The Bottom Line » Opinion

Prevention of Unsafe Sex, or Promotion of Sex? by Jillian Brown

Student Admin — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:49:46 +0000

UCSB’s Sex & Relationships Interns hosted an event on Del Playa in Isla Vista at 10 p.m. on Friday, April 24 cleverly termed “Condom Alert.”
According to Ellen Davis, External Coordinator for the S&R Interns, Condom Alert promotes neither drunken sex, nor safe sex, but rather, safer sex. An S&R Intern who wished not to be named said the interns believe “there is no such thing as ‘safe’ sex — every time [you have sex] you’re risking pregnancy and [contracting] STDs.”

But how can sex be made safer if it is conducted between two people of whom at least one is intoxicated? Davis stated that sex is made safer thanks to the S&R Interns because they are responsible for “putting out a resource” and that “whether or not people have sex is their choice completely.”
Either Davis misunderstood the question or sidestepped it. If I had been referring to sober people then I would have been in complete agreement with her. However, I was not referring to merely any “people” who decide to have sex, but to inebriated people specifically. It is for this reason that I found her justification odd. How is sex made safer if decisions regarding it are made by intoxicated people who cannot coherently — or at least should not — consent to having sex at all?
When asked if she found the S&R Interns’ effort morally questionable, Davis said she did not. She instead said that S&R condom distribution does not encourage the behavior of a person who decides that “it’s OK to rape someone who’s been drinking.”
Davis yet again failed to answer my question. I asked if she thought condom distribution was risky due to the possibility of placing a condom into a sexually aggressive drunk’s hands. Of course it is not OK to rape someone who has been drinking; most people will not dispute this. I contend that placing the condom into an aggressor’s hands — enabling him or her to feel the “safety” of a condom that is 97 percent effective against pregnancy — is not OK either. Making condoms available on a party street is an act of enabling drunken sex to take place.
The intern, however, stated that giving a person a condom “doesn’t make [him or her] more likely to have sex” and went a step further, stating that no individual is going to think “now I have a condom in my hands, now I’m going to rape someone.” She also articulately argued that it is not the place of S&R Interns to make assumptions about whether or not those who receive condoms will have sex on the same night that they are given the condom.
Distributing condoms on a party street where a large number of students are drunk out of their minds is morally questionable. It’s highly risky at worst, and merely suggestive at best. The intern stated that it was not the S&R Interns’ place to assume when people may have sex, yet she assumes that putting a condom into a person’s hand is not responsible for putting the idea of sex into his or her head, nor could it encourage him or her to commit sexual acts or enable sexual violence. Such selective assumption is one-sided, plainly stated.
I agree that no assumptions should be made, but by that I literally mean that there should be no assumptions made regarding sexual activity. I agree with the S&R Interns’ claim that UCSB is a college campus where people are going to have sex with or without the S&R effort to distribute condoms. Yet the S&R Interns assume that they are not putting sex into the minds of the drunken students stumbling down DP.
Both Davis and the intern quoted a mysterious “study” in which it was apparently discovered that handing out condoms has no effect on how many people have sex. What kind of people? Drunken ones? Handing out condoms probably does not have much of an effect on sober people who are completely aware of whether or not sex is on their mind, true. I, however, posit that inebriated people are more impressionable than sober people and are more likely to grab at a condom perhaps merely because it is offered to them. In the case of an intoxicated person accepting a condom because it is offered, the recipient of the condom might not have been planning on having sex before going out to I.V., but upon receiving the condom, that recipient is in a position to change his or her mind, a position that the Condom Alert would have put him or her in.
Although S&R Interns claim that an act of impersonal, one-time sex is a choice, they also attempt to teach respect in “healthier relationship lifestyles,” according to Davis. I hardly think that a one-night stand is representative of any form of respect, mutual or otherwise.
While S&R Interns may not be “promoting” drunken sex, they are enabling it, and I for one would not be proud to be a part of its facilitation.
The S&R Interns also table in the Arbor during regular school hours. When asked why all of the condom events are not held during the day, the intern minimally responded that “Condom Alert is our only night event.” As if only holding one late night event on the infamous DP should not detract from their encouragement of sober protection. Therefore the question remains: Why are condom events not held exclusively during daylight hours when most, if not all, students are sober? What harm would this do? How would this hinder S&R Interns’ mission to promote using protection? It wouldn’t.
All this having been said, the S&R Interns do not force condoms on anyone; they offer and if declined they do not pressure students to take a condom. The S&R Interns will also be holding an event — “Sex Affair” — on May 20 in the Student Resource Building. They tabling along with the Students Teaching Alcohol and other drug Responsibility (S.T.A.R.) and Healthy Eating And Living (H.E.A.L.) Interns, raising awareness on sexual responsibility and healthier relationship lifestyles. It is an event that will be held midweek during daylight hours, so it is unlikely that the interns’ good intentions will go awry.

The A.S. Party System: Social Clubs in Drag Disguise by Ryan Neal

Student Admin — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:49:03 +0000

Another student election has come and gone, and once again the Open People’s Party emerges victorious. In fact, they have won the Presidential and Vice Presidential positions every year since the party’s conception in the 2006 election. If one party continues to win year after year, what is the point in having any at all? Throughout my investigation into the election process for my contribution to The Bottom Line’s election issue, the one concept I can still not understand is what possible purpose this party system has, and why we need one.
The defending champs, O.P.P, say they can be the bridge between students and the university. They want to put power into student’s hands, protect the voice of students in decision-making, embrace diversity, and keep fees low while protecting student services. They promise to protect the rights of Isla Vista by fighting the Social Host Ordinance on the grounds that is a violation of privacy and police authority.

On the other side is Student Voice!, a party that wants to represent all members of the community, put power into the hands of the students, and strengthen the relationship between the students and the administration. They want to keep student services while working to “reduce the financial burden on students.” They support all races, genders, religions and sexual orientations, make sure residents aren’t exploited by landlords, give students a voice in policy making decisions, and defend against “invasive policies” like the Social Host Ordinance.
Sound familiar?
This year we had a new option: Students With A Plan (S.W.A.P.), who “are not a party, [they] are a movement.” They are different because they want to make college more affordable by “seeking a solution to budget cuts that protect student services and avoid fee hikes,” and fight for the rights of students in the community. They feel their strength is in their diversity and individuality.
As an english and philosophy double major, I have spent a lot of time doing close readings of texts and writing about the similarities and differences that many people would consider “pulling out of my butt.” But even I had a hard time finding any sort of substantial differences between these three mission statements. To be fair, Student Voice! makes a distinct point about keeping our campus as environmentally conscious as possible, and S.W.A.P. wants to direct money toward counseling and anti-depression programs. The truth is that other than these few points, there aren’t any real differences between the three.
In his 1965 song, “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding),” Bob Dylan described political parties as “social clubs in drag disguise.” That is exactly what our current structure of student parties is, a popularity contest masquerading as a political system. When you pass by the blue, green, or tie-dyed colored tents, populated with people wearing corresponding t-shirts, do you ever hear anything about differences in policy, ideologies, or plans? I sure haven’t. Instead you get offers for free shirts, free food from competing Isla Vista restaurants, pretty signs with catchy slogans, and an exciting atmosphere with balloons and hip music.
I’m not trying to bad-mouth the hard working people that run for these positions. I am just asking why we have the party system at all, especially when there just aren’t any real differences. Why draw arbitrary distinctions between people that all want to make college the best it can be for each of us? We all want to have the power and decision making to be in our hands. We all want someone to oppose the tyrannical landlords at Harwin and Wolfe. We all want to keep services like Student Health and Rec. Sports while preventing fee hikes.
I would like to see an abolition of this seemingly pointless system. A major complaint is that O.P.P. has won each year because they have superior funding. By eliminating the parties, candidates can base their campaigns on open debates on policy differences and why they are the most qualified for the job – all while saving money on things like tee shirts and pizza slices. A.S. already holds these debates, and can surely help with the cost of making signs. If anything else, it would just do away with the eyesore of endless blue and green pieces of particleboard we all have to bear when riding to class during these couple weeks of spring.

Let Us Prove Floatopia 2 Can Be Done Right by Rebecca Bachman

Student Admin — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:48:05 +0000

On April 22, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Young sent an e-mail to the entire student body urging — rather guilting — us into boycotting Floatopia 2. He effectively asked us to “do the right thing” and not participate. Upon reading this e-mail, I was outraged and disgusted. Young needs to understand Floatopia and its history from a student’s point of view; we are not barbaric, irresponsible, hypocritical children. We are students who love to have fun, make mistakes, and learn quickly. We need a chance — and have not been given one — to prove that we can enjoy a magical holiday like Floatopia without destroying the planet and ourselves.

Never before in Floatopia history has the aftermath and corresponding response been so negative. This year was also the largest turn out Floatopia has ever seen, and consequently the most environmentally damaging. We get it. We understand. This year’s first Floatopia was really detrimental to the environment. I think it is correct to assume that most Isla Vistans consider themselves to be environmentally conscious, and we regret the effect we had. But we have not been given a chance to improve! We haven’t done it again yet! A closer look at what actually happened might give people like Young, who did not even attend, a better understanding of the real problem at hand.
First, April 4 was a beautiful day. It was ridiculously lucky that it was sunny and warm. Last year the first Floatopia fell on a cold and foggy day when even the drunkest celebrators’ dedication was challenged. That’s why the environmental damage was so relatively minuscule last year; nobody went!
Second, since this was the biggest Floatopia in the history of Isla Vista, people were swept up in the chaos unexpectedly and were largely unprepared. Nobody foresaw that thousands of bikini-clad co-eds would be getting low to Luda and chugging Keystones so freely, and when it was realized that this was to be the norm on the beach, swarms quickly succumbed and joined in. It’s not as if we all headed to the beach planning on partying and not picking up after ourselves. It’s just that when we actually got there, everybody was so collectively excited that our level of preparedness was insufficient. By the time everyone read the negative responses, they probably couldn’t even clearly remember having left the beach. When partiers were finally good and drunk and ready to leave, they had honestly forgotten the things they had brought, and because of the complete lack of having ever been in a situation quite like this before, cleaning up didn’t warrant a passing thought. But it is impossible and utterly rude to think that, in response to the post-Floatopia criticism, students would continue to abandon the mess apathetically.
Third, a disproportionate number of visitors come the first weekend of every quarter because the parties are abundant regardless of whether they occur on the beach. This is especially true of spring quarter because many of our peers who do not attend UCs are still on spring break with nothing to do but road trip up to I.V. for the crazy, inevitable parties. Ecological devastation from Floatopia 1 aside, to equal the number of attendees at Floatopia 2 would be impossible.
My fourth and final argument is this: Floatpoia is fun! In his e-mail, Young quoted a Floatopia promoter who allegedly “boasted that UCSB is the ‘only campus in the nation with its own beach.’” He followed that quotation by saying we do not take responsibility for our privileged position and by implying that as irresponsible, selfish kids, we do not deserve the ability to take advantage of our beautiful beach. It’s true; we are extraordinarily lucky to have a long, striking beach as our back yard, but it’s nothing if we don’t use it. And when college students use something, they really get creative. Floatopia is an establishment that I truly appreciate; it astounds me. It’s so fun. Nowhere else in the nation can you walk home from class on the beach, or watch the sunrise over the ocean every morning. And you certainly cannot enjoy a good old-fashioned day of day drinking in the middle of the ocean unless you’re in the one and only Isla Vista. A UCSB without Floatopia is a UCSB without its fantastic, creative way of having fun and celebrating life! Floatopia, in a way, embodies the exceptional character of our student body.
In his e-mail, Young argued that Floatopia 2 doesn’t have to be inevitable; that we can stop it. But what he doesn’t realize is that the damage done by Floatopia doesn’t have to be inevitable. Floatopia 2, if done with the responsibility and dedication that we are capable of, will not only be ridiculously fun, but it won’t even inflict damage! I am confident that the very real threat of elimination of the exquisite event will encourage genuine efforts of students to come prepared and clean up after themselves. We are smart and responsible, and we reserve the right to have fun without hurting anybody.

Is Health Care Really That Expensive? by Ross Nolan

Student Admin — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:47:22 +0000

We have all heard the statistics that the Democratic Party likes to throw around about health care in America. They love to tell us that 47 million people in the U.S. are without health insurance, and this is a large part of their justification to move from our current health care system to one run by the government. However, if we consider socialized health systems like those in Canada and Great Britain, we can clearly see that a government-run system is unresponsive and loaded down with bureaucratic garbage. Procedures that you can get in a day in America can take you weeks or even months within our neighbors to the north.

But does it matter how available health care is if no one can afford it? The answer is, of course, no, but I have a problem with the assumption that no one can afford it. If we look at this 47 million number, there are some huge problems with it. First of all, most if not all of the estimated 20 million illegal immigrants in America are included in that number. The people crossing the boarder illegally are usually very poor and work low paying jobs when they get here. In fact, there are huge problems across the nation with people here illegally using emergency rooms as their primary care providers. When they can not pay for it, the government (that means you) ends up picking up the bill. If we account for people who have no right to be here in the first place, this 47 million is cut almost in half.
Likewise, a large amount of this number consists of young people like us. For most of us, our parent’s health care covers us or we have health coverage through the university. That will all go as soon as we graduate. Since I am graduating in a few weeks, this is obviously on the front of my mind. The democrats would like us to think that this is because we cannot afford it. They want you to be scared about the costs of health care so we have to run to them with our hands out begging for their help. Is it true that health insurance is really that expensive? I was recently walking around campus contemplating this, when I looked around and noticed how many students have iPhones and BlackBerries. These phones cost hundreds of dollars, and the data plans cost over $120 a month. Students can afford this but cannot afford health care?! Think about your life. How much do you pay for those premium channels on your cable bill? How much do you spend on your car payment?
The issue is not that young people cannot afford it, it is that they do not want to pay the money. I looked up Blue Shield health insurance online, and their packages start as low as $45 a month. Take off the text messaging and the data plan from that iPhone, and you can pay for health insurance. This is called an “opportunity cost.” Too many people think that they are entitled to certain luxuries, and they spend their money on that instead of the essentials. All the while, this is used by politicians to justify destroying the best health care system in the world.

Are You A Flake?: An Explanation of Flakiness by Zoe Sullivan

Student Admin — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:11:17 +0000

It’s 10 o’clock on a Friday night. You just took an exam that you have been studying for non-stop for the past two days, forfeiting sleep, your health, and several social activities. All you really want to do is sleep; however, you promised your friends you would go out with them tonight. As your phone lights up and you notice that your buddy is trying to get a hold of you, you mentally debate whether you should obey the urge to sleep and disappoint your friend, or ignore your physical state in order to please them.
It is the ultimate debate writhing around in your conscience. Do you opt for a much needed night-in of sleep and flake on your friend, or do you sacrifice your shut-eye to keep your promise?
Virtually everyone has been in this same situation, including me. A few months ago, I would often make plans with my friends and acquaintances, only to decide after-the-fact that I did not feel like venturing out, or that I was simply too busy. I started to hear many complaints from my friends that I would never hang out with them, and that I was, in fact, a “flaky” friend.
I decided to take matters into my own hands and change this perception people had of me. I started to follow up on the previous plans I had made. I also tried harder to be the one to initiate outings.
After actively changing my behavior, I noticed something: my friends were flaking on me this time around. The tables had turned, and I realized how hypocritical people can be once the situation is reversed.
The truth is, everyone is flaky, to some degree. Generally, people are just more likely to notice something you are doing wrong while dismissing their own, similar behavior.
After researching some psychological concepts related to this human tendency, I have determined that this phenomenon can be explained by two types of inherent biases we have: the “myside” bias and the negativity bias.
The “myside” bias refers to “my side” of the issue under debate. This occurs when an individual places too much weight on evidence that supports one’s belief, and too little weight on evidence that does not. In the realm of flakiness, people may come up with the assumption that you are flaky after one occurrence, and may continue to focus on evidence that supports their hypothesis. In turn, they ignore the evidence that does not support their hypothesis. They may also dismiss their own flaky behavior, as people mostly like to think of themselves in a positive way, and do not want to contradict this theory.
The negativity bias is caused by the fact that your barain is built with great sensitivity to unpleasant news. Multiple psychological studies have shown that negative information is better remembered and causes more electrical activity in the brain compared to neutral information. This mechanism has an evolutionary advantage: to keep us out of harm’s way. The brain developed systems that would make it impossible for us to avoid danger, and in turn, encourage us to respond to it.
These two biases may explain a lot about human behavior and the reason why we make judgments about others while ignoring our own behavior, in this case, our degree of flakiness. The truth is, we are all busy, and we are all flaky. We all have intricate, ongoing events in our lives. This makes it impossible to express the vast complexity of our lives to every person, every day. Our busy lifestyle is bound to cause some miscommunication.
Are you a flaky friend? Probably. But so is everyone else, so don’t sweat it.

CalPIRG Outreach Annoys Otherwise Supportive Student by Cheyenne Gustason

Student Admin — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:10:18 +0000

I’ve done it. I’ve given in. I’ve succumbed. My friends, well most of them, have also done it already. I think I was one of the last holding out. It was mostly lack of opportunity, though, and when opportunity came to find me about a week ago, sure enough I offered no resistance. Actually, there’s a pretty good chance you have done it, too. So I wonder – have you pledged to CalPIRG (the California Public Interest Research Group)?
Probably. Why? Well, it seems like a pretty good cause, but I’ll get to that in a second. I’m more concerned with the “how” you came to sign your pledge. I’ll make a sweeping generalization and say some bright-eyed peer with a clipboard, marked by a collection of neon orange stickers and a hungry look approached you and asked you to pledge to CalPIRG. You might have replied “no, but I will, it’s a great cause” or “why yes, I have already done it” (and proudly pointed to the Cheeto-colored badge glaring on your breast) or “what does that even mean?” I, until recently, was this last one.
In one day last week I was approached three times. If the Arbor were the Amazon, then CalPIRG representatives are the piranhas and I am an oblivious capybara. The first two times I hedged the query with “I’m late for something.” You see, I’m very clever. Not so clever, however, when I hurried shamefully past one of the inquisitors to whom I’d given this line less than 10 minutes later after the “something,” which had consisted of checking my unsurprisingly empty mailbox at the UCen.
Later that day I was genuinely headed somewhere on a tight schedule when once again I was ambushed. “Excuse me, have you pledged to CalPIRG?” a sincere-looking young man asked, singling me out as his next vic-, er, subject. “Oh no, but I have to be somewhere” came my sweet reply, in the higher pitched voice I subconsciously reserve for polite interactions. “It’s OK, I’ll walk with you,” he said, terribly excited. At least that made one of us.
He proceeded to explain CalPIRG to me. He told me how it was an organization that stood as an advocate for me and my fellow students. He said it had helped pass the high speed rail bill, as well as several other key causes I definitely supported. That all sounded great to me, and he had been very nice, so just outside the doors of my destination, I signed my name. It was after all, as he put it, the cost of one Jamba Juice a quarter, which I am sure my parents can manage.
The problem though, is that I almost didn’t sign. I wanted to protest the continued pledge attacks that had been launched at me all day and not sign purely on the principle of annoyance. That day was not even the first I had been asked to pledge by CalPIRG representatives, but it certainly set the record for the most. I felt overwhelmed, dodging the kids with the orange sticker rolls in the Arbor throughout my day. Many of you have probably had a similar experience, or several. I’m really very okay, even happy, about supporting CalPIRG. It’s just that I don’t support how aggressive their tactics are. I understand that they need pledges and that they need to get the word out, and that they maybe even need to bombard one person three times in the span of a couple hours. But they do overwhelm you. The guy I eventually signed for seemed really nice, and part of me signed just because I wanted him to be happy. But when you try to brush someone off, ideally they do not proceed to latch onto and follow you. CalPIRG may need these tactics to get the pledges it takes to support them, but I still feel passionately opposed to the aggression and ubiquity of their quest. Their methods ring heartily of those hated tele-marketers, which is a real shame, because as far as I can tell I would much rather give money to CalPIRG than those ridiculous car insurance calls everyone seems to be getting lately. I was turned off by the method, not the cause, and judging by my friends’ similar tales, they were too. Some I know signed merely and solely to placate the CalPIRG representative who had cornered them and still have no idea what exactly CalPIRG does. Is that the desired pledger they want? One who does not believe in the cause, only the ideal of an unmolested walk across campus?
As I walked home that night last week, through the Arbor one last time, a girl with the tell-tale roll of stickers zeroed in on me. I was ready. Before she could open her mouth, I pointed to the sticker and said, “Already did!” with a broad, and truly genuine, smile. I’m glad I am supporting a good cause. Honestly, though, if I were CalPIRG, I would try less to overwhelm people, and more to actually educate and persuade them. But maybe that’s just me.

Closing of UC Santa Cruz Department May Serve as Threatening Example for All UCs by Rebecca Bachman

Student Admin — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:09:06 +0000

University of California budget cuts are detrimental to students up and down the coast, and though here at UCSB students are faced with the potential implementation of new fees, fewer classes, and lower admissions, we’re lucky not to be faced with the destruction of an entire unique department as students at UC Santa Cruz are. As the UCSC Community Studies department gears up for its 40th anniversary on April 25, the very real threat of elimination plagues the program, including the dismissal of its staff and dispersion of its programs throughout the campus.
Despite arguments for the program’s durability and positive role in the community, the Community Studies department and building face destruction, and will tentatively be replaced with a new Engineering building. Supporters of the program, however, hope that UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal and his colleagues will recognize the importance of such a department and find less detrimental, more effective ways to redistribute budgets. For 40 years, UCSC has been home to this distinct Community Studies undergraduate program, which connects students with under-served communities to implement small-scale but undeniably positive results not only in the area, but also nationally and globally.
Situated comfortably within the lush landscape of the Santa Cruz campus, Community Studies has seen a recent increase in popularity with 140 current majors, but the implications of its destruction would reach far beyond the students themselves. According to the faculty and staff of the department, each year over 100 students are sent to perform more than 90,000 hours of work with community organizations and social justice movements. The department is depended upon locally, regionally, and nationally as a vital source of both labor and ideas for projects, planning, and service delivery. Some alumni have taken even further action using experience gained from the program, forming and leading various non-profit organizations. As pointed out by program supporters, the United States has desperate need for the sort of work associated with the Community Studies department; work that is adamantly encouraged by our new president.
The faculty and staff of the Community Studies department urge proactively minded students to write even the shortest of letters or emails to protest the proposed dismantling of the program. Please take a moment and send a letter or an email to George Blumenthal, UCSC Chancellor, David S. Kliger, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Dean of Social Sciences, Social Sciences Division. Contact information can be found at UCSC’s website.

Racially Offensive Imagery at Carpinteria High School by Corine Fairbanks and Monique Sonoquie

Student Admin — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:08:05 +0000

Native American mascots seem to have first appeared at the collegiate level in the early 1900s with “fighter,” “bloodthirsty,” and “noble savage” stereotypes being commonplace. In the 1980s, Native American mascots were the most popular because of perceived associations with aggression and violence.
Current imagery found at Carpinteria High School reflects Native Americans as a “people of the past,” and misrepresents cultural differences. The images of the “Headdress,” “C,” “Arrows” and particularly the “Eagle Feathers” are all inappropriate. In spite of the vast differences across Native American cultures, most still agree on the sanctity of the Eagle Feathers, which are actual living spiritual entities to native peoples who practice their traditions, as highly regarded to them as the Christian Cross and the Star of David are to their respective religions. Non-ceremonial use of Eagle Feathers is considered sacrilegious, and when public schools use these images in direct connection to Native Americans, it can be considered a form of profanity.
There are over 500 federally recognized Nations (tribes) in the United States, as well as thousands more that are not formally recognized by the federal government. Each of these Nations is unique in language, customs and spiritual practice. Our diversity as a people, and the vast contributions we make throughout contemporary American society are not taught or represented anywhere at CHS. Today, we are severely underrepresented in American popular culture, and what little information that the average American has access to about Native Americans is through culturally and historically inaccurate movies and books, representations that are both deficient and discriminatory.
Removing Native American mascots and associated imagery has been a major political issue nationwide for over fifty years. The most frequent response we hear to these requests are “This is our culture!” and, “You should feel honored.” The original intention may have been to “honor” us; however, education regarding our cultures and historical violations of them are a more appropriate way to show “respect.” Research by professionals, including the American Psychological Association, the United States Commission on Civil Rights, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association have affirmed the detrimental effects that radicalized mascots have on society, especially youth.
The continued use of offensive imagery after it has been objected to makes the offense intentional, perpetuating attitudes of domination, control and ownership, suggesting, “We know better than you do and you will do what we say, like it or not.”
So we ask you, if what most people know about Native Americans is in fact negative or misinformed stereotype, then how can our society understand and teach historical or contemporary Native American cultures and struggles? If people aren’t taught the truth, then how can they act and vote in ways beneficial to Native American people or society as a whole?
If the motivation and purpose is to “honor” Native Americans, then view this as an opportunity for CHS to model positive change in their community. Everyone, especially educators, should know that racism has negative impacts on all of us. The next step for CHS is clear — remove all of the racially offensive imagery and adopt culturally sensitive curricula with the guidance of Native American professionals.
Corine Fairbanks is a member of the Santa Barbara American Movement and Monique Sonoquie is a board member of The Indian Graduate Student Alliance.

Talking Taxes: Comparing Opposite Opinions by Ross Nolan

Student Admin — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:07:14 +0000

Today is tax day, the day that the government takes some of the money you have earned and spends it as it sees fit. Tax policy is one of the issues that most strongly divides liberals and conservatives in this country, so today is the perfect opportunity to lay out just what the two sides’ philosophies on taxes are, and what results come about from these different tax policies.
No American, liberal or conservative, can deny that the government needs to raise revenue through taxation. To the conservative, taxes are a way for the government to raise the revenue it needs to carry out its legitimate functions, particularly those laid out in the Constitution. Maintaining the military and building roads, schools, bridges, and other vital public works should be funded by tax dollars since they would not exist on private dollars alone. The government must take a portion of each one of our salaries to fund these efforts. Since the benefits of all of these are publicly shared, the conservative feels that all people should pay a little bit. Everyone should have some stake in the system.
Liberals basically agree with conservatives on all of the above, with one key exception. Liberals feel that there is another purpose of taxation beyond simply raising revenue. They see taxation as a way to achieve some socially desirable ends. They seek to use the government’s coercive power to tax in order to distribute income from certain people to others, specifically from those who have considerable income to those that are somehow “wrongly” deprived of that income. Liberals feel that if one person is rich, it is only because he or she somehow “stole” that money from the person who is poor. They think that this is unfair, and the government should use its power to put that money back in “rightful” hands.
So should the government use its power to redistribute income from the rich to the poor? Isn’t this only fair since the rich have more than enough to go around? The answer is no. High taxes on the wealthy and on corporations create a huge disincentive to do business where taxes are high. Our state is a perfect example of this. (Did any of you even know that sales taxes just went up 1 percent on April 1?)
This state, run by “tax and spend” democrats for decades, has created an environment that is so unfriendly to businesses that the productive sector of California (those who actually pay taxes) are leaving in droves. The liberal democrats think that by raising taxes on Californians, they will get more money to fund their pet projects. Hardly! All this does is tell the people making money and creating jobs here to leave. Why work and create jobs in California when the government will just take the rewards away? Why not move those jobs to another state? Is it any wonder that our state is almost bankrupt and our unemployment is over 10 percent? The response from democrats is to raise taxes even higher.
California, you need to wake up. Students on this campus voted overwhelmingly for democrats in the last election. Thank God that Tony Strickland won, depriving the democrats of a super majority in the State Senate. If he had not won, the tax increases on April 1 would have been much worse. The liberal democrats running this state are only going to keep asking for more.
You may be tempted to think, “Yeah! Stick it to those rich assholes! Greedy bastards taking all our money!” Look where this ideology has gotten us. Good luck getting a job in this state when you graduate. We need to start electing fiscal conservatives like Senator Strickland who will cut taxes and bring these jobs back here. If it creates income inequality, so be it. I am willing to accept some guy getting super rich if it means that he can hire me and I can get a decent job. The Left is trying to build up class resentment by getting you to spend so much time getting pissed off at the rich that you don’t even notice them robbing you blind and bankrupting us all.
And you vote for them. Good job, UCSB.

Ordinance May Be Unfair But It’s A Matter of Law by Alex Cabot

Student Admin — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:13:32 +0000

Many UCSB students have no doubt heard by this point about the new ordinance that will soon be in force that targets “partying” in Isla Vista. Several county officials met with students on Thursday, Feb. 19 to explain the new policy and what it implies for residents of IV. Those people included Doreen Farr; Dan Hicks, Administrator of the Ventura County Limits Project; Dr. Shareen Khatapoush of Fighting Back, a task force that seeks to reduce underage drinking in Santa Barbara county; Ashley Day, AS On-Campus Representative; Chuck Eckhart of the IV Property Owner Association; Sue Paul, Assistant CEO of Santa Barbara County; and Lt. Brian Olmstead of the IV Foot Patrol.

Students were generally outraged about the ordinance, the enforcement of which appeared arbitrary and aimed at reducing what is essentially “victimless” crime. The ordinance will hold the tenants of any dwelling in which the police find underage minors consuming alcohol responsible, and charge them fines of up to $1,000. It will determine that excessive noise gives police probable cause to enter an IV house or apartment, at which point the tenant will be held responsible if minors are found drinking.

While I understand that this new policy is unpopular and in all likelihood infringes on the rights of the majority of UCSB students who just want to have a good time and can do so without endangering themselves or anyone else, the truth still remains that it is the law in the State of California and the other 49 American states that it is illegal to consume alcohol if you are under 21. While I personally feel that the United States maintains an arbitrarily high minimum drinking age, particularly in comparison to the standards of almost every other industrialized country, as of yet that same law has yet to be struck down in any court, or overturned by any popular referendum.

The truth of the matter is, most American adults between the ages of 18 and 21 are politically apathetic and do not bother to vote, the minority who are enrolled in college often being the exception. Consequently politicians risk little in drafting legislation that curtails their rights, particularly if other demographics, such as concerned suburban soccer moms will applaud the measure. I would challenge anyone under the age of 21 who has been charged with an MIP or another age-related drinking offense to contest the charge on the basis of age discrimination, a practice that has been prohibited by the courts in several landmark rulings, primarily in the defense of the elderly. But until then, the fact remains that the law stands, and the police are only doing their jobs in attempting to enforce it.

IV Property Owner Association Chuck Eckhart, an opponent of the new ordinance, warned students that all of the tenants of a particular residence would be financially liable if police found underage drinkers in the residence, even if they were not physically present at the party, or for that matter, were in town at all. “You could be in Spain, and your roommate could host a party, and you would still be liable,” he admonished. That having been said, when a group of people choose to live together—and among other things, all sign the same lease agreement—they all become responsible for one another’s behavior. If your roommate punches a hole in the wall or breaks a window or sets the carpet on fire, your landlord will deduct the cost of repairs from your mutual deposit regardless of who was at fault. If your roommate is growing weed in his closet, and the Narcotics task force kicks down the door with a warrant, you are all going to jail, regardless of whether you knew about it. These are some of the potential consequences of living with others, so in the absence of this ordinance being overturned or not, the lesson is to consider whom you choose to live with, and set ground rules about what can and cannot go on while you are living together. Otherwise I suggest you get a studio.

Unfortunately UCSB and the greater Santa Barbara community do not have the best town-gown relationship, and while I do not doubt for a second that a fair amount of the mayhem caused in IV on any given weekend is the doing of people who do not live there themselves, there is still a far too relaxed community standard when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not. The fact is I suspect that a good number of students, perhaps even an outright majority, do think that the daily shenanigans of IV life—almost all of which are alcohol related—are indeed funny, and if anything, add to the whole “party-til-you-puke” atmosphere that our school is notorious for. As long as those attitudes exist, then no doubt the greater Santa Barbara community will take all necessary measures to enforce the law as it is written, even if it does little to actually curb drinking, underage or otherwise.

My advice on how best to beat this ordinance: Don’t host parties in your own apartment. I can assure you that enough other people will choose to do so anyway so that if you need a party you will be able to find one on any night of the week. And if the party is broken up, then that host is liable and not you. Maybe doing so will not make you a “team player” or allow you the popularity that you might otherwise have if your place is known as the place to crash on a Friday or Saturday night. But judging by how many students last Thursday were arguing that a fine of even $250 for a first offense will force them to drop out of college, then I am afraid that any other alternative might not be an acceptable risk.