial caricatures on a regular basis. We would take it a step further and
argue those sports reporters — ESPN or otherwise — wouldn’t have made such an egregious misstep had their culture not subtly condoned it. By their culture, we mean ours — the American melting pot that ostensibly celebrates its diversity every chance it gets. If this is what passes for a celebration, we don’t want to be there for the after party.

It’s a two-part gaffe. As a supposedly post-racial culture, we have made casual racism only mildly distasteful. On top of that, racism against Asian Americans hasn’t recieved the same attention as other underrepresented groups.

UCLA student Alexandra Wallace’s racist “Asians in the Library” rant earlier last year serves as a solid
example of how easy it is to take advantage of the
seemingly endless tolerance of America’s “model minority” — a term that has negative connotations in itself. Model, as in modeled after “normal” white Americans? And what does that make other underrepresented groups? Failed models? This is exactly the sort of language that we shouldn’t be using.

Lest we forget, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps during World War II. Yet the American populace at large is remarkably ignorant of the marginalized status of Asian Americans. The well-being of the nation’s underrepresented groups isn’t a matter of convenience, and while it may be slightly hyperbolic to equate the ESPN slur with a hate crime, it stands as an equally abhorrent example of the American sense of
convenient colorblindness.

Asian Americans have a long and involved history within the United States; to trivialize their experiences with a slur like “A Chink in the Armor” is almost more dangerous than outright aggression. Modern racism is increasingly taking this more insidious form, and we need to be ready for it. Racism is alive and well, and ignoring even seemingly minor infractions in political correctness does nothing to hasten its demise.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

“Putting it simply, California is on the mend.” These were some of the first words of Gov. Jerry Brown’s Jan. 18 State of the State address. Based on the address, we can infer that funding is a top priority for the governor and California right now. Later in Brown’s speech, he mentioned last year’s deficit of $20 billion and assured California residents that cuts and tax increases were temporary and necessary.

“In a world still reeling from the near collapse of the financial system, it makes no sense to spend more than we have,” Brown said.

But also included in his address was a proposal to raise the bar for the grade point average (GPA) necessary to be eligible for a Cal Grant, a part of the California Student Aid Program in California that provides aid to California undergraduates. The minimum GPA was raised from 3.0 to 3.25 for larger Cal Grant awards and from 2.4 to 2.75 for smaller awards. According to Brown’s administration, this change is expected to aid 26,600 fewer students than it has in the past, which will save the state $131 million.

Good intentions aside, this is a further attack on higher education and will lead to decreased accessibility and increased privatization of schools in California. In the name of balancing the state’s budget, Brown has effectively cut off support to a significant portion of students — students whose education he could instead be cultivating to secure the state’s future workers and entrepreneurs. This future workforce will be instrumental in digging our way out of the current financial hole.

Aside from being a misplaced attempt at addressing the financial crisis, this move is also highly classist. Students who need Cal Grant financial aid to attend college are the same students who may be working part-time on top of going to school. They may be working harder than students who don’t need supplementary jobs in order to achieve the GPA necessary for state aid. This will mean these students will have to work even harder to fund their education, and will have an even more difficult time meeting the minimum eligibility requirement. Moreover, students with access to more educational opportunities and support — often those already financially better off than others — will have yet another leg up over their peers in lower income brackets. The proposal could easily make the higher-education playing field far less even than before.

Are we supposed to be able to stomach the fact that this proposal might punish people for their financial situation, especially when such a large number of people in the state are currently suffering in the financial climate? Is higher education returning to its historical, institutional tradition of remaining accessible only to those fortunate enough to afford tuition increases or to be unaffected by this GPA requirement increase?

The nation saw George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy fail not too long ago. Enticing schools by basing funding on test scores punished schools that struggled — mainly with English as a Second Language (ESL) students — and instead of helping those students reach higher goals, the policy had the reverse effect of lowering graduation rates, according to researchers at Rice University and the University of Texas at Austin.

Do we want this proposal for raising the GPA bar to discourage students in the same way No Child Left Behind did? No. The state should stabilize its budget with more temporary tax increases and stop attacking higher education in California. Education should be a top priority, with every person having an equal opportunity to succeed — not an easy target for the Brown administration’s budget balancing, and a commodity only to be bought.

Illustration by Louise Leong

The Best 376 Colleges. The Ultimate Guide to College. America’s Best Colleges. Titles like these jump off the neon covers of books thick enough to serve as doorstops. These are the college guides that sit in high school career centers, enticing you with the promise of helping find “the right school for you.”

But according to many of these texts, the so-called “right school” is based on a composite list of the all-around best universities in the country, rankings which vary in thoroughness and are often presented to the reader with little insight into their determination. Now, some people — including administrators at well-known universities — are calling college rankings into question, and rightfully so.

The most recent criticism comes in light of a doctoring scandal at Claremont McKenna, a private liberal arts college in Southern California. Last week, a senior administrator resigned after it was revealed the admissions office had been exaggerating the SAT scores of freshman classes. The college is ranked ninth in the U.S. News & World Report’s most recent compilation of liberal arts schools, but U.S. News said they will be reevaluating where Claremont McKenna is positioned on the list.

Critique of the legitimacy and purpose of college rankings is nothing new. In 2007, the Annapolis Group, an organization of liberal arts colleges, met and denounced the “reputational” portion of U.S News’ annual report, which asks individual college presidents to grade the other institutions in their category on a scale of one to five.

It would be justified (if not long overdue) for other colleges to follow suit in rejecting the notion of rankings. Besides the reputation portion of the report, which comprises nearly a quarter of the formula used to determine an institution’s rank, other factors include financial resources, alumni giving, and retention rates, among several others.

It may seem like a thorough evaluation, but there are obvious holes in U.S News’ system. It takes into too much consideration the individual opinion of top collegiate officials, who could abuse the system by either intentionally downgrading a fellow university out of personal bias or because they know little about them. It integrates alumni donations, which could vary greatly depending on the size, location and socioeconomic stature of its graduating classes. It looks at how accomplished a college freshman was as a high school senior, a variable again at least partly determined by a student’s or school’s economic accessibility to resources like prep classes and study guides. As Malcolm Gladwell notes in a 2011 New Yorker article, “Who comes out on top, in any ranking system, is really about who is doing the ranking.”

It is undeniable certain universities have better academic reputations than others. But just because a thinktank crunched some numbers and determined one school is “better” than another doesn’t make it the right choice. Prospective students should eschew college rankings and make their decision based on the factors that matter to them most, whether they be location and athletics or clubs and class sizes. Age is seen as just a number — so is a college’s ranking.

Illustrated by Leigh Douglas

On Tuesday, Jan. 7, it was announced that the California federal appeals court found Prop 8 — the notoriously controversial ban on gay marriage — unconstitutional and discriminatory toward a minority set of people.

While this ruling is historic, the battle for marriage equality is anything but over. As far as California is concerned, opponents to the recent court ruling can appeal in the Ninth Circuit or go straight to the Supreme Court — and it is likely they will.

As for now, the stay on gay marriages in California will stand, as litigation continues.

Like California, many states are addressing the issue, and currently Washington state has introduced legislation to legalize gay marriage. If passed, our neighbors to the north will be only the seventh state in the nation to give LGBT couples equal marriage rights.

While the Washington legislation has already passed in the state senate, it now heads to the House and many are eagerly waiting to hear the legislature’s decision. Many are hopeful the legislation will pass — we here at City on a Hill are hopeful — but even if it does, it will not be the end of the struggle.

Even as the bill floats through the House, even as representatives read over it and argue legal nuances, even before it has been brought into law, opponents to the legislation are preparing to counter the bill. If the legislation passes, it’s expected that a referendum will be placed on the ballot, and decisions about the basic rights and happiness of many people will be made by the public.

But this is where people can make a difference, and for this reason it’s important to vote, it’s important to stay informed and it’s important to let the government know it is unacceptable to deny people the right to marry based on sexual orientation.

In 2008, when Prop 8 was on the ballot and won by a margin at just barely over 52 percent, it was a referendum to a court ruling. Prop 8 was a conservative response to a California Supreme Court decision stating that marriage was a constitutional right regardless of sexual orientation.

Gay marriage and LGBT rights are a contentious issue to say the least, and in states like California and Washington, they are divisive — communities are split down the center, and the difference between supporting and not supporting something like Prop 8 is marginal. The only way to ensure our voices and our support for gay marriage are heard and understood by our government and by our representatives is to take action — to vote, to educate and to advocate.

Marriage equality has been and continues to be a grueling series of legislative battles and court cases, but it’s worth it — it’s worth it because these are men and women and their families being denied equal rights in the eyes of the law. This is bigger than religion — this is an issue of civil rights and human dignity.

Illustration by Jamie Morton.

Twitter announced last week in its blog post, “Tweets still must flow,” that it will begin censoring its users’ tweets on a country-by-country basis, which in a way is contradictory.

The announcement means that, at the request of United States law enforcement officials, the company will delete any post from the eyes of viewers in a specific country, leaving those posts available to other countries.

Before this controversial move, content on Twitter could still be censored, but the censored information or tweets would be erased completely and disappear worldwide.

Some may see the step to censor individual countries from others as a liberating one because it doesn’t completely erase the censored tweets, but that would be misguided.Twitter will be setting a bad precedent if it continues, as an extension of the U.S. government or otherwise, to censor information. Twitter is a tool that has brought about revolutions, but it is becoming more and more subject to the hand of government rather than serving as a platform for freedom of speech.

For an American-based company, freedom of speech should always apply, even if the majority of users are outside the United States.

Some say the Internet cannot and should not be entirely free and open, and applaud Twitter’s announcement. This opinion comes most forcefully from the countries of Thailand and China, which both censor their citizens. China’s state-run newspaper, Global Times, published an editorial in the wake of Twitter’s announcement written by Xu Ming that states, “It is impossible to have boundless freedom, even on the Internet and even in countries that make freedom their main selling point.”

This is not true for Twitter. If the company wants to survive, grow and remain accessible to all people across the world, it needs to step back from censorship.

But it is true Twitter wants to look out for its financial standing. This is evident in the case of J.P. Morgan. Twitter failed to mark J.P Morgan’s Twitter feed as trending when it was being targeted by Occupy Wall Street last year, and in so doing, effectively cut other Twitter users off from important information. The explanation: J.P. Morgan is a major shareholder in Twitter.

As a newspaper that uses Twitter, we can say that censorship in any form inhibits our business and our freedom, as well as that of our readers. Neither Twitter nor the United States government has any business hindering freedom of information.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

Between the 32 percent fee hike in 2009 and the annual ritual of slashing curricula, there’s been plenty for UC students to be upset about. What does it mean when every UC Board of Regents meeting for the last decade has been met with the hoarse cries of an ignored student body?

The Occupy movement that swept the the nation last fall was a similar catalyst for mobilization. An uproarious — and more importantly, awakened — student body discovered just how far the UC administration was willing to go to keep its status quo in check. Helping hands were cuffed, defiant faces were pepper-sprayed, and a number of students were hospitalized. The administration’s message was clear: Where there’s a will, there won’t be any way but theirs.

But the attempts of the UC to regulate students who would defy them are patently inane. We cannot be rounded up and pushed along like rats in a maze.

The most recent effort to suppress student voice manifested itself at the UC Riverside campus in December. In response to student protests, the dean of UCR handed down guidelines for demonstration. This slap to the collective student face was met with outrage.  Overlooking clear violations of First Amendment rights, the protocol was demeaning to students, and treated them like children.

To be in compliance with those guidelines, UCR student demonstrators would need faculty chaperones, they could not carry stick-borne signs, and designated protesting areas were strictly enforced. While the UCR dean was swift in removing these guidelines in response to public outcry, the post in its original form is still available for view on a Say No to UCR Protest Guidelines online petition.

The dean’s response has been to form a task force on assembly guidelines. Yet the task force, composed mostly of administration officials, has proven to be a less-than-welcome response. In their first meeting, task force member Stephen Lee’s comments belittled student protesters.

“In a sense, administrators closely resemble the role of parents while students closely resemble the role of children,” Lee said.

UCR is not alone. UCLA, UC Berkeley and other UC campuses have similar policies in place barring students from disrupting the day-to-day affairs of their respective campuses. While one UC Davis fact sheet on protests refers to such activity as “the lifeblood of a successful university community,” the strict enforcement of UC policies has made it clear that business-as-usual comes first.

UC students are not children. They are old enough to choose to bury themselves in student loan debt, and they are old enough to express their opinions without hand-holding guidelines. In fact, there is one childhood lesson administrators themselves could stand to learn: Treat others as you wish to be treated. In the future, administrators should show students the same respect they demand of us.

Illustration by Amanda Alten

As students and their families struggle to pay ever-increasing tuition costs, UC executives watch their wallets bloat. While university executives are granting themselves and their peers larger paychecks, students are pouring money into a system that cannot even guarantee them access to classes, professors and teaching assistants.

But a new piece of legislation, authored by California State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), aims to address such financial irresponsibility by restricting UC and CSU executives from receiving pay increases in years of tuition hikes or state budget cuts.

Such legislation could not have come at a more appropriate time — 12 UC administrators and attorneys received salary increases in December, ranging from 6.4 percent to 23 percent — but it is only a glimmer of hope.

While CSU executives would legally be bound by the bill if it passed, the UC would not be forced to comply, according to reports from The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley’s student-run paper. The UC is outside the control of the state legislator, so the bill serves as more of a suggestion than a rule.

Respecting the UC’s autonomy — because this isn’t a question of whether or not the UC should be autonomous, though Yee has previously attempted to bring the system under the state legislature — it is nonetheless important that the UC follow the guidelines laid out by the bill if it is passed into law.

This is a question of fairness: Is it fair that students watch the accessibility and diversity of their education dwindle while executives grant themselves unnecessary (and arguably undeserved) compensation?

December’s salary increases have been justified by the regents.

“UC President Mark G. Yudof and other UC leaders defended the raises, saying even during an economic crisis the 10-campus university system with 180,000 employees needs to retain and recruit top staff and faculty,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

But such an argument seems arbitrary when students do not even have access to such “top staff and faculty” because they cannot enroll in their already overcrowded classes. Furthermore, when UC representatives necessitate pay increases to continue recruiting such grade-A faculty and staff, they indirectly spin such decisions as ones made for the good of the student body.

It is hard to understand how executives’ already engorged pay will benefit the students, many of whom work multiple jobs just to scrape by while attending university.

If Leland’s bill passes, executives at the UC should adhere to its guidelines and prioritize students — and prioritize them in a way that doesn’t manifest itself in growing six-figure salaries.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

 Editor’s Note: This editorial opinion originally ran in the print and online editions of City on a Hill Press under the headline “Rain Dance Required.” Upon further reflection, the City on a Hill Press editorial board has decided the original title was not appropriate to the piece, and could potentially be offensive to our readers. City on a Hill Press apologizes for this oversight, and would be happy to hear and publish readers’ thoughts or concerns, which can be sent to letters@cityonahillpress.com.

Despite the appeal of the mid-winter summer, where Santa Cruzans can play beach volleyball in bathing suits and make Panther Beach an off-season destination as well, Californians should think about the implications of the absence of rain.

The unseasonably lovely weather and drought go hand in hand. In an area like Santa Cruz, which relies almost entirely on reservoirs, lack of rainfall means lack of replenishment for our water source.

In years like this one, when precipitation levels are not where they need to be this late in the season, rainfall will catch up over a shorter period of time. While this looks good on paper — because yearly rainfall averages are almost reached — it does not mean that drought woes are mitigated. When rainfall occurs in violent spurts, the reservoirs and watersheds that need replenishing cannot retain the water, leaving those who depend on them still in threat of drought.

The dry year is not exclusively a concern for the Santa Cruz area; the lack of rain is plaguing the entire state. According to the U.S. drought monitor, numerous regions of California are experiencing D0 (abnormally dry) conditions and the dryness is greatly impacting areas vital to water provision.

“California’s key watershed and agricultural areas received little or no precipitation,” the report stated.

Despite this fact, the report assured that reservoir storage is not yet a concern for California, because there is still more winter to come and the reservoirs and snow melt have a chance yet to build back up.

D0 and D1 (moderate drought) conditions characterize regions in California and similarly, locations such as Salinas and Fresno set December records for dryness.

“Not a single drop of precipitation fell in Eureka, Nevada, and Fresno during December for the first time since 1989,” the U.S. Drought Monitor reported. “Reno experienced its first completely dry December since 1883.”

In their first survey of the season, which occurred at the beginning of January, the Department of Water Resources reported “snowpack water content throughout the Sierra at 19 percent of the average for early January,” as reported in a San Francisco Chronicle article.

One-third of California’s water supply is provided through snowfall.

Apparently water managers are not panicking yet, as department director Mark Cowin stated that “most the winter is ahead of us.”

Maybe inciting panic in California is not the best idea, but state residents should be aware of the actual implications of dry years like this.

When the department puts ear muffs on Californians, sparing them from the harsh realities that tough dry years leave us with, it keeps state residents blissfully wasteful and dangerously ignorant to facts that dramatically impact our lives.

The impacts on water provision could unequivocally would be better mitigated with better water conservation throughout the state, and that needs to begin with a more honest rendition of the state of California water supply.

Santa Cruz city residents use 66 gallons of water per person per day. Compared to the 150 gallons used per person per day statewide, it’s the lowest per capita use in California. If the entire state could make changes to get closer to that figure, we would be insuring a more sustainable future in the face of widespread drought.

Illustration by Louise Leong.

Student-driven education is a laudable effort. It’s one of the most encouraging aspects of university life. When a group of ambitious individuals decide to act on their shared backgrounds and interests, like in the case of the Filipino Student Association’s (FSA) Pilipino Historical Dialogues (PHD) 5-unit program, the university’s ability to gather bright and engaged people in one place shines through.

But the burden of something as comprehensive and necessary as ethnic studies and its related programs shouldn’t be relegated to students alone. The university should embrace the idea of meeting students halfway, and with regard to ethnic studies, UC Santa Cruz can do more.

The PHD program has been operated by elected student leaders from the FSA for roughly 10 years, and remains one of the few ethnic studies courses available to students at UCSC at this time. Ethnic studies at UCSC has a long and embattled history, and — much to the chagrin of students — it has amounted to more losses than victories. While areas of concentration like Jewish studies, Latin American and Latino studies. and the more recent Sikh and Punjabi studies programs are steps in the right direction, the fact remains that UCSC has not provided a comprehensive set of ethnic studies options for its students despite strident demands from the student body.

To be clear: the PHD program does an admirable job of providing a fertile environment for those who know about the 5-unit independent study course. The problem is one of scale. Students can only support so many of their brethren, and that’s where the university needs to step in. Only they can answer the very real need for a large-scale program that would teach students about ethnicity as a very tangible and delicate subject, while fulfilling their responsibility to students as educators. Graffiti bearing hateful messages on the UCSC campus has become almost commonplace, and it’s that sort of routine hatred and banality that ethnic studies would help address. That’s not to say it’s a panacea in any sense, but the fact remains that UC Santa Cruz is one of the only campuses in the UC system that doesn’t have an ethnic studies major.

The ethnic studies major has a long history, which is why it’s strange a socially progressive campus like UCSC would have to fight so hard for it to come to fruition. It’s clear that the UC has money problems. It’s disheartening that community studies and American studies majors are scrambling to get what they came for before the lights in their classrooms go dark. Still, ethnic studies is something that lets people understand each other and see them as something more than a preconception — that doesn’t seem like an optional program for a progressive university. The university is taking steps to further ethnic studies at UCSC, but they need to do more. Perhaps student-led classes could even be part of the major or program. It just can’t be the only part.

In 1981, the Third World and Native American Student Coalition (TWANAS) staged a hunger strike in protest of the university’s lack of an ethnic studies major. It’s a stretch to think they did that just to have an easier elective option. In a world where multiculturalism is the norm, ethnic studies approaches something of a moral responsibility. It’s not a responsibility that students ought to have to bear alone.

Illustration by Matt Boblet.

Have you ever recorded a cover of a Lady Gaga song and published it on YouTube, captioned a “Downfall” (aka “Hitler Reacts To”) video, or created a Harry Potter-related meme?

If Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio) has his way, you will be considered a criminal.

If it sounds too ludicrous to be true, think again. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was proposed by Smith in the House of Representatives in October, would make it a felony to stream copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license. This means the average college student posting memes for noncommercial purposes could face a five-year jail sentence if convicted.

While it is understandable on the surface that the federal government would want to combat online piracy, doing so through these overbearing means would hurt their cause more than help it. Not only would it affect persons who may post copyrighted content for purely entertainment purposes, but it would also negatively impact the many people who view these videos and images every day. It would undermine an entire cultural current, interfere with our right to free speech, and, as opponents to this bill have stated, break the Internet.

The demise of free music-sharing corporations like Napster shows big business and politicians alike consider piracy a significant problem. Forty billion music files (or 95 percent of worldwide music downloads) were shared illegally in 2008, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Still, there’s a big difference between someone who downloads hundreds of songs illegally and two friends lip-synching to their favorite Britney Spears hit.

SOPA doesn’t acknowledge this obvious distinction, however. It would allow copyright owners to ask banks and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to shut down websites that contain pirated content and block funds for that company if they don’t remove said content within a five-day period. That means some of the most popular websites — like YouTube, Facebook and eBay — could be at risk if this bill were to pass. Those companies and six others wrote a letter to the Committee on the Judiciary to voice their concerns about SOPA, citing that the bill poses threats to job creation and cybersecurity if passed.

Consider the trickle-down effect it would have on consumers if websites from AOL to Zynga were forced to restrict material for fear of lawsuit. By default, the government would be restricting content published by news entities and average citizens alike, thereby interfering with two different sections of the First Amendment in one fell swoop.

This bill should not be passed as currently constructed and should be rewritten to only include those who are infringing copyright laws for truly malevolent purposes, like selling counterfeit medicine, an example that has been cited with this bill. In the meantime, taking the old-fashioned “write your representative” approach by signing the “Stop the E-Parasite Act” petition would be a good place to start.

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

The trouble with mobilizing the 99 percent is the “few bad apples” syndrome.

Just over two years ago, UC Santa Cruz students rallied, bearing signs asking students to “raise hell” over the 32.5 percent fee increase voted on by the UC Board of Regents. On Nov. 19, 2009, approximately 150 students occupied Kerr Hall, eventually barricading themselves inside in protest. When police raided the building and removed the student occupiers, UCSC faculty and students alike were aghast at the reported cost of damage to the facility: nearly $35,000 — an arbitrary and  perhaps conflated amount — was charged to 35 students.

The Kerr Hall incident marked a peak in a brief series of occupations fueled by student angst, administrative indifference, and to some extent, a sense of abandon. An earlier occupation of the Graduate Student Commons had mixed results. Similar to the Kerr Hall occupation, four students were charged with $532 a piece for damages incurred.

While the protest itself was a testament to UCSC student activism, former Executive Vice Chancellor Dave Kliger pointed out in a 2009 email the drawbacks to occupations:

“Unfortunately, occupying buildings — a library last week, an administrative building this week — does little more than divert precious resources while denying others their rightful access to campus facilities and services,” he wrote.

As students, we all feel the brunt of the blow when fees get hiked up and cuts come down. Student movements like these and subsequent occupations should and have drawn attention to these facts. When instances of vandalism occur, it detracts from the overall sincerity and effectiveness of what is trying to be accomplished because it validates skeptics’ criticisms. Simply put, it distracts from the message. We would like to commend the students who occupied Hahn Student Business Services Center for recognizing this.

The Nov. 28 occupation is particularly praiseworthy for seizing control of the administration’s workday while simultaneously being considerate of the student body at large.

As the occupation’s media relations spokesperson, third-year Adam White described the occupation as “really organized” and “very civil compared to Kerr Hall.”

“We all made an agreement that we weren’t going to fuck shit up,” White said.

The Hahn building is both one of the best and worst places for the Occupy movement to have taken place. In solidarity with UC Davis occupiers, the UCSC student body shut down the campus bank. Yet the building also houses other critical resources, including the Disability Resource Center and the Student Financial Aid Office.

But by clearing out of their occupation Tuesday morning, the occupiers show that they remain mindful of the student body at large.

This latest occupation proved student activism will not be a rope for the administration to hang us with. It is about showing students care about student issues, and we’re not going to pay for it.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

UC Santa Cruz’s Student Union Assembly (SUA) has made strides in representing students on campus in the University of California Student Association and the United States Student Association. While City on a Hill Press applauds the efforts of SUA members, many of whom struggle in their positions with problems inherited from those who previously held their positions, it is important to pay attention to the actions of the representatives and ensure student money is being used responsibly and effectively.

Third-year Justin Riordan serves as Kresge parliamentarian, and on Oct. 31 submitted a report on the operations of the SUA. Riordan has found areas that seem like appropriate places for budget cuts.

In a letter to City on a Hill Press, Riordan said he presented an alternative budget to the SUA that had no cuts from conferences, save the Grassroots Legislative Conference (LegCon) in DC, and instead made up the cuts in Officer Programing.

“I did and do advocate for cutting from LegCon because of the expense per student required of this particular conference. Which was correctly identified as about $1000 per student,” he said. “These conferences are one of the direct and tangible things the SUA does for the Student Body and I encourage all student to apply to them, as they are open to all students and not just members of the SUA, [and] as they are amazing opportunities.”

Another aspect of the budget that has received much attention from the campus community has been the $5,000 used to purchase “B” parking permits for officers. Sources note there has been considerable opposition to ending the purchasing of the permits for officers, which are not guaranteed as compensation in the SUA’s documentation.

Without explanation, this kind of spending can be interpreted as a sign the representatives hold themselves above the students they represent. When the majority of UCSC students utilize campus and Metro buses to get around campus, such a large sum being spent on these permits seems unnecessary.

However, whether or not students agree with these decisions, it is important to stay informed — students should ask questions about where their money is being spent, and know the reasons purchases are made. It is important to note that the campus community must charge themselves with closely monitoring SUA representatives’ spending, and take action against projects they do not feel are in the best interest of the student body. In the current uncertain climate of the UC, it is more important now than ever that all students are communicating and working together to protect their right to their education.

Illustration by Louise Leong.

We owe a great deal to the men and women who make up the U.S. Armed forces. In a complete 180-degree turn from the public stance adopted during the Vietnam War, the rhetoric is now “Support our Troops.” It’s a shared recognition — whether or not one agrees with the presence the United States continues to have in Middle East — a kind of “love the warrior, not the war” ideology.

But that’s the easy part.

Financing our support requires walking down a much rockier road. It’s clear for many the current rate of defense spending is absolutely unsustainable, especially with the U.S. economy in as much trouble as it is. National defense makes up about 19 percent of the entire federal budget for the 2012 fiscal year, just behind social security (20 percent) and healthcare (22.6 percent).

In real terms, 19 percent year after year is an enormous amount. In 2006, U.S. military spending exceeded that of China, Russia, Britain and the next 12 countries combined. The 19 percent has bought the missiles, unmanned drones, ships and private contractors that “accomplished” our mission in Iraq in 2003, then officially “ended” it eight years later.

More importantly, however, the 19 percent also provides veterans their benefits and premiums in the form of Tricare — accessible only to those service members with 20 years of service or more — and other healthcare benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The Pentagon has recently been ordered to trim its budget over the next 10 years by $450 billion. Should the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (more colloquially referred to as the “Supercommittee”) fail to agree on a plan to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion by Nov. 23, defense spending will take another hit of roughly $500 billion.

While the majority of what’s being considered for the Pentagon’s chopping block is its vast array of defense contracts, the benefits and support afforded to its uniformed personnel are also under consideration.

As proposed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, additional fees to Tricare may have to be implemented and military retirement pay may ultimately be renegotiated.

This is unacceptable.

While the costs of providing healthcare to veterans has jumped from $19 billion (inflation-adjusted to $25 billion) to $53 billion over the last 10 years, these pale in comparison to the Pentagon’s defense contracts and misappropriated funds. If, for example, the Pentagon chose to cancel purchasing 2,400 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, nearly $400 billion alone would be saved.

And what of the veterans who have yet to claim their benefits? There are hundreds of thousands of combat veterans on the VA’s backlog waiting to qualify for Tricare. Over 500,000 veterans — some with missing limbs and others with post-traumatic stress disorder — continue to rely on aid and assistance provided by VA medical facilities. A study from Brown University projects the cost of care won’t even peak for another 30 to 40 years.

With Obama looking to end our military involvement in Iraq and reel in the number of active servicemen, the federal government needs to carefully consider how we will reappropriate military spending.

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

Many students and their families are locked in an unforgiving system: borrowing from the government, banks and private institutions in order to fund a higher education that often doesn’t match the price tag. Students across the country are walking away with an average of $25,000 in debt, only to be left staring at a bleak job market and dwindling prospects for financial improvement.

In an effort to ease the pain of loan repayment, President Obama recently unveiled a loan forgiveness program that would allow qualified loan-holders to pay only 10 percent of their discretionary income — any income 150 percent above the poverty line — toward repayment, with remaining debt forgiven after 20 years. The concept is an extension of the “Pay As You Go” loan forgiveness programs currently in place. Previously, the program required graduates to pay 15 percent with loan forgiveness after 25 years.

The program also allows for consolidation of federal student loans and other federally subsidized private loans given out through programs like the now defunct Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). Consolidation of such loans would result in an average half-percent interest rate decrease. A decrease that only puts a bandage on a situation that requires stitches.

But there is a catch — or two — to this new program: It would not be effective until 2012, loans taken prior to that will not qualify, and to qualify to participate in the program, you must have taken out at least one loan in 2012.

Furthermore, loans taken privately through banks, and not through a federal program like FFELP, will not benefit from consolidation and loan forgiveness programming.

Other legislation currently sitting in Congress now would further reevaluate — and hopefully change — the way student loan debt is addressed. For starters, student loan debt cannot be erased by claiming bankruptcy — unlike credit card debt, for example — and many students and their families are left paying off staggering five- to six-digit debts. Proposed legislation, if passed, could change that.

Despite these well-intentioned moves toward alleviating student debt, what the government is offering is only a taste of the kind of reform that needs to occur.

Students and families trapped in non-federal loans are still left at the mercy of banks that ultimately profit through risky lending practices. If graduates cannot even escape the weight of student debt through bankruptcy, banks are able to maintain a hold on their loans and require payment even when an individual demonstrates he or she lacks the ability to do so.

The problem of student debt is much bigger than Obama’s recently approved plan. It isn’t necessarily the students borrowing from the government or the students with the subsidized loans who are taking the hardest hits — it’s the students who have become victims of private loans.

Student aid, high interest rates and inflexible repayment plans make private loans a kind of silent financial suicide. But with ever-increasing tuition costs, what options are students left with?

Debt is a profit generator for lenders. And insufficient loan forgiveness programs and bankruptcy loopholes that favor lenders are only continuing to promote such profit through debt.

Student debt is destroying the credit and financial well-being of graduates who are left looking forward to an unstable job market and promissory notes that serve as shackles.

Illustration by Matt Boblet.

For too long the city of Oakland has been synonymous with violent crime and police brutality. The FBI recently ranked Oakland the most dangerous city in California, according to The Huffington Post. With 15.3 violent crimes per 1,000 residents in 2010, the city has one of the highest crime rates in the country.

On Oct. 25, Oakland police violently dispersed hundreds of demonstrators occupying Frank H. Ogawa Plaza in downtown Oakland and destroyed their encampment. Flinging tear gas canisters into the crowd, shooting “less-lethal” projectiles, and clearing out tents, police forces allegedly put one man in critical condition, injured several others and arrested about 80 protesters.

Scott Olsen, a 24-year-old Iraq War veteran, was rushed to the emergency room on Tuesday after allegedly being struck by a police projectile that fractured his skull and caused other head injuries. His condition has improved and he is expected to make a full recovery.

The Oakland police adopted a Crowd Control Policy in 2003 as a result of an anti-Iraq War protest. The policy prohibits the department from firing “less-lethal” projectiles “indiscriminately against a crowd or group of persons even if some members of the crowd or group are violent or disruptive.”

It has become apparent that Oakland police broke this rule.

According to The Bay Citizen, Oakland police “requested 500 officers from at least 17 agencies to help with its response to the Occupy Oakland movement.”

While the Oakland police denies using rubber bullets, YouTube videos, photographs and witnesses have confirmed their use. With so many agencies present, it is likely that communication between departments broke down.

Nonetheless, Mayor Jean Quan and the Oakland Police Department must take responsibility for their actions. The police’s violent treatment of Occupy protesters was abhorrent. It is time we stop thinking about Oakland as a place of inevitable crime and start upholding the basic civil liberties of individuals participating in peaceful protests.

On Oct. 26, roughly 2,000 Occupy Oakland supporters gathered downtown to bear witness to police violence against demonstrators that occurred the night before. Yesterday, Occupy Oakland gathered for a day of action.

Historically, Oakland residents and their police have clashed frequently. Police actions have been continually scrutinized by the Oakland community, and controversy over particular cases at times pick up international attention, as is the case now.

In 2003, Oakland police opened fire on an anti-war protest with beanbag bullets, wooden dowels and sting-ball grenades, according to the Los Angeles Times. Consequently, the city paid over $2 million in settlements to injured protesters and enacted new crowd control policies.

In an open letter to the citizens of Oakland dated Nov. 1, the Oakland Police Association explained that dispersing protests has been necessary in past situations where the demonstrators became violent.

“We performed the job that the Mayor’s Administration asked us to do, being fully aware that past protests in Oakland have resulted in rioting, violence and destruction of property,” according to the letter.

However, the Occupy Oakland encampment was assembled peacefully when police arrived. Mayor Quan was in Washington, D.C. at the time of the raid. Throughout the letter, the police association expresses confusion regarding “mixed messages” sent by the mayor’s administration.

According to the letter, “the Administration issued a memo on Friday, October 28th to all City workers in support of the ‘Stop Work’ strike scheduled for Wednesday [Nov. 2], giving all employees, except for police officers, permission to take the day off.

That’s hundreds of city workers encouraged to take off work to participate in the protest against ‘the establishment.’ But aren’t the mayor and her administration part of the establishment they are paying city employees to protest? Is it the city’s intention to have city employees on both sides of a skirmish line? It is all very confusing to us.”

The letter also cites a message that was sent to all police officers: “Everyone, including those who have the day off, must show up for work on Wednesday. This is also being paid for by Oakland taxpayers. Last week’s events alone cost Oakland taxpayers over $1 million.”

Mayor Quan and her administration have explaining to do and reform to make. The Oakland police were ordered to disperse the crowd, but they didn’t have to treat the occupiers with such disregard for their well-being. That was the choice of each individual officer.

Illustration by Jamie Morton.

Nov. 15-17 the UC Board of Regents will hold a meeting to discuss the financial future of the UC system. The Occupy Education event will be held on Nov. 16 at UCSF Mission Bay, the same location as the regents’ meeting.

Protests at regents’ meetings have become common-place. Over the years, as multiple fee increases have been approved, it has become difficult for UC students to feel heard and not despair that they are members of a dying system. Just last year, the regents voted on an 8 percent increase in student fees, and this coming meeting will likely see even higher fees.

But this time around, we are presented with an opportunity. We are presented with the support of Occupy entities of local Bay Area colleges, Occupy Education and the Occupy movement as a whole. And their numbers are large.

We are presented with the opportunity to turn out in droves and bring the kind of state and national media coverage this issue deserves. With increased media coverage comes increased attention from California state voters who, at the end of the day, have massive amounts of control over the UC budget based on what legislators they vote for.

We should look to UC Berkeley, where protesters plan to hold a two-day event on Nov. 9–10. The protest will raise awareness of potential fee hikes, which will be determined during the regents’ November meeting.

According to the Occupy Education website: “We call on all the 99 percent, on all the Occupy general assemblies and camps throughout Northern California, on all student, labor, and community organizations, to come together in a massive display of non-violent civil disobedience to prevent the UC regents meeting from taking place, to send the strongest message that we will not accept any fee hikes, cuts, or concessions in any level of public education.”

By virtue of being UC students, we are 100 percent part of the 99 percent, and we should be mobilizing 100 percent for the change we need to take place.

Third and fourth-year students who sigh under their breath, “Thank god I’m getting out” and look the other way, this applies to you. You may be getting out of the UC system, but you are only getting into the poor job market.

First-year students, do not be defeated into thinking this is the way it must be — just because you don’t know anything else does not mean you cannot demand better.

We need to be our own advocates. We need to show up and speak up, and this is a grand opportunity.

So carpool, public transit, Zipcar — San Francisco isn’t that far away. On Nov. 16, meet up at 7 a.m. at the UCSF Mission Bay campus, 1675 Owens St., San Francisco, Calif. and Occupy the future of the UC.

Illustration by Louise Leong.

It is not uncommon to hear, within American politics, rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes undocumented workers. It is even more common to hear that undocumented workers are at the crux of many of the economic issues that face the United States. Politicians and pundits spout claims that such workers, often field hands and hard laborers, are stealing jobs from the American public.

And it’s not surprising that this past June, Alabama passed the strictest immigration legislation seen in the United States in an effort to combat the “problem of dealing with illegal immigration” — a problem that Alabama governor Robert Bentley said the federal government has failed to address.

Known as HB 56, the law has been contested and tried, and several components are now being blocked by the federal government, including one provision that would require public K–12 schools to check the citizenship of enrolling students.

As a result of this legislation, undocumented people in Alabama have fled the state in fear of legal backlash, leaving seats in classrooms empty, businesses closed and fields shorthanded.

And where does that leave farms, many of which have relied on the sweat and toil of immigrant workers?

The Associated Press recently reported that farms in rural Alabama are struggling to find laborers who are not only able-bodied but willing to stick with the work. Picking tomatoes, uprooting potatoes and plucking blueberries is thankless, grueling work and the pay for unskilled pickers can seem nonexistent. While a crew of four skilled farmhands can make $150 a day, a recent crew of 25 American workers not only produced less, they earned only about $24 a day.

Such reports only prove the fallacy in claims often touted by politicians: that undocumented workers are a threat to American jobs. While there are — and always will be — American workers willing to take up field work, an overwhelming majority of people tend to deem the work undesirable or prove to be unable to complete the task as well as experienced farmhands can.

Undocumented workers have continually been an economic scapegoat, but the Alabama legislation is only effectively proving the symbiotic relationship that exists between undocumented labor and American agriculture. This relationship, unfair to laborers, is one that has been seen consistently in American history — agricultural business thrives on the backs of the unpaid or underpaid and the overworked. From slavery, to Coolies and cheap labor, to undocumented — and vilified — field workers, American agriculture has become intimately tied to and, unfortunately, reliant on, immigrant workers.

Rhetoric that continues to devalue and dehumanize undocumented workers, depicting them as leeches on a system and a burden to Americans, is not only detrimental but clearly false. The threat to American jobs in the fields is not undocumented workers — it’s American expectations. The work outweighs the pay, and farms are hard-pressed to find American workers who are willing to break their backs for paychecks that don’t reflect the amount of work put in.

The issue of undocumented labor is much more complex and historically rooted than the Alabama legislation recognizes. By alienating people and forcing many to leave the state, Alabama’s government has only proved the inadequacy in our understanding of immigration and the U.S. economy.

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

When corruption and greed are as widespread as they are today, it is perhaps overly ambitious to hope to actually change the economic system in the United States. But there are alternatives that at least make it possible not to support that system. One of those alternatives, which is growing increasingly popular, is using credit unions instead of big banks.

ABC News recently reported that credit unions are seeing a big surge in membership. Navy Federal, the world’s largest credit union, has seen a threefold increase of new members compared to this time last year.

And it’s easy to see why. Wells Fargo and Bank of America both recently announced that they will be adding new charges for debit and credit accounts, as well as for online services. Some of these charges are even targeted toward people with low account balances, making it clear whose business these banks really value.

Banks exist to make money, hence the extra charges in times of economic crisis, not to mention the incredibly irresponsible lending habits that led to said crisis. Credit unions, on the other hand, are cooperative, meaning that their members own and operate them, and profit is put into enhancing membership experience or improving the surrounding community. Every union is a little different, but most keep charges incredibly low — it’s not uncommon for members to only have to pay a small one-time-only membership fee.

Another reason to consider making the switch to a credit union is that many of them give loans to small, local businesses. Spending locally is on everyone’s minds these days, and if the national economy is borderline unfixable, then why not focus on making Santa Cruz, or wherever you may live, stronger?

Yes, major banks have their advantages. Interest rates can be higher, and being part of a bank that has a branch in every city makes it easier to travel or move around, which is particularly important to college students. But credit unions offer personal attention one cannot find at a large bank, and websites like LoveMyCreditUnion.org offer help in finding a credit union that suits your location and lifestyle. Most credit unions also provide “switch packages” with tips on how to leave one’s big bank.

Perhaps the most concrete change Occupy Wall Street has brought is the realization that we are not paralyzed consumers. We have a choice of who can handle our money, and each individual does have power. So what is your choice — handing over your power to a system with a history of greed, or retaining control of your own resources? Switching to a credit union may not seem like much, but if nothing else, it sends a message.

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

9-1-1.

They’re three digits that, in sequence, hold a lot of weight. You memorized this number as a young child and grew up with the notion that, with a few quick clicks, you could be at a hospital with professional medical staff to help you.

Think again.

With the passage of H.R. 358, the House of Representatives is set on changing this ideology. The bill, which passed last Thursday by a vote of 251 to 172, includes a provision that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform emergency abortions. Doing so would override the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which states that a hospital must treat a pregnant woman in a life-threatening situation or transfer her to a facility that will.

Proponents have dubbed this the “Protect Life Act,” while pro-choice advocates call it the “Let Women Die Act.” The latter moniker is a much more accurate depiction of the bill, no matter on which side of the abortion debate you find yourself.

Not only is it a violation of the aforementioned EMTALA, but it wholly contradicts the Hippocratic Oath, a doctor’s ethical code of conduct. The oath reads that a doctor “will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required” and “must tread with care in matters of life and death.”

Physician or not, the bare bones idea behind this bill defies logic. It’s valuing the life of an unborn person over that of a living human being, one whose life is in jeopardy. If a pregnant woman has serious problems during her term — say, if she’s hemorrhaging — and is refused service because she needs an abortion, the likelihood that she and her fetus will die goes up drastically. The bill purports that one’s morality, whether it is embedded in religious beliefs or entirely separate from them, supersedes a life-or-death situation. If made into law, it would allow for gross negligence as a doctor and as a human being.

Although this bill likely won’t make it past the Senate (and even if it did, President Obama has already said he would veto it), the fact that it was even proposed on the floors of Congress is deplorable. Moreover, the fact that this outrageous bill and others like it have made their way to Capitol Hill (as addressed in Nikki Pritchard’s recently published City on a Hill Press feature, “Reproductive Rights Restricted Across the Country”) signals a paradigm shift in what politicians consider illogical.

While those within this university may be shocked that such a measure could be passed by a legislative body, clearly the extreme nature of H.R. 358 did not dawn on 251 people. So even if this bill isn’t signed into law, who’s to say it won’t be revived in the future with renewed fervor and legislative backing? That possibility alone should concern all American citizens, regardless of gender or political affiliation.

In a time when so many Americans are already fighting for their economic well-being, women should not have to be faced with the possibility that they could be in a literal fight for their lives without the assistance of medical professionals.

Illustration by Matt Boblet.

If there were no workers on campus, the East Field would be dry, dining halls would serve fewer customers and bathrooms would never be cleaned. If there were no workers on campus at UC Santa Cruz, the nine other UCs, the five medical centers and other UC facilities, these facilities would not function at their current standards — in fact, they wouldn’t function at all.

To say our UC workers go unappreciated is an understatement.

The University of California workers’ union, the American Federation of County, State, and Municipal Utilities Local 3299 (AFSCME), more than deserve the recently ratified contract with the UC, which includes increases in salary and retirement benefits.

The union workers have been fighting for this for over a year, and students and others affiliated with the UC should support them. In an institution where the UC regents can raise administrative salaries by 10 percent with a simple meeting vote, it’s a shame that UC laborers had to fight for a year for a 3 percent raise. It’s clear where the power lies in the UC system, and students and workers should form a united front in working for what they need.

Beneath the glamorous, endowment-winning research and academia lie employees who cannot provide for their families with their UC salary.

The documentary “Hanging by a Thread” features a UCSC food service worker who earns $20,000 less than needed as a single mother of three in Santa Cruz. She works at the Boardwalk to make up for this deficit.

Workers do not tend to students just through their jobs. In past protests, workers have stood beside us, backing us. It’s crucial we, as students, don’t let gaps in age and lifestyle separate us from the UC workforce.

The university should not pride itself on its prestigious endeavors if it does not even show concern or care for all its employees. As students, we cannot forget we are not the only afflicted amid budget cuts and rising fees. People are not dispensable.

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

All members of the UC Santa Cruz community are, on some level, aware of the way we are stereotyped by the outside world — as a sheltered gang of dirty, pot-smoking hippies with lofty ideals but not much practical sense. Although we know better than to treat that image as fact, there is perhaps room for a greater diversity of ideas on campus, if only to strengthen our own views.

As reported in the Oct. 6 issue of City on a Hill Press, an anti-abortion group called Sanctity of Human Life (SOHL) spent two days in Quarry Plaza last week, handing out pamphlets and DVDs and showing banners with graphic images of aborted fetuses. The handful of pro-life advocates were met with a steady group of UCSC students and faculty members, and many vocally sparred with SOHL about such issues as when human life begins, whether a woman’s personal choice is more important than the life of an unborn fetus, whether it is acceptable to impose one’s religious beliefs on others, whether special exceptions should be made for victims of rape, and other facets of the abortion debate that have always rankled this country.

What was most interesting about this occurrence was not the content of the debate, but its unusual nature at UCSC. According to a 2002 study from the Higher Education Research Institute, 59 percent of first-year students identified as liberal, 34 percent as “middle of the road,” and only 8 percent as conservative. We are a campus that takes pride in its progressive views and student activism, but this ideal of who we are can sometimes suffocate any chance of healthy public debate.

Yes, students in Santa Cruz can certainly disagree about things — the most striking split in recent memory was between those who supported student protests and those who thought they were a waste of time that could have been spent going to class — but there is rarely a forum for such disagreements to be hashed out. Many students are eager to fight for what they believe in, yet don’t ever get the chance to directly face their opposition. And although it might be easier not to ever have to defend one’s positions, in truth it is one of the only ways to strengthen them.

Universities have historically been arenas of open conversations, places where any view can potentially hold validity so long as its holders are willing to participate in a reasonable dialogue. This academic legacy is crucial to a well-rounded education, one in which students are not merely taught ideas, but fully engage with them.

Ensuring that this happens is imperative in the face of growing class sizes and a shrinking number of TAs, because these changes limit the amount of discussion that can happen in class, and even when the opportunity does arise, students with views contrary to the popular opinion are often discouraged from speaking up.

This is why we support the presence of any group who wants make their voice heard in Quarry Plaza, regardless of their message. Yes, the graphic images left some understandably upset, but SOHL at least provided an opportunity to interact with viewpoints not often present at UCSC. It wasn’t just about abortion, it was also about putting education into practice.

Illustration by Matt Boblet.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides gas and electricity to every household and business in northern and central California, from Eureka to Bakersfield. The Smart Meter, a digital device that measures utility usage and sends information to PG&E, was introduced in 2006 when the switchover was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. The meters emit significant levels of radiation, which may have permanent health effects.

Some support the new technology, noting the convenience of setting up a state-wide network for utlities. The PG&E website lists increased reliability and more choices in pricing plans as benefits.

Forty-three counties in California have voted to oppose PG&E’s Smart Meters, and more than 10 counties, including Santa Cruz, have officially banned installation of them. Yet Santa Cruz residents receive phone calls from PG&E to “schedule” an installation, which may take place in the absence of the owner or tenant.

Unwanted installations have been protested in concerned neighborhoods, but PG&E has faced no real consequences for its violations. Affected residents have no say in what the company installs because PG&E maintains a monopoly over the market, and the state gave the go-ahead.

PG&E has abused its power as a business by ignoring local and county bans on Smart Meters. Their intrusive installations are unethical and disrespectful.

Economic freedom is important to many Americans. The phrase “vote with your dollars” alludes to the democratic tradition of competition between businesses. This competition is vital in maintaining liberty and it is absent in this region’s utility providers.

It has become apparent to many PG&E customers that the company cares more for their profits and shareholders than for the environment or personal rights. The city of San Francisco has unsuccessfully attempted to contract a second energy company twice in the last two years.

In the North Bay, Marin Clean Energy has been providing energy that emits less greenhouse gases than PG&E. Two grades of power became available in May 2010: “light green” (27 percent or more renewable sources) and “deep green” (100 percent). They also offer residents a choice to purchase power from renewable sources such as sunshine and wind.

PG&E responded by mailing information to Marin residents persuading them to opt out of Marin Clean Energy service. PG&E sent a letter to more than 6,000 Marin County residents on May 4, 2010. Utilities commission director Paul Clanon informed PG&E that it was not permitted to send coercive materials prior to the mailing.

According to state law, new customers are to be notified of their options by the Marin Energy Authority first. Clanon suggested PG&E doesn’t have their priorities straight.

“PG&E’S immediate violation of my direction suggests that PG&E may be, in fact, acting in a deliberate manner to subvert the plain meaning of AB 117, the law that created community choice aggregation,” Clanon wrote in a letter to PG&E after the incident.

PG&E needs to respect community decisions regarding what devices are acceptable in local residences and businesses.

Illustration by Jamie Morton.

Occupy Wall Street. The action that began as a rather small gathering of activists on a street corner in two short weeks has snowballed into a movement encompassing more than 430 (and counting, according to occupytogether.org) cities nationwide. That small crowd on Wall Street in New York spread to a mass group large enough to block part of the Brooklyn Bridge and result in 700 arrests. Regardless of dissenting sentiments about the particulars of the action, it is hard to make a case that the Occupy Wall Street action and its subsequent offshoots springing up literally every day are anything but an incredibly positive and inspiring thing for the American people.

In a country that has been plagued by misguided bipartisanship, we are, and have been for many years now, in desperate need of something that surmounts party lines and quite literally brings us together. And Occupy Wall Street has done just that.

The sheer quantity of individuals in the mobilization shows the American people feel like there is something worth fighting for.

The beauty of the movement resides largely in the notion of movement itself — in part because one of the many complaints about “this generation” has been the pervasiveness of apathy — but also in the symbolic weight that the varied and vast complaints the protesters are voicing.

The quantity of issues the action is choosing to target illustrates not a lack of communication, for those on Wall Street have devised an innovative and accurate method of communication by repeating each line of a given speaker throughout the crowd; not a lack of organization, for the movement spread from coast to coast in 11 days; and not a lack of coherence, for a common language marries these actions, as each cities’ action is called Occupy [insert city here] and the common language being used to spread the movement like wildfire is online networking.

The quantity of issues illustrates the impressive nature of the actions as movements truly for the people and by the people. We as a nation are hurting, for many reasons, so why should we not call attention to this fact? It is interesting that the main fixture of the mass media outlets like The New York Times and Fox News has been to criticize the movement’s lack of coherent goals, when the same broadcasters spend their entire news segments griping about a seemingly endless inventory of flaws in our government and economy. It is a well-established fact for all people of this country that we have problems. This incredibly short-sighted view on the movements is, quite frankly, bafflingly short-sighted.

This is not a protest on a war, this is a protest calling attention to the war we are engaged in. This is not simply an ambiguous protest condemning class divisions, this is a protest against the fact that 1 percent of this nation owns all of the wealth and the middle class is dying. It is not a protest against our citizens not having enough wealth, but an action calling attention to the inequitable and corrupt distribution (so enough about the protesters’ Apple laptops). It is not a protest against the free market, but calling out the corrupt nature of how that wealth was accrued.

And though the protests are broad in their focus, at least they are focused on the economy. This was a feat our own legislature could not accomplish when they put the nearly 10 percent unemployment level and failing economy on the back burner and instead focused on issues like abortion to distract the American people and capitalize on the atmosphere of anger and fear. The issues the legislature was supposed to focus on — the housing market crisis, unemployment, Wall Street corruption, the disappearing middle class, accountability for the greed-driven market and the failure of the banks — are, ironically, the central fixtures the Occupy Wall Street and following movements are honing in on.

On the website that serves as a hub for information regarding details about the national movement, the list of goals is basically a list of what, had our legislature been doing their job, would have been the political sticking points for the past two years.

An incredibly educated, innovative populace of young people has been, year after year, released into the world with no job market to enter into and college debt so huge, money begins to mean nothing. And what does this mean? An incredibly viable and threatening force to be reckoned with. This movement has been characterized by the production of short videos and blog entries that are basically marketing a movement. That is ingenious. This is a group literate in a language of new media, and took off at lightning speed utilizing almost exclusively social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter and various online forums like Reddit and Adbusters. Mass media coverage certainly was not the source of knowledge spreading.

You have an incredibly smart generation of individuals who have been told to get an education, and they have. They have been charged exorbitant amounts of money for that education and are now paying off loans they are drowning in, all to be cast into a job market that cannot sustain them — beyond that, a market actually forcing them to foot the bill with money they don’t have.

Each of the facets of the actions can be seen in Santa Cruz County, where unemployment is slightly over 10 percent and the university has seen a $4,000 rise in tuition in less than four years. From coast to coast, the principles of the unrest remain, give or take, the same.

The movement has spread to our neighborhood. Occupy Santa Cruz’s Facebook page has nearly 2,000 likes. Considering the population of Santa Cruz is only 55,000, that figure speaks volumes. This movement, whose most popular creed is “we are the 99 percent,” represents the majority of people. This nation is something to be defended, and when the movement is brought to a town like Santa Cruz’s front door, it is safe to say that involvement is necessitated.

The movement has incredible initial momentum. Unfortunately, however, a huge detraction from the movement is the fear of being arrested. There is no more poignant gesture than being arrested for a cause, for it directly symbolizes the sentiment of one’s position. Being arrested captures the essence of a cause. It represents a microcosm of the larger movement. Civil disobedience effects change. This has been said and demonstrated in the history of revolutions, and how could this particular uprising be exempt?

Illustration by Matt Boblet.

The role of an English teacher is, naturally, to teach English. All are different: some have accents, some don’t; some are tall, short, fat, skinny, and some are good, and some bad.

This month, several of Arizona’s state education officials were called into question in a federal investigation. Throughout the last decade, these state agents frequently checked in on teachers, evaluating them on their accents — the way they spoke, not the way they taught.

A recent article in The New York Times profiled Arizona resident Guadalupe V. Aguayo, who teaches English to her class of mostly Latino second graders. She immigrated from Mexico years ago, learned English, and received her teaching degree — an almost idealistic example of someone achieving the American dream. After consulting with her principal, she “took a college acting class, saw a speech pathologist, and consulted with an accent reduction specialist, none of which transformed her speech,” according to The New York Times. But still, she taught well, yet was repeatedly marked up for review.

Investigations into Aguayo’s and other teachers’ language skills are remnants of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), an act of Congress overhauled during the Bush administration in 2001. It set standardized testing as the main focus of public education, especially affecting those schools and teachers with minority students. NCLB requires all teachers to speak English fluently in order to teach the subject. Obviously, it makes sense that teachers should be adept in the subjects they teach. But when the state determines what’s “fluent,” a problem arises.

Evaluating teachers on their accents over their performance is problematic at best and xenophobic at worst. Whether state monitors have been actually been helping students seems to be irrelevant. Rather, they seem to care more about homogeny, exhibiting their prejudices and fear of the “other.”

English itself is a challenge — some say it’s the hardest language to learn if you didn’t grow up speaking it. But those who learned it from a book, in an academic setting, might speak more clearly than those growing up with all the slang and dialects of America. Those who learn English fluently as a second language could certainly speak a more standardized version.

This is why it is concerning that the state of Arizona is investigating its minority teachers merely because, as the NYT reports, the state agents took issue with “prounounching ‘the’ as ‘da’ [and] ‘another’ as ‘anudder.’” These are audible relics, and their destruction is a destruction of culture. In fact, it’s easy to see how one person speaking slightly differently could be a source of comfort and solidarity for another person who speaks differently from the majority. Language is ever-changing, a fluid and dynamic entity — never stagnant.

The United States has the luxury of many, many different people, from all over the world. English isn’t even our official language — it’s only the one spoken by the greater majority. We are a country of immigrants, founded by, run by and designated for anyone — anybody who wishes to make a life here for themself and their family.

In 2010, Arizona signed into law the strictest anti-illegal immigration bill in recent history, known as Senate Bill 1070. It requires legal immigrants carry state documentation proving their citizenship. Police are also required to question anyone semi-suspicious, and anyone not carrying ID can now be detained until citizenship is proven. Do Arizona’s actions reflect America’s purported melting-pot mentality?

A country unwelcome to accents is a country unwelcome to diversity and immigrants, and this goes against our founding principles. If racial discrimination like the incidents in Arizona continues, the United States will not be the country it claims to be.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

After years of painstaking cuts to numerous departments on campus, the university has perhaps finally listened to what students have been chanting, and has “chop from the top.”

At the beginning of August, Executive Vice Chancellor Alison Galloway announced that the administration would be implementing a plan to would reorganize divisional leadership, and in effect eliminate the position of vice chancellor of student affairs. Felicia McGinty had held the position since 2007.

In an email dispersed to the campus community on Aug. 4, Galloway delineated the reasoning for the decision — in part to increase efficiency of the administrative process — and addressed the difficulties that comes with such a decision.

“Chancellor Blumenthal and I sincerely appreciate the service that Vice Chancellor Felicia McGinty has provided the campus since 2007,” Galloway said in the email. “During multiple years of challenging budget cuts, Felicia contributed an abundance of energy and ideas to our senior administrative team — and we are very grateful for her many contributions.”

It is a bittersweet decision that reflects the tragedy of the time we live in, when we are backed into a place of celebrating something that is, in actuality, a tragedy: causing someone to be jobless.

And further, as is the case with any and all budget decisions of this magnitude, there is, was, and always will be an irreparable drawbacks — in this case, one being that McGinty was one of the few administrators of color.

But this inescapably unfortunate situation will no longer have the roughly $200,000 a year expense of McGinty’s salary. A figure that, when put into the context of art department funding, which received a $635,700 cut for 2011–2012, is actually a significant number.

“In an era of diminished resources, these changes — in tandem with the Enrollment Management realignment — will streamline the delivery of services to students,” Galloway said in the email.

And to be frank, in these tough times the tangibility that comes with professors, teaching assistants and smaller class sizes is infinitely more valuable (even if only in the mind) than some cerebral and ambiguous administrative position.

Two hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money. While it could be a minute drop in the bucket in terms of the $1.5 billion deficit that the UC is currently — quite impossibly — grappling with, the administration’s decision in and of itself bodes well.

This decision to save $200,000 in this particular way reflects one or both of two possibilities. One is that the administrative body now respects what the students have been demanding — even if we may have been off the mark and, contrary to our belief, every position in administration is infinitely valuable. The other possibility is that the administrative positions really are, to a certain extent, disposable.

Either outcome signifies a positive thing for us, and as such we should take this decision for what it is — an abrupt change in what has been a consistent tide of Chinese water torture against anything non-administrative — and appreciate that the administration may finally be listening to us. Or if they are not, at least they are owning and admitting that they may not be the most valuable aspect of a student’s education.

McGinty was a big person on this campus, and this was a big decision. It is hopefully a sign of decisions to come, and regardless of sentiments being negative or positive on the matter, it deserves pause.