Blog

Oct 16, 2016 | By Julia Schemmer | UC Riverside
On Saturday, September 24, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed AB 2017, a bill that would have established a framework for mental health services for public colleges and universities in California. Although signing or vetoing legislation is a part of his job description, this bill was a particular blow to organizations such as the UC Student Association, the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, and the California State Student Association, who collectively spent months lobbying and advocating for the passage of the bill.

Before the impact of the veto can be realized, it’s important to take a step back and provide context for what AB 2017 is and how it would impact college students. In its original form, AB 2017 would have used the $40 million of unused funds from Prop 63 to create a grant program for colleges and universities. The colleges and universities were responsible for estimating how much they could contribute toward mental health services, and the grant program would match their investment.

My favorite part of the bill, however, was the 5% cap on administrative services. Students don’t want another Associate Vice Chancellor for Strategic Undergraduate Mental Health Initiatives – we need shorter wait times, a counseling staff that reflects the diversity of the UC, and sufficient outreach services so unreached student groups on campus disproportionately affected by the lack of mental health services could know with confidence that resources exist for them. As a queer, first-generation student survivor actively struggling with food and housing insecurity, I want a counselor that understands the complexity of my needs and is able to provide adequate sources of support to help my UC Riverside journey.

The need for mental health services is clear. On our own campus, the building itself looks like an old army barrack. It’s old, our waiting rooms are small, and our counselors are overworking themselves because there isn’t enough staff to meet the need of the counseling services that students are demanding. Students who need counseling services often wait anywhere from 2 to 4 weeks to get an appointment, and with our plethora of different backgrounds and groups represented on campus, it’s important that students are getting the individualized resources they need to have their concerns addressed. Graduate students shouldn’t have to worry about seeing a student from their TA sections when they go to counseling. Between studying for classes, working several jobs, cramming ourselves in small spaces to afford rent, and skipping meals to pay for tuition, students face enough stress already, and our university-provided mental health care system should not also be a source for it.

I’m not going to be a banging drum in the back of the room. For once, politicians, student organizations, non-profit organizations, and campus administrations are coming together on one issue: the fact that our mental health services need serious improvement. With the $40 million generated from Prop 63 (that was currently being unused and unmarked for any specific purpose), we could’ve fixed that. Students would’ve been able to get an appointment in a short amount of time with the counselors that understand them, and in an environment they feel comfortable in.

Sounds pretty awesome, right!? Unfortunately, this story takes a grim turn during the infamous Appropriations Committee. Appropriation Committees are typically the graveyard for all bills, because that’s when state representatives come together to discuss what type of fiscal commitment the state takes if the bill is enacted. During the Appropriations Committee, with Senator Ricardo Lara leading the charge, we saw our little AB 2017 survive, but the original $40 million dollar commitment was cut. Now, all funding became contingent upon the state’s budget every fiscal year, making the lack of funds unsustainable and the heroic intent behind the bill barely recognizable.

Even with everything that AB 2017 went through in the state legislature, I was still optimistic that it would pass. Who wouldn’t want a bill for the betterment of mental health services on college campuses to be signed into law? I spent weeks lobbying, phonebanking and writing op-eds to place pressure on the importance of this bill, but with one stroke of his pen, Governor Jerry Brown wiped away the opportunity for thousands of UC students to get the care they need.

This is more than simply saying “you win some, you lose some.” These are human lives on the line because it takes weeks to schedule an appointment. These are people who are hurting themselves out of desperation because our university does not have enough funds to keep mental health as the forefront of our priorities. These are students with the brightest academic and professional potential being burnt out all too early because their university cannot adequately care for them. Once again, mental health is the last on the To-Do list for the California state legislature, but for those struggling with a mental illness, it’s all we’re able to think about. The state and the University of California typically don’t work in tandem with one another, but their inability to recognize a need of the UC is jeopardizing the health and wellness of the students that the state exploits and benefits from.

Six months ago, a close friend of mine committed suicide, and every day I wonder what could have been done differently to have her back. The thought of her reaching out for help and being denied the care she needs is one that keeps me awake at night, but it’s one that Governor Brown is okay with vetoing carelessly. We’re the 5th largest economy in the world, so why does it still take so damn long for progress to be made when it comes to mental health?

It’s time for a re-prioritization of goals when it comes to the California state legislature. We cannot progress forward as a state until we address our inadequate mental health services with proper, sustainable funding. We cannot be great until we stop questioning when students come to administrators and politicians with their struggles of mental health services. Most of all, we cannot believe that our state is blameless when it is complacent in addressing services that would have been life-saving for thousands of students in community colleges, the CSU and the UC.

---

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 Zahra Abadin | UC Berkeley
2014 had the lowest youth voter turnout in 40 years. Less than a quarter of eligible 18-29 year olds voted, even lower than the abysmal 2010 turnout. Ratified in 1971, the 26th amendment lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18, leading to the largest youth voter turnout in the 1972 election. Voting is both a right and a privilege. Not everyone who is affected by the laws and policies which govern this country are able to voice their opinion. So why is it that the youth who have the ability to vote, don’t?

Voters tend to be institutionally disenfranchised due to voter ID laws, lack of access, and confusion about voting by mail policies. Although California does not require a state issued ID to vote, many other states do. By requiring ID, states are essentially creating second class citizens: those who do not have a state issued ID cannot exercise their right to vote, something which is guaranteed to every citizen. These laws are often racist in their enforcement, disenfranchising minorities and people of color. IDs are expensive and a voter needs to travel during work hours to an office to acquire one. For example, in Texas, there are few driver license offices and almost a third of the counties don’t have an office,making it a financial burden affecting people of color, primarily Latinx & Chicanx folks who work. To try and offset the financial costs and adjust for those who work, laws were created that would require offices to stay open later on a couple days of the week and reimburse travel costs. However, these laws were killed by the Texas legislature. The justification for passing voter ID laws, such as the ones in Texas, has been that they protect against voter fraud. Yet, in the past decade, there have been only 100 federal cases and 50 state convictions for voter fraud in a population of 25 million. With the voter ID laws disproportionately discriminating against people of color, and in Texas, Latinx & Chicanx folks, it is clear that this institutional disenfranchisement is affecting voter turnout.

Even if voters in states that require ID manage to obtain one, they often contend with accessibility issues. A lack of access does not only refer to location, but time. Youth voters who work full time or are in school have days filled with classes, work, and other responsibilities. Since polling places are often farther away from school and work , going to vote between classes or on breaks is not an option, further disenfranchising voters. Election results are often called early in the evening; youth voters who have the time and ability to vote later in the evening thereby have no incentive to do so. By the time they can get to the polls, many high-interest races have already been called.

Voters who cannot vote on elections day due to lack of accessibility or other issues have an option to vote by mail, receiving their ballot early to ensure that their vote will be counted. In California, voting by mail is a popular option, especially amongst students. Students at college are often registered to vote in their hometown, and since many decide not to re-register, they mail in their ballot. However, the California Civic Engagement Project (CCEP) at UC Davis reported that young California voters casted a disproportionately large share of rejected ballots due to the envelope not being signed, signature not matching the DMV signature, and/or having the ballot being mailed in late without enough postage or a postmark stamped date. Voting by mail is unnecessarily tedious and confusing, causing institutional disenfranchisement of youth voters.

However, some young voters are making a personal choice not to vote. Youth voters believe that they have no stake in the elections. Politicians don’t create legislation or action for them, so why should they vote? This feeling is only intensified by voters who feel that their votes won’t count, particularly in a state that has historically voted for a particular party, e.g.California goes Democrat, Texas goes Republican. The feeling that a vote doesn’t count is only heightened by the electoral college system. This fierce belief of having no stake is fed through the social media bubble. Social media has become the new medium for campaigns; candidates use social media to relate to voters and spread their message. However, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become a feedback loop, reinforcing and validating a point of view instead of broadening the conversation. Youth voters who use social media (so, most of them) have a distorted view of a candidate or movement due to the inflated hype that surrounds them, which is only strengthened by the social media bubble. Candidates and movements that do not meet the inflated expectations leave disenfranchised voters with little to no faith in the political system .

Fear not, there are solutions.

Voters must be engaged in order to vote; they need to feel like they have a stake in the election, like their vote matters. By organizing through existing social and academic networks, voters can be invested organically. For example, tabling at school orientations, emails by deans and student leaders, visibility with posters and banners around school, and mobilizing students through registration drives are all effective ways of engaging student voters. In order to galvanize youth voters to actually vote, we must make voting a family and community event. Someone is more likely to do something if their peers are doing it (FOMO is real), and the same goes for voting. Holding registration drives and having accessible polling locations near work and school places, while eliminating disenfranchising policies like Voter ID laws and confusing Vote By Mail processes, makes it easier for folks who are at school or work all day. Accessibility also includes making sure that information is visible and communicated clearly. Educating voters needs to be a priority. When voters understand what they are voting on, and how this will impact them and their communities, they are more likely to show up and vote. Nonpartisan education about politics, candidates, ballots, statewide measures, registering to vote, voter registration laws, and the impact of voting on ALL levels, especially the local level, where the impact of a vote affects an individual the most, needs to be institutionalized.

The reasons for youth voter disenfranchisement, both institutional and personal, are valid and substantiated. Until youth voters recognize the right and privilege of voting, we as a community suffer from the loss of voices of a whole generation. The solutions are available, but it takes effort and commitment to engage youth voters and make them a part of our political voice. For folks who can, register to vote. Encourage others to register to vote. And on election day, go vote.

---

Zahra Abadin is a third-year student at UC Berkeley. She loves coffee, international policy, and talking in third person.

Oct 15, 2016 | By Yong-Yi Chiang | UC Los Angeles

“I don’t want to be the bitch that doesn’t get him in.”

These were the words that came out of my friend’s mouth after the interview. In the midst of deliberating over acceptances for an internship position, it was brought to her organization’s attention that an applicant had made a joke about sexual harassment. To my surprise, her discomfort and legitimate concerns were quickly dismissed. It was a joke. You should really try talking to him. He’s a really great guy.

Her words resonated with me because I cannot count the amount of times I have had to be that bitch.

After being in Bruin Consent Coalition for two years, I have been the bitch that confronts my closest friend for saying, “Maybe she could have prevented it. She really shouldn’t trust people that easily.” I have been the bitch that is labeled as overly sensitive, because I have heard about too many assaults to ever find rape jokes funny. I have been that bitch for not talking to my father, because he beat me, and while my mother calls it discipline, it’s the emotional abuse I cannot get over. I have been the bitch that cuts problematic people out of my life, because the safety of the ones I love felt more important.

These are the excruciating moments that have taught me that supporting survivors has never been – and never will be – a cookie cutter formula.

It is too easy to label someone that “bitch” without thinking about the tremendous amount of self-doubt and guilt that comes with every difficult situation, every confrontation. It is too lazy to complain about being “censored” without thinking about the survivors we silence when we exercise our first amendment right to normalize rape culture.

No one ever talks about the fear of what might happen if you don’t be the bitch in these uncomfortable situations. No one ever talks about the guilt of making someone feel like you’re accusing them of being a rapist when you call them out on their rape joke. No one ever talks about the way it haunts you.

But then I always think back to survivors – survivors who are accused of lying, over-reacting, not remembering, “asking for it”, yet still make the incredibly brave decision to report. I can’t imagine the amount of stigma and guilt they receive being labeled “the bitch who ruined his life.” They remind me how much easier my work is and how much I take this privilege for granted.

I am not perfect, and as one of the current co-directors of Bruin Consent Coalition, I know that I’ve made insensitive jokes. I know that I’ve immaturely shared inappropriate pictures non-consensually. I know that sometimes I forget to explicitly ask for consent. And as much as I want to add the word “because” after each of these statements, I am done giving myself excuses.

I contribute to rape culture every single day. We all do. While we may not have bad intentions, we hurt the people around us every day, with our words and with our actions. And we have a responsibility to be cognizant of that. It’s the least that we can do and it’s the only way to move forward.

But while being the “bitch” has given me too many tears, too many disappointments, and too many broken relationships, it has also given me an overflowing amount of love and support. From the people who may disagree but respect my stance. From the people who agree with me but aren’t quite at the place where they can to vocalize it. From the people who don’t fully understand but are open to learning. And most importantly, from the survivors who may be watching that I may never know about. These are the people that make me wipe off the tears, take a deep breath, and keep fighting. They have made me the strong bitch that I am.

---

Yong-Yi Chiang is a Junior at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is one of the Co-Directors for Bruin Consent Coalition and interns at the UCLA’s Campus Assault Resources and Education office. She enjoys cuddling with her cat, Earl Grey.

 

 

 

Oct 15, 2016 | By Shawn Pham | UC Riverside
I have spent almost half of my college life buried in books and far detached from my surroundings. In 2014, during my first year attending UCR, I observed a protest against tuition hikes where students were occupying the Chancellor’s office. That was the closest thing to a student advocacy affair that I looked upon until recent weeks.

Ever since I was little, I found systems fascinating; how things work together. I would ask adults questions like “how does rain work?” and “how safe are long-term municipal bonds?” There was a feeling of unease whenever components of a system were out of sight, hidden away and prevented me from seeing the big picture. This feeling lingered all throughout my college days: How does college work? Does the grand old legacy of an institution adequately support all the works that me and my peers toil over?

At UCR, one of the faculties I most admire is Dr. John Cook, the Director of Sustainability, who defines it perfectly when he says that the campus is a “living laboratory.” It is to imply that whatever for we do, there will be examples in the world to follow. I used this thinking to steer my understanding of the fundamental idea of college, but how does it function?

In August of 2016, my light summer schedule encouraged me to attend the UC Student Organizing Summit, an annual conference that inspires students to organize campaigns surrounding campus issues. Students are important components to how a college functions. And I figured that there was no harm in networking with more like-minded people.

The conference was thrilling. Within the span of two days and a sleepless night, campaigns were created to target issues on a system-wide level. I was a part of one of two campaigns that won the votes of the student congress. The first was one started by me and a few students from UCLA and UCSB called Sustain Our Students (SOS), aiming to combat student food and housing insecurities in sustainable ways. The second was Reignite which aims to diversify the UC system and ensure that marginalized students can graduate. The two campaigns will have two years to make their long lasting marks.

Returning from that conference, I walked through campus with a sense of belonging I had never felt before. I started tabling for student organizations, attending SOS committee meetings, and having more conversations with people than I normally would. Four weeks later, I was chosen by the UC Student Association to be a Student Advocate to the Regents (StAR). It was an opportunity for me to speak in front of the UC Regents about student issues on behalf of my campus. I did send in my application, but it was unclear to me why they chose me. I was not a part of student government at to that point; I wasn’t majoring in policy making…All I held was an idea of what is at stake in my community. To prepare, I read UC Office of The President reports, consulted with the Associated Students of UCR and Dr. Cook. With a full sponsorship of the trip (from flights to meals), I headed to UCLA where the conference was held.

The conference space was impressive; people working around the clock to meet the momentum of the occasion. Security was heavy for obvious reasons; from the president to all the chancellors, many of the most important people who make up the UC system were there. I got stopped and frisked for five minutes by two UCPD officers once. This was not a regular thing that happens to me, but I can merely imagine how frustrating it must be for marginalized groups to have to deal with it on a regular basis. Anyhow, the opening day was about the acknowledgement of the works done at the UC. I attended an open session of the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee which talked about the economic businesses of the UC (I love economics). Of course, only committee members can speak, which meant that I and many concerned others had to watch from the sideline (literally). The two and a half hour long meeting was composed of talks about the debts and self-finance issues the university faces since the Great Recession, State Capital Improvement Program, and private-public partnership plans.

UC campuses are growing with more students enrolling each year, but state capital can only fund safety building renovations and ensure enrollments. The Regents decided to involve private-public partnership to make housings and facilities available for students. During the discussion, committee members did not go to specifics on the possible “red tapes” that might come with private funded projects.

On the second day, I gave a one minute pitch to the Regents where I expressed my concerns about their project plans. I stated that with private-public housing, the UC must ensure that accessibility does not contradict the emphasis on affordability, that residents and student employees are protected under Title IX, and that new buildings must meet or exceed university and city standards of sustainability. There were at least a hundred people in the room, but not a sound. And to hear my own voice resonate on the walls was quite eerie.

I was able to have less stressful conversations with committee members at lunch time. A lot of the engagements had to do with listening to the members’ concerns. Staying quiet at times can be a great communication tool because the alternative of blabbing away the entire time about suggestions and ideas can quickly make people tired of your voice. I was able to assert my points and even took a break from UC topics to talk about food and travel.

In the end, many things about the conference can be improved, like creating a more inclusive vibe for non-committee members in the conversation. But the event demonstrated that the UC system can be consistent in its transparency; it is better now, than how it was in past years.

I can see how college functions a little bit clearer now. I can also see myself in my fellow students. We all want to protect our shared dreams and promises. I checked out of my hotel after the closing of the conference and wandered the Westwood neighborhood. There laid all the beauty and ugliness in the lives of those struggling and working toward the future. It was alive, this microcosm of the world. It breathed the September heat into every facet of society. I walked pass the infamous Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity house opposite the Ronald Reagan Medical Center, then glanced at The Improv Space where creative minds expressed themselves, and finally stopped by a sandwich place to eat and watch the sunset over Gayley street.

---

Shawn Pham is an undergraduate at the University of California, Riverside majoring in global studies with an emphasis social, economic, and environmental sustainability (the triple-bottom-line). I currently serves as a peer advisor for international students for UCR Global Connection Program, committee member in Associated Student UCR, and a team leader, web designer, blog writer and editor for UCR Global Issues Forum. I hope to work with communities to enable people to develop the knowledge, values and skills to participate in decisions that will improve the quality of life in the present time without damaging the planet for the future.

Sep 5, 2016 | By Julia Schemmer | UC Riverside
*This is the second article in our student organizing series. Check out our first piece, “Becky With The Good Chairs” and stay tuned for more articles coming soon!

As college students, activism often comes with a hefty price-tag. In order to bring people to an event comes the cost of food (because what better way to bring people in!?), the cost of renting a space, promoting and marketing the event, and technology to run the event. It often begins a struggle of trying to pinch pennies to educate people about causes you care about, as limited budgets force people to pick and choose activities worth investing in. Yet, have no fear. Inexpensive events that can still make an impact are still possible, so check out the top ways you can make a difference on a budget!

Partner with organizations. Organizations often offer speakers who are willing to come and speak about the particular event you are organizing around. The more local, the better, as you’re less likely to be charged with travel and lodging expenses. There are so many incredible organizations working within areas you may be passionate about, so reach out and be prepared to be surprised with what may come.

Partner with local organizations. There is a lot of value in reaching out to neighboring small businesses and extending your hand as a force of collaboration. Introduce yourself to the manager or owner of the business, explain what your cause is, and invite them to any avenues for collaboration. We are stronger when we stand together and help one another.

DIY it. Put your Pinterest skills to use by making some of the things you would have bought instead. It costs nothing to send an op-ed, which can create the conversation you may have wanted to start through an event. Host card drives, make care packages, or develop your own marketing and promotion design to save a few dollars.

How do you stay woke when you’re broke? Let us know your secrets here!

---

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.

Sep 5, 2016 | By Julia Schemmer | UC Riverside
ICYMI: UC Regents Speak On Basic Needs Insecurity, Board Restructure, and Campus Safety
The summertime might be heating up, but the conversations at the bimonthly July Regents meeting were even hotter. From July 19-21, the UC Regents gathered at the UCSF Conference Center to discuss a range of top-priority issues such as basic needs insecurity, board restructure, and campus safety. Although it might seem like these meetings are endless discussions about abstract ideas, often they impact our experiences as students more than what they are given credit for. Check out what you missed at the July UC Regents meeting!

Basic Needs Insecurity
According to the 2016 Student Food Access and Food Security Study, 42% of UC students have experienced a reduced quality of diet or reduced food intake within the last 12 months. Although President Janet Napolitano’s initial grant through the Global Food Initiative sparked hope across campuses dealing with disproportionate amounts of food insecurity, it was clear through survey results and student narratives that additional sustainable funding sources were needed to alleviate the issue. The UC Office of the President is responding to the survey results through a revised plan to address food insecurity, including expanding food pantry storage and access, registering more eligible students for CalFresh, and enhancing financial aid communication about food and housing costs.

These results are a clear indicator of the strength that unified students have in collectively addressing the issues within our own experiences as students. However, it’s vital to recognize that students are not the only people within the University of California institution affected by basic needs insecurity, as faculty and staff members boldly shared their heartbreaking stories as a public comment. If we want to be liberated collectively, we must also remember the other people who are not given the same amount of resources and help towards the issue.

Board Restructure
In the May UC Regents meeting, a proposal was presented that would dramatically change the structure of the UC Board of Regents. The ten original standing committees have been reduced to six, with special committees dedicated to community engagement and student affairs. Chancellors will now serve on the committees as well, providing them with an opportunity to be more engaged with the activities of the Board.

The plan was approved during the July meeting, despite doubts that this would give people ‘too much power.’ Moving forward, this is exciting for UC students, as we are given further opportunities to represent ourselves in the governing body of the university.

Speaking of student engagement, the 2016-2017 Student Regent Designate, Paul Monge, was officially approved as a member of the UC Board of Regents. This year, he will work alongside the Student Regent, Marcela Ramirez, to advocate for first generation college students, graduate students, faculty diversity, and campus climate. It’s going to be a great year with two fearless freedom fighters, and we’re excited to see how students can change the conversations on the Board for good.

Campus Safety
On June 1st, 2016, UCLA was attacked by an on-campus shooter, who tragically took the life of Professor William Klug before taking his own. The shooting, which was the 186th school shooting in the United States since Sandy Hook, marked frustration with the student body, as students had to use belts and projector cables to lock the doors and remain safe.

As a result. Chancellor Block (UCLA) spoke on the efforts that his campus is carrying out to create a culture of safety. Not only is the current BruinAlert system being reevaluated for effectiveness, but a specific task force has been created to create intersectional and intentional preventative strategies towards addressing acts of campus violence, disaster prevention, and emergency response.

President Janet Napolitano, in her opening remarks, gave her respects to the UCLA professor and the UC Berkeley students killed in acts of terror while studying abroad. Chancellor Dirks (UC Berkeley) continued to stare down at his iPad, probably playing Pokemon Go, while his own students were killed.

In closing
As conversations surrounding the crux of the UC student experience continue to come to light, it’s necessary to remember the value of our voice in shifting conversations, developing dialogues, and creating tangible action. As the Regents prepare to meet again in September, let’s remind them who they are accountable to: the students.

Julia Schemmer is a second-year student from UC Riverside, studying Public Policy. Her goal is simple: to put the ‘lit’ back into politics.