Blog

Feb 20, 2017 | By Dominick Williams | UC Berkeley

It’s tough to look outward at the political fray that describes the current state of our nation without being overcome by a deep sense of dread and worry. This protrudes even now as I read the most recent headline-
“Rex Tillerson Approved for State Secretary”- and think: holy shit.
Then I calm down (not really) and discover the contemplations that come from such turbulent times. How did we even get here? What could I have even done? What do I do now?
I’m certain there are many other students, journalists, community organizers, public officials, lawmakers, and everyday citizens thinking these same thoughts. It’s what overwhelms a concerned father of three, afraid for the future as he jostles the uncertainty of not only his wellbeing, but the wellbeing of his children. It’s what terrifies the Dreamer- who has lived in this country since she could remember- when she thinks of her family’s situation worsening due to the loss of her DACA status, which would halt her dreams of becoming the family’s first lawyer. It’s what I think of, when I look in both the faces of my father, the concerned caretaker, and my close friend, the Dreamer, as I struggle to stand my ground against the massive silhouette of uncertainty that is overtaking my outlook on the future.
I do, however, believe that this is not the time to lie defeated.
I instead believe that it’s now the time to be honest with ourselves.
How did we get here?
Interesting question. It seemed like it was a long time ago when politics had at least a sense of civility, and now we’ve come to a place where everyday it seems that some executive order is limiting our freedom or some executive nominee feels like a slap in the face to our morals and values.
For most Californians, the finger is usually pointed at the policies and procedures of the conservative. THEIR lack of reason. THEIR stubbornness. THEIR close-mindedness. THEIR belief in themselves as the sole purveyor of moral superiority.
There is truth to this argument. Many far-right conservatives have halted the federal government’s actions, proved unmoving on issues like gun control and the rights of women, and have consistently been at odds with those who are unfamiliar, who are different from them in ideology, religion, sexual orientation, or race.
But hey. Liberals? We’re guilty too.
Wait, wait. Hear me out.
A cataclysmic rift has been tearing through the United States and is ripping our country apart, and yes, this rift is splitting from both sides. That stubbornness, close-mindedness, and belief in ourselves as the sole purveyors of moral superiority? That’s a liberal dilemma as well. For as much crap as we give conservatives for not taking a seat at the table, we must critique ourselves if we choose not to be present either.
“C’mon now, you can’t reason with a Trump voter. It’s better to just cut your losses, right?”
In all honestly even as I’m writing this, a very large part of me thinks, “Well yeah. That’s what you’re supposed to do . . . wait why am I writing this?” It’s well understood that there are clear ideological differences between D’s and R’s, differences that can’t be resolved over a coffee or friendly chat. Therefore, it makes sense that I and many others do heavily agree with the “business as usual” sentiments, which call on us to progress onward leaving conservative Americans behind. Eh, feels easy. Shouldn’t be a problem.
But then I consider the consequences of such actions.
Plenty of Californians were shocked to believe that Trump had even won the GOP nomination, let alone won the general election, or even the electoral vote, without some Democrat, whether it be Hillary, Sanders, or Obama, standing up and kicking ass to prevent such an atrocity. But to be in the California political bubble that we are in translates to a nearly complete lack of context of what people in much of the country are dealing with. That’s consequence #1.
Consequence #2 is that our actions became completely reactive rather than proactive. If liberals could have better understood the needs of ordinary Americans desperate for something to be done about their jobs, their wellbeing, and their beliefs, then I think that we could have prevented Trump’s tiny hands from grabbing power.
Consequence #3 is that Californians became complacent. Surrounded by opinions that mirror ours, with a Democrat-controlled assembly, senate, governor, court, everything, with a liberal, African American, youthful president, we got comfortable with our political landscape without taking into account the rest of the country’s political direction, which, apparently, wasn’t as liberally blue as we had thought.
Regardless of Big Money in politics, Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression, and the everyday hard-nosed conservative voter, it was our comfort, our complacency, and our lack of willingness to understand our enemy that created the monstrosity that is Donald Trump (Ouch. Yeah that hurt me too). We, the liberal-leaning voters, are just as responsible. Our stubbornness and complacency has kept us from reaching across the aisle to conservatives and finding common ground.
“But there is no common ground to be had with a Trump voter.”
Hey, you might be right . . . Wait. I don’t think I’m supposed to say that.
I do happen to believe that what excites the majority of conservative voters is not outright racism, bigotry, and sexism (though they must own that this is what they voted for regardless); rather, what makes a Trump voter is fear and consistent frustration. They fear for their jobs, their beliefs, and their families, and are angry that government isn’t taking in their concerns. Mind you, this requires you to not envision a Trump voter with the inherently evil strawman caricature that we are used to. It’s a challenge, I know. Nevertheless it’s necessary to foster understanding.
Mind you, this is not a message telling you to stop fighting. This isn’t a call for inaction or passiveness in any sense. Rather, I’m asking us to engage in a battle on multiple fronts.
There’s a reason why the same people that voted for Obama voted for Trump this election season. There’s a reason why counties and states that Obama carried TWICE succumbed to the grips of Trump. And it wasn’t because Hillary was black.
I implore you to listen. Not just argue, or open a debate then grudgingly listen only to reply. Listen to understand. Wear their shoes. I’m not inviting you to like the person, hell I’m not even inviting you to agree with them. I am only inviting you to listen to understand, and see where your own positions have fallen short for a collective America, then see what can be done to change things.
It is hard to move forward without certainty in the first step. Nevertheless it must be taken. Let us liberals be the vanguard to healing, and do what needs to be done to save our democracy.
Bragging rights are always nice anyway.

---

Dominick Williams is a sophomore at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the Local Legislative Affairs Manager for the Associated Students University of California and is a current Cal-in-Sacramento fellow. He enjoys a board games with friends, especially Monopoly because he feels it’s a great way of testing those friendships while also having fun. “A ‘two-for-one’-er,” he says.

Feb 20, 2017 | By Kunal Kerai | UC Berkeley

If you are looking for an easy read, looking to confirm a bias you have prior to opening this article, or to comment about how this post belongs on Facebook, spare yourself the time and leave.

On February 1, 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos, was scheduled to speak on UC Berkeley’s campus amidst protests, and a resistance dance party. Initially, the protests attracted nonviolent protesters, but as the evening progressed and armed individuals took over Sproul Plaza, nonviolence devolved to violence, and organized peaceful demonstration devolved into disorganized chaotic rioting. The protests at Berkeley (yet again) catapulted the University and its students into the public spotlight so far as President Trump tweeted to threaten to pull federal funding from the university.

Having been at the protests personally, it is frustrating to see people, who completely unaware of the situation, consume media without questioning the narrative presented before them. A few too many people– including our president– believe that UC Berkeley infringed on Yiannopoulous’s right to free speech without realizing what “free speech” actually means. Moreover, the very same people may not realize that Yiannopoulos’s speech is not necessarily protected, and that he can be held liable for damages.

This article will cover the differences between free speech and speaking freely, what transpired at UC Berkeley, Trump’s threat to divest from UC Berkeley, and Yiannopoulos’s potential for a lawsuit. While I will cover a range of topics, at the core of this article is the highly complex topic of free speech. I am willing to admit that prior to writing this article, I was very uneducated on the topic of free speech. After 32 hours (yes, 32 hours) of researching cases, reading Supreme Court opinions, and examining legal tests used in legal scrutiny, I can say that I am more uneducated on the topic. I am in no means a legal expert– Supreme Court Justices who have decades of experience still struggle with interpreting the First Amendment. I write to present a sorely lacking legal perspective on the topic of the Berkeley protests.
With that said, let us begin.

Free Speech, or Speaking Freely?

Freedom of speech (or free speech) is one of the most misunderstood concepts in American politics. It’s often used as a defensive tactic to deflect, or to disarm dissenting opinions. Humorously enough, it’s also used to supposedly make one who says something so grossly offensive immune from harsh criticism, public ridicule, or societal ostracization. As my favorite xkcd comic puts it:

In either of the above scenarios, the First Amendment (by virtue of mentioning “free speech”) is not applicable. That when persons generally cite “free speech”, they are, rather, referring to their ability to speak freely.
But they are the same thing. Why are you being picky about word choice?
As rhetoricians, we are taught that words hold power, and even the slightest change in a word, phrase, or clause can change the semantic meaning, or the thought being conveyed. While the denotations of “free speech” and “speaking freely” may be similar (both denote the ability to convey opinions without censorship) , the connotations differ so greatly that a distinction must be made. So then, what is the distinction?

As mentioned earlier, when persons generally invoke “free speech” (remember that it is a truncation of “freedom of speech”), they are referring to the First Amendment. Since all ratified amendments are part of the U.S. Constitution– a legal document that pertains to the institution of government– and the First Amendment is a ratified amendment, persons who cite the First Amendment are citing the U.S. Constitution. It can therefore be said that the nature of “free speech” is not only legal, but also institutional. In addition, the etymology of “free speech” ties back to the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Americanism, which is further evidence that the definition is both legal and institutional.

Then there is “speaking freely”, or “to speak freely”. Simply put, there is no reference, or etymological ties to the law, or an institution when saying this. Here’s an example with both:
I am entitled to free speech.
I am entitled to speaking freely.

Notice that while both sentences have the same denotation, they differ in meaning because of the presence of legal and institutional connotations in the former, and the absence thereof in the latter. If this does not make sense, let’s break “free speech” down further by examining the exact wording of the First Amendment, which is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – 1st Amendment, Bill of Rights

What furthers the point that the definition of “free speech” is legal and institutional is the direct reference to law (“shall make no law”), and the institution of government (“Congress”, “Government”). Yes, the First Amendment prevents an establishment of an official religion, and promotes a citizen’s rights to exercising religion, freedom of speech and press, to peaceably assemble, and to petition, but this is conditional in that the government (federal, and because of the 14th amendment, state and local, too) must be an involved party; the contested issue must be a “matter of public concern”. In other words, unless the government is involved somehow, the First Amendment does not apply for the private sector, or between private citizens.

This theoretically means that a private employer can fire persons “employed-at-will” (most people) for expressing their beliefs (although five states prohibit this completely), because “An employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed.” In other words, the fired employee cannot file a suit against the employer on the basis of the First Amendment as Dr. Cox, an employment discrimination lawyer, mentions.

This theoretically means that a persons’ speech is not protected by the First Amendment on a private university campus. This is particularly evident when NYU cancelled Yiannopolous’s appearance without infringing on his First Amendment rights, simply because he does not have any on a private campus.

This theoretically means that a social media company could ban a person, or delete their posts because “free speech” does not apply, and instead is governed by its own Terms of Service. This was the case when Milo Yiannopoulos targeted actress Leslie Jones. Despite Milo’s cries for free speech, Twitter maintained the ban on account that he violated Twitter’s “abusive speech” clause. In this case, Twitter is a private corporation, and Milo is a private citizen, therefore the First Amendment is not applicable–Milo cannot have his rights violated if they are not protected by the law.

Hate speech is free speech. BUT there are exceptions.

“Hate speech”, in the conventional sense, is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld the rights to free speech for the KKK, Nazis, and Westboro Baptist church in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), Snyder v. Phelps (2011), respectfully. In addition, individuals are allowed to use offensive words and phrases to convey a political message as established in Cohen v. California (1971). It is terribly unfortunate and disheartening that people have to suffer, or fear for their lives in name of free speech, but as UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman put it,

Universities “support free speech and condemn censorship for two reasons — to ensure that positive, helpful, illuminating messages can circulate widely, and to expose hateful or dangerous ideas that, if never engaged or rebutted, would gain traction in the darker corners of our society. Hate speech is like mold: Its enemies are bright light and fresh air.”

However, there are certain aspects of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, which include: defamation (libel and slander), sedition, incitement to crime, actions that would cause imminent harm/ lawlessness (shouting “fire” in a theater when there isn’t one), and “fighting words”. Should “hate speech” include one of the following exceptions, only then would that speech be subject to a lawsuit or governmental interference.

 

Yiannopoulous claims U.C. Berkeley violated the First Amendment. He is wrong.

Let’s take a look at the Facebook status he posted the following day of the protest to see if his claims are true.

 

Does U.C. Berkeley demonstrate a commitment to the First Amendment?

Yes. Despite pressure from certain students, student groups, and a petition/letter signed by over 100+ faculty members, the administration allowed for Yiannopoulos to speak on campus. While the move was considered by many distasteful, it was in line with both the campus’s designation as a limited public forum, and the ruling from Supreme Court case Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District(1992), that disallows public universities from refusing its space to certain groups on the basis of “viewpoint discrimination”. Should the administration have cancelled the event, or refused providing space for Yiannopoulos, the campus would have been in violation of the First Amendment, but this is not the case as the University did not refuse space to him. UC Berkeley upheld its legal obligation to the First Amendment.

Did U.C. Berkeley take all the measures it could to guarantee the safety of its speakers, students, and visitors?

Yes. The administration provided all the safety to the fullest extent of its power. Having been at one of the protests myself, I can attest that there was a more than sizable security force in place in addition to an abundant amount of barricading to protect Yiannopolous and the audience. Berkeley College Republicans (BCR) paid the standard $10,000 that any student organization has to pay for security and should they have wanted more, then they should have spent more money on more security.

After all, they were warned by the administration that things may get violent, and they had a more than foretelling track record with a man being shot in Seattle, and heated protests that have occurred on other college campuses. In the campus’s own words:

“UC Berkeley officials and [University police] went to extraordinary lengths to plan for this event, working closely with the Berkeley College Republicans and putting the appropriate resources in place to maintain security. Officials were in contact with other university campuses where Yiannopoulos had been asked to speak, and they paid close attention to lessons learned. Dozens of additional police officers were on duty for Wednesday’s scheduled event, and multiple methods of crowd control were in place. Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence.”

To the reasonable person, what else could be done by the university to protect the speaker, audience, and protesters without impeding on anyone’s right to free speech?

Can Trump divest federal funds from U.C. Berkeley?

Following the extensive coverage of the Berkeley protests, President Trump tweeted the following tweet:

No. He cannot divest federal funds from the University without violating the First Amendment, or having his decision reversed by a federal court. This is because Berkeley’s administration took all the steps necessary to protect the First Amendment rights of Yiannopoulos and the audience. To hold Berkeley accountable for the actions of the violent few is as absurd as holding all white people accountable for the actions of the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church– the argument does not stand. Moreover, the University cannot be held liable for the actions of private citizens (violent protesters) simply because the violence occurred on campus.

Yiannopoulos plans to return to Berkeley, but may not be protected by the First Amendment. In fact, he could be sued.

On his Facebook page, Yiannopolous mentioned he has plans to return to Berkeley within the next few months. Should he return, he may not be protected under the First Amendment, based on his current track record.
During his speech at UW Milwaukeee, Yiannopoulos spoke on the issue of Title IX, then outed Adelaide Karen Kramer, a trans student, by putting their picture up in front of hundreds of people. Yiannopoulos said the following about Kramer: “I have known some passing trannies in my life. Trannies—you’re not allowed to say that. I’ve known some passing trannies, which is to say transgender people who pass as the gender they would like to be considered. The way that you know he’s failing is I’d almost still bang him.” In her own words, Kramer responded,

“I have never, ever, ever been more terrified in my life of being outed. Ever.”

It eventually got to the point where she no longer felt safe at her school, and transferred to another institution to finish her education.

Before proceeding, it is crucial to understand that even though Yiannopoulos is on public property, that his speech is not automatically protected by the First Amendment. It very much depends on the factors that play out.

Yiannopolous is not protected under the First Amendment because his attack on Kramer can be considered defamation, and his speech can constitute as “fighting words”. In Kramer’s case, she was subject to both public ridicule, and it injured her profession as a student by forcing her to dropout, re-apply to a different school, transfer, and pay the associated fees in resuming her education.

The First Amendment protects a speaker as long as the topic they cover is a matter of public concern, not private concern. In Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976), the Supreme Court asserted that in order to be a public figure, one must ” assume any role of especial prominence in the affairs of society” or “thrust [oneself] to the forefront of any particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved in it.” Prior to the incident, Kramer was neither in a role of “especial prominence” nor thrusted herself “to the forefront of any particular public controversy”. The case supports that she is not a public figure, and therefore the nature of her business is of private concern.
Justice Alito, a conservative Bush appointee, powerfully dissented in Snyder v. Phelps (2011) where he asserts,

“A physical assault may occur without trespassing; it is no defense that the perpetrator had “the right to be where [he was].” And the same should be true with respect to unprotected speech. Neither classic “fighting words” nor defamatory statements are immunized when they occur in a public place, and there is no good reason to treat a verbal assault based on the conduct or character of a private figure”.

Yiannopolous could have made the same statement on bathroom politics without needing to directly target Kramer, who again is a private citizen, into the public spotlight by posting her picture in front of hundreds, then ridiculing her. Yiannopolous executed an intentional attack on Kramer. Breyer asserts in Snyder v. Phelps (2011) that

“the constitutionally protected nature of the end would not shield [his] use of unlawful, unprotected means.”

That is to say that even though Kramer became a matter of public concern after Yiannopolous targeted her, that does not protect his means of doing so.
Going back to a point made earlier, one cannot violate an individual’s right to free speech if it isn’t protected in the first place.

So, why is this relevant to Yiannopolous’s appearance at Berkeley?

Several anonymous sources revealed that Yiannopoulos planned to out undocumented students to his crowd at UC Berkeley. While he claims that this not true, his track record proves otherwise. Should Yiannopoulos return to the campus, and should he out undocumented students as he outed Kramer at UW Milwaukee, he will not be protected by the First Amendment.

Closing Thoughts

This article in no way is as comprehensive and thorough as I would like it to be, even though it is by far the longest post I have seen or written. But I hope that the information presented generates a logical, intellectual concurrence or dissent on the matter of free speech.

---

Kunal is a senior studying psychology and rhetoric at UC Berkeley. He works in the tech industry and advocates for social issues and education within the field.

 

 

Oct 18, 2016 | By Megan Turrill | UC Berkeley
Multicultural co-curricular resources in higher education are more severely affected by university budget cuts than academic resources at UC Berkeley. Budget cuts to multicultural student spaces and development offices force the number of diversity programs offered to decrease, restrict hours of operation, and limit the number of staff that they are able to employ. It is in these abandoned spaces that students, specifically students of color, are able to develop a sense of community, deal with the stress of student life, reconcile classroom experiences with day-to-day experiences, and gain confidence in embracing a self-determined success. The student activist who seeks to respond to the current issue of multicultural resource budgeting at UC Berkeley or any other situation of university injustice must ground their understanding of the situation and their response within and beyond the language of the present day through the act of theorizing.

“University administrators don’t just wake up one day and think, ‘Diversity is important.’ It is important to ask yourselves as students why that is.” -Director of a multicultural office at UC Berkeley, personal communication, August 3, 2016**

This university staff member was speaking to the fact that historically, multicultural resources have been implemented as a result of student activism, not as a result of administrative action. As the director stated, this should lead us to ask: Why do higher education administrators continually fail to maintain sustainable multicultural resources? Why do budget cuts occur to multicultural resources on a more frequent and severe basis? According to many administrators the reason is pragmatic: when budget cuts affect universities, administrators will eliminate non-essential student resources before academically essential resources. In response to this, student activists may seek to prove that multicultural resources are essential, and they have taken this approach. Yet, in order to affect lasting change, it is crucial that activists begin to ask in what dominant structures the current understanding of “essential versus non-essential” are located and legitimized. The defunding of multicultural resources is justified through a specific understanding of the essential. What is this understanding of essential grounded in? How is it possible to work as an activist within it? Is it possible to work beyond it?

Acknowledging the recurring struggle of legitimizing multicultural university resources, it is crucial to arm ourselves as student leaders with a set of theories, the same theories that we discuss in classrooms every day and gruel over every midterm season. Theory allows student activists to frame and respond to the issue of multicultural resource budgeting as a historically and structurally implicated issue; theory will offer answers that administrators may not readily recognize or concede. Critical theories that are discussed by students and professors in social sciences and humanities classrooms daily will offer student activists new ways of responding to current university decision-making trends.
It is true that theory has its limitations; it is neither indisputable law nor indestructible solution. It is never entirely applicable or intersectional. Yet, as student activists we should seek to actively recognize the healing, emancipatory ability of theory. We should struggle to make the theory that we delve into in classrooms accessible and applicable to our everyday experiences of injustice through individual and group reflection. We need to encourage the practice of theorizing within student movement spaces.

In the words of bell hooks,

“When our lived experience of theorizing is fundamentally linked to processes of self-recovery, of collective liberation, no gap exists between theory and practice…Theory is not inherently healing, liberatory, or revolutionary. It fulfills this function only when we ask that it do so and direct our theorizing towards this end.”

We should never doubt the ability of the theories that we learn in our social sciences and humanities classes to arm us in response to the marginalizing experiences several student communities face even in this “liberal” education system. Let us remember that just because our universities provide us with radical theories in classrooms does not mean that those same universities are not implicated in the very systems of oppression that radical theories often denounce. We should seek to introduce theorizing into the pedagogies and practices of our social movements against instances of higher education injustice. Past student movements have been successful in creating multicultural resources; now, we need to begin to ask why the fight to sustain multicultural resources has continued to be a consistent struggle across both decades of time and space. We need to begin subjecting university budget decisions and administrative rhetoric to critical social theory and facilitating group reflection in response. It is in these efforts that we will be able to recognize and respond to not merely individuals but structures that consistently motivate and justify university budget-making decisions. Beyond attempting to prove that multicultural resources are essential, we need to address the structures that legitimize the dominant understanding of “essential” versus “non-essential”. If we fail to do this, we will fail to ensure long-term sustainability for multicultural resources. We will continue to see the purpose and significance of multicultural resources de-legitimized and defunded in pursuit of the pragmatic.
**Asked not to be named for fear of reproach from UC administrators.

---

Megan is a fourth-year at UC Berkeley studying Rhetoric and Education. She transferred from Antelope Valley College in southern California. She loves baseball, critical theory, and shopping online.

 

 

 

Oct 18, 2016 | By Julia Schemmer | UC Riverside
Interview with REIGNITE Co-Founder, Nushi Yapabandara

From August 11-14, hundreds of UC students gathered together for the annual UCSA Congress, under the name of the Student Organizing Summit. During the weekend, students chose two undergraduate campaigns, Reignite and SOS. Reignite, a campaign geared toward tackling systematic racism and the school-to-prison pipeline. The campaign has huge plans for the next two years, and we had the opportunity to speak to one of the co-founders of the campaign, Nushi Yapabandara.

What inspired the development of the campaign REIGNITE?

We had been wanting to run this since UCSA Congress 2015, as many folks know, because of the horrendous instances of police brutality that kept and still do keep popping up in the news. reIGNITE was originally aimed more at severing the school-to-prison pipeline rather than stopping police brutality, but we are now looking into what we can do to help and prevent such awful occurrences from happening.

That’s amazing! What are some of the short term goals of the campaign, and what are some of the long term goals of the campaign?

In the short term we’re definitely looking to recruit as many people as possible into working with the campaign to make our long term goals more feasible. We’re still figuring out which long term goals specifically we can work on most efficiently, but they include areas such as community policing, working with our EVPLA’s to reach out to local PDs, outreach to local middle and high schools, and getting UC Merced their Multicultural Center among other things.

What student communities are most impacted by the work that the campaign seeks to achieve?

Students of color in general, including but not limited to first generation/low income college students, our black and brown brothers and sisters, and women of color. Those are the first communities that come to mind but the issues we tackle affect campus climate in general, reducing tension and making everyone feel more at home on their campus.

When you look back on the two years of this campaign, what is the most important thing you hope is accomplished?

I hope that reIGNITE running Diversify the UC shows other students of color that it is possible to help the city you came from at any given time. A lot of us want to graduate, get solid jobs, and go back to the neighborhood we grew up in to reform the area for future generations. We don’t have to wait that long. We have tons of resources and power at the UC that allow us to put serious pressure where needed. I hope Diversify the UC is seen as a successful campaign after our first two years, as we are already working on attaining non-profit status to continue chipping away at the problems we are tackling now. We have some big shoes to fill because of FYRE and the original IGNITE so it won’t be easy, but I have faith in our team and I know our passion shows. Things can and will change as long as you put in hard work.

How can students get involved in the work that the campaign is doing?

If anyone wants to get involved with reIGNITE’s Diversify the UC campaign, they can reach out to anyone on the board or message our Facebook page for more details! Some campuses don’t have persons of contact yet, but we are working with their EVP’s to find the right people. You can get in contact with your EVP if you’re interested as well!

UC Riverside: Momo Hussein, Corey Willis
UC San Diego: Said Said, Yusuf Ahmed
UC Santa Barbara: Myself (Nushi Yapabandara), Menelik Dagnachew
UC Davis: Maya Sadler
UC Merced: Daria Imbukwa
UC Berkeley: Leo Irving

Campus climate is an integral part of the university experience, and Reignite is determined to understand and address the underlying causes of student discomfort on campuses with an intersectional lens. If this sounds like your passion or area of interest, don’t delay to get involved!

*front page & article photos courtesy of Nushi Yapabandara

---

Julia Schemmer is a first-year Public Policy major at UC Riverside and Media Intern for the UC Student Association. Her goal is simple: to put the lit back in politics.

 

Oct 16, 2016 | By Veronica Barron | UC Berkeley

Interview with SOS interview Co-Founder, Hannah Houska

August 2016 marked a historical moment in the history of UCSA organizing. Traditionally, the Student Organizing Summit, previously known as Congress , is utilized to choose one new undergraduate campaign to work on throughout the following year, in addition to the one chosen last year. This year, however, students decided to elect two new campaigns, in addition to continuing to work on the #HowAreYou campaign. Sustain Our Students (SOS), a campaign focusing on basic needs insecurity on college campuses, was much needed. We recently had the opportunity to speak to the co-founder of the campaign, Hannah Houska.

What inspired the development of the campaign?

Food and housing insecurity is the hot topic of the UC right now, and it’s been at the forefront of students’ minds for a while, but unfortunately, much action hasn’t been taken around it. My personal experience was that the cost of education is so high, that I, as well as many other students, were having to sacrifice money on our rent or textbooks just to pay tuition. Not to mention that some students send money home. Personally, I was sacrificing so many of my meals, that I wasn’t nourished enough at the end of last spring quarter; I wasn’t physically healthy, and I slipped into tendencies of depression. We should all have the resources to be happy and healthy students. This campaign was runner up last year and the students then really laid the base plan of it; I have to give them credit for it.

That’s amazing! What are some of the short term goals of the campaign, and what are some of the long term goals of the campaign?

Our campaign will utilize five key tactics: establishing a common language, targeted data collection, identification of at risk populations, increased campus awareness, and a cultural shift toward sustainable action. Each tactic has components that are short term and long term, but data collection needs to happen in order to get some conversations started and changes made, so that’s likely what a lot of the campaign will cover in its early stages.

What student communities are most impacted by the work that the campaign seeks to achieve?

We recognize that there are certain groups of people who could be at a higher risk for these insecurities, but there is actually very little data on housing insecurity, and only some on food insecurity. The research is on the rise, but there’s not enough we’re doing to recognize the intersection. In fact, one of our five main tactics is the identification of at-risk populations.

When you look back on the two years of this campaign, what is the most important thing you hope is accomplished?

One accomplishment is definitely carrying out the long term components of our tactics, but also seeing that these efforts don’t just help the whiter community, and spreading an awareness that when you have healthier, happier students they’ll become healthier, happier adults who are willing to invest in the UC and education. I also hope that we will be able to implement sustainable updates for a lot of our campuses’ food and dining facilities, as this will ultimately drive down costs for students.

How can students get involved in the work that the campaign is doing?

They can send an email to SustainOurStudents@gmail.com detailing how they’d like to get involved or to sign up for our newsletters which will be debuting soon!

Food & housing Insecurity is something that affects most, if not all students. If this sounds like your passion or area of interest, don’t delay to get involved!

---

Veronica is a Junior at the University of California, Berkeley. She is the Associate Director of Legislative Affairs within the ASUC and also mentors middle school girls through Women and Youth Supporting Each Other (WYSE). She enjoys hiking and has a habit of singing Christmas music year-round.

 

Oct 16, 2016 | By Manoella Narain | UC Riverside
It’s most wonderful time of the year and I’m not talking about Christmas folks. That’s right, the second Tuesday of November is coming and that means it’s time for the national election . For us millennials, this means we are having one of our classic first times, if you know what I mean. This also means it’s our time to shine! Research has shown that millennials have officially surpassed the Baby Boomers. What does this mean for us? We now have the power to sway the election in which ever way WE decide. This essentially means we are deciding who the next president of the United States will be; no pressure

Don’t get me wrong: I completely understand that this election has so many up and downs it could qualify to be a roller coaster at Six Flags, with the email scandals and a politician whose main argument to almost every political debate is “I started my company with a small loan of a million dollars” or “global warming is a lie created by China.” As a Philosophy major at UC Riverside, I can I tell you it’s not an argument since it lacks a premise and conclusion, but that’s just me being salty. Back to the main point: it’s our time to take a stand and go out and vote, because this is the election that we have our first opportunity to be a voice, not just in our community but in our nation .
Now, I am completely aware that some have argued that our main two choices for presidential candidacy could be the worst two things that could have happened to our country..Yet when we make our vote this November, we are not just voting for a candidate. We are voting for the policies that they will be putting into place. Remember this November, when you make your vote, you’re not voting just to benefit your life. You are voting to benefit the country and all those whom reside in it. No matter who you decide to vote for this national election, remember being heard is much better than staying silent.

I’m no professor, but here’s my unsolicited opinion on the topic of voter registration.

I’m ashamed.
I’m ashamed that my peers would rather be political on Facebook, instead of being proactive and creating the change that they wish to see in the world. Sometimes, I feel as if my generation genuinely believes that a post on Facebook is a better contribution to society than going out and voting .

As a woman who grew up in both New York and California, I can tell you that our education consists of how our country came to be. We learned how, if we come together to voice concerns, we can make the hard world we live in just a little more bearable. We learned that we can make difference; we learned how to create meaningful change. We were granted meaning.

Don’t believe me? Take a peek at the Constitution. Our founding fathers literally fought to have this sweet freedom we take for granted everyday, and that’s okay; because being free gives us the option to use our freedom. We are the sons and daughters of our founding fathers, and like all parent-child relationships, we have a duty. We have a duty to our country just like our founding fathers. Our founding fathers paved the way to freedom and democracy. They set up the country so we can live and they gave us the ability to speak up and raise our voice to maintain this empire that they built .

I have one thing left to say: let’s go out and make our founding fathers proud. Let’s go out and VOTE.

---

Manoella Narain is a second year philosophy major at the University of California, Riverside. Monoella is a modern day Elle Woods in training heels. She used to model and work behind the scenes as an assistant director to a fashion show and intends to go to an Ivy League law school after finishing her Bachelor’s degree.